Defending sacred values defies material cost-benefit prediction across decision contexts.

Evidence

Our previous research indicates that when people act in defense of sacred values, they act in ways that cannot be reliably predicted by assessing material risks and rewards. This feature holds even when taking into consideration modifications and constraints on instrumental rationality, such as cognitive limitations on gathering and processing information (Simon 1997), desire to avoid cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1962) or conform to group thinking (Asch 1987), lack of cultural awareness (Schelling 1960), intrinsic indivisibility of resources (Fearon 1995), or other psychological biases and ecological constraints (Kahneman 2011). — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 22

Categorization

• XREF: Core to the reader’s question about whether rational/moral correction to threat-hardened sacred beliefs backfires — sacred-value defense is precisely the non-instrumental mechanism at work. — connects to: Sacralized values resist material incentives and cause offer-driven concessions to backfire — Hammad Sheikh and Jeremy Ginges and Alin Coman and Scott Atran, Religion, group threat and sacred values, 5; Material incentives for relinquishing sacred values backfire and harden resistance — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 48; Offering material incentives for sacred-value compromises backfires and increases hostility — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 67 (+11 more)
• QUESTION: Does the resistance to cost-benefit correction imply that exposing inconsistency backfires rather than persuades? Worth chasing in the sacred-values experimental literature.

Related

• Material incentives for relinquishing sacred values backfire and harden resistance (similarity 0.89)
• Sacred values resist cost-benefit correction unlike ordinary preferences (similarity 0.88)
• Offering material incentives for sacred-value compromises backfires and increases hostility (similarity 0.88)
• Sacred values resist material incentives and are best countered only by rival sacred values. (similarity 0.87)
• Sacralized values resist material incentives and cause offer-driven concessions to backfire (similarity 0.86)
• Sacred-value defenders benefit materially yet must deny those benefits to stay non-negotiable (similarity 0.86)
• Sacred values engage deontic rule processing, not utilitarian cost-benefit calculation (similarity 0.86)
• Sacred values resist tradeoffs because communities set them apart as nonfungible moral imperatives. (similarity 0.86)
• Sacred-values-driven violence is insensitive to cost-benefit scope. (similarity 0.84)
• Sacred values are measured by refusal to trade a preference for money (similarity 0.83)
• Devoted actor behavior resists instrumental cost-benefit reasoning. (similarity 0.82)
• Sacred values are processed as unconditional rules, not cost-benefit calculations. (similarity 0.82)
• Moral commitment to sacred values leverages movements lacking material means against stronger opposition. (similarity 0.81)
• Rational cost-benefit models fail to predict decisions about war and revolution (similarity 0.81)
• Moral self-evaluative incentives outweigh material ones in environmental change programs (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Material incentives harden sacred-value conflicts while symbolic gestures soften them #corroborates (0.85)
• Reducing sacred values to material ones worsens conflict #expands (0.85)
• Duty-based moral cultures suppress cost-sensitivity in prosocial decisions. #exemplifies (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 558
• Sacred values’ interpretive ambiguity allows peace-oriented reframing #qualifies (0.80)
• Moral self-evaluative incentives outweigh material ones in environmental change programs #corroborates (0.80) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2945
• Mutualistic cost-benefit logic may explain transcendent moral sentiment. #complicates (0.75) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 265