Material incentives for relinquishing sacred values backfire and harden resistance

Evidence

These results provided the first evidence for what we were later to term the “backfire effect.” Our finding that offering participants materially improved deals increased hostility to compromise for moral absolutists, while decreasing hostility for non–moral absolutists suggested that people with a relevant sacred value will ignore reality constraints. Just as interesting, the results suggested that whereas sacred values might be protected from material tradeoffs, symbolic tradeoffs could lead to some flexibility. — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 48

Categorization

• XREF: This is the core ‘backfire effect’ mechanism the reader is tracking for sacred-values conflict research; connects to the moral conviction and reactance literatures in social psychology. — 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; Sacred values resist tradeoffs because communities set them apart as nonfungible moral imperatives. — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 4; Offering material incentives for sacred-value compromises backfires and increases hostility — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 67 (+12 more)
• SEED: Angle: why material bribes insult rather than persuade — the insult-as-offer mechanism in sacred conflicts could anchor an essay on why carrots fail where recognition succeeds.
• QUESTION: Is the backfire effect specific to sacred values, or does it generalize to any strongly-held identity-relevant attitude? The non-moral-absolutist decrease suggests a boundary worth mapping.

Related

• Offering material incentives for sacred-value compromises backfires and increases hostility (similarity 0.95)
• Sacralized values resist material incentives and cause offer-driven concessions to backfire (similarity 0.92)
• Defending sacred values defies material cost-benefit prediction across decision contexts. (similarity 0.89)
• Material offers to resolve sacred-value conflicts backfire and increase violence, while symbolic concessions work. (similarity 0.89)
• Sacred values resist material incentives and are best countered only by rival sacred values. (similarity 0.87)
• Sacred values resist tradeoffs because communities set them apart as nonfungible moral imperatives. (similarity 0.86)
• Sacred-value defenders benefit materially yet must deny those benefits to stay non-negotiable (similarity 0.86)
• Symbolic recognition, not material incentives, opens negotiations over sacred values (similarity 0.86)
• Sacred values resist cost-benefit correction unlike ordinary preferences (similarity 0.84)
• Sacred values are measured by refusal to trade a preference for money (similarity 0.83)
• Sacred values engage deontic rule processing, not utilitarian cost-benefit calculation (similarity 0.83)
• Material incentives harden sacred-value conflicts while symbolic gestures soften them (similarity 0.82)
• Material incentives backfire on sacred values while symbolic recognition softens opposition. (similarity 0.82)
• Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges — Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict (similarity 0.81)
• Moral commitment to sacred values leverages movements lacking material means against stronger opposition. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Offering material incentives for sacred-value compromises backfires and increases hostility #corroborates (1.00) — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 67
• Material incentives backfire on sacred values while symbolic recognition softens opposition. #corroborates (1.00) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 547
• Material incentives harden sacred-value conflicts while symbolic gestures soften them #corroborates (0.93)
• Reducing sacred values to material ones worsens conflict #corroborates (0.90)
• Sacred values resist cost-benefit correction unlike ordinary preferences #expands (0.85) — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 4
• Sacred values engage deontic rule processing, not utilitarian cost-benefit calculation #expands (0.85) — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 89
• Defending sacred values defies material cost-benefit prediction across decision contexts. #expands (0.82) — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 22
• Sacred-value defenders benefit materially yet must deny those benefits to stay non-negotiable #expands (0.80) — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 60
• Self-respect can override material incentives worth millions of dollars #exemplifies (0.80) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 223
• Moral self-evaluative incentives outweigh material ones in environmental change programs #exemplifies (0.75) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2945