Sacralized values resist material incentives and cause offer-driven concessions to backfire

Evidence

Intergroup conflicts become particularly difficult to solve when communities transform preferences (such as rights to water sources or land) into protected or sacred values (Baron & Spranca, 1997; Tetlock, 2003). Neuroimaging studies and behavioral research suggest that people process sacred values in terms of associated deontological rules rather than their utilitarian value (Berns et al., 2012; Ginges et al., 2011; Tetlock et al., 2000). Specifically, when people transform preferences into sacred values they appear to use rules that govern reasoning about religious values, regarding as taboo any attempt to treat sacred values as fungible with secular goods. Ironically, the more money or material things one offers to encourage people to make concessions over their sacred values, the more resistant people seem to be to compromise. Thus, standard negotiation techniques of offering people added material incentives (or threatening disincentives) to encourage compromise backfire when sacred values are involved (Ginges, Atran, Medin & Shikaki, 2007; Ginges & Atran, 2008; Ginges & Atran, 2009b; Ginges & Atran, 2011; Sachdeva & Medin, 2009; Dehghani et al., 2009; Dehghani et al., 2010). — Hammad Sheikh and Jeremy Ginges and Alin Coman and Scott Atran, Religion, group threat and sacred values, 5

Categorization

• XREF: Directly extends my threat-to-sacralization reading: this establishes the behavioral signature of already-sacralized values that Study 1’s ritual/threat manipulation presumably aims to create. — connects to: Offering material incentives for sacred-value compromises backfires and increases hostility — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 67; Material incentives for relinquishing sacred values backfire and harden resistance — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 48; Material incentives backfire on sacred values while symbolic recognition softens opposition. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 547 (+11 more)
• QUESTION: Is ‘backfire under material offer’ the operational criterion Sheikh et al. use to detect threat-created sacred values, or do they test something else? Worth checking the study’s DV.

Related

• Offering material incentives for sacred-value compromises backfires and increases hostility (similarity 0.94)
• Material incentives for relinquishing sacred values backfire and harden resistance (similarity 0.92)
• Material offers to resolve sacred-value conflicts backfire and increase violence, while symbolic concessions work. (similarity 0.89)
• Sacred values resist tradeoffs because communities set them apart as nonfungible moral imperatives. (similarity 0.88)
• Sacred values resist material incentives and are best countered only by rival sacred values. (similarity 0.88)
• Defending sacred values defies material cost-benefit prediction across decision contexts. (similarity 0.86)
• Sacred values are measured by refusal to trade a preference for money (similarity 0.86)
• Symbolic recognition, not material incentives, opens negotiations over sacred values (similarity 0.85)
• Sacred values resist cost-benefit correction unlike ordinary preferences (similarity 0.85)
• Ritual participation plus perceived threat converts disputed preferences into sacred values. (similarity 0.85)
• Sacred-value defenders benefit materially yet must deny those benefits to stay non-negotiable (similarity 0.85)
• Sacred values and resource scarcity create an irreconcilable tension in social life. (similarity 0.84)
• Sacred-value commitment produces costly sacrifice that lets weak groups beat stronger foes. (similarity 0.83)
• Material incentives harden sacred-value conflicts while symbolic gestures soften them (similarity 0.82)
• Sacred values can form quickly through ritual and perceived group threat. (similarity 0.82)

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 for relinquishing sacred values backfire and harden resistance #corroborates (1.00) — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 48
• Material incentives backfire on sacred values while symbolic recognition softens opposition. #expands (0.92) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 547
• Material incentives harden sacred-value conflicts while symbolic gestures soften them #expands (0.92)
• Sacred values resist cost-benefit correction unlike ordinary preferences #expands (0.85) — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 4
• Genuine moral commitments resist monetary incentives to switch #corroborates (0.85) — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 303
• Defending sacred values defies material cost-benefit prediction across decision contexts. #expands (0.80) — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor, 22
• Sacred values resist trade-offs and override rational self-interest in decision making. #expands (0.78) — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 545
• Self-respect can override material incentives worth millions of dollars #exemplifies (0.72) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 223