Common to both of these cases is that the research focused on values rooted in deep historical and religious traditions. However, Dehghani’s study demonstrates how this pattern of behavior has emerged for the Iranian Nuclear program, a relatively new development. In this study, the researchers asked 75 Iranians how they would feel about the possibility of Iran giving up its nuclear program, giving them four response options ranging from disarmament “definitely needs to happen” to disarmament “shouldn’t be done no matter how great the cost.” Those who chose the latter response option were classified as treating the issue of Iran’s nuclear program as a sacred value whereas those who chose other options were not.
After giving their opinions on Iran’s nuclear program, all participants were asked to consider one of two deals for Iranian disarmament. Half of the participants read about a deal in which the United States would reduce military aid to Israel in exchange for Iran giving up its military program. The other half of the participants read about a deal in which the United States would reduce aid to Israel and would pay Iran $40 billion. After considering the deal, all participants predicted how much the Iranian people would support the deal and how much anger they would feel toward the deal. In line with the Palestinian-Israeli and Indonesian studies, those who considered the nuclear program a sacred value expressed less support, and more anger, when the deal included money.
A more successful tack for negotiating over sacred values, as it turns out, is to simply use the right words. Whether discussing nuclear disarmament or reluctance to sell one’s lucky mug at a garage sale, using specific rhetorical strategies can make trade-offs seem less taboo and can facilitate conflict resolution. Tetlock and other psychologists have experimentally tested a number of strategies to demonstrate their effectiveness. One tactic is to describe tradeoffs in terms of “costs and benefits” and “analysis” rather than in terms of sacred values and money. This vague utilitarian language appears to mask the emotion-laden taboo nature of the exchange. Another strategy is to emphasize the dire, obligatory nature of the trade-off. For example, people are more willing to sell their body organs for medical transplants when told it is the only way to save lives because this framing posits the exchange as one sacred value for another. In an age where many of the most volatile conflicts stem from sacred causes, and politicians have questioned effectiveness of diplomacy, understanding how to best negotiate about these issues has never been more critical.
Are you a scientist? Have you recently read a peer-reviewed paper that you want to write about? Then contact Mind Matters co-editor Gareth Cook, a Pulitzer prize–winning journalist at the Boston Globe, where he edits the Sunday Ideas section. He can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add CommentIt seems suspicious to me that an analysis of an Eastern culture's perspective of their nuclear policies by psychologists representing a Western culture would consider that the Eastern culture's view was based on religious rhetoric.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the Easterner's perception of the value of their nuclear activities has simply been enhanced by the value placed on it by Westerners.
My own perception of the value of my extensive collection of Scientific American magazines has not been enhanced.
economies and the economics of feeling are really on my mind at the moment...more soon, but in the meantime have a look at Lear I.1 in which finance capital gets compared to rhetoric...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't this "story" just politics wrapped in a pseudo-scientific approach?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you're missing the point - the article is not using the word "sacred" in a religious sense, but a psychological one (take the examples towards the beginning of the article about precious T-shirts, etc.).
This is fascinating stuff, and parallels a slang term frequently used in business negotiations. When one side needs needs to convey that a certain negotiating point will be hung up on something other than business logic, it's referred to as a "religious issue." By which is meant not literally a religious issue, but one that the company has a more than logical relationship to, with the result that the company is unlikely to change its position regardless of the merits of any arguments to the contrary.
Tucker M - Thanks, but I actually do realize that it was auspiciously intended to represent an item that is personal and highly valued. At best this is an unfortunate and insensitive terminology given the consensus religious distinctions between geopolitical groups.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe consequences of evoking religious imagery will not assist our efforts to negotiate with a religious state and society. I would have hoped psychologists would have sensitive to this, but if they recognized it as an issue, they must have been advocating the use of an antagonistic approach.
does this link with morality and how when we make moral judgements we are very strong in our opinions as in moral judgements have very high emotional weighting?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is something about these sacred values that hold strong in a person's identity. And not just to the identity of the individual directly, but to the culture, history, and ancestry that psychologically binds that individual to his world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOffering monetary value in exchange for this sacred value, no matter what the real cost, becomes an insult on that person's identity which most consider as invaluable. An example we all probably feel in our everyday lives is our own families. Objectively, from a completely rational non-religious perspective, the values of our parents and brothers and sisters can be placed on the material wealth they provided us as we grew up, the knowledge that was imparted on us, and the happiness that was gifted to us. However, our family members are sacred to us, because they represent some part of ourselves, and care for us as we care for ourselves. Exchanging a family member to slavery for instance, would be unacceptable under any circumstances because of the sacred value they have to us.
Dr. LIC, how does your article apply to LeBron's pending free agency? Will this be expanded upon in a future FD post?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting how many of the responses are emotional. It seems people bristle at even the subject of sacredness, which has itself been imbued with sanctity. Why, one wonders? Is there a perceived danger in examining the idea of the sacred?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismskele - That's right, and we haven't yet even informed Iran that they're simply treating nuclear power as a sacred issue. I'd be most interesting to see how they'd respond.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand, it would have been fairly simple for these expert social researchers to have chosen a more descriptive technical term, such 'personalization' that would have been inoffensive to almost everyone.
Interesting topic and results which could lead to large improvements in some of our more intransigent disagreements. Sort of ironic then that the topic is named in a way that causes some people to reject it. Maybe these could be called non-economic values? Or something which does not provoke emotional response before people even get a chance to consider the topic. Though I suspect that anyone whose "sacred values" include rejecting psychological and social science will still react the same.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery interesting. It has implications in terms of 'framing'. Also worthy of exploration is the formation of sacred values. Social pressure, commitment heuristics etc. could come into play here. If we know the source of the formation of scared values, the application of correct framing would be effective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFantastic.
Fantastic stuff. Opens up routes to many seemingly unresolvable issues. The question that remains is the route to formation of sacred values. How do they get formed. Commitment heuristics, social approval what else. The source is critical to re-framing the offer for breaking down the sacred values, if at all it merits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@retardedracoon,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually in many poor countries, people sell their family members into slavery.
It should be a sacred thing that Americans put America first. I cannot help but notice that Jewish influence in our government, media, financial institutions, education, magazines, including and especially scientific ones, results in the promotion of Jewish interests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrevious Jewish "scientists" forced the idea that any white American who sought the interest of their own race and nation were mentally ill. All the while Jews seek only their own interests. This article strikes me as not being any more scientific then previous propaganda.
No article would be allowed at this site if it promoted White Nationalism or Palestinian rights. I wonder if my comment will be allowed?
I do not believe that the United States should be siding with Israel against Iran. Obviously none of this would be happening if not for Jewish power and influence and we would not have to deal with Iran nor terrorism.
Can we not read about science without being propagandized by Zionists? Is that too much to ask? Can we expect science from great American scientific institutions. It makes me sad that America has fallen so far when we should be first in science among nations. We don't need this.
jtdwyer - science is not meant to be inoffensive, politically correct, or socially sensitive. Your point is well taken, but for future thought. That is, the study was to examine the relationship, if there was one, between language (the already common use of "religious" and "sacred") and behavior/reactions. Being sensative to the sacredness, if you will, of these terms is activity yet to be discovered. That the scientists weren't being sensative to it, doesn't make the study wrong or worthless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this