Abstract
Most current approaches to negotiation of resource and political conflicts assume that parties to these conflicts are rational actors that weigh the costs and benefits of their choices, treat values as though they are fungible, and then act in a way that maximizes their benefits. However, recent research suggests that this is not the case. In other words, people do not treat all values as amenable to tradeoffs, but rather they distinguish between material values having to do with resource pricing and markets and sacred values that reside in the moral realm. Moreover, people seem to apply different reasoning to sacred vs. material values. Even more crucially, what is considered sacred and what is considered material varies among cultures. In this chapter we discuss research by us and others into the nature of sacred values in real world conflicts and the implications of the findings for ongoing political conflicts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Atran, S., Medin, D. L., & Ross, N. O. (2005). The cultural mind: Environmental decision-making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review, 112(4), 744–776.
Baron, J., & Leshner, S. (2000). How serious are expressions of protected values? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 183–194.
Baron, J., & Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1–16.
Dehghani, M., Iliev, R., Sachdeva, S., Atran, S., Ginges, J., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Emerging sacred values: Iran’s nuclear program. Journal of Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 930–933.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger. New York: Routledge.
Durkheim, E. (1995/1912). The elementary forms of religious life. New York: Free Press.
Eliade, M. (1957). The sacred and the profane. New York: Harcourt Press.
Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 479–514.
Ginges, J. (1997). Deterring the terrorist: A psychological evaluation of different strategies for deterring terrorism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 9, 170–185.
Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2008). Humiliation and the inertia effect: Implications for understanding violence and compromise in intractable intergroup conflicts. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8, 281–294.
Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2009a). Noninstrumental reasoning over sacred values: An Indonesian case study. In D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Moral judgment and decision making, Vol. 50). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2009b). What motivates participation in violent political action: Selective incentives or parochial altruism? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 115–123.
Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2011). War as a moral imperative (not just practical policy by other means). In Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences. Online first publication, February 16, 2011.
Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 7357–7360.
Ginges, J., Atran, S., Sachdeva, S., & Medin, D. (2011). Psychology out of the laboratory: The challenge of violent extremism. American Psychologist, 66(6), 507–519.
Ginges, J., Hansen, I. G., & Norenzayan, A. (2009). Religion and popular support for suicide attacks. Psychological Science, 20, 224–230.
Iliev, R., Sachdeva, S., Bartels, D. M., Joseph, C., Suzuki, S., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Attending to moral values. In D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Moral judgment and decision making, Vol. 50). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Imai, L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2009). Culture and negotiation: Interdisciplinary perspectives. In R. S. Bhagat & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Handbook of culture, organizations, and work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Malhotra, D., & Ginges, J. (2010). Preferring balanced vs. advantageous peace agreements: A study of Israeli attitudes towards a two state solution. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 420–427.
Obeid, M. (2010). A lebanese confession: Why religious politics is bad for Lebanon. Harvard Kennedy School Review, 10, 104–108.
Tetlock, P. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 320–324.
Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O., Elson, B., Green, M., & Lerner, J. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counter-factuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870.
Varshney, A. (2003). Nationalism, ethnic conflict and rationality. Perspectives on Politics, 1, 85–99.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jassin, K., Sheikh, H., Obeid, N., Argo, N., Ginges, J. (2013). Negotiating Cultural Conflicts Over Sacred Values. In: Sycara, K., Gelfand, M., Abbe, A. (eds) Models for Intercultural Collaboration and Negotiation. Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5574-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5574-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5573-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5574-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)