Award Abstract #0527396
Sacred Values in Decision Making and Cultural Conflict

NSF Org:	SES Division of Social and Economic Sciences
Initial Amendment Date:	September 14, 2005
Latest Amendment Date:	September 14, 2005
Award Number:	0527396
Award Instrument:	Standard Grant
Program Manager:	Robert E. O'Connor SES Division of Social and Economic Sciences SBE Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
Start Date:	September 15, 2005
Expires:	August 31, 2009 (Estimated)
Awarded Amount to Date:	$749959
Investigator(s):	Scott Atran satran@umich.edu (Principal Investigator) Douglas Medin (Co-Principal Investigator) Jeremy Ginges (Co-Principal Investigator) Jessica Stern (Co-Principal Investigator)
Sponsor:	University of Michigan Ann Arbor 3003 South State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 734/764-1817
NSF Program(s):	HSD - DEC, RISK & UNCERTAINTY
Field Application(s):	0116000 Human Subjects
Program Reference Code(s):	OTHR, 7322, 7319, 7318, 0000
Program Element Code(s):	7322

ABSTRACT

This research probes human behavior that seems motivated "independently of its prospect of success," that is, by Sacred Values that often involve ethical or religious beliefs. The hypothesis is that sacred values - which encompass aspects of what philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists call moral, non-instrumental or protected values - are critical in generating and sustaining culturally distinct and often conflicting political and resource-management systems that people deem essential to cultural survival. To better understand and deal with this issue, the research: 1) provides a comprehensive theoretical framework and wide-ranging empirical analysis of the role of sacred values in judgment and decision making, and 2) shows how sacred values inform issues relating to cultural conflict. Results are geared to: 3) further possibilities for negotiation and adjudication of conflicting values over transcultural boundaries, and 4) reduce the threat of violence as people attempt to implement these values in an increasingly global competition for political, social and economic resources.

Current risk management approaches to resolving resource conflicts or countering terrorism often assume adversaries model the world on the basis of rational choices that are commensurable across cultures. Such assumptions are prevalent in risk assessment and modeling by foreign aid and international development projects run by institutions such as the World Bank and many NGOs, and by U.S. diplomatic, military and intelligence services as well. Psychological experiments, anthropological fieldwork and political science surveys relating to social conflicts over natural resources and terrorism encourage exploration of whether culturally distinct value frameworks constrain preferences and choices in ways not readily translatable (fungible, substitutable) across frameworks. Planning and acting in ignorance or disregard of different value frameworks may exacerbate conflict, with grievous loss of national treasure and lives.

PUBLICATIONS PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF THIS RESEARCH

(Showing: 1 - 3 of 3).

Bartels, D.M. & Medin, D.L..  "Are morally-motivated decision makers insensitive to the consequences of their choices?,"  Psychological Science,  v.18,  2007,  p. 24.

Medin, D.L. & Bang, M..  "Perspective Taking, Diversity and Partnerships,"  American Psychological Association,  v.22,  2008,  p. online.

Tanner, C., Medin, D.L. & Iliev, R..  "Influence of deontological vs. consequentialist orientations on act choices and framing effects: When principles are more important than consequences,"  European Journal of Social Psychology,  2007, 


(Showing: 1 - 3 of 3).

Please report errors in award information by writing to: awardsearch@nsf.gov.