Download Symbolic Tradeoffs

The Sacred and the Secular
Douglas Medin
Northwestern University
With the following key people
Dan Bartels, Rumen Iliev, Sonya Sachdeva,
Will Bennis, Scott Atran, Jeremy Ginges
Overview
1. How is morally-motivated decision
making similar to or different from secular
decision making?
2. What do we know about the special case
of so-called sacred or protected values?
Semantic Side of Decisions
In addition to the concrete outcomes,
decisions convey information to others
and to oneself concerning values, goals
and the like. A 2-component view:
1. Instrumental, involving probabilities and
utilities associated with outcomes
2. Symbolic, expressive or meaning
component that may be linked to identity
Special Case: Sacred or protected
values
Tetlock: ”Any value that a moral community
implicitly or explicitly treats as possessing
infinite or transcendental significance that
precludes comparisons, tradeoffs or
indeed any other mingling with bounded or
secular values”
Protected Values
1. Resist tradeoffs—especially between the
sacred and the secular
2. Quantity Insensitivity---e.g. harming one
is no less wrong than harming five
3. Involve deontological rather than
consequentialist decision rules (e.g. do
no harm; do it because it’s the right thing
to do regardless of the consequences).
Baron, Ritov and others
Protected values and omission bias:
Example: disease threatens to kill 1000
children but there is a vaccine that can
prevent deaths but sometimes causes
deaths. What’s the highest number of
deaths you would allow from the vaccine
and still go ahead with it?
Typical Results
1. People with protected values have lower
thresholds (are less willing to make
tradeoffs).
2. People with protected values are more
likely to give a zero response (not willing
to trade off at all)
Prevailing View
1. Sacred values get in the way of making
the tradeoffs that inevitably must occur.
2. Sacred values may be associated with
“posturing” and may be only “pseudosacred.”
An alternative view
1. Maybe sacred or protected values have
some function
2. We should be suspicious of generalizing
from results with undergraduates in fairly
restricted and artificial paradigms.
Further aspects of sacred
values
•
Privileged link to emotions
•
Bound to notions of identity and trust
•
Often have a strong inter-personal
component
Bartels and Medin(2007)
Comparison of Baron and Ritov’s methods
with those modeled after Connolly and
Reb (2003)
Baron and Ritov: As a result of a dam on a river,
20 species of fish are threatened with extinction.
By opening the dam for a month each year, you
can save these species, but 2 species downstream
will become extinct because of the changing
water level.
Would you open the dam?
Y
N
What is the largest number of species made
extinct by the opening at which you would open
the dam?__________
Connolly and Reb: As a result of a dam on a river, 20 species
of fish are threatened with extinction. By opening the dam
for a month each year, you can save these species, but some
species downstream will become extinct because of the
changing water level.
Would you open the dam if it would kill 2 species of fish
downstream as a result? Y N
Would you open the dam if it would kill 6 species of fish
downstream as a result? Y N
Would you open the dam if it would kill 10 species of fish
downstream as a result? Y N
Would you open the dam if it would kill 14 species of fish
downstream as a result? Y N
Would you open the dam if it would kill 18 species of fish
downstream as a result? Y N
River Item
1
QuantSens (+/- SEM)
0.9
0.8
0.7
ConnollyReb
0.6
0.5
0.4
RitovBaron
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
No-PV
PV
Followup with jihadists (with Scott Atran
and Jeremy Ginges)
Does God love the martyr
Kills one ten
Less?
13
12
More?
0
38
Approve ten hundred
Less?
13
21
More?
1
39
Further Cognitive Consequences of
Sacred Values
Rumen Iliev
The area of decision making has more or
less neglected cognitive processes and
mental representations
Consequences for conjunction fallacy and
effects of an irrelevant anchor
Predictions and Results:
Cognitive properties of SVs
1. Greater conjunction fallacy for relevant
information
2. Smaller effect of an irrelevant anchor
3. From a Stroop task (say the color in
which a word is printed and not the word
itself). Larger Stroop effect for valuerelated words and better incidental
memory for value-related words
Some followup studies
Context effects on judgment
Attraction effect and Compromise effect
Dimensions = moral values such as a plan that
prevents 10 species from extinction and saves
100 children from starving
Attraction Effect
• Two alternative
choice set
• P(2)<P(3)
Attraction Effect
• Two alternative
choice set
P(2)<P(3)
• Three alternative
choice set (1 is a
decoy)
• Decoy increases
choices of 2
Compromise effect
• Pick 2,3 so people
are indifferent
• 2 becomes a
compromise when 1
is added
• Compromise = more
choices of 2
Results so far
Moral values are associated with clear
attraction effects
Compromise effects absent or weak
No evidence that SV versus no-SV changes
results
Interim Summary
Two keys properties of SVs--tradeoff
reluctance and insensitivity to quantity, are
undermined by these studies.
The sensitivity of SVs to attentional
manipulations and context effects is a
challenge to understanding processes
associated with moral judgment
Other Challenges
1. How do sacred values help us
understand (intra- and inter-) group
formation, cooperation, and conflict?
2. How can we bridge between basic
research conducted under artificial,
(over) simplified conditions and real
practical problems.
Example from field research
in northeast Wisconsin
• Participants: Members of various cultural
groups in two neighboring counties,
including
– Native Americans living on the Menominee
reservation,
– Evangelical Christians living in neighboring
Shawano county,
– Avid hunters and fishers (in both locations).
Scenarios
1. Requiring Native Americans to give up tribal regulation
of fishing and hunting practices.
2. Allowing public schools to teach secular (non-religious)
evolutionary theory in science class, but not a Christian
perspective on creation.
3. Allowing the mother and family to decide whether or not
to have an abortion in cases where she would almost
certainly lose her life delivering the child.
4. Allowing farmers to use fertilizers that pose a very small
risk of groundwater contamination if they dramatically
increase the yield of a large field.
Participants asked to indicate
agreement with 2 statements
1. “This is the kind of decision where it's
best to rely on moral rules of right and
wrong”
2. “This is the kind of decision where it's
best to [weigh the costs & benefits/pros
& cons]”
7 pt. Likert scale, 7 = completely agree
Average across scenarios
(All four scenarios had the same cross-over pattern).
“This is the type of decision where it’s…
7
6
5
SV="No"
4
SV="Yes"
3
2
1
"This is the type of decision where it's best to rely
on moral rules"
p < .001
"This is the type of decision where it's best to
weigh the costs & benefits"
…But…people with SVs believe relying on
moral rules helps them improve
consequences:
Relationship between the endorsement of
two statements:
a. “This is the kind of decision where it’s best
to rely on moral rules of right and wrong”
b. “This is the kind of decision where relying on
moral rules of right and wrong will lead to
better long-term consequences.”
7
6
5
SV="No"
4
SV="Yes"
3
2
1
"This is the kind of decision where it's best to "This is the kind of decision where relying on
rely on moral rules of right and wrong."
moral rules of right and wrong will lead to better
long-term consequences."
r = 0.74
Why might Ps think relying on moral rules
works better than weighing costs & benefits?
• Consequentialism is only as good as our ability
to accurately anticipate consequences
(research suggests people are not good at this)
• Decision researchers tend to make a number of
“closed-world” assumptions:
That Ps will and should limit the information they
use to that provided in the scenario itself (i.e.,
they will not use experience or knowledge they
bring to scenario).
Other Field Studies
Middle-East
Palestinian refugees and displaced Israeli
Settlers reasoning about potential peace
agreements with sacred (e.g. right of
return, recognition of Israel) and secular
(the UN offers 10 billion a year in aid)
components
“Taboo versus Taboo+ versus Symbolic”
Palestinian recognition of the “sacred right” of Israel
b
Percent support for violence
Non Absolutists
Moral Absolutists
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Taboo
Taboo+
Compromising Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem
d
percent support for violence
Non Absolutists
Moral Absolutists
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Taboo
Taboo+
Moral absolutist Israeli “settlers”
a
b
percent support for violence
anger or disgust
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Taboo
Symbolic
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
Taboo
Symbolic
Moral absolutist Palestinian “refugees”
d
15
percent support for violence
"joy" about suicide attacks
c
10
5
0
-5
-10
Taboo
Symbolic
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Taboo
Symbolic
Studies in Guatemala
Original work by Atran, Medin et al
Itza’ Maya and the forest spirits—sacred
values promote sustainability
Ladino---forest spirits play no such role
Next Generation follow up work by
Iliev, Medin, LeGuinn and Atran
Social network distance correlated with
values from God’s perspective
Expert network distance correlated with
values from the forest spirit perspective
Itza’ Maya (and Ladino) personal values shift
from being aligned with forest spirits to
cash value and God…..Maya notion of
forest spirits replaced by Ladino concepts
Forest itself—much more degraded
Work in Northern India by
Sachdeva, Medin and Ginges
Clash between Hindu fundamentalists and
Muslims over sacred site of ancient temple
and mosque (Ayodhya/Faizabad) and
Kashmir
More or less replicate Ginges et al that
sacred and secular do not mix….more
detailed ethnography
Where did I go?
Delhi
Faizabad/ Ayodhya
The Babri Masjid/ Ram Janmbhoomi debate
• Hindus believe this land to be the birthplace of
an holy incarnation, Ram.
• Muslims believe this land to be a mark of the first
Mughal emperor to conquer India, Babar.
• December, 1992 - thousands of Hindu
fundamentalists broke down all the security
placed around this site in 1990 and tore the Babri
Masjid down.
This sparked the worst riots seen in India
between Hindus and Muslims since the
partition.
Kashmir Issue
• Began with the struggle for Muslim autonomy in the
newly independent India and lead to the partition and
creation of Pakistan
• Kashmir’s Maharaja sought Indian assistance in 1947
when it was invaded by tribes people from Pakistan
Three wars have been fought over Kashmir
Currently, India holds two-thirds of Kashmir while
Pakistan holds the rest
Again scenarios with Taboo,
Taboo+ and Symbolic
Tradeoffs
Results
Deals with symbolic concessions are better
than taboo tradeoffs
Taboo+ backfires for Hindu fundamentalists
for the sacred site of Ram’s birth and for
Muslims for Kashmir
But for the other two combinations of
scenarios and groups secular concessions
may help (analyzing interviews currently)
Why are these two sites of
interest?
Guatemala work shows the unraveling of a
sacred value
Northern India shows how sacred values
may be recruited over time (e.g. the
elevation of the God Ram) with violent
consequences—destruction of the mosque
in 1992 and associated killing that go on to
this day
Challenges
Building Models that address the role of sacred
values on moral decision making (see progress
by Forbus group), partly because we need a
deeper understanding of SVs and partly
because they may vary with cultural contexts.
With respect to the latter we need to know more
about the link between SVs and action (e.g.
Amish vs. Fundamentalists)
End
Protected Values
Anti-abortion versus Women’s right to
choose
Conjunction Fallacy:
All three scenarios
1
Proportion of Conjunction Fallacy
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
No PV
0.5
PV
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Neutrla
Pro-life
Scenarios
Pro-choice
Other Results
Larger Stroop for value-relevant words
Better incidental recall of words
6
0.7
5
0.6
0.5
4
Likeliness to
Vote
3
% Approval
Likeliness to Vote for Deal
Babri Masjid - Symbolic Tradeoffs Across Various
Dependent Measures
0.4
Approval
0.3
2
0.2
1
0.1
0
0.0
Taboo
Taboo
Tragic
Tradeoff Type
Tradeoff Type
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
Riots
0.5
0.4
0.3
% Reporting Anger
% Predicting Rioting
Tragic
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
Taboo
Tragic
Anger
0.5
Taboo
Tragic
Tradeoff Type
Sacred Values
Symbolic Tradeoffs
Taboo+ Tradeoffs
6
3.5
n=3
n = 16
3
2.5
4
n=3
No SV
3
SV
2
Likeliness to Vote for Deal
Likeliness to Vote for Deal
5
n=2
2
n=13
SV
1.5
n=7
1
n=7
n=1
1
0.5
0
0
Taboo
Tragic
Tradeoff Type
F=4.02, p =.06, η2=.15
No SV
Taboo1
Taboo+
2
Tradeoff Type
Acceptability of Deal by Religion
Symbolic Tradeoffs
6
Taboo+ Tradeoffs
n = 10
3.5
n=7
5
3
2.5
n=7
Hindu
3
2
Muslim
n=8
Likeliness to Vote
Likeliness to Vote
4
2
n=8
Hindu
Muslim
1.5
n=2
n=10
1
n=2
1
0.5
0
0
Taboo
Tragic
Tradeoff Type
Taboo
Taboo+
Tradeoff Type
F = 3.07, p = .09, η2 =.12
Likeliness to Vote for Trade-off Deals by
Religion and Sacred Values
Babri Masjid Scenario
Kashmir Scenario
5
7
4.5
6
4
5
3.5
NSV
4
SV
3
3
NSV
2.5
SV
2
1.5
2
1
1
0.5
0
0
Hindu
Muslim
Religion
Hindu
Muslim
Religion
Summary – Kashmir Scenario
• Suggest that Muslim participants are, in fact, more
sensitive to changes in trade-off type than Hindu
participants in this scenario
• In the Kashmir scenario, Muslim participants with sacred
values are less approving of any trade-off deal than
Muslim participants without sacred values. However, in
in the Babri Masjid scenario, this result is reversed.
• Different degrees of sacred values
– Kashmir issue resonates with the Muslim identity which is even
stronger for most Indian Muslim participants than their national
identity - therefore stronger attachment to this issue (negative
correlation between feelings on Kashmir and Babri Masjid issue)
– The Babri Masjid issue is more relevant for the Hindu nationalist
identity (strong positive correlation between Kashmir and Babri
Masjid issue)
Kashmir Scenario – Symbolic
Tradeoffs by Religion
Approval of Deal
Likeliness to Vote
7
5
4
Taboo
3
Tragic
2
1
0
Hindu
% Approval
6
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Taboo
Tragic
Hindu
Muslim
Religion
Religion
Anger
Rioting
1.2
1.2
1
1
0.8
Taboo
0.6
Tragic
0.4
0.2
% Predicting Rioting
% Reporting Anger
Muslim
0.8
Taboo
0.6
Tragic
0.4
0.2
0
0
Hindu
Muslim
Religion
Hindu
Muslim
Religion