Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
19 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What results did Baron and Spranca (1997) report in respects to protected values? |
In surveys some people refused to say that any amount of money is worth compromising the integrity of an old growth forest |
|
|
What results did Tetlock et al (2000) report in respects to sacred values? |
Participants were outraged when asked to consider "taboo" tradeoffs, exchanging a sacred value for money. |
|
|
Why did Tetlock (2003) consider sacred values to be Pseudo? |
Considered that ordinary citizens would be prepared when elites present good arguments or tempting inducements to abandon the illusion that certain values are infinitely important |
|
|
What did (Baron & Leshner, 2000; Tetlock, 2003) report in respects to pseudo-sacred values |
Demonstrated that rhetorical techniques can lead to flexibility in sacred values. |
|
|
What is the problem with the assertion that sacred values are pseudo? |
- Whilst in a lab sacred values may be flexible, this doesn't seem the case in real life. i.e. suicide attacks - Assumes that the only true metric is an economic/material one |
|
|
What is a sacred value? |
- A value which cannot be mingled with the secular/economic domain - Taboo to even contemplate trading off against material metrics |
|
|
What did Durkheim (1912) argue was the mechanism behind people's behaviour towards sacred things? |
- Sacred things are not defined by infinite value but instead on their belonging to a separate domain - Argues this was indicative of a broader cognitive repugnance towards mingling domains |
|
|
How does Durkheim's argument apply to sacred values? |
- Trading off sacred values, violates the taboo of mingling sacred and non sacred categories - Separate domains have unique functions - Economic domain allows trade, whilst Sacred domain provides certainty, orientation, clarity - Even considering trading off sacred values undermines stable worldview |
|
|
What did Ginges, Atran, Medin & Shikaki (2007) report in respects to the backfire effect in sacred values? |
- Measured sacred values amongst Palestinians - Sacred values v Non Sacred Values - Offered Taboo deal, and a Taboo + Money deal - Measured Support Violence and Moral Disgust - SV group more support and disgust when offered the Taboo + Money deal - NSV group less support and disgust when offered the Taboo + Money deal |
|
|
What did Dehghani, Iliev, Sachadeva, Ginges, Atran & Medin (2010) report in respects to the backfire effect in sacred values? |
- Measured sacredity of nuclear programme in Iran - SV group v Non SV group - Offered Taboo deal, and a Taboo + deal - SV group more angry and less willing to support taboo + condition |
|
|
What did Ginges, Atran, Medin & Shikaki (2007) report in respects to symbolic acts leading to greater flexibility in sacred values? |
- Israelis who held land as sacred were offered a symbolic yet practically meaningless gesture from the Palestinians - Less likely to support violence, less anger/disgust - More willing to consider peace deals/ negotiate |
|
|
What role does humiliation play in the effectiveness of symbolic gestures in navigating sacred values? (Ginges & Atran, 2008) |
- Level of humiliation predicted support for peace deal - Symbolic gesture reduced the level of humiliation caused by the proposed peace deal - Suggests humiliation is a key mechanism |
|
|
How does a feeling of righteousness influence violent action as a sacred act? |
- The extent of which you consider violence to be righteousness predicts future violent intentions as well as justifying past violence |
|
|
What did Ginges et al. (2011) find in respects to war action being considered a sacred value? |
- The more money offered in exchange for not going to war, the less acceptable the offer became |
|
|
What was Tversky & Kahneman's (1981) Hypothesis? |
When moral preferences conflict with instrumental preferences for risk, typical framing effects are reversed |
|
|
Explain Ginges & Atran (2011) study into moral preferences vs instrumental preferences |
- Participants had to choose between a risky and no risk option, of equal utility - Hostage situations, US citizens - risky option was labelled military or diplomatic; under losses or gains - In response to a scenario violating sacred values or no violation |
|
|
What did Ginges & Atran (2011) report in respects to moral preferences vs instrumental preferences (Experiment 1) |
- Risky option was chosen more in gains condition when moral preferences were incompatible - Risky option was chosen more in losses condition when moral preferences were compatible |
|
|
What did Ginges & Atran (2011) report in respects to moral preferences vs instrumental preferences (Experiment 2) |
- Hostage Scenario both conditions involved judgments about sacred values - Military v Diplomatic conditions - Military option needed only 1 hostage to be saved to be considered - Diplomatic option needed all 100 hostages to be saved to be considered |
|
|
What did Atran et al (2002) report in respects to sacred values influencing sustainable behaviours? |
- Three groups in a region in Guatemala. (Indigenous, Immigrants) Indigenous tribe more sustainable forests. - Asked to rank importance - Indigenious groups forest spirit ranking related to ecological importance and human impact - NGO's ranking correlated only with cash value
|
