The Experts below are selected from a list of 62451 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Khalil Shikaki - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Douglas L Medin, Khalil Shikaki
    Abstract:

    We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is (i) increased by offering material incentives to compromise but (ii) decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and Cultural Conflicts may backfire when adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values.

  • Sacred bounds on the rational resolution of violent political conflict
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Douglas L Medin, Khalil Shikaki
    Abstract:

    We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is (i) increased by offering material incentives to compromise but (ii) decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and Cultural Conflicts may backfire when adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values.

Jeremy Ginges - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • negotiating Cultural Conflicts over sacred values
    2013
    Co-Authors: Kate Jassin, Hammad Sheikh, Nadine Obeid, Nichole Argo, Jeremy Ginges
    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.

  • sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Douglas L Medin, Khalil Shikaki
    Abstract:

    We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is (i) increased by offering material incentives to compromise but (ii) decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and Cultural Conflicts may backfire when adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values.

  • Sacred bounds on the rational resolution of violent political conflict
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Douglas L Medin, Khalil Shikaki
    Abstract:

    We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is (i) increased by offering material incentives to compromise but (ii) decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and Cultural Conflicts may backfire when adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values.

Scott Atran - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Douglas L Medin, Khalil Shikaki
    Abstract:

    We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is (i) increased by offering material incentives to compromise but (ii) decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and Cultural Conflicts may backfire when adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values.

  • Sacred bounds on the rational resolution of violent political conflict
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Douglas L Medin, Khalil Shikaki
    Abstract:

    We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is (i) increased by offering material incentives to compromise but (ii) decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and Cultural Conflicts may backfire when adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values.

Douglas L Medin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Douglas L Medin, Khalil Shikaki
    Abstract:

    We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is (i) increased by offering material incentives to compromise but (ii) decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and Cultural Conflicts may backfire when adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values.

  • Sacred bounds on the rational resolution of violent political conflict
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007
    Co-Authors: Jeremy Ginges, Scott Atran, Douglas L Medin, Khalil Shikaki
    Abstract:

    We report a series of experiments carried out with Palestinian and Israeli participants showing that violent opposition to compromise over issues considered sacred is (i) increased by offering material incentives to compromise but (ii) decreased when the adversary makes symbolic compromises over their own sacred values. These results demonstrate some of the unique properties of reasoning and decision-making over sacred values. We show that the use of material incentives to promote the peaceful resolution of political and Cultural Conflicts may backfire when adversaries treat contested issues as sacred values.

Seoyong Kim - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Irresolvable Cultural Conflicts and conservation/development arguments: Analysis of Korea’s Saemangeum project
    Policy Sciences, 2003
    Co-Authors: Seoyong Kim
    Abstract:

    This paper examines, through argument analysis & grid-group model, how Cultural bias, as the frame of reference of an advocacy coalition (AC), brings about irresolvable Conflicts and produces divided arguments between coalitions for development and conservation in Korea’s Saemangeum project. Based on different Cultural biases, two ACs – the advocacy coalition for development (ACD) and the advocacy coalition for conservation (ACC) – interpreted the same facts differently in line with their Cultural orientations and ways of life. The dynamic argument patterns reflected each coalition’s Cultural bias, which restricted the frame of reference of actors in each AC. After reviewing argument analysis as an analytic tool, we introduce Cultural theory in which ways of life, consisting of Cultural biases and social relations, amplify the irresolvable Conflicts between two ACs. Second, to show the Culturally constructed nature of the Conflicts, we analyze the contrasting arguments between the ACD (dominated by a hierarchy bias) and ACC (led by egalitarianism) in the Saemangeum project. Third, we discuss the implications of Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky’s Cultural theory to advocacy coalition framework (ACF) as follows: 1) constraining effects on inter-coalitional learning by Cultural biases, 2) coexistence of different solidarities under a coalition, and 3) asymmetric relationships between parties in a coalition.

  • irresolvable Cultural Conflicts and conservation development arguments analysis of korea s saemangeum project
    Policy Sciences, 2003
    Co-Authors: Seoyong Kim
    Abstract:

    This paper examines, through argument analysis & grid-group model, how Cultural bias, as the frame of reference of an advocacy coalition (AC), brings about irresolvable Conflicts and produces divided arguments between coalitions for development and conservation in Korea’s Saemangeum project. Based on different Cultural biases, two ACs – the advocacy coalition for development (ACD) and the advocacy coalition for conservation (ACC) – interpreted the same facts differently in line with their Cultural orientations and ways of life. The dynamic argument patterns reflected each coalition’s Cultural bias, which restricted the frame of reference of actors in each AC. After reviewing argument analysis as an analytic tool, we introduce Cultural theoryin which ways of life, consisting of Cultural biases and social relations, amplify the irresolvable Conflicts between two ACs. Second, to show the Culturally constructed nature of the Conflicts, we analyze the contrasting arguments between the ACD (dominated by a hierarchy bias) and ACC (led by egalitarianism) in the Saemangeum project. Third, we discuss the implications of Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky’s Cultural theoryto advocacy coalition framework (ACF) as follows: 1) constraining effects on inter-coalitional learning by Cultural biases, 2) coexistence of different solidarities under a coalition, and 3) asymmetric relationships between parties in a coalition.