1. Culture & protected values in rural Wisconsin Doug Medin, Dan Bartels, Will Bennis, Rumen Iliev Northwestern University MURI workshop on “Computational Models for Belief Revision, Group Decisions, and Cultural shifts,” Jan 27-28, 2006 Introduction This poster will summarize current research being conducted examining the role of sacred/protected values ( hereafter: “protected values”) in decision making among various cultural groups in rural Wisconsin. Along with presenting some of the background motivation for the research, it will primarily discuss the methods being used and some very preliminary descriptive statistics. Background on sacred/protected values Definitions: Protected values: “…those that resist trade-offs with other values, particularly economic values.” (Baron & Spranca, 1997, p. 1) Sacred values: “Those values that a moral community treats as possessing transcendental significance that precludes comparisons, trade-offs, or indeed any mingling with secular values. (Tetlock, 2003, p. 320; Tetlock, 1996) Previously hypothesized/observed characteristics: 1) About deontological rules (Thou shalt not kill), not about outcomes (how many people were killed). Deontological rules are those seen to be inherently right or wrong, good or bad, without need of further justification. 2) Quantity insensitivity/apparent infinite utility. 3) Agent relative rather than agent general. I.e., The degree to which the decision-maker would be involved in the prohibited action is important to the degree to which the protected value is invoked. 4) Prohibitions against actions rather than prescriptions for actions. (a) Has practical function of compartmentalizing protected values so they require constant attention/commitment from the decision-maker. (b) Contributes to an “omission bias”, the tendency to prefer options that DO NOT require action (omission) over options that require action, even when the omission has lower expected utility. 5) Moral obligation: The values indicate obligations that are seen as objective and universal. 6) Violations are associated with strong negative emotions, particularly anger and disgust. 7) Other characteristics (common to strongly held attitudes more generally): (a) Personal importance, (b) stable over time, (c) absoluteness (no compromise), (d) centrality to self/identity. Some problems Above hypotheses based on preliminary and narrow empirical research, most of which has involved hypothetical problems which questionable relevance to real-world behavior. None of the hypotheses are set in stone, and many exist alongside contrary evidence. Most research has sought content/domain general characteristics, neglecting culture/content/domain-specific characteristics that may provide important insight into the nature of protected values and their impact on decision-making. Goals of the current project The primary goals of the current project are to explore the influence of content and domain on the characteristics of protected values. Content here refers to the culture- and individual-specific values and beliefs that are associated with particular protected values. Domain refers to the topical focus of the values (e.g., relating to life/death, nature/the environment, educational) as well as to the domain of the value itself (e.g., relating to issues of sovereignty/autonomy/rights, community/the greater good/obligations, etc.). Methods To explore the above issues, a variety of topics involving tradeoffs of potential protected values are being examined within and across domains and cultural groups. Along with eliciting choices, the particular content of the beliefs and values that motivate these choices are being sought. Participants/Cultural groups 1) Evangelical Christians from 2 congregations in/near Shawano county. 2) Menominee Indians living on the Menominee reservation 3) Amish based in and around Shawano county. 4) Majority culture hunters & fisherman. 5) Farmers Recruitment Participants are recruited based on participation in previous research and using the “snowball” method, whereby interview participants are asked to recommend other people they know who might be willing to participate in the research. Protected value scenarios The following 14 items are being used to assess the degree to which participants hold protected values on various topics, as well as to develop a better idea of both the content and nature of the participants protected values. 1. Forcing people to sell their land (at market value) against their will so that a much needed highway can be built through the area. 2. Giving a child an emergency blood transfusion to save the child’s life if it is against the parents’ religion 3. Limiting civilian's ability to possess automatic and semi-automatic guns 4. Allowing large areas of old-growth forests to be harvested if it creates new jobs 5. Trading 50 acres of land that has been in the family for several decades for 75 acres of nearby land, all other things being equal. 6. Using fertilizers that pose a very small risk of groundwater contamination if they dramatically increase the yield of a large field. 7. Doctors withdrawing life support from comatose patients who will never recover, with permission of the patient’s family. 8. A large paper mill exhausting its waste water into a local river because this method of disposal saves the company money, which prevents massive layoffs 9. A very large (Fortune 500) company shutting down two manufacturing plants in the US and outsourcing those jobs to Asia. 10. Building a dam that will make 2 species of fish extinct because it is the only way to save 5 other species of fish downstream from extinction. 11. Vaccinating all children to prevent a disease that will kill 10% of them, if as a side effect, the vaccine itself will kill 1% of them. 12. Allowing abortions in cases where the mother will almost certainly lose her life delivering the child. 13. Public schools teaching evolution, but not about creation in science class. 14. Requiring Native Americans to give up tribal regulation of fishing and hunting practices in order to have the right to build a casino. Protected value determination After each scenario, participants were asked to select between A, B, or C below. (A) I do not object to this. (B) This is acceptable if it leads to benefits (money or something else) that are great enough. (C) This is not acceptable no matter how great the benefits. In accordance with measures used previously by Baron and his collaborators, participants who selected “C” were deemed to hold a protected value on that issue. Protected value correlates In addition to the protected value determination above, the questions below--which measure other commonly suggested correlates to protected values--were asked for each scenario. 1. Universality: If participants answered “A” or “C” to the protected-value probe above, they were asked to answer a subsequent “True/False” question about how universal their responses were. [If “A”] “This action would be right even in a country where everyone thought it was wrong.” [If “C”] “This action would be wrong even in a country where everyone thought it was right.” 2. Importance: “In comparison to just those things that are the most important to you, how important is this issue?” (1 = “Not at all important”; 7 = “Extremely important”) 3. Stability: “My position on this issue might change over time.” (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 7 = “Strongly agree”) 4. Willingness to compromise: “If two people disagreed on this topic, I think a compromise between both sides of the debate would be an acceptable solution.” (1 = “Strongly disagree”; 7 = “Strongly agree”) In addition to the above structured interviews, open-ended interviews were conducted examining participants justifications for and understanding of their values and beliefs with regard to the scenarios.