价值观冲突的意涵:价值观分歧如何影响自我投入和感知的共同点

M. Kouzakova, N. Ellemers, S. Harinck, D. Scheepers
{"title":"价值观冲突的意涵:价值观分歧如何影响自我投入和感知的共同点","authors":"M. Kouzakova, N. Ellemers, S. Harinck, D. Scheepers","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1873145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We present two studies demonstrating the implications of having different values (vs. instrumental concerns) in a situation where people take conflicting positions. Study 1 (N=266) examined how people respond to a range of conflict issues that were framed either as referring to conflicting values or as referring to conflicting interests. Study 2 (N= 77) used a more immersive methodology, in which participants were led to consider either their values or interests in taking up a particular position, after which they were presented with a confederate who took up the opposite position. Results of both studies converge to demonstrate that framing a particular conflict issue in terms of values causes people to experience more self-involvement, and to perceive less common ground. This is seen as a potential explanation of why value conflicts tend to more easily escalate than conflicts of interests, but also offers scope for interventions that try to de-escalate and resolve the conflict by emphasizing instrumental rather than value differences.","PeriodicalId":193303,"journal":{"name":"IACM 2011 Istanbul Conference (Archive)","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Implications of Value Conflict: How Disagreement on Values Affects Self-Involvement and Perceived Common Ground\",\"authors\":\"M. Kouzakova, N. Ellemers, S. Harinck, D. Scheepers\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1873145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We present two studies demonstrating the implications of having different values (vs. instrumental concerns) in a situation where people take conflicting positions. Study 1 (N=266) examined how people respond to a range of conflict issues that were framed either as referring to conflicting values or as referring to conflicting interests. Study 2 (N= 77) used a more immersive methodology, in which participants were led to consider either their values or interests in taking up a particular position, after which they were presented with a confederate who took up the opposite position. Results of both studies converge to demonstrate that framing a particular conflict issue in terms of values causes people to experience more self-involvement, and to perceive less common ground. This is seen as a potential explanation of why value conflicts tend to more easily escalate than conflicts of interests, but also offers scope for interventions that try to de-escalate and resolve the conflict by emphasizing instrumental rather than value differences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":193303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IACM 2011 Istanbul Conference (Archive)\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IACM 2011 Istanbul Conference (Archive)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1873145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IACM 2011 Istanbul Conference (Archive)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1873145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

我们提出了两项研究,证明在人们采取冲突立场的情况下,拥有不同的价值观(vs.工具性关注)的含义。研究1 (N=266)调查了人们如何应对一系列冲突问题,这些问题要么是指价值观冲突,要么是指利益冲突。研究2 (N= 77)使用了一种更加沉浸式的方法,在这种方法中,参与者被引导考虑他们的价值观或采取特定立场的兴趣,之后他们被呈现给一个采取相反立场的同伙。这两项研究的结果一致表明,从价值观的角度来构建一个特定的冲突问题,会让人们体验到更多的自我投入,并感知到更少的共同点。这被视为价值冲突比利益冲突更容易升级的潜在解释,但也为试图通过强调工具而不是价值差异来缓解和解决冲突的干预提供了空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Implications of Value Conflict: How Disagreement on Values Affects Self-Involvement and Perceived Common Ground
We present two studies demonstrating the implications of having different values (vs. instrumental concerns) in a situation where people take conflicting positions. Study 1 (N=266) examined how people respond to a range of conflict issues that were framed either as referring to conflicting values or as referring to conflicting interests. Study 2 (N= 77) used a more immersive methodology, in which participants were led to consider either their values or interests in taking up a particular position, after which they were presented with a confederate who took up the opposite position. Results of both studies converge to demonstrate that framing a particular conflict issue in terms of values causes people to experience more self-involvement, and to perceive less common ground. This is seen as a potential explanation of why value conflicts tend to more easily escalate than conflicts of interests, but also offers scope for interventions that try to de-escalate and resolve the conflict by emphasizing instrumental rather than value differences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Implications of Value Conflict: How Disagreement on Values Affects Self-Involvement and Perceived Common Ground The Relational Costs of Complete Contracts When Vigilance Prevails: Regulatory Focus in Negotiations with External Goals Opening the Black Box of a Corporation in Dispute: Manager – Lawyer Coproduction of Response to Business Conflict Behavioral and Emotional Reactions to Voice Unanswered
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1