When requested to give up a “sacred value”, the inclu­sion of a finan­cial incen­tive incites moral out­rage, decreases gen­eral sup­port for a com­pro­mise, increases anger and increases a subject’s approval of “vio­lent opposition”.

Research look­ing at our reac­tions to such pro­pos­als offers same sug­ges­tions for nego­ti­at­ing over sacred val­ues.

A more suc­cess­ful tack for nego­ti­at­ing over sacred val­ues, as it turns out, is to sim­ply use the right words. Whether dis­cussing nuclear dis­ar­ma­ment or reluc­tance to sell one’s lucky mug at a garage sale, using spe­cific rhetor­i­cal strate­gies can make trade-offs seem less taboo and can facil­i­tate con­flict res­o­lu­tion. […] One tac­tic is to describe trade­offs in terms of “costs and ben­e­fits” and “analy­sis” rather than in terms of sacred val­ues and money. This vague util­i­tar­ian lan­guage appears to mask the emotion-laden taboo nature of the exchange. Another strat­egy is to empha­size the dire, oblig­a­tory nature of the trade-off. For exam­ple, peo­ple are more will­ing to sell their body organs for med­ical trans­plants when told it is the only way to save lives because this fram­ing posits the exchange as one sacred value for another. In an age where many of the most volatile con­flicts stem from sacred causes, and politi­cians have ques­tioned effec­tive­ness of diplo­macy, under­stand­ing how to best nego­ti­ate about these issues has never been more critical.

via Schneier on Security