Some conflicts are not about what people want. They are about what people believe must never be given up. These are sacred convictions. They may be tied to identity and collective memory. When they are at stake, the conflict changes. What looks like a reasonable compromise can feel like a violation. What appears to be a generous offer can provoke anger and mistrust.
For experienced mediators, this is familiar territory. It is also where many usual and customary strategies begin to fail. The question is how to engage these tenacious disputes in a more meaningful manner.
Why Sacred Values Disrupt Mediation
Sacred values operate differently from interests or preferences. They are experienced as moral imperatives rather than negotiable goals. People do not weigh them through cost-benefit reasoning. They defend them as part of who they are (Atran & Ginges, 2012; Tetlock, 2003). They also provide a primary lens through which they view the world and its ills. While they rarely explain human suffering, they offer a redemptive perspective on it.
It has been demonstrated that when sacred values are challenged, constituents and stakeholders often reject material incentives and respond with moral outrage. In some cases, offering additional incentives to compromise can increase resistance, a phenomenon often described as a backfire effect (Atran & Ginges, 2012; Ginges et al., 2007). More recent policy and peacebuilding research reinforces this point. Modern mediation efforts often struggle because they rely too heavily on rational bargaining models while overlooking identity and belief systems that make conflicts persist (Bitter et al., 2024; UK Ministry of Defence, 2023). Sacred values are not just harder to negotiate. They are fundamentally different.
From Bargaining to Meaning
When mediators treat sacred values as negotiable, they risk escalating the conflict. To make matters even more complicated, these values are often weighted by theological importance. Some are essential to the core teachings of a particular religion, while others may allow for differentiation. Even still, secondary and tertiary values are intrinsic to a particular religious identity. Asking parties to “prioritize” or “trade off” such values can be experienced as disrespect or even moral contamination (Tetlock, 2003). A more appropriate move is to shift from bargaining to expanding purpose. Instead of asking, “What would it take for you to compromise?” ask, “What does this value represent in your life?” Or “How does this value help you understand the world, and even your purpose in it?” It is an invitation to dialogue rather than defense. It expands dialogue rather than diminishing it.
Sacred values are not just positions. They are “narratives,” or even stronger, “constructions” or “guiding stories” about identity and belonging (Haidt, 2012). Conflict engagement begins there at the root of these biographical convictions.
From Suppression to Structured Expression
Sacred values do not disappear when ignored or placed on hold. They intensify. Effective mediation expands dialogue for those values to be expressed, but within a structure that prevents escalation. This is where narrative work becomes essential. When parties move beyond slogans and articulate the origins and meaning of their beliefs, the interaction often changes. The conversation becomes less adversarial (Winslade & Monk, 2000).
Recent conflict research emphasizes that identity-based narratives play a central role in sustaining or transforming disputes. When those narratives are acknowledged rather than dismissed, the likelihood of more reasoned engagement increases (Bitter et al., 2024).
From Challenge to Inquiry
Directly confronting sacred values tends to entrench them. Inquiry, by contrast, can soften the edges without diminishing the core.
Carefully framed questions can invite reflection. “How do you know that?” or “What experiences shaped that belief?” These are not challenges. They are openings. This approach aligns with emerging research suggesting that understanding how people construct meaning around values is more effective than attempting to disprove or replace those values (UK Ministry of Defence, 2023; Halimov, 2025).
The goal is not to change what people believe. It is to deepen how they understand, and to discover how they’ve arrived at such deeply held convictions.
From Agreement to Recognition
In many mediations, agreement is the measure of success. In sacred value conflicts, that expectation is often unrealistic. A more attainable and often more meaningful outcome is recognition. Recognition occurs when parties begin to see one another and replace a prescribed position with human dignity. They may still disagree, sometimes profoundly. But they no longer dismiss or dehumanize the other (Bush & Folger, 2005).
This shift matters. Studies of protracted conflicts show that acknowledgment of the other side’s values can reduce hostility and open space for further engagement (Atran & Axelrod, 2008; Seul, 2021).
Agreement may or may not follow. Recognition is what makes it possible.
From Material Concessions to More Significant Gestures
If material incentives can backfire, what works instead? Research suggests that what is more effective is symbolic concession. When one party acknowledges or respects the sacred values of another, even in non-material ways, resistance can decrease and transparency can increase (Ginges et al., 2007; Atran & Axelrod, 2008). These are not superficial. In sacred value conflicts, they can carry more weight than tangible offers. They signal respect, which is often the missing element.
This insight is gaining more attention in contemporary peace processes, where mediators are increasingly encouraged to integrate symbolic and relational considerations into negotiation design (Bitter et al., 2024).
In these conflicts, the mediator is not a problem-solver in the traditional sense. The mediator is a managing the interaction. This involves maintaining a process where sacred values are neither trivialized nor weaponized. It requires attention to pacing, tone, and emotional energy. It also requires self-awareness, since sacred values can activate the mediator’s own beliefs (Bush & Folger, 2005).
Most importantly, it requires patience (Mayer, 2009). Meaningful engagement with sacred values is rarely linear. It becomes visible through incremental changes. A moment of listening. A reframed statement. A question that lands differently. Often, people with strongly held sacred values discover shared experiences from their upbringings, even across vastly different religious or cultural contexts.
These moments accumulate.
Progress in Action
Progress in sacred value conflicts often looks different from what practitioners expect. It may be a reduction in hostility rather than a signed agreement. It may be clarity about boundaries rather than consensus. It may be the ability to continue the conversation without escalation (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). In some cases, it opens other avenues to creative solutions that respect core values while addressing more achievable concerns. It may invite a sharing of resources around common goals. In others, it simply allows tolerance where conflict once prevailed.
That is not failure. It is an unexpected success
Final Reflection
Sacred values are not obstacles to mediation. They are signals of what matters most.
When mediators try to bypass them, conflict deepens. When mediators try to trade them, conflict escalates. But when mediators engage them with humility and intention and not necessarily agreement, an agreement may not be reached, but understanding can be a victory. Modeling these types of conversations can have lasting impact, as people carry these skills into future conversations, hopefully long before conflict embeds itself. (Van Yperen, 2002)
References
Atran, S., & Axelrod, R. (2008). Reframing sacred values. Negotiation Journal, 24(3), 221–246.
Atran, S., & Ginges, J. (2012). Religious and sacred imperatives in human conflict. Science, 336(6083), 855–857.
Bitter, J., et al. (2024). Sacred values in high-level peace negotiations. Berghof
Bush, R. A. B., & Folger, J. P. (2005). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict. Jossey-Bass.
Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon.
Halimov, E. R. (2025). Sacred values in contemporary conflict framing. Journal of Social Issues.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Essential components of constructive conflict resolution. Theory Into Practice, 44(2), 117–125.
Mayer, B. S. (2009). Staying with conflict: A strategic approach to ongoing disputes (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Seul, J. (2021). Identity and conflict revisited in contemporary mediation practice.
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo trade-offs. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320–324.
UK Ministry of Defence. (2023). Understanding sacred values in conflict.
Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2000). Narrative mediation: A new approach to conflict resolution. Jossey-Bass.
Van Yperen, J. (2002). Making peace: A guide to overcoming church conflict. Moody Publishers.
John Potter is a clinical professor of dispute resolution and conflict management in Human-Centered Interdisciplinary Studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
Bart Patton is the Assistant Dean of External Programs and Church Relations in the Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
Mediating complex employment cases is like rehearsing for a concerto. The conductor spends a substantial amount of time reviewing the score, while the musicians practice the piece both individually and...
By Jeffrey KrivisAustralian trainers, Julie Walker and Lynora Brooke, talked recently with LEADR's, Fiona Hollier about integrating conflict coaching into ADR practice. Listen here
By Geoff SharpI just read Robert Benjamin's article on Trump's style. He hit the nail on the head about how Trump is defining negotiation, especially when he reduces negotiation to what sounds...
By Maria Volpe
