Reactive Devaluation
🇳🇴Reaktiv devalueringDefinition
Reactive devaluation is the tendency to devalue a proposal solely because it comes from an opposing party. The exact same proposal feels better when it comes from an ally and worse when it comes from an opponent.
Real-world example
Ross and Stillinger (1991) presented Americans with a nuclear disarmament proposal. When the proposal was attributed to Reagan, it was judged as balanced and favorable to the US. When the same proposal was attributed to Gorbachev, it was judged as biased and favorable to the Soviets. Only the source label had changed.
The same mechanism shows up in salary negotiations, political compromises, and divorces: the counterpart's compromise almost always feels insufficient, even when it's objectively better than what you originally asked for.
Supplementary perspective
Reactive devaluation explains why conflicts are so hard to resolve: both sides can negotiate their way to a proposal both would actually accept – but the moment the counterpart accepts, it suddenly feels less attractive. The phenomenon is partly a variant of psychological reactance and partly distrust of the counterpart's motives.
Practical advice
Recognize
- —Notice if you like a proposal less after learning who it's from.
- —Check whether your objections are about content or about the sender.
- —Be extra critical when your reaction is immediate, before you've read the details.
Counteract
- —Anonymize the proposal: would I accept this if a neutral third party proposed it?
- —Write down your own criteria before negotiating, and compare proposals to the list – not to the counterpart.
- —Use mediation: a third party can strip source labels off proposals.
Ethical use
- —In negotiation: present proposals without strong source signals when possible.
- —In mediation: let each side formulate what they think the other would accept, and compare.
- —In politics: separate the issue from the party when evaluating proposals.