Values Conflict & Behavioural Drift 2026
This page summarises findings from the Human Clarity Institute’s Values Conflict & Behavioural Drift 2026 dataset, based on 349 valid responses across six English-speaking countries. The research examines how people experience tension between their stated values and their behaviour, including awareness of misalignment, resistance versus resignation, and behavioural drift over time.
The dataset captures how consistently people act in line with what they believe matters, whether they recognise when they are acting against their values, and how stable personal boundaries remain in digitally mediated environments.
View the Values Conflict & Behavioural Drift 2026 Dataset
What the data shows
Four signals stand out in this dataset: strong awareness of acting against personal values is relatively uncommon, many people actively resist behaviours that conflict with their values, most report clear personal red lines, and values conflict is experienced as occasional rather than constant.
Strong awareness of acting against personal values is uncommon
17% report high awareness of values–behaviour misalignment, while 70% report low awareness.
Active resistance to misalignment is common
46% report actively resisting behaviours that conflict with their values, while 32% report low resistance.
Most report clear personal red lines
77% say they have clear behavioural boundaries they would not cross, while 12% report unclear red lines.
Values conflict is usually infrequent
48% report rarely experiencing values conflict, and 26% report never experiencing it.
Taken together, these findings suggest that while most people feel clear about what matters, a gap still exists between values and behaviour — though this gap is not constant and is often actively managed.
By the numbers (from HCI data)
Some behaviours become normalised over time
21% report that behaviours that once conflicted with their values now feel more normal.
Patterns observed in the data
Values conflict is present, but not constant
Most respondents report that values–behaviour conflict is rare or occasional rather than continuous. This suggests that acting against personal values is not the dominant everyday experience, but something that occurs intermittently rather than persistently.
Awareness of misalignment is limited
Only a small share report strong awareness of acting against their values, while most report low awareness. This suggests that behavioural drift may often occur without being fully recognised in the moment, rather than as a deliberate or conscious choice.
Resistance is more common than resignation
A larger share report actively resisting behaviours that conflict with their values than those who accept or ignore misalignment. This indicates that many people attempt to correct or prevent drift, even if alignment is not always maintained.
Clear boundaries act as a stabilising factor
Most respondents report clear behavioural red lines they would not cross. This suggests that while smaller misalignments may occur, stronger internal limits remain stable for most people.
Behavioural drift appears gradual rather than immediate
A minority report that behaviours which once conflicted with their values can become normal over time. This indicates that drift is often incremental, emerging through repeated exposure rather than sudden change.
Human Values in Practice
Human Values in Practice examines how clarity about what matters may influence behaviour, energy, and the quality of attention in everyday digital life.
Values vs Noise
Values vs Noise uncovers how busyness and distraction erode purpose — and how reconnecting with values helps people find direction again.
Methodology
This dataset forms part of the Human Clarity Institute’s Human–AI Experience research programme, examining how people experience values–behaviour misalignment, behavioural drift, and resistance to acting against what they believe matters. The study uses a cross-sectional online survey design and focuses on descriptive patterns in how people experience alignment and conflict in everyday digital life.
Data were collected on 10 February 2026 via the Prolific research platform from adults across English-speaking countries. Participants provided explicit informed consent for anonymised data publication as part of HCI’s open research programme.
Sampling & participants
- Clean dataset: 349 valid responses
- Countries: Australia, United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand
- Eligibility: Adults (18+)
- Recruitment platform:
Participants were recruited using platform screening filters. The resulting dataset should be interpreted as a non-probability convenience sample and is not intended to represent national populations.
The cleaned dataset, variable dictionary, and reuse terms are publicly available through the HCI dataset repository: Values Conflict & Behavioural Drift 2026 Dataset →
Data integrity
All percentages reported on this page are calculated from valid responses in the cleaned dataset (n = 349). Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number for readability. Unless otherwise stated, summary percentages combine respondents who selected 5–7 on the 7-point agreement scale (slightly agree, moderately agree, or strongly agree).
Where wording refers to low agreement or disagreement, percentages reflect respondents selecting the lower end of the same response scale. Where figures describe frequency-based responses (e.g. “rarely”, “never”, “often”), percentages reflect those categories directly rather than the full scale.
This dataset is exploratory and descriptive in nature. It does not support causal inference and results should be interpreted as observed patterns within the survey sample.
This dataset is released as open research to support transparent analysis of values alignment, behavioural drift, and internal consistency in digitally mediated environments.
Suggested citation:
Human Clarity Institute. (2026). Values Conflict & Behavioural Drift 2026 Dataset.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18626195