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 dataset examines how people recognise behaviour that conflicts with their values, whether awareness leads to correction, and how misaligned behaviour can continue, normalise, or drift over time.

Across the findings, one pattern appears repeatedly: awareness alone does not appear sufficient to prevent behavioural drift. Many respondents recognise behaviour that conflicts with their values, yet continue it anyway. This suggests that coherence may weaken gradually through repetition, convenience, passive continuation, and reduced reflective interruption rather than sudden collapse.

See the full system model:
Human Values in Practice: Coherence, Direction, and Human Functioning in Digitally Mediated Environments

View the Values Conflict & Behavioural Drift 2026 Dataset

What the data shows

Four behavioural patterns stand out in this dataset. First, values conflict is common. Nearly four in five respondents experience values conflict at least sometimes, suggesting that values–behaviour misalignment is not rare within everyday life.

Second, awareness does not reliably prevent continuation. Most respondents recognise behaviours that conflict with their values, yet many continue those behaviours anyway.

Third, behavioural drift appears gradual. A majority report that behaviours once experienced as uncomfortable or misaligned can become normal over time, suggesting that coherence erosion often occurs through repeated adaptation rather than immediate reversal.

Finally, reflective resistance appears protective. Respondents with stronger resistance and correction patterns show substantially stronger coherence and behavioural congruence indicators than those with weaker resistance.

Overall, the data suggest that values conflict is not only a matter of knowing what is right or wrong. The stronger pattern is behavioural: people may recognise misalignment while still adapting to repeated convenience, pressure, or low-friction continuation. Over time, this can weaken coherence between values, behaviour, and internal standards.

By the numbers (from HCI data)

Patterns observed in the data

Awareness alone does not prevent behavioural drift

One of the strongest findings in this dataset is the gap between recognising misalignment and correcting it. Most respondents report recognising behaviours that conflict with their values, yet many also report continuing those behaviours anyway.

This suggests that behavioural drift is not simply caused by lack of awareness. Instead, misalignment may persist when convenience, pressure, repetition, or low-friction continuation make correction harder to sustain.

Behavioural drift appears gradual rather than sudden

A majority of respondents report that behaviours once experienced as uncomfortable or misaligned gradually became normal over time. This suggests that coherence erosion often develops through repeated adaptation rather than sudden collapse.

The pattern points toward normalisation: behaviour that initially feels misaligned may become easier to accept when repeated often enough or when reflective interruption becomes weaker over time.

Passive continuation is more common than strong active resistance

The dataset shows a clear contrast between passive continuation and active resistance. A majority show high passive continuation tendency, while only a smaller group show strong active resistance.

This matters because coherence may weaken not only through deliberate rejection of values, but through small repeated continuations that are not actively interrupted.

Reflective resistance appears protective

Respondents with stronger reflective resistance show substantially stronger coherence and behavioural congruence indicators. This suggests that the ability to pause, question, interrupt, and correct behaviour may act as a stabilising human capacity.

In this dataset, resistance is not simply refusal. It appears more like preserved reflective agency: the ability to notice misalignment and actively reorient behaviour before drift becomes normalised.

Values conflict is emotionally costly

Frequent values conflict is strongly associated with elevated emotional exhaustion, uncertainty, and behavioural drift indicators. This suggests that persistent values–behaviour incongruence may place pressure on emotional and psychological functioning.

The pattern does not imply causation, but it does show that respondents experiencing frequent conflict also report substantially higher instability indicators.

Agency preservation may help stabilise coherence

The dataset also shows that people who preserve stronger correction, override, and resistance patterns form a small but important subgroup. Only a minority show strong intentional correction, strong override behaviour, and strong resistance simultaneously.

This subgroup appears especially important for the Human Reference Layer because it points to a possible protective capacity: the ability to preserve internal standards and behavioural authorship under pressure.

In-depth Research

Human Values in Practice: Coherence, Direction, and Human Functioning in Digitally Mediated Environments

Human Values in Practice explores how values alignment, direction, attention, and behavioural drift interact to shape coherence, self-trust, and human functioning within digitally mediated environments.

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: Prolific

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

Data use and reuse terms are outlined in our Data Use & Disclaimer.

Explore further analysis on Human Clarity Insights, or browse the full collection of HCI research reports.