Compensation for meaning threat operates through affirmation of alternative meaning frameworks.

Evidence

If Kafka’s goal with An Imperial Message was to provoke a meaning threat, our data suggest that he was successful. Participants who were presented with this uncanny parable later compensated for the meaning threat by affirming an alternative meaning framework, such that they evaluated aspects of their cultural ingroup as being more important to their identity than did participants who had read a story that did not violate meaning frameworks. … If we had done so, the presence of something unusual would have been expected; therefore, we would have predicted that the unusual elements would not have constituted a meaning threat. Study 2 directly tested this question of the expected unexpected. — Travis Proulx, Steven J. Heine, and Kathleen D. Vohs, When Is the Unfamiliar the Uncanny?…, 39

Categorization

  • QUESTION: The predicted null — expected abnormality not constituting a threat — matters for whether defensive affirmation tracks meaning violation per se rather than mere incongruity.
  • XREF: connects to: Meaning threats trigger affirmation of whatever meaning frameworks are handy — Travis Proulx, Steven J. Heine, and Kathleen D. Vohs, When Is the Unfamiliar the Uncanny?…, 3; Meaning threats and their affirmation responses are content-free and general across domains. — Travis Proulx, Steven J. Heine, and Kathleen D. Vohs, When Is the Unfamiliar the Uncanny?…, 15; Ads pairing familiar elements oddly work by evoking meaning affirmation, not just recall. — Travis Proulx, Steven J. Heine, and Kathleen D. Vohs, When Is the Unfamiliar the Uncanny?…, 14 (+3 more)

Broader Connections