God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems.

Kay, Aaron C.; Gaucher, Danielle; Napier, Jamie L.; Callan, Mitchell J.; Laurin, Kristin

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18

Cited by 653 publications

(957 citation statements)

References 104 publications

(126 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

876

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Compensatory control theory proposes that one reason why desire for personal control is so encompassing is because it is a subgoal of a larger motivation to see the world as structured, orderly, and predictable (Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008;Kay, Whitson, Gaucher, & Galinsky, 2009). That is, the notion that one's life circumstances might be randomly determined often provokes anxiety (e.g., Glass, Singer, & Friedman, 1969;Laurin, Kay, & Moscovitch, 2008;Pennebaker & Stone, 2004) and belief that one has personal control is an especially effective means of affirming that the world is structured rather than random.…”

Section: Compensatory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As an analogy (see Kay et al, 2008), imagine a glass that, when full, represents an individual's preferred level of structure. Under typical circumstances, people may be able to maintain a full glass by perceiving personal control over events.…”

Section: Compensatory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People who lack personal control perceive increased structure in random arrays (i.e., see pictures in static; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008) and believe more strongly in agents that impose structure on the world, such as a controlling god or a controlling government (Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008;Kay, Moscovitch, & Laurin, 2010;Kay, Shepherd, Blatz, Chua, & Galinsky, 2010;Shepherd, Kay, Landau, & Keefer, 2011). People lacking personal control also endorse scientific theories that suggest orderliness rather than randomness (Rutjens, van Harreveld, & van der Plight, 2010;Rutjens, van Harreveld, van der Plight, Kreemers, & Noordeweir, 2013;Rutjens, van der Plight, & van Harreveld, 2010), and folk beliefs that provide orderly explanations for negative events (e.g., that they are "a blessing in disguise") can foster a more global sense of control (Chipperfield et al, 2012).…”

Section: Compensatory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although many real-world instances of lost personal control are likely negative, according to compensatory control theory any loss of personal control-even resulting from positive events like undeserved fortune-can increase needs for structure and strivings for compensatory control Kay et al, 2008). Therefore I included this positively-framed manipulation in order to ensure (in combination with Study 3 where an article manipulation was used) that the effects of control threat on hierarchy preference are not limited to just one operationalization of control threat.…”

Section: Materials and Procedure Participants First Completed The 11mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.

Friesen

Kay

Eibach

et al. 2014

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

179

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hierarchies are a ubiquitous form of human social organization. We hypothesized that 1 reason for the prevalence of hierarchies is that they offer structure and therefore satisfy the core motivational needs for order and control relative to less structured forms of social organization. This hypothesis is rooted in compensatory control theory, which posits that (a) individuals have a basic need to perceive the world as orderly and structured, and (b) personal and external sources of control are capable of satisfying this need because both serve the comforting belief that the world operates in an orderly fashion. Our first 2 studies confirmed that hierarchies were perceived as more structured and orderly relative to egalitarian arrangements (Study 1) and that working in a hierarchical workplace promotes a feeling of self-efficacy (Study 2). We threatened participants’ sense of personal control and measured perceptions of and preferences for hierarchy in 5 subsequent experiments. Participants who lacked control perceived more hierarchy occurring in ambiguous social situations (Study 3) and preferred hierarchy more strongly in workplace contexts (Studies 4–5). We also provide evidence that hierarchies are indeed appealing because of their structure: Preference for hierarchy was higher among individuals high in Personal Need for Structure and a control threat increased preference for hierarchy even among participants low in Personal Need for Structure (Study 5). Framing a hierarchy as unstructured reversed the effect of control threat on hierarchy (Study 6). Finally, hierarchy-enhancing jobs were more appealing after control threat, even when they were low in power and status (Study 7).

show abstract

Section: Compensatory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Compensatory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Compensatory Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Materials and Procedure Participants First Completed The 11mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.

Friesen

Kay

Eibach

et al. 2014

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

179

140

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, in Study 4 I examined how the element of perceived control in relationships contributes to the support of committed relationship ideology. In past research control has been shown to be an important factor in the support of societal systems such as religion and the government (e.g., Kay et al, 2008). For relationship contexts, I defined control as the perceived structure and order that relationships can provide.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

System justification and the defense of committed relationship ideology.

Day

Kay²,

Holmes

et al. 2011

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A consequential ideology in Western society is the uncontested belief that a committed relationship is the most important adult relationship and that almost all people want to marry or seriously couple (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). In the present article, we investigated the extent to which the system justification motive may contribute to the adoption of this ideology. In Studies 1 and 2, we examined whether a heightened motive to maintain the status quo would increase defense of committed relationship values. In Study 3, we examined the reverse association, that is, whether a threat to committed relationship ideology would also affect sociopolitical system endorsement. As past research has found that the justification of political systems depends upon how much these systems are perceived as controlling, in Study 4 we tested whether the defense of the system of committed relationships would also increase when framed as controlling. Results from Studies 1–4 were consistent with our hypotheses, but only for men. In Study 5, using cross-cultural data, we sought to replicate these findings correlationally and probe for a cause of the gender effect. Results from more than 33,000 respondents indicated a relationship (for men) between defense of the sociopolitical system and defense of marriage in countries where the traditional advantages of men over women were most threatened. In Studies 6 and 7, we investigated when this gender difference disappears. Results revealed that when we measured (Study 6) or manipulated (Study 7) personal relationship identity rather than relationship ideology, effects also emerge for women.

show abstract