Confronting Threats to Meaning

Abstract

We all have models of the world, and when these models fit with what goes on around us we have a sense of meaning. Unfortunately, we are often faced with situations that violate, or threaten, our models, and when this happens we attempt to resolve these inconsistencies to restore a sense of meaning. It is well documented that we often try to reduce threats in indirect ways—ways that, at first glance, seem to reduce the negative feelings without actually solving the problem. This article explores the possibility that threats can be interpreted in different ways depending on the person and context, and suggests that because of this, different threat reduction approaches can be adaptive in different situations. Specifically, it presents the hypothesis that concrete construal of threats should result in compensation efforts that are relatively direct, whereas abstract construals should expand the possibilities for compensation to include indirect strategies. It describes the existing evidence, where evidence is lacking, and potentially fruitful avenues of future exploration.