The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

20close, confiding relationship (Cohen 1988; Pearlin et al. 1981). Further, those who can count onspecific people when they need specific help (financial, household repairs, etc.) have fewerhealth problems (Seeman and Syme 1987). Thus, when personal control is threatened,individuals who perceive of themselves as having a strong social support system should be morelikely to turn to these resources and less likely to turn to boundaries as a means of providing asense of order and structure in their environment.The presence of stable financial resources should also be an effective means of bufferingindividuals from the threat of low personal control. Research suggests that the mere thought ofmoney is enough to activate feelings of strength and self-sufficiency (Zhou, Vohs, andBaumeister 2009). Further, researchers have found that money is effective at increasing actuallevels of control in one‘s environment (Lea and Webley 2006). Thus, individuals with strongfinancial resources can rely on their finances to enhance the order and structure in their lives andshould therefore be less likely to change their preferences for boundaries in the environment as ameans of doing so.In what follows, I first describe the results of an exploratory pre-test designed tosupplement the insights of the research discussed above and to aid my prioritization of buffers toexplore. I then focus on the buffers that consumers reference most often in this pre-test andexplore how differences in such factors moderate the relationship between one‘s needs forpersonal control and preferences for boundaries.Pre-test
21In a pre-test, 100 online participants (ranging from 23 to 84 in age) answered a simpleopen-ended question, ―What are things that might keep you from fearing situations that aren‘tunder your control?‖ Participants were permitted to list as many things as came to mind. Theresults were highly consistent with what would be expected based on extant research. 47% ofrespondents mentioned religious beliefs as a buffer; 32% mentioned economic stability (e.g.,having a job or sufficient savings); 32% mentioned social support from family members andfriends; 24% mentioned personal skills (e.g., formal or informal education). Individuals alsomentioned positive attitude (24%), good health (14%), and past experiences (13%) as buffers.EXPERIMENT 4A: LET GO AND LET GODBased on their prominence in the pre-test and the extant literature, religious beliefs arethe focus for experiment 4A. Specifically, I seek to demonstrate that individuals who are high inreligiosity are buffered from the need to find structure through aesthetically bounded productswhen personal control is threatened. Instead, they find solace in the idea that God is in control ofthe environment. Conversely, individuals with a low sense of religiosity will be significantlymore likely to seek bounded products when personal control is threatened (versus when it is not).Participants and Procedure. Seventy-eight participants were recruited online.Participants were first asked to complete the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (Worthingtonet al. 2003). This 10-item scale is designed to assess the degree to which a person adheres to hisor her religious values, beliefs and practices and uses them in daily living (e.g., ―My religiousbeliefs lie behind my whole approach to life,‖ ―I enjoy working in the activities of my religious
Page 1 and 2: 1The Beauty of Boundaries: When and
Page 3 and 4: 3The terrorist attacks in the U.S.
Page 6 and 7: 6and can consequently communicate a
Page 8 and 9: 8themselves. In experiment 5, I dem
Page 10 and 11: 10ResultsThe manipulation check con
Page 12 and 13: 12MethodParticipants and Procedure.
Page 14 and 15: 14examples; M = 67%) relative to wh
Page 17 and 18: 17Next, I investigated whether an i
Page 19: 19EXPERIMENTS 4A & 4BThe results of
Page 23 and 24: 23control was threatened than when
Page 25 and 26: 25Participants in the low personal
Page 27 and 28: 27very organized environments when
Page 29 and 30: 29control participants in the organ
Page 31 and 32: 31importance of implicit boundaries
Page 33 and 34: 33Works CitedAbramson, Lyn Y., Mart
Page 35 and 36: 35Meyers-Levy, Joan and Rui (Juliet
Page 37 and 38: 37Whitson, Jennifer A. and Adam D.
Page 39 and 40: 39Figure 2. Experiment 2. Interacti
Page 41 and 42: 41Figure 4. Experiment 4B. Interact
Page 43: 43Appendix 1:Logo Choices
Page 46: 46Closed shelves keep everything in

The Beauty of Boundaries: When and Why We Seek Structure in ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?