Finding silver linings: Meaning making as a compensatory response to negative experiences.

Abstract

see also Chapter 10, this volume). For example, system justification theory describes how, when people feel the current status quo cannot be changed, or would rather it did not, they will find ways to justify its unjust aspects. This generally entails believing the advantaged of society deserve what they have, and the underprivileged deserve their disadvantaged status and the bad things that happen to them (Jost & Banaji, 1994;Kay, Banfield, & Laurin, 2010). Doing so allows the individual to maintain beliefs in the fairness and justice of the system.In this chapter, we review research investigating another method of dealing with evidence that bad things happen to decent people-evidence that contradicts one's fundamental beliefs. Specifically, we describe research demonstrating compensatory strategies that allow one to perceive negative outcomes as "balanced out" by other benefits to the victim. These strategies allow the perceiver to maintain his or her beliefs.We begin with a review of the content of beliefs in the world as meaningful and just, and research on the psychological consequences of negative experiences for meaning making, then turn to research on the use of compensatory strategies specifically. JuSTICE BELIEFSJanoff-Bulman (1992) provided evidence that people possess three core beliefs or fundamental assumptions about reality. First, people tend to assume the world is a good place: They rate the benevolence of people and events quite positively (Janoff-Bulman, 1989). Second, they believe in the meaningfulness of the world. This is essentially a justice belief: People expect individuals' outcomes to be distributed according to what kind of people they are. In other words, people believe in a just world, one in which "people get what they deserve and deserve what they get" (Lerner, 1980). Finally, the third core belief is in one's own self-worth, as a good, capable, and moral person. This last point is perhaps the most contentious, given the universality of the need to maintain a positive self-view (see Boucher, 2010, for a review). At least in the Western world, however, self-esteem is typically high, and people assume they are better than average on numerous dimensions (e.g., Lerner,

Making Sense of Violence: Perceived Meaningfulness as a Predictor of Audience Interest in Violent Media Content

“…The concept of immaterial rewards as described by theories of meaning‐making (Anderson & Kay, ; Park, ), including experiences of deeper insight, social connection, and personal growth, is consistent with theories of eudaimonic motivation in general (Ryff & Singer, ; Waterman, ), and with theories of eudaimonic motivations for media use in particular (Oliver & Bartsch, ; Oliver & Raney, ; Wirth et al, ). Therefore, we propose to conceptualize individuals' experience of meaning‐making in the context of media violence as a form of eudaimonic appreciation.…”

“…These conceptualizations of eudaimonic appreciation are compatible with psychological theorizing and research on the processes by which individuals strive to make meaning out of negative experiences (Anderson & Kay, ; Park, ). According to this literature, the need for meaning‐making is aroused by negative events that violate an individual's belief in the world as a just place where bad things do not happen to good people (including the self).…”

“…As noted in the introduction, meaning‐making has been described by some theorists as a process of dissonance reduction, or coping with negative experiences that violate individuals' belief in a just world (e.g., Anderson & Kay, ; Park, ). In the absence of material compensation for the victim, the process of dissonance reduction is assumed to focus on immaterial rewards such as greater insight, social connection, and personal growth.…”

“…In this study, we assessed perceived meaningfulness of violent portrayals in the broadest possible sense by adapting Oliver and Bartsch's () measure of eudaimonic appreciation that asks whether the content is perceived as “meaningful,” “moving,” and “thought‐provoking.” An important next step is to link this global measure of eudaimonic appreciation to the perception of specific content features that should arouse and satisfy a need for meaning‐making, according to theoretical assumptions (Anderson & Kay, ; Park, ). For example, future research may ask more specifically about acts of violence that violate the viewers' just‐world beliefs, and about the compensation of victims in terms of immaterial rewards such as deeper insight, social connectedness, and personal growth.…”

“…According to this literature, the need for meaning‐making is aroused by negative events that violate an individual's belief in the world as a just place where bad things do not happen to good people (including the self). In some cases, the cognitive dissonance resulting from unjust negative events is easily resolved by focusing on good things that happen to the same person later in life, such that the negative event is “balanced out.” In the absence of material compensation, however, the process of dissonance reduction tends to focus on compensation in the realm of immaterial rewards such as deeper insight, social connection, and personal growth (Anderson & Kay, ).…”