Steps, stages, and structure: Finding compensatory order in scientific theories.

Abstract

Stage theories are prominent and controversial in science. One possible reason for their appeal is that they provide order and predictability. Participants in Experiment 1 rated stage theories as more orderly and predictable (but less credible) than continuum theories. In Experiments 2-5, we showed that order threats increase the appeal of stage theories of grief (Experiment 2) and moral development (Experiments 4 and 5). Experiment 3 yielded similar results for a stage theory on Alzheimer's disease characterized by predictable decline, suggesting that preference for stage theories is independent of valence. Experiment 4 showed that the effect of threat on theory preference was mediated by the motivated perception of order, and Experiment 5 revealed that it is particularly the fixed order of stages that increases their appeal.

Threat and Defense

“…Hypervigilant illusory pattern perception has mediated effects of control deprivation and mortality salience on worldview defense ; see also Kay et al, 2008;Kay, Shepherd, et al, 2010;Rutjens et al, 2013). Similarly, the correlations between perceptions of low political/economical control and authoritarianism/ethnocentrism are mediated by heightened need for cognitive closure (Agroskin & Jonas, 2010; see proximal defenses section for explanation of anxious links between vigilance and need for closure).…”

“…It can cause exaggeratedly positive evaluations of pleasant stimuli and negative evaluations of aversive stimuli (Holbrook & Sousa, 2013;Holbrook et al, 2011), as well as illusory perception of nonexisting objects and conspiracies (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). Threats also sometimes cause closed-minded aversion to uncertain or unstable phenomena Kruglanski, 2004) and devotion to stability-conferring political or religious systems (Kay et al, 2008;Kay, Shepherd, Blatz, Chua, & Galinsky, 2010) or scientific theories (Rutjens, Van der Pligt, & Van Harreveld, 2010;Rutjens, Van Haneveld, Van der Pligt, Kreemers, & Noordewier, 2013).…”

“…Need for structure can be satisfied by orienting toward familiar structure but may also be met by heightened detection of novel structure, either real (Proulx & Heine, 2009;Randles et al, 2011) or imagined (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). If no opportunities to detect structure-conferring regularities exist, then people may resort to closed-mindedness and avoidance of uncertain phenomena (e.g., Jost et al, 2007;Kay et al, 2008;Rutjens et al, 2010;Rutjens et al, 2013;Kay, Shepherd, et al, 2010;Sullivan, Landau, & Rothschild, 2010). Future research is needed to more clearly specify the boundaries and dynamics of the co-active avoidance and vigilance processes.…”

Interest in Complex Novelty

“…Complex new products and technologies are more likely to become successful when they are introduced in settings where people have high coping potential. People are more likely to be interested in complex novelty when they are, for instance, in control or certain as compared to lacking control or feeling uncertain (Oishi et al, 2012;Rutjens et al, 2013;van Horen & Pieters, 2013). It is also conceivable that there are situations of extreme levels of coping potential that might result in actively approaching complex novelty.…”

“…Indirect evidence indeed supports this notion. For instance, when people experience high as opposed to low personal control, they are more likely to accept disorder and randomness (e.g., Rutjens, van Harreveld, van der Pligt, Kreemers, & Noordewier, 2013; see also Kay et al, 2009) and thus possibly also novelty. In addition, people who feel certain are more likely to go for novel products, whereas people who feel uncertain are more likely to prefer familiarity (Oishi, Miao, Koo, Kisling, & Ratliff, 2012; see also van Horen & Pieters, 2013).…”