Date of Award
Daniel W. Baack
Andrew K. Schnackenberg
Legitimacy, Symbolic environments, Symbolic management, Trust
People have historically used different types of symbols to signal an ideology, to create a sense of prestige, or to gain legitimacy. Examples of these types of symbols can be seen in displays ranging from marketing ads to presidential election materials. While these types of symbols tend to be socially constructed, and universally identifiable, the consequences of their use are less uniform in nature. This study explores the gap that currently exists between a symbol’s inherent value and the expected consequences of its use. My theoretical prediction includes two principles: The use of symbolic management to create symbolic environments and the concept of mental fit between the symbol displayed and the personal values of the symbol observer. I test this link through the creation and viewing of video vignettes containing specific types of symbolic value. Using a sample of university students, I find that viewing an ideological symbolic environment that matches the symbolic environment architect’s political ideology elicits higher levels of affect-based trust. Additionally, I find that comparative symbolic environments elicit higher levels of pragmatic legitimacy compared to environments containing isomorphic symbolic value.
Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
Thomas, Christopher J., "The Duality of Reality: Perception Creation Using Symbolic Management" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1996.
Received from ProQuest
Christopher J. Thomas