The effects of existential threat on reading comprehension of worldview affirming and disconfirming information
Abstract
Abstract Terror management theory posits that cultural worldviews buffer people from thoughts and concerns about death. In support of this claim, numerous studies have shown that mortality salience (MS) increases an individual's motivation to uphold and defend important cultural worldviews. We hypothesized that the motivation to defend cultural worldviews following MS would also enhance people's ability to comprehend worldview affirming (vs. disconfirming) information. Three studies investigated this possibility. Study 1 showed that MS (vs. control) increased reading comprehension of a pro‐evolution essay among participants with a strongly evolutionist worldview, but decreased reading comprehension among participants with a strongly creationist worldview. With the use of a pro‐creation essay, Study 2 conceptually replicated these effects and demonstrated that the interactive effect of worldview and death anxiety on reading comprehension was mediated by defensive motivation. Study 3 replicated the results of Studies 1 and 2 among participants with a strongly evolutionist worldview, but only when the information in the essay was perceived as veridical. Discussion focused on the specific process through which MS affects reading comprehension of worldview relevant ideas. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mortality salience improves performance on academic tasks such as reading comprehension.
“Other work has similarly shown that MS enhances basketball performance [36] and improves performance on academic tasks (e.g., reading comprehension) [37,38].”
From An Appreciative View of the Brighter Side of Terror Management Processes (2015) · cites this paper as [38]
Undermining important relationships increases death-thought accessibility, mortality salience increases efforts to enhance close, loving relationships, and incorporating relationships and social structures into one's identity helps prevent anxiety and well-being deficits that otherwise result from the awareness of death.
“As just a few examples, undermining important relationships increases death-thought accessibility, MS increases efforts to enhance close, loving relationships (e.g., [38]), and incorporating relationships and social structures into one's identity helps prevent anxiety and well-being deficits that otherwise result from the awareness of death [26,89].”
From An Appreciative View of the Brighter Side of Terror Management Processes (2015) · cites this paper as [38]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 21
- Authors
- Williams, T. J., Schimel, J., Hayes, J., & Faucher, E. H.
- Affiliations
- Grand Valley State University (US)
- University of Alberta (CA)
- Wilfrid Laurier University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Todd J.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-01-26
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 602-616
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W1916149084
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 1.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- terror management theory, mortality salience, reading comprehension, worldview defense, fear of death, defensive motivation, veridicality, cultural worldview
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
