Cited by 42Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

Defending one's worldview under mortality salience: Testing the validity of an established idea

Schindler, Simon, Reinhardt, Nina, Reinhard, Marc-André·2021·Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104087

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schindler, S., Reinhardt, N., & Reinhard, M.-A.
Affiliations
University of Kassel (DE)
Corresponding author
Schindler, Simon
Venue
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
93
Pages
104087
ISSN
0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3115493278
Cited by
40
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Universität Kassel
  • American Psychological Association
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (ID SCHI 1341/2-1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
terror management theory, mortality salience, worldview defense, replication failure, Bayesian analysis, meta-analysis, pre-registered study

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