Cited by 189Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningMedia Influence and Health

Death, sex, love, and neuroticism: Why is sex such a problem?

Goldenberg, Jamie L., Pyszczynski, Tom, McCoy, Shannon K., Greenberg, Jeff, Solomon, Sheldon·1999·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Terror management theory posits that sex is a ubiquitous human problem because the creaturely aspects of sex make apparent our animal nature, which reminds us of our vulnerability and mortality. People minimize this threat by investing in the symbolic meaning offered by the cultural worldview. Because people high in neuroticism have difficulty finding or sustaining meaning, sex is a particular problem for them. In Study 1, mortality salience caused high-neuroticism participants to find the physical aspects of sex less appealing. Study 2 revealed that for such individuals thoughts of physical sex increase the accessibility of death-related thoughts. This finding was replicated in Study 3, which also showed that providing meaning by associating sex with love reduces the accessibility of death-related thoughts in response to thoughts of physical sex. These findings provide insight into why people high in neuroticism have conflicting thoughts about sexuality and why sexuality is so often regulated and romanticized.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1173

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Sex is problematic because it reminds us of our animality.

    “Terror management researchers persuasively argue that sex is problematic in that it too reminds us of our animality”

    From Disgusting Bodies, Disgusting Religion: The Biology of Tantra (2011) · cites this paper as Goldenberg et al. 1999: 1175

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., McCoy, S. K., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Colorado Springs (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1999
Volume
77
Issue
6
Pages
1173-1187
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2051209432
Cited by
189
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
terror management theory, neuroticism, sexuality, mortality salience, death-related thoughts, love, cultural worldview, meaning in life, sexual attraction
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Attitude to Death, Culture, Female, Humans, Love, Male, Middle Aged, Neurotic Disorders, Personality Inventory, Pilot Projects, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sexual Behavior

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