Cited by 189Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Focus theory of normative conduct and terror management theory: The interactive impact of mortality salience and norm salience on social judgment

Jonas, Eva, Martens, Andy, Niesta Kayser, Daniela, Fritsche, Immo, Sullivan, Daniel, Greenberg, Jeff·2008·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Research on terror-management theory has shown that after mortality salience (MS) people attempt to live up to cultural values. But cultures often value very different and sometimes even contradictory standards, leading to difficulties in predicting behavior as a consequence of terror-management needs. The authors report 4 studies to demonstrate that the effect of MS on people's social judgments depends on the salience of norms. In Study 1, making salient opposite norms (prosocial vs. proself) led to reactions consistent with the activated norms following MS compared with the control condition. Study 2 showed that, in combination with a pacifism prime, MS increased pacifistic attitudes. In Study 3, making salient a conservatism/security prime led people to recommend harsher bonds for an illegal prostitute when they were reminded of death, whereas a benevolence prime counteracted this effect. In Study 4 a help prime, combined with MS, increased people's helpfulness. Discussion focuses briefly on how these findings inform both terror-management theory and the focus theory of normative conduct.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0013593

Cites

54 of 54 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jonas, E., Martens, A., Niesta Kayser, D., Fritsche, I., Sullivan, D., & Greenberg, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Salzburg (AT)
  • University of Canterbury (NZ)
  • Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE)
  • University of Arizona (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2008
Volume
95
Issue
6
Pages
1239-1251
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2066007425
Cited by
189
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
13.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (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, norm salience, focus theory of normative conduct, social judgment, pacifism, conservatism, security, benevolence, helpfulness, cultural values
MeSH terms
Adult, Awareness, Female, Health, Humans, Judgment, Male, Psychological Theory, Self Concept, Social Behavior, Social Behavior Disorders, Social Perception, Terrorism

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