Cited by 396Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionCultural Differences and ValuesSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Making Sense of Life: The Existential Self Trying to Deal with Personal Uncertainty

van den Bos, Kees·2009·Psychological Inquiry

Abstract

This article is about how people make sense of life and focuses on one core threat that may play a pivotal role in people's lives as existential meaning makers: personal uncertainty. Personal uncertainty is defined as the aversive feeling that you experience when you feel uncertain about yourself. Drawing on an uncertainty management perspective, it is hypothesized that cultural worldviews may provide a means to cope with personal uncertainty and that this may explain why under conditions of personal uncertainty people may respond especially positively to events that bolster their cultural norms and values and particularly negatively to persons and events that violate these norms and values. Findings are reviewed that support the uncertainty management model's predictions. Furthermore, the uncertainty management model may explain why terror management theory is not always about terror, but (at least partly) about personal uncertainty. Finally, conceptual implications, conflicting findings, and loose ends are noted, and testable hypotheses are formulated, which may further insight into the psychological processes pertaining to sense-making, worldview defense, and self-regulation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10478400903333411

Cites

175 of 175 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?

  • For many people, global stressors exacerbate personal uncertainties, involving doubts in self-views and worldviews.

    “For many people, these global stressors will additionally exacerbate personal uncertainties, involving doubts in self-views and worldviews [45].”
  • A drive to reduce uncertainty is tightly coupled with cognitive inflexibility.

    “A drive to reduce uncertainty is tightly coupled with cognitive inflexibility.”
  • Individuals with a lower threshold for tolerating uncertainty tend to be more rigid and closed-minded in their worldviews, values, and attitudes, especially when uncertainty is explicitly linked with threat.

    “Individuals with a lower threshold for tolerating uncertainty tend to be more rigid and closed-minded in their worldviews, values, and attitudes [45,153], especially when uncertainty is explicitly linked with threat [154,155].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 177 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Bos, K.
Affiliations
Utrecht University
Venue
Psychological Inquiry
Published
2009-12-07
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
197-217
ISSN
  • 1047-840X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7965
OpenAlex
W2100399482
Cited by
395
References
177
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 19
FWCI
23.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Inquiry (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
personal uncertainty, cultural worldview, worldview defense, terror management theory, self-regulation, sensemaking, norm violation, cultural values

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