Prosocial Attitudes toward Money from Terror Management Perspective: Death Transcendence through Spirituality
Open accessAbstract
Based on Terror Management Theory (TMT), we suggest that spirituality and prosocial attitudes toward money have a similar defensive function in resisting existential anxiety. In mortality salient (MS) situations, both spirituality and prosocial money attitudes afford symbolic immortality by self-transcendent connections. In four studies, we found that activating death awareness weakened people’s subjective love of money (Study 1) and predicted increased spending willingness on prosocial rather than proself goals (Studies 2, 3, and 4). More importantly, MS effects on money attitudes were smaller when people’s trait spirituality was high (vs. low; Studies 1, 2, 3) and when people were primed to experience spirituality (vs. happiness control condition; Study 4). For low spirituality people, the association between MS and prosocial spending also depended on the capacity of money spending to contribute positively to one’s feelings of self-worth (Study 3). Theoretical implications and future directions are discussed.
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?
The effect of MS on lower love for money only occurred among participants who score low on spirituality, and not for high spirituality individuals.
“this effect only occurred among participants who score low on spirituality, and not for high spirituality individuals.”
From Terror Management Theory in the Consumer Domain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis on Mortality Salience Driven Consumer Responses (2025) · cites this paper as Dong et al. (2019, Study 1)
MS participants reported a lower love for money.
“MS participants reported a lower love for money”
From Terror Management Theory in the Consumer Domain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis on Mortality Salience Driven Consumer Responses (2025) · cites this paper as Dong et al. (2019, Study 1)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 57 · Cited by 17
- Authors
- Dong, M., Van Prooijen, J.-W., Wu, S., Zhang, Y., & Jin, S.
- Affiliations
- Beijing Normal University (CN)
- Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Shenzhen University (CN)
- Tibetan Academy of Social Science (CN)
- Fuzhou University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Jin, Shenghua
- Venue
- The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-11-20
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-17
- ISSN
- 1050-8619 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-7582
- OpenAlex
- W2901079384
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 2.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal for the Psychology of Religion (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Social Science Foundation of China (13&ZD073)
- The Major Project of National Social Science Foundation of China (13&ZD073)
- The Project of National Social Science Foundation of China (16BSH098)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
- Keywords
- terror management theory, money attitudes, mortality salience, death awareness, spirituality, existential anxiety, symbolic immortality, self-transcendence, self-worth
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