Cited by 72Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial and Intergroup PsychologyTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

Fighting Death With Death: The Buffering Effects of Learning That Worldview Violators Have Died

Hayes, Joseph, Schimel, Jeff, Williams, Todd J.·2008·Psychological Science

Abstract

According to terror management theory, the annihilation of people who threaten one's worldview should serve the function of defending that worldview. The present research assessed this hypothesis. A sample of Christian participants read either a worldview-threatening news article reporting on the Muslimization of Nazareth or a nonthreatening article about the aurora borealis. Half of the participants in the worldview-threat condition were informed at the end of the article that a number of Muslims had died in a plane crash on their way to Nazareth. Although reading the threatening news article increased death-thought accessibility and worldview defense relative to reading the neutral article, these increases were not observed among participants who learned that a number of Muslims were dead. Implications for understanding protracted intergroup conflict are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02115.x

Cites

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?

  • Mortality salience has the potential to influence behavior and perception across a wide range of life experiences and situations.

    “a substantial number of studies have shown that mortality salience has the potential to influence behavior and perception across a wide range of life experiences and situations”

    From Death anxiety and its role in psychopathology: Reviewing the status of a transdiagnostic construct (2014) · cites this paper as Hayes, Schimel, & Williams, 2008

  • Mortality salience increases derogation of and support for the annihilation of those who harbor different beliefs and values.

    “Studies have indicated that MS increases derogation of-and support for the annihilation of-those who harbor different beliefs and values”

    From When Death is Good for Life: Considering the Positive Trajectories of Terror Management (2012) · cites this paper as Hayes, Schimel, & Williams, 2008

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 25 · Cited by 72

Authors
Hayes, J., Schimel, J., & Williams, T. J.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Hayes, Joseph
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2008-05
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
501-507
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2125487344
Cited by
72
References
25
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Keywords
terror management theory, worldview defense, death-thought accessibility, intergroup conflict, Christian-Muslim relations
MeSH terms
Attitude to Death, Conflict, Psychological, Defense Mechanisms, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Random Allocation, Religion and Psychology, Students, Violence, 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