Cited by 23Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial and Intergroup PsychologyTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

The Influence of Existential Threat and Tolerance Salience on Anti‐Islamic Attitudes in American Politics

Vail, Kenneth E., Courtney, Emily, Arndt, Jamie·2019·Political Psychology

Abstract

Fierce public discussion has centered on anti‐Islamic attitudes and tolerance in America and the West more broadly. The present research explored whether the awareness of mortality (a common theme in politics, e.g., war/terrorism, health care, abortion, and so on) and tolerance salience might influence (1) the endorsement of anti‐Islamic attitudes in American politics and (2) political orientation. Study 1 (n = 79) was conducted in lab and Study 2 (preregistered, n = 396) replicated it online; both obtained the same results. In a neutral‐value‐prime condition, American participants reminded of mortality (vs. control topic) more strongly endorsed a Congressman’s anti‐Islamic statements about Rep. Ellison. However, in a tolerance‐value‐prime condition, participants reminded of mortality maintained their acceptance of Rep. Ellison’s beliefs and practices. Political orientation was not impacted. Implications for terror management theory (TMT), other theories of existential dynamics and motivated conservative political ideology, and both recent and contemporary American politics are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/pops.12579

Cites

0 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?

  • Of the 6 relevant pre-registered high-powered replication studies of the mortality salience hypothesis, 3 successfully replicated the original study and 3 did not.

    “Of the 6 relevant studies that we found, 3 of them successfully replicated the original study (Dunn et al., 2020; Schindler et al., 2019; Vail et al., 2019), whereas 3 of them did not (Rodríguez-Ferreiro et al., 2019; Sætrevik & Sjåstad, 2019; Schindler et al., 2021).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vail, K. E., Courtney, E., & Arndt, J.
Affiliations
  • Cleveland State University (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Vail, Kenneth E.
Venue
Political Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-05
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
1143-1162
ISSN
  • 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9221
OpenAlex
W2921507010
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • EngagedScholarship @ Cleveland State University (Cleveland State University) (submittedVersion)
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
existential risk, mortality salience, terror management theory, political ideology, political orientation, American politics, Muslim politicians

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