The DOI matches its Crossref record; 64 of the 64 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 53 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Deliver us from Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush
Open accessAbstract
According to terror management theory, heightened concerns about mortality should intensify the appeal of charismatic leaders. To assess this idea, we investigated how thoughts about death and the 9/11 terrorist attacks influence Americans’ attitudes toward current U.S. President George W. Bush. Study 1 found that reminding people of their own mortality (mortality salience) increased support for Bush and his counterterrorism policies. Study 2 demonstrated that subliminal exposure to 9/11-related stimuli brought death-related thoughts closer to consciousness. Study 3 showed that reminders of both mortality and 9/11 increased support for Bush. In Study 4, mortality salience led participants to become more favorable toward Bush and voting for him in the upcoming election but less favorable toward Presidential candidate John Kerry and voting for him. Discussion focused on the role of terror management processes in allegiance to charismatic leaders and political decision making.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Across four experiments, reminders of mortality and of 9/11 increased Americans’ support for President George W. Bush and his counterterrorism policies. The findings are framed as evidence that terror management processes shape allegiance to charismatic leaders and political decision making.
Key findings
- Study 1: mortality salience (MS) increased support for Bush versus a television control prime, \(M = 4.16\), \(SE = .145\) vs. \(M = 2.09\), \(SE = .131\), \(F(1, 93) = 112.48\), \(p < .001\), \(\eta^2 = .55\); effects were not mediated by affect.
- Study 2: subliminal 9/11-related primes increased death-thought accessibility relative to a control prime: 911 \(M = 2.07\), \(SD = .80\); WTC \(M = 1.80\), \(SD = 1.15\); control 573 \(M = 1.25\), \(SD = .86\); planned contrast \(t(43) = 2.34\), \(p < .03\), with a marginal overall ANOVA, \(F(2, 43) = 3.03\), \(p < .06\), \(\eta^2 = .12\).
- Study 3: MS and 9/11 salience both increased support for Bush compared with an exam-salience control, \(F(2, 71) = 43.12\), \(p < .001\); 2-versus-1 contrast \(t(72) = 9.31\), \(p < .001\), \(\eta^2 = .55\); priming did not alter political orientation, \(F < 1\).
- Study 4: MS versus intense-pain control increased Bush evaluations and decreased John Kerry evaluations, interaction \(F(1, 149) = 64.00\), \(p < .001\), \(\eta^2 = .30\); Bush evaluations increased under MS, \(t(76) = 7.87\), \(p < .001\), Kerry evaluations declined, \(t(77) = 3.34\), \(p = .001\), and Bush was evaluated more positively than Kerry when mortality was salient, \(t(78) = 3.69\), \(p < .001\); voting-decision item effects were also significant, all \(p\)s < .001.
Methods
- Four experiments with undergraduate samples: Study 1 had 97 Rutgers students in October 2003; Study 2 had 52 University of Missouri–Columbia students, with 46 analyzed, about 1 month after 9/11; Study 3 had 74 Rutgers students in February 2004; Study 4 had 157 Brooklyn College students on May 13, 2004.
- Participants were randomly assigned to mortality-salience, 9/11-salience, or control primes (television, exam, or intense pain), then completed measures of support for Bush, death-thought accessibility, political orientation, and/or evaluations of Bush versus Kerry.
- Main analyses used ANOVA, planned contrasts, ANCOVA, and regression; affect was measured with PANAS-X and tested as a possible mediator.
Limitations
- The paper states that the null findings on political orientation must be interpreted with caution and could reflect insensitivity of the one-item, face-valid measure; it also states that more research with a broader sampling of political orientations is needed for the unexpected political-orientation interaction in Study 3.
- The paper notes that Bush is a multidimensional stimulus, making it difficult to determine precisely which attributes—presidential status, charismatic style, or security/military advocacy—drive the effects.
- Evident from the text: all studies rely on undergraduate convenience samples rather than nationally representative samples; Study 2’s overall ANOVA was only marginal; and Study 1’s PANAS-X included only 32 of 60 items due to an error.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
41 Not checked yet · 33 Own result · 25 Own interpretation · 9 Own method · 6 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second contrast found that although the mean was a bit higher in the 911 condition than in the WTC condition, this difference was not statistically significant, p > .44.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study 2 demonstrated that subliminal exposure to 9/ 11-related stimuli brought death-related thoughts closer to consciousness.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with previous TMT research demonstrating that MS does not engender affect, there were no significant differences found for these analyses.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas John Kerry's evaluations declined, t (77) = 3.34, p = .001”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which revealed main effects for mortality salience versus intense pain, F (1, 149) =8.52, p =.004, η 2 =.054”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants in the terrorism prime conditions showed greater death-thought accessibility (911 = 2.07, SD = .80; WTC = 1.80, SD =1.15)thanthoseinthecontrolcondition(573= 1.25, SD = .86), t (43) = 2.34, p < .03.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · p. 7 · boosted
“Study 2 demonstrated that stimuli commonly associated with the 9/11 attacks (911 and WTC) produce an increase in death-thought accessibility, much like previous research has shown subliminal death-related stimuli do (Arndt et al., 1997a).”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · p. 7 · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also found an unanticipated significant interaction, β =.74, SE =.07, t =1.96, p =.05.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure that the MS effect reported above was not mediated by affect, we conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the affect subscale scores (including positive and negative affect) as covariates and the effect of MS remained statistically intact.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study 1 found that reminding people of their own mortality (mortality salience) increased support for Bush and his counterterrorism policies.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · p. 5 · plain
“those in the MS condition reported higher support for President Bush ( M = 4.16, SE = .145) than those in the control prime condition ( M = 2.09, SE = .131).”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · p. 5 · plain
“However, the predicted main effect for MS was obtained, F (1, 93) = 112.48, p < .001”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · p. 5 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, the effect size is large, η 2 = .55.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 32
- Probably not a substantial claim. 32
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As in Study 1, exam salient control participants were on the disagreement side of the scale, whereas MS and 9/11salient participants were on the agreement side of the scale; there was also a large effect size, η 2 = .55.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and higher ratings of John Kerry ( M = 4.67) than George Bush ( M = 3.83).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no main effect or interaction for gender, p s > .2.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study 3 showed that reminders of both mortality and 9/11 increased support for Bush.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with previous TMT research demonstrating that MS does not engender affect, there were no significant differences found for these analyses.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed the expected main effects for condition and political orientation, indicating higher approval in the MS and 9/11 conditions and the more conservative the participants were.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analyses conducted on the individual items making up our composite measure revealed significant effects on all three items, all p s < .01, with MS increasing approval of Bush and his policies on each item.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Study 4, mortality salience led participants to become more favorable toward Bush and voting for him in the upcoming election but less favorable toward Presidential candidate John Kerry and voting for him.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, Study 4 revealed that whereas Kerry was preferred over Bush in the control condition, mortality salient participants preferred Bush over Kerry.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The political orientation measure in Studies 3 and 4 suggests that the increased appeal of President Bush in response to reminders of death or the events of 9/11 was not at all limited to conservative individuals and was not the result of an increase in political conservatism.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The one-item political orientation measure is face valid.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A 2 (MS vs. pain) × 2 (Bush vs. Kerry) × 2 (gender) ANOVA revealed no effects on political orientation”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This model posits that conscious contemplation of mortality first arouses direct threat-focused proximal defenses involving suppression of death-related thoughts or pushing the problem of deathinto the distant future by denying one's vulnerability to various risk factors (e.g., promising to get more exercise).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pyszczynski et al. (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“TMT posits that popular support for leaders is partly the result of the need to allay a deeply rooted fear of death.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Once death-related thought is no longer in consciousness, distal symbolic terror management defenses, which serve to bolster faith in the meaningful worldview and one's sense of self-worth, are activated to manage the potential for anxiety engendered by heightened accessibility of implicit death-related thought.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pyszczynski et al. (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The most prominent line of empirical support for TMT comes from tests of the mortality salience (MS) hypothesis, which states that if the cultural worldview functions to provide protection against death-related concerns, then reminders of death should intensify efforts to bolster and defend faith in the worldview.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997
- Not checked yetcites Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, in press
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“TMTposits that terror management defenses are ultimately concerned with the implicit knowledge of death rather than with consciously experienced terror per se (see Greenberg et al., 2003).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Greenberg et al., 2003
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to TMT, people are motivated to conceive of themselves as valued participants in a cosmically significant cultural scheme rather than physical creatures subject to decay and death.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Research also has shown that effects parallel to MS are not produced by heightened self-awareness, the salience of cultural values, meaninglessness, or high cognitive load (e.g., Greenberg et al., 1995).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Greenberg et al., 1995
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Initial empirical support for this point was provided by Cohen, Solomon, Maxfield, Pyszczynski, and Greenberg's (in press) finding that reminders of mortality increase support for charismatic leaders in a hypothetical election scenario.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen, Solomon, Maxfield, Pyszczynski, and Greenberg's (in press)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Once these defenses have been employed, deaththought accessibility dissipates back to baseline level.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pyszczynski et al. (1999)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Terror management theory (TMT) (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986; Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991) posits that one of the most basic functions that leaders serve is that of helping people manage a deeply rooted fear of death that is inherent in the human condition.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986
- Not checked yetcites Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1991
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“From this perspective, many symbolic defenses in response to 9/11 represent efforts to reaffirm the integrity and absolute validity of the American worldview in response to increased accessibility of implicit death-related thoughts (see also Miller & Landau, in press).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Miller & Landau, in press
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“From this perspective, President Bush's appeal may lie in his image as a protective shield against death, armed with high-tech weaponry, patriotic rhetoric, and the resolute invocation of doing God's will to 'rid the world of evil' (Purdum, 2001, p. 2; see also Carney & Dickerson, 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Purdum, 2001
- Not checked yetcites Carney & Dickerson, 2001
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, increases in death-thought accessibility have been shown to follow explicit reminders of one's physical nature (Goldenberg, Cox, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 2002), salient threats to a close relationship (Mikulincer, Florian, & Hirschberger, 2003), and confrontations with events that violate the belief in a just world (Landau et al., in press).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldenberg, Cox, Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 2002
- Not checked yetcites Mikulincer, Florian, & Hirschberger, 2003
- Not checked yetcites Landau et al., in press
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we know of no direct experimental evidence that terrorism-related events parallel the effect of MS primes in increasing death-thought accessibility or that 9/11-related thoughts play a role in increased attraction to a leader.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Other research has found that threats to terror management defenses increase death-thought accessibility, whereas strengthening those defenses tends to reduce it (Arndt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Simon, 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arndt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Simon, 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Becker (1971, 1973, 1975) proposed that over the course of socialization, the primary sources of psychological security, those entities that sustain the sense of life as meaningful and one's self as significant, shift from one's parents to the culture and its figures of power, authority, and righteousness.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Becker, 1971, 1973, 1975
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that these inductions enhanced affection for President Bush without altering political orientation per se.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, Arndt, Greenberg, and Cook (2002) found that subliminal death primes (and explicit MS treatments after a delay) can increase the accessibility of nationalistic cognitions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arndt, Greenberg, and Cook (2002)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have proposed that through his charismatic leadership style, President Bush represents a protective authority capable of assuaging existential concerns.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ofmostdirect relevance for present purposes, Cohen et al. (in press) recently demonstrated that MS enhanced the appeal of a charismatic leader who promotes a grand vision and promises citizens a significant role in a noble mission in a hypothetical election sce-”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al. (in press)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In concert, these threats should encourage bolstering of Americans' faith in the symbolic structures that constitute the dominant cultural worldview.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Investing faith in the leader of that scheme to assure symbolic prosperity facilitates the maintenance of this buffer.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results support the hypotheses that MS and a reminder of 9/11 would both increase the appeal of President Bush regardless of political orientation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but it is important to keep in mind that both MS and 9/11 significantly increased the appeal of President Bush for our conservative and liberal participants.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, subliminal death stimuli led to an immediate increase in worldview defense (increased preference for a pro-American essay and its author as opposed to an anti-American author), whereas previous research has shown that supraliminal death stimuli produce increased death accessibility and worldview defense only after a delay and distraction.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One hundred and fifty-seven students at Brooklyn College (95 women, 62 men) were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (mortality salient vs. intense pain salient control) × 2 (evaluate George W. Bush vs. evaluate John Kerry) design.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“participants were randomly assigned to an MS, exam salience, or terrorism prime condition.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results in conjunction with Figure 2 suggest that MS increased approval of Bush similarly for liberals and conservatives but that the terrorism prime had a stronger effect on liberals, such that in that condition, political orientation was a negligible predictor, and significantly less predictive of approval of Bush than it was in the exam control condition.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Based on these affinities, Pyszczynski et al. proposed that symbolic responses to 9/11 are the product of a potent doublebarreled threat posed by the events: vivid and unceasing depictions of death and destruction compounded by a massive threat to America's sense of military and financial power and moral righteousness.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pyszczynski et al. (2003)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Becker (1975) viewed secular leaders as representing not only rational, objective policy makers but, similar to their religious counterparts, assuming the role of 'death-dealer and death-defier' (p. 42)-the embodiments of invulnerability and symbolic supremacy”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Becker, 1975
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In this vein, Pyszczynski et al. (2003) recently portrayed the events of 9/11 as a 'natural' MS induction and discussed how many of the symbolic defenses prompted by 9/11 (e.g., veneration for culturally sacred objects, such as flags) paralleled those found in response to MS inductions used in terror management research.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pyszczynski et al. (2003)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The appeal of the leader lies in his or her perceived ability to both literally and symbolically deliver the people from illness, calamity, chaos, and death as well as to demonstrate the supremacy of the worldview.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of the primary analyses remainedstatistically unaffected.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that the MS induction influenced evaluations of Bush and Kerry without altering political orientation per se.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One is his status as the president of the country. This position makes him the person most representative of the United States at the current time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Second, President Bush has certain elements of a charismatic style: He appears highly self-confident and certain of his views (Feldmann, 2004), appeals to patriotism, and emphasizes the positive qualities of America and being American and the central role of the United States in triumphing over evil and defending freedom.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Feldmann, 2004
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that MS decreased the appeal of Kerry in Study 4 suggests that there is something specific about President George W. Bush that makes him especially useful for terror management purposes.”
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beyond comparing Bush to Kerry, the use of straightforward approval questions rather than agreement with an elaborate message provides direct evidence of the effect of MS on favorability of President Bush.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Cohen et al. (in press) found that MS increases preference for a hypothetical candidate who embodies precisely this style”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al. (in press)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“research both in (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) and outside the laboratory (Piliavin, Rodin, & Piliavin, 1969; Sherif, 1966; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961) has shown that facing or even anticipating (Darley & Morris, 1975) a common enemy or threat can activate superordinate identities and increase ingroup solidarity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000
- Not checked yetcites Piliavin, Rodin, & Piliavin, 1969
- Not checked yetcites Sherif, 1966
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that reminders of death and the events of 9/11 enhanced support for President Bush in the present studies may not bode well for the philosophical democratic ideal that political preferences are the result of rational choice based on an informed understanding of the relevant issues.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results indicate that MS intensified support for President Bush and reduced support for Kerry regardless of political orientation.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This was rectified for Studies 3 and 4 with the same results as obtained in this study.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If MS increases pro-U.S. sentiment in Americans, as a considerable body of evidence indicates, positive responses toward the president also are likely to be increased.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By showing that reminders of both death and the 9/11 terrorist attacks increase support for President Bush and that even very subtle reminders of 9/11 increase the accessibility of death-related thoughts, the present research provides clear support for this TMT analysis.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present findings support the views of many theorists (e.g., Becker; Freud, 1921/1965; Fromm, 1941; Lifton, 1968; Lipman-Bluemen, 1996; Weber) and researchers (Bord, 1975; Ehrhart & Klein, 2001; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996; Pillai, 1996) who have noted that political allegiances are not always based on the balanced, rational forces of self-interest suggested by the Jeffersonian notion of”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, in Cohen et al. (in press), the descriptions of the hypothetical candidates did not imply anything about their political orientation, making it unlikely that the MS-induced increase in preference for the charismatic candidate reflected a conservative shift.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cohen et al. (in press)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest that MS does not heighten affection for anyone associated with U.S. leadership, but Bush in particular.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, all participants in Studies 1 and 3 were exposed to a paragraph that made explicit mention of 9/11 and future terrorist threats, so the common enemy theme was prominent in all conditions of bothstudies, yet MS participants showed the highest support for Bush.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Humans share with all animals a fundamental orientation toward continued survival, along with many of the same biological and psychological systems designed for self-preservation.
“TMT begins with the assumption that humans share with all animals a fundamental orientation toward continued survival, along with many of the same biological and psychological systems designed for self-preservation.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The cognitive link between 9/11 and death-thought accessibility underlies the effect of reminders of the 9/11 attacks on Americans' approval of President Bush and his policies.
“that we posit to underlie the effect of reminders of the 9/11 attacks on Americans' approval of President Bush and his policies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
911 and WTC are widely associated with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
“Both 911 (referring to the date) and WTC (World Trade Center) were chosen as the terrorism primes due to their widespread association with the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Issues of national security are a substantial component of the Bush administration's campaign strategy.
“Because issues of national security are a substantial component of the Bush administration's campaign strategy, we then explored the psychological impact of reminders of 9/11.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The one-item political orientation measure is face valid.
“These null findings regarding political orientation must, of course, be interpreted with caution and could reflect insensitivity of the one-item, albeit face valid, measure.”
The paper relies on this without support.
If MS spontaneously activated cognitions associated with 9/11 and terrorism, those cognitions would appear in open-ended responses about death.
“applying this alternative to the MS effects observed in Studies 1, 3, and 4 requires positing that MS spontaneously activated cognitions associated with 9/11 and terrorism. Although possible, this is unlikely because, according to two raters unaware of the purpose, none of the completions of the open-endeditemsaboutdeathinanyofthethreestudies mentioned 9/11, terrorism, war, or violence-related”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Existential awareness of inevitable death, anxiety arising from mortality concerns, and fear associated with the prospect of one's own death enhance system‐justifying beliefs among members of the society (Landau et al., 2004).”
From “The greedy I that gives”—The paradox of egocentrism and altruism: Terror management and system justification perspectives on the interrelationship between mortality salience and charitable donations amid the COVID‐19 pandemic (2022) · cites this paper as Landau et al., 2004
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“mortality that has been primed threatens the valued cultural worldview that underpins defenses against existential angst (see Das et al., 2009; Landau, Solomon, Greenberg, Cohen, Pyszczynski, Arndt, Miller, Ogilvie, & Cook, 2004).”
From An Integrative Terror Management Theory Perspective on Media Effects: A Model and 12 Hypotheses for Research (2016) · cites this paper as Landau et al., 2004
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“In one line of research, death reminders motivated those with low PNS not only to demonstrate more open-mindedness but also to seek novel experiences in an effort to experience a sense of meaning in life.”
From When Death is Good for Life: Considering the Positive Trajectories of Terror Management (2012) · cites this paper as Landau et al., 2004
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Indeed, there is evidence that threats like scarcity and pathogen prevalence are associated with prejudice [32–40].”
From Ecological and cultural factors underlying the global distribution of prejudice (2019) · cites this paper as [40]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 93) = 112.48reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F (1, 93) = 112.48, p < .001”
- Consistentχ²(2) < 2.1reported p > .34 · recomputed p = .350
“χ 2 (2, N = 46) < 2.10, p > .34”
- Consistentχ²(10) = 11.42reported p > .32 · recomputed p = .326
“χ 2 (10, N = 46) = 11.42, p > .32”
- ConsistentF(2, 43) = 3.03reported p < .06 · recomputed p = .059
“F (2, 43) = 3.03, p < .06”
- Consistentt(43) = 2.34reported p < .03 · recomputed p = .024
“t (43) = 2.34, p < .03”
- ConsistentF(1, 149) = 8.52reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“F (1, 149) =8.52, p = .004”
- ConsistentF(1, 149) = 8.48reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“F (1, 149) = 8.48, p = .004”
- Consistentt(77) = 3.34reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001
“t (77) = 3.34, p = .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Results · p. 11
“These analyses revealed only two univariate main effects.”
§ Results · p. 11
“Compared to the pain salience prime, MS led to less attentiveness ( p = .05), less positive mood ( p < .03), and less sadness ( p < .05).”
Citations
Cites
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in experimental social psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,559
Group psychology and the analysis of the ego.
Freud, S. (1922) · Boni and Liveright eBooks · doi:10.1037/11327-000 · Cited by 3,360
Fuller, L. K. (2011) · doi:10.5040/9798400605093 · Cited by 3,248
The Causes and Consequences of a Need for Self-Esteem: A Terror Management Theory
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986) · Public Self and Private Self · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9564-5_10 · Cited by 2,326
Self-citation(2000) · Cited by 2,172
Fromm, E. (1941) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,995
(2004) · Cited by 1,588
Self-citationGreenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60016-7 · Cited by 1,505
Self-citation水口, 礼. (2017) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd edition · doi:10.4135/9781483386874.n283 · Cited by 1,455
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., & Lyon, D. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.308 · Cited by 1,412
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Aiken, L. S., 1991, Multiple regressions: Testing and interpreting interactions
- Alterman, E., 2004, The book on Bush: How George W. (mis)leads America
- Anonymous, 2004, Imperial hubris: Why the West is losing the war on terrorism
- Arndt, J., Handbook of empirical existential psychology
- Becker, E., 1971, The birth and death of meaning
- Becker, E., 1973, The denial of death
- Berke, R. L., 2001, The New York Times, 1
- Carney, J., 2001, Time Magazine
- Etzioni, A., 2002, Christian Science Monitor, 1
- Feldmann, L., 2004, Presidents as communicators in war-time
- 10.1002/ejsp.2420250406 · DOI
- Humberman, J., 2004, The Bush-hater’s handbook
- Langer, G., 2001, Prayers for victims, support for reprisals
- Moore, D. W., 2001, Americans see terrorist attacks as “acts of war.”
- Morin, R., 2001, The Washington Post, A5
- 2004, President Bush: Job ratings
- Purdum, T. S., 2001, The New York Times, A2
- Risen, J., 2004, The New York Times, 1
- Rutenberg, L., 2004, The New York Times, A18
- Sherif, M., 1961, Intergroup cooperation and competition: The Robbers Cave experiment
- Toner, R., 2001, The New York Times, 1
- Unger, C., 2004, House of Bush, house of Saud
- Waldman, P., 2004, Fraud: The strategy behind the Bush lies and why the media didn’t tell
- Watson, D., 1991, The PANAS-X: Preliminary manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-expanded form
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 662
Zhang, J.-G., & Zhong, Z.-J. (2018) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12498 · Cited by 6
Meaning-Making, Communication, and Terror Management Processes
Miller, C. H., & Massey, Z. B. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811844-3.00024-x · Cited by 6
Self-citationJimenez, T., Helm, P. J., & Arndt, J. (2020) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430220920375 · Cited by 6
Self-citationMoya, I., Chica, M., Lozano, J. L. S., & Cordón, Ó. (2021) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2021.101656 · Cited by 6
Kudrnáč, A., & Klusáček, J. (2022) · Czech Sociological Review · doi:10.13060/csr.2022.016 · Cited by 6
Gebauer, F., Raab, M. H., & Carbon, C. (2016) · Journal of Media Psychology Theories Methods and Applications · doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000180 · Cited by 6
Risk response over time: political compartmentalization of terrorism risk perception
Koivula, A., Räsänen, P., Oksanen, A., & Keipi, T. (2020) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2020.1750461 · Cited by 6
Innere Sicherheit und soziale Unsicherheit
Scherr, A. (2010) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92604-9_2 · Cited by 6
Cuillier, D., Duell, B., & Joireman, J. A. (2010) · Journalism · doi:10.1177/1464884909355734 · Cited by 6
Michaelsen, C. (2012) · Australian Journal Of International Affairs · doi:10.1080/10357718.2012.692531 · Cited by 6
Psychosocial Analysis of the Collective Processes in the United States After September 11
Rodríguez‐Carballeira, Á., & Javaloy, F. (2005) · Conflict Management and Peace Science · doi:10.1080/07388940500200716 · Cited by 6
Scherr, A. (2010) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-531-92035-1_24 · Cited by 6
How Existential Anxiety Shapes Communication in Coping with the Coronavirus Pandemic
Miller, C. H., & Ma, H. (2021) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119751809.ch3 · Cited by 6
Self-citationIdeology shapes evaluation of history within the general population
Rigoli, F. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12971 · Cited by 6
Kramer, W. S., & Shuffler, M. L. (2014) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/iops.12132 · Cited by 5
‘Rallying round the flag effect’ in Israel’s first COVID-19 wave
Hamanaka, S. (2021) · Israel Affairs · doi:10.1080/13537121.2021.1940560 · Cited by 5
Hess, F. M., & Fritsche, I. (2023) · Politik und Religion · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-40559-5_4 · Cited by 5
Coggins, K. E., & Gruschow, K. J. (2024) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10659129241261697 · Cited by 5
Wirth-Petrik, B., & Guenther, R. K. (2012) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/07.15.pr0.111.6.717-723 · Cited by 5
Loss Anxiety: An Alternative Explanation for the Fundamental Fears in Human Beings
Koca-Atabey, M., & Öner-Özkan, B. (2014) · Death Studies · doi:10.1080/07481187.2013.844748 · Cited by 8
Lambert, J. G., & Lambert, G. P. (2011) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su3112129 · Cited by 5
Al Qaeda and Vicarious Victims: Victimological Insights into Globalized Terrorism
Pemberton, A. (2010) · Studies in global justice · doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9020-1_10 · Cited by 5
How mortality salience hurts brands with different personalities
Александровна, Л. П., Stamatogiannakis, A., & Yang, H. (2023) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2023.11.002 · Cited by 7
War, Manipulation of Consent, and Deliberative Democracy
Lewis, W. S. (2008) · The Journal of Speculative Philosophy · doi:10.1353/jsp.0.0051 · Cited by 5
Luke, T. J., & Hartwig, M. (2013) · Psychiatry Psychology and Law · doi:10.1080/13218719.2013.842625 · Cited by 5
Kasperbauer, T. J. (2015) · Biology & Philosophy · doi:10.1007/s10539-015-9478-y · Cited by 5
Osmundsen, M., & Petersen, M. B. (2017) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2017.35.4.450 · Cited by 5
Differences in Moral Foundations between Liberals and Conservatives
이재호, & Cho, G.-H. (2014) · 한국심리학회지 사회및성격 · doi:10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.1.001 · Cited by 5
Modelling Everyday Understandings of Mortality: A Qualitative Enquiry
McEwan, O., McDermott, M. R., & Hefferon, K. (2018) · Journal of Humanistic Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022167818787908 · Cited by 5
The Bangkok Blast as a finger-pointing blame game
Huan, C., Deng, M., & Sritrakarn, N.-O. (2020) · Journal of Language and Politics · doi:10.1075/jlp.20014.hua · Cited by 5
A Hero in the Name of Truth: Mortality Salience Increases Heroic Perceptions of Edward Snowden
Schindler, S., & Reinhard, M. (2015) · International Journal of Psychological Studies · doi:10.5539/ijps.v7n4p43 · Cited by 5
Pyszczynski, T., Rothschild, Z. K., Motyl, M. S., & Abdollahi, A. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511581199.009 · Cited by 5
Self-citationRefugee Law’s Fact-Finding Crisis: Truth, Risk, and the Wrong Mistake
Cameron, H. E. (2023) · doi:10.32920/22341148 · Cited by 5
Falcó-Gimeno, A., Muñoz, J., & Pannico, R. (2025) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2025.10021 · Cited by 4
Face to face with death: the role of religion in coping with suffering
Tongeren, D. R. V. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-817204-9.00004-4 · Cited by 6
Cheng, Y., Jin, W., Zhang, K., Bai, X., Zhang, Y., & Shi, B. (2024) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2024.11.002 · Cited by 4
Psychological Constraints on Egalitarianism: The Challenge of Just World Beliefs
Kasperbauer, T. J. (2015) · Res Publica · doi:10.1007/s11158-015-9284-z · Cited by 4
Gaur, B. (2023) · Advances in logistics, operations, and management science book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-8257-5.ch011 · Cited by 4
Self-Ingroup Overlap in the Face of Mortality Salience
Watanabe, T., & Karasawa, K. (2012) · THE JAPANESE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY · doi:10.2130/jjesp.52.25 · Cited by 4
Less Is More Ideological: Conservative and Liberal Communication on Twitter in the 2016 Race
Marietta, M., Cote, T., Farley, T., & Murphy, P. G. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68981-4_2 · Cited by 4
Legal Applications of Terror Management Theory
Heen, M. S. J., & Lieberman, J. D. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-811844-3.00021-4 · Cited by 4
Kosloff, S., & Solomon, S. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-817204-9.00031-7 · Cited by 6
Self-citationPolitical Psychology and Political Participation
Renström, E. A., & Bäck, H. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198861126.013.9 · Cited by 4
Vermeulen, N., Guyomarch, M., Jidovtseff, B., Oleffe, A., Labat, A., & Paul, É. (2023) · IJID Regions · doi:10.1016/j.ijregi.2023.01.010 · Cited by 4
The Impact of War Exposure on Morality: Evidence From the Battle of Mosul
Hall, J., Skoog, E., & Vassiliou, P. (2023) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/00220027231200796 · Cited by 4
Ionescu, O., Tavani, J., & Collange, J. (2024) · Memory · doi:10.1080/09658211.2024.2314983 · Cited by 6
Disdain for anxious individuals as a function of mortality salience
Martens, A., Greenberg, J., Schimel, J., Kosloff, S., & Weise, D. R. (2009) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.707 · Cited by 4
Self-citationIndividual determinants of punitive attitudes towards sexual and domestic abuse offenders
Palasinski, M., & Shortland, N. D. (2016) · Safer Communities · doi:10.1108/sc-03-2016-0007 · Cited by 4
Fear and anxiety as predictors of political attitudes : A prospective cohort study
Helminen, V. (2018) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja · Cited by 4
Terror, Sexual Arousal, and Torture: The Question of Obedience or Ecstasy among Perpetrators
Piven, J. S. (2017) · Praeger eBooks · doi:10.5040/9798216024491.ch-006 · Cited by 4
Behind the Great Firewall: The Internet and Democratization in China.
Wang, X. (2009) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 4
Galais, C., & Balinhas, D. (2024) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edae059 · Cited by 3
Stereotyping and Society: a Barrier to Achieving Social Equality
Tritt, S. M. (2009) · Opticon1826 · doi:10.5334/opt.060907 · Cited by 4
Terrorism and the Public: Gender, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior
Poloni-Staudinger, L. M., & Ortbals, C. D. (2012) · SpringerBriefs in political science · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5641-4_6 · Cited by 3
Buttlar, B., Walther, E., Pohl, C., & Gierens, A. (2020) · Death Studies · doi:10.1080/07481187.2020.1740829 · Cited by 5
Terrorism and the Public: Gender, Public Opinion, and Voting Behavior
Ortbals, C. D., & Poloni-Staudinger, L. M. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73628-0_9 · Cited by 3
Threat, voting and candidate support. The impact of mortality salience
Bäck, H., Carroll, R., Knapton, H., & Renström, E. A. (2023) · Frontiers in Political Science · doi:10.3389/fpos.2023.1040644 · Cited by 3
COVID-19 Threat and Populism: The Mediation Effect of Epistemic and Significance Motivations
Molinario, E., Cicco, G. D., Sensales, G., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2024) · Palgrave Studies in Political Psychology · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44073-1_4 · Cited by 6
Shinomoto, S. (2021) · International Relations of the Asia-Pacific · doi:10.1093/irap/lcab018 · Cited by 3
The Political Psychology of Terrorism
Snider, K. L. G., Shandler, R., Matzkin, S., & Canetti, D. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197541302.013.13 · Cited by 3
Tragedy, Theodicy and 9/11: Rhetorical Responses To Suffering and Their Public Significance
Pirro, R. C. (2009) · Thesis Eleven · doi:10.1177/0725513609105481 · Cited by 3
Pittinsky, T. L., & Welle, B. (2008) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430208095403 · Cited by 3
Waging Terror: Psychological Motivation in Cultural Violence and Peacemaking
Motyl, M. S., Vail, K. E., & Pyszczynski, T. (2009) · Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230101593_3 · Cited by 3
Self-citationEffects of Terrorist Charges and Threatening Conduct on Mock Jurors’ Decisions
Goodman‐Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Ockenden, E. (2015) · Psychiatry Psychology and Law · doi:10.1080/13218719.2015.1120247 · Cited by 3
Solomon, S. (2011) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0058 · Cited by 4
Self-citationTerror Management Theory Perspectives on Applied Communication Research
Miller, C. H., & Massey, Z. B. (2020) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119399926.ch25 · Cited by 3
Self-citationThe Political Psychology of CounterterrorismPreprint
Huq, A. Z. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2356446 · Cited by 3
Davis, D. W. (2008) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820195-4.00226-0 · Cited by 3
Terror Management Theory: Missiological Applications in Times of CrisisPreprint
Dunaetz, D. R. (2020) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/uqj8b · Cited by 3
Gravelle, C. D., Brooks, P. J., & Sawyer, J. E. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104746 · Cited by 2
Bukhari, M. N., Manzoor, S., & Khan, D. M. A. (2019) · Journal of Law & Social Studies · doi:10.52279/jlss.01.01.2738 · Cited by 2
Does Islamist terrorism still affect political attitudes?
Germann, M., Godefroidt, A., & Mendez, F. (2026) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1017/s1475676526101017 · Cited by 2
Registered Replication Report: Study 3 From Trafimow and Hughes (2012)
Rife, S. C., Lambert, Q. S., Calin-Jageman, R. J., Adamkovic, M., Baník, G., Barberia, I., Beaudry, J. L., Bernauer, H., Calvillo, D. P., Chopik, W. J., et al. (2025) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459251328334 · Cited by 2
Counterintuitive Effects of Individualistic Diversity Discourse on “Generation Bataclan”
Iatridis, T. (2020) · Social Justice Research · doi:10.1007/s11211-020-00355-8 · Cited by 2
Probabilistic Thinking and Death Anxiety: A Terror Management based Study
Hayslip, B., Schuler, E. R., Page, K. S., & Carver, K. S. (2014) · OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · doi:10.2190/om.69.3.b · Cited by 2
Mirabito, T. (2013) · Cited by 2
Park, Y. C. (2016) · Digital Collections of Colorado (Colorado State University) · Cited by 2
Chapter 16 What Has Political Psychology to Offer Regarding Democratic Citizenship?
Marcus, G. E. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335453.003.0016 · Cited by 2
Mortality Salience and Mobile Voice Calling: A Case of a Massive Natural Disaster
Suzuki, T., Kobayashi, T., Boase, J., Tanaka, Y., Wakimoto, R., & Suzuki, T. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650220911809 · Cited by 2
Experience, Behavior, and Action in Crisis Situations: A Literature Review
Saretzki, J., Pretsch, J., Pretsch, E., & Grossmann, G. (2021) · European Journal of Social Sciences Education and Research · doi:10.26417/865zkc67y · Cited by 2
Liu, Z., Ma, Z., & Lei, Y. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su151310457 · Cited by 2
Health consequences of a death threat: How terrorist attacks impact drinking
Pradel, F., & Sattler, S. (2023) · Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · doi:10.1111/asap.12375 · Cited by 3
Kanat, K. B. (2011) · Syracuse University Libraries (Syracuse University) · Cited by 2
The End is Near: Mortality Salience in Apocalyptic Films
Lieberman, J. D., & Fergus, M. (2013) · Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137276896_3 · Cited by 2
Kosloff, S., Landau, M. J., Weise, D., Sullivan, D., & Greenberg, J. (2009) · Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230101593_2 · Cited by 2
Self-citationThe Effect of Terrorism on Judicial Confidence
Miller, S. V. (2017) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912917716337 · Cited by 2
When Best Intentions Fail: Why Ads May Fall Short in Combating Islamophobia
Steenburg, E. V. (2020) · Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising · doi:10.1080/10641734.2020.1716895 · Cited by 2
Pradel, F., & Sattler, S. (2020) · OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · doi:10.1177/0030222820984935 · Cited by 3
Hawthorne, L. M. (2011) · Montana State University ScholarWorks (Montana State University) · Cited by 2
Playing with Death: The Potential for Violent Video Games to Induce Mortality Salience
Anderson, B. (2015) · Sound Ideas (University of Puget Sound) · Cited by 2
Priming and Negative Priming in Violent Video Games
Zendle, D. I. (2016) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · Cited by 2
Experimental Existential Psychology
Cox, C. R., & Arrowood, R. B. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0226 · Cited by 2
Harris, R., Cady, E., & Barlett, C. P. (2007) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470713181.ch25 · Cited by 2
The Cognitive Underpinnings of Ideological Thinking
Zmigrod, L. (2019) · Apollo (University of Cambridge) · doi:10.17863/cam.44894 · Cited by 2
Clarifying the relationship between social connectedness and connectedness to nature
Moreton, S. G. (2018) · The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) · Cited by 2
West, M. S. (2020) · doi:10.33915/etd.7614 · Cited by 2
Johnson, S. K., & Piccolo, R. F. (2022) · Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies · doi:10.1177/15480518221092186 · Cited by 2
WITHDRAWNPreprint
(2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/esu9z · Cited by 2
Coronavirus reminds you of death – and amplifies your core values, both bad and good
Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S. (2020) · doi:10.64628/aai.shra6pwv5 · Cited by 2
Self-citationThe impact of political cues on information seeking and the need for cognitive closure
Scherer, A. M. (2014) · doi:10.17077/etd.0gnh1mok · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Landau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., Miller, C. H., Ogilvie, D. M., & Cook, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Arizona (US)
- Skidmore College (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- University of Colorado Colorado Springs (US)
- University of Missouri (US)
- University of Oklahoma (US)
- Venue
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-09
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1136-1150
- ISSN
- 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7433
- OpenAlex
- W2129432831
- Semantic Scholar
- 2c392a2ce2f7a874884435bab98cd2b633bbeb99
- Cited by
- 663
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 26.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.rutgers.edu
- Locations
- Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- SHAREOK (University of Oklahoma; Oklahoma State University; Central Oklahoma University) (submittedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
- Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
- Keywords
- mortality salience, terror management theory, September 11 attacks, George W. Bush, presidential approval, counterterrorism policy, charismatic leadership, subliminal priming, John Kerry, voting
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Attitude to Death, Female, Humans, Leadership, Male, New York City, Politics, Public Policy, Students, Subliminal Stimulation, United States, September 11 Terrorist Attacks
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
