Cited by 86Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Play It Safe or Go for the Gold? A Terror Management Perspective on Self-Enhancement and Self-Protective Motives in Risky Decision Making

Landau, Mark J., Greenberg, Jeff·2006·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract

Terror management theory (TMT) posits that bolstering self-esteem buffers mortality concerns; accordingly, in past research, heightening mortality salience (MS) increases self-enhancement. However, risky self-esteem-relevant decisions often present a choice between enhancing self-esteem by striving for excellence and protecting self-esteem by avoiding potential failure. Which strategy is preferred under MS? Combining TMT with insights from Steele, Spencer, and Lynch's (1993) resource model, the authors hypothesized and found that MS leads high, but not low, self-esteem participants faced with a risky decision to pursue opportunities for excellence despite substantial risk of failure (Studies 1 and 2); in Study 3, using a more impactful decision, this effect was replicated and it was furthermore found that mortality-salient low-self-esteem participants become more risk-averse. Furthermore, in Study 2, a self-affirmation prime, previously shown to reduce MS-induced defenses, eliminated the self-enhancement effect among high-self-esteem participants. Implications for understanding self-esteem, TMT, and risky decision making are briefly discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167206292017

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • High-self-esteem people act more defensive in other contexts.

    “Low-self-esteem participants act more defensive in some contexts ( Jaremka et al. 2011), whereas high-self-esteem people act more defensive in others (Landau & Greenberg 2006; see also Aronson 1969).”

    From The Psychology of Change: Self-Affirmation and Social Psychological Intervention (2014) · cites this paper as Landau & Greenberg 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Landau, M. J., & Greenberg, J.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2006-12
Volume
32
Issue
12
Pages
1633-1645
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W2034680742
Cited by
86
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
terror management theory, mortality salience, self-esteem, self-enhancement, risky decision making, risk aversion, resource model, self-affirmation, failure prevention
MeSH terms
Achievement, Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Avoidance Learning, Decision Making, Defense Mechanisms, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Risk-Taking, Self Concept

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