Cited by 56Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningSocial and Intergroup Psychology

An existentialist view on mortality salience effects: Personal hardiness, death‐thought accessibility, and cultural worldview defence

Florian, Victor, Mikulincer, Mario, Hirschberger, Gilad·2001·British Journal of Social Psychology

Abstract

Two studies examined the possible moderating role of hardiness on reactions to mortality salience inductions. A sample of 240 Israeli undergraduate students completed a hardiness scale, were exposed to a mortality salience or control induction, and then either rated the severity and punishment of 10 social transgressions (Study 1, N = 120) or performed a word‐stem completion task, which tapped the accessibility of death‐related thoughts (Study 2, N = 120). Results indicated that a mortality salience induction led to more severe judgments of social transgressions as well as to more severe punishments than a control induction only among participants scoring low in the hardiness scale. However, a mortality salience induction led to a higher cognitive accessibility of death‐related thoughts than a control condition regardless of participants' hardiness scores. The discussion emphasizes the importance of considering inner resources when examining reactions to mortality reminders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/014466601164911

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 reminders increased death-thought accessibility regardless of hardiness levels, but only those low on hardiness increased punishment severity.

    “Mortality reminders increased death-thought accessibility regardless of hardiness levels, but only those low on hardiness increased punishment severity.”

    From When Death is Good for Life: Considering the Positive Trajectories of Terror Management (2012) · cites this paper as Florian, Mikulincer, and Hirschberger (2001)

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., & Hirschberger, G.
Affiliations
Bar-Ilan University (IL)
Venue
British Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-09
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
437-453
ISSN
  • 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8309
OpenAlex
W2034333293
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
mortality salience, death-thought accessibility, existentialism, social transgression, punishment judgments, death-related thoughts, moderating effect
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude to Death, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Defense Mechanisms, Existentialism, Female, Humans, Israel, Male, Personality, Projective Techniques, Social Perception

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