Cited by 35Death Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

Mortality salience effects fail to replicate in traditional and novel measures

Open access
Sætrevik, Bjørn, Sjåstad, Hallgeir·2022·Meta-Psychology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Mortality salience (MS) effects, where death reminders lead to ingroup-bias and defensive protection of one’s world-view, have been claimed to be a fundamental human motivator. MS phenomena have ostensibly been identified in several hundred studies within the “terror management theory” framework, but transparent and high-powered replications are lacking. Experiment 1 (N = 101 Norwegian lab participants) aimed to replicate the traditional MSeffect on national patriotism, with additional novel measures of democratic values and pro-sociality. Experiment2 (N = 784 US online participants) aimed to replicate the MS effect on national patriotism in a larger sample, with ingroup identification and pro-sociality as additional outcome measures. The results showed that neither experiment replicated the traditional MS effect on national patriotism. The experiments also failed to support conceptual replications and underlying mechanisms on democratic values, processing speed, psychophysiological responses, ingroup identification, and pro-sociality. This indicates that the effect of death reminders is less robust and generalizable than previously assumed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15626/mp.2020.2628

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. The Free Press.
  2. Heine, S., Harihara, M., & Niiya, Y. (2002). Terror man- agement in Japan. Asian Journal of Social Psy- chology, 5(3), 187-196.
  3. Stets, J. (2006). Identity Theory. In P. Burke (Ed.), Con- temporary social psychological theories (pp. 88- 110). Stanford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sætrevik, B., & Sjåstad, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Bergen (NO)
  • Norwegian School of Economics (NO)
Venue
Meta-Psychology
Published
2022-01-17
Volume
6
ISSN
2003-2714 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4220934489
Cited by
35
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Meta-Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
mortality salience, terror management theory, replication failure, national patriotism, ingroup identification, prosocial behavior, democratic values, death reminders, processing speed, psychophysiological responses, conceptual replication

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