Terror Management Theory: Interplay Between Mortality Salience, Death-Thoughts, and Overall Worldview Defense
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Terror Management Theory: Interplay between Mortality Salience, Death-Thoughts, and Overall Worldview Defense Sharon R. Shatil Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Psychiatry and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Shatil, Sharon R., "Terror Management Theory: Interplay between Mortality Salience, Death-Thoughts, and Overall Worldview Defense" (2012). Dissertations (1934 -). 215. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/215 TERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY: INTERPLAY BETWEEN MORTALITY SALIENCE, DEATH-THOUGHTS, AND OVERALL WORLDVIEW DEFENSE by Sharon R. Shatil, B.A., M.S. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2012 ABSTRACT TERROR MANAGEMENT THEORY: INTERPLAY BETWEEN MORTALITY SALIENCE, DEATH-THOUGHTS, AND OVERALL WORLDVIEW DEFENSE Sharon R. Shatil, B.A., M.S. Marquette University, 2012 This study examines both the generalizability of Terror Management Theory (TMT) and the mechanisms by which individual difference variables work in the TMT model. A plethora of research exists to support TMT, a theory that explains much of human behavior as attempts to buffer the potential for anxiety provoked by being aware of one‟s own inevitable mortality (Pyszczynski et al., 2003). This dissertation investigated the generalizability of Terror Management Theory (TMT) and the mechanisms by which individual difference variables work in the TMT process. In order to do so, an operationalization of the variable “overall worldview” was provided. Participants consisted of 367 college students from the Psychology Department Experimental Subject Pool of a mid-sized Midwestern university. Subjects were quasi-randomly assigned to a 2 (mortality salience vs. control) x 2 (death-thought word stems vs. neutral word stems) between subjects design. Results suggested that humanists defended humanism more in the mortality salience condition than in the dental pain condition. However, mortality salience did not increase the defense of the normative worldview for normatives. Contrary to expectations, humanists and normatives defended their respective worldviews to an equivalent extent in the mortality salience condition. Mortality salience did not lead to defense of the American worldview for normatives or for humanists. Participants in the mortality salience condition, humanists, and normatives did not differ on the number of accessible death-thoughts in either the mortality salience or the dental pain condition. Despite methodological limitations, this study suggests that, at least for humanists, TMT does generalize beyond specific cultural worldviews to overall worldviews. It also indicates that the individual difference variables of being humanist/non-humanist and normative/non-normative do not affect the ability of mortality salience to prime death- thoughts. Rather, being humanist or non-humanist affects worldview defense after the death-thoughts have been primed and before distal defenses (i.e., worldview defense) are activated. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sharon R. Shatil, B.A., M.S. First, I would like to acknowledge my committee. Ed de St. Aubin and Matthew Sanders, thank you for all of the time, effort, and meals you have spent helping me think through and put together this project. Your continued support and confidence in me have been invaluable and have helped me have confidence in myself. Steve Saunders and Steve Franzoi, thank you for all of your valuable feedback. I would like to thank my terrific undergraduate research assistants, Stephanie Rappe and Emily Urban. Without your attention to detail and willingness to stay on top of emails and to check and double check data, this project would not have been possible. Thank you Trish, a friend and our fantastic clinic administrative assistant, for all of your help, encouragement, and lunch dates throughout the last five years. Thank you to my friends and family, who have been so understanding and encouraging. Lexi, thank you for our Friday evening work sessions. Lexi and Amanda, thank you for watching Maya and keeping her happy so I could work when the drive up to Milwaukee just seemed too far. Mom and Dad, thank you for always believing in me and showing me that anything is possible. Thank you for your proof reading and editing suggestions and for staying up odd hours to help me work through a paragraph. Thank you to my amazing husband, Ohad, who has been my rock and my main source of sanity. Thank you for loving me, no matter what the circumstances. Thank you for making me laugh, for your constant support, and for being such a wonderful father and life partner. ii Thank you to my daughter, Maya, for always brightening my day and making me see what is truly important in life. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………...... i LIST OF TABLES…….………………………………………………………………vi LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………...vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….1 A. Study Purpose……………………………………………………...1 B. Terror Management Theory……………………………..................5 C. Evidence for TMT………………………………………………….6 a. Mortality salience effects……………………………….....7 b. Why and when mortality salience effects occur…………...14 c. Historical examples………………………………………...23 D. Critiques: Alternative Explanations………………………………..25 a. Control theory…………………………………...................25 b. Evolutionary psychology…………………………………..26 c. Coalitional psychology……………………………………..27 d. Methodological problems…………………………………..32 e. Missing piece- measurement of overall worldview………..34 E. The Current Study………………………………………………….40 II. METHODS…………………………………………………………….44 A. Participants and Design…………………………………………….44 B. Measures……………………………………………………………46 iv a. Gratitude questionnaire (GQ-6)…………………………….46 b. Modified polarity scale (MPS)……………………………...46 c. Positive and negative affect scale (PANAS)……………….48 d. Rosenberg self-esteem scale (RSE)………………………...49 e. Death-thought accessibility…………………………………49 f. Worldview defense…………………………………………50 C. Procedure…………………………………………………………...53 a. Modified polarity scale……………………………………..54 b. Questionnaires including experimental manipulation…..…..54 III. RESULTS………………………………………………………………56 A. Analyses…………………………………………………………….56 B. Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………..57 C. Manipulation Check………………………………………………...59 D. Hypothesis 1………………………………………………………...66 E. Hypothesis 2………………………………………………………...67 F. Hypothesis 3………………………………………………………...68 G. Hypothesis 4………………………………………………………...71 H. Hypothesis 5………………………………………………………...72 I. Hypothesis 6………………………………………………………...73 IV. DISCUSSION………………………………………………………….75 A. Summary of Results………………………………………………...75 B. Interpretation of Results…………………………………………….76 a. Manipulation check…………………………………………76 v b. Hypothesis 1………………………………………………..77 c. Hypothesis 2………………………………………………..78 d. Hypothesis 3………………………………………………..79 e. Hypotheses 4 and 5…………………………………………80 f. Hypothesis 6………………………………………………..81 C. Limitations………………………………………………………….82 D. Strengths……………………………………………………………84 E. Future Directions……………………………………………………87 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………93 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………….99 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Means and Standard Deviations for All Measures by Condition: Mortality Salience, Dental Pain, and Overall……………………………57 Table 2 Intercorrelations Among Demographic and Outcome Variables………..57 Table 3 Outcome Measures for Participants in Mortality Salience or Dental Pain Conditions………………………………………………………….60 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 TMT Model of Defense against Death-Thoughts………………………3 Figure 2 Measurement Timeline………………………………………....………..53 Figure 3 Death Words Completed in the Mortality Salience and Dental Pain Conditions ……………………………………………………………....60 Figure 4 Defense of the American Worldview in the Mortality Salience and Dental Pain Conditions………………………………………………….61 Figure 5 Humanism Defense by Participants in Mortality Salience and Dental Pain Conditions………………………………………………………….62 Figure 6 Normativism Defense by Participants in Mortality Salience and Dental Pain Conditions………………………………………………….63 Figure 7 Effects of Mortality Salience and Word Stem Type on American Defense………………………………………………………………….64 Figure 8 Effects of Mortality Salience and Word Stem Type on Normativism Defense………………………………………………………………….65 Figure 9 Effects of Mortality Salience and Word Stem Type on Humanism Defense………………………………………………………………….66 Figure 10 Effect of Mortality Salience on Humanism Defense, as a Function of Humanism……………………………………………………………….67 Figure 11 Effect of Mortality Salience on Normativism Defense, as a Function of Normativism………………………………………………………….68 Figure 12 Relative Effect of Mortality Salience in Humanists and Normatives as Indicated by Defense of Their Respective Worldviews…………..…70 Figure 13 Effect of Mortality Salience on American Defense, as a Function of Normativism…………………………………………………………….71 Figure 14 Effect of Mortality Salience on American Defense, as a Function of Humanism……………………………………………………………….73 Figure 15 Effect of Mortality Salience on Number of Death Words, as a Function of High Ideology……………………………………..……….74 1 Introduction Study Purpose After life-threatening events, people tend to reinforce the norms of their culture (for a review see Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 2003). TMT explains these