MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041196905 · doi:10.1002/ejsp.707

Disdain for anxious individuals as a function of mortality salience

2009· article· en· W2041196905 on OpenAlexaff
Andy Martens, Jeff Greenberg, Jeff Schimel, Spee Kosloff, David Weise

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Social Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of CanterburyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMortality salienceTerror management theoryIngroups and outgroupsPsychologySocial psychologyOutgroupAnxietyDeath anxietyContemplationSalience (neuroscience)AttributionDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyPsychiatryTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Terror management theory research has shown that reminders of mortality tend to decrease liking for people who threaten one's worldview. In research, these worldview threats typically come from outgroup members, but they may also come from ingroup members who are negatively characterized. Presumably the negative characteristics of ingroup members threaten to diminish or undermine the worldview by their association with it. In this research we examine anxious individuals as potentially threatening ingroup members. We hypothesized that a brief contemplation of mortality would lead people to decrease their liking for anxious individuals associated with their ingroup. Study 1 showed that a mortality reminder led people to react more negatively to an anxious police liaison from their community, but not to a calm police liaison. Study 2 showed that a mortality reminder led people who strongly identified with university students to react more negatively to a fellow university student who was anxious, but not to a student who did not display anxiety. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Social PsychologySame topicDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionFrench-language works237,207