MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Death Can Be Good for Your Health: Fitness Intentions as a Proximal and Distal Defense Against Mortality Salience<sup>1</sup>

2003· article· en· W2145990815 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMortality salienceTerror management theoryPsychologyUnconscious mindSalience (neuroscience)Social psychologyClinical psychologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although terror management theory has stimulated a wide body of research, no research to date has demonstrated empirically that intentions to engage in health‐oriented behavior can function as a terror management defense. Toward this end, the present studies examined whether increased fitness intentions could be used as both a direct defense against conscious concerns with death, but also as an indirect defense against unconscious death concerns among individuals for whom fitness is important to their self‐esteem. In Study 1, both high and low fitness esteem participants responded to reminders of mortality with immediate exaggerated fitness intentions, relative to controls. Study 2 replicated this effect, but also found that a similar increase in fitness intentions only emerged following a delay when fitness was important to the individuals’ self‐esteem. Discussion focuses on the implications for different types of psychological defense on heath‐related behavior.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.328 · 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