To the Victors Go the Existential Spoils: The Mental-Health Benefits of Cultural Worldview Defense for People WHO Successfully Meet Cultural Standards and Valued Goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Research in support of terror management theory suggests that mortality concerns will activate symbolic defenses associated with cultural worldviews, and when these defenses are activated, mental health will benefit. However, no study to date has examined this process in full. We filled this gap, while testing the moderating effect of feeling successful vis-à-vis cultural value-standards. Method: In two studies, we hypothesized that participants who feel successful at meeting cultural standards would engage cultural worldview defense (WVD) following mortality salience (MS), and as a consequence of their defensiveness, would experience greater mental health. Results: In Study 1, MS increased pro-American WVD only among relatively wealthy participants, which in turn reduced death-thought accessibility. In Study 2, MS increased pro-American WVD only among participants primed with felt success (vs. failure), which in turn reduced anxiety and depression. Conclusions: Culture can relieve death-related distress and promote mental health to the extent that it provides feelings of success.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".