Terror management and stereotyping: Why do people stereotype when mortality is salient?

Renkema, Lennart; Stapel, Diederik A.; Maringer, Marcus; Yperen, Nico van

doi:10.1037/e633982013-862

Cited by 9 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another point worth raising is that previous research has shown that people evaluate abstract art more negatively when mortality is salient, because it is hard to comprehend and make sense of (Landau, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Martens, 2006). Indeed, comprehension is one of the basic needs that people have when they are confronted with mortality (Renkema, Stapel, Van Yperen, & Maringer, 2008), and abstract art often conflicts with this need. Thus, these results seem to contradict our findings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Quantity and Proximity: The Terror-Managing Function of Abstract Figures

Renkema¹,

Stapel²,

Yperen³

2009

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terror Management Theory (TMT) has proven valuable for interpreting and clarifying responses to (mortality) threats. One of the key findings in TMT research is that people tend to cling more to groups, in particular their ingroup, when mortality is salient. In the present studies, we extend this insight by demonstrating that-when people are confronted with their own mortality-figures that resemble large and cohesive groups increase feelings of safety, even when these figures are "meaningless" and abstract. In study 1, we show that when mortality is salient, people indicate that they feel safer in a (fictitious) large group and close to others, than in a smaller and/or less cohesive group. In study 2, we add to this by showing that figures consisting of more squares close together make people feel more safe than other figures, when mortality is salient.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Quantity and Proximity: The Terror-Managing Function of Abstract Figures

Renkema¹,

Stapel²,

Yperen³

2009

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We tested this hypothesis by having participants read a story about a person whose behavior could be interpreted by using positive as well as negative stereotypes. Previous research by Renkema et al (2008) has shown that when this is the case, enhancement-driven people will only use the negative stereotypes in their judgments of this person, whereas epistemically motivated people will use both positive and negative stereotypes. We predict that the latter effect will occur when people are exposed to system threats.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following the principles of equifi nality (Kruglanski, 1996), confl uence (Tesser, 2000), or compensatory need fulfi llment (Kay et al, 2008), the prediction was that system threat would not lead to (positive and negative) stereotyping when participants had satisfi ed their structure needs via the structure affi rmation task. The self affi rmation task should not have this effect (see also Renkema et al, 2008;Van den Bos & Stapel, 2009). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, in these studies the need for structure and stereotyping showed strong covariation. Second, the system threat manipulation amplifi ed not only negative stereotyping, but also positive stereotyping (of both ingroup and outgroup members), indicating that an epistemic rather than a self-enhancement motive is driving the stereotyping effect (see Renkema et al, 2008;Van den Bos & Stapel, 2009).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the motive behind stereotyping is epistemic (i.e., the need for structure), both positive and negative stereotypes can be used to address this motive. Both positive and negative stereotypes facilitate the interpretation and categorization of information and thus make the social world more comprehensible and predictable (see Renkema, Stapel, Maringer, & Van Yperen, 2008;Stapel & Koomen, 2001;Van den Bos & Stapel, 2009).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Mental Roots of System Justification: System Threat, Need for Structure, and Stereotyping

Stapel¹,

Noordewier²

2011

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a series of correlational and experimental studies, it is shown that system justifi cation motives result in stereotyping and that an important force behind this effect is an increased need for structure. People who perceive the system they are part of (e.g., their company) as unfair report a higher need for structure and are more likely to engage in stereotyping. Second, experimentally induced system threat increased structure needs which covaried with amplifi ed negative and positive stereotyping effects, indicating that these effects served epistemic rather than self-enhancement needs. Third, the impact of system threat on stereotyping disappears when the desire to justify the system is satisfi ed through an alternative route. Implications for system justifi cation theory are discussed and the importance of studying the impact of system justifi cation motives on stereotype processes as well as stereotype contents is stressed.

show abstract

Fear and uncertainty in the face of death: The role of life after death in group identification

Hohman

Hogg

2011

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Terror management theory argues that mortality-induced terror motivates group identification. Uncertainty-identity theory argues that uncertainty about what happens after death motivates group identification. Two experiments were conducted to test the latter reasoning. In Experiment 1 (n = 187), mortality salience was manipulated, and uncertainty about the afterlife was measured to predict national identification. As hypothesized, mortality salience strengthened identification only among those who were uncertain about the afterlife. In Experiment 2 (n = 177), mortality salience was manipulated as before, but belief in an afterlife was also manipulated-participants were primed to believe that there was an afterlife, there was not an afterlife, or the existence of an afterlife was uncertain. As in Experiment 1, mortality salience strengthened identification only among those who were existentially uncertain. These experiments show that uncertainty plays a significant role in reactions to mortality salience, and support uncertainty-identity theory's analysis of the role of self-uncertainty in ideological conviction and group behavior.

show abstract

Terror management and stereotyping: Why do people stereotype when mortality is salient?

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Quantity and Proximity: The Terror-Managing Function of Abstract Figures

Quantity and Proximity: The Terror-Managing Function of Abstract Figures

The Mental Roots of System Justification: System Threat, Need for Structure, and Stereotyping

Fear and uncertainty in the face of death: The role of life after death in group identification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About