Terror management theory posits that people are motivated to affirm cultural meaning systems, including political ideologies, to avoid the awareness of mortality. Accordingly, studies show that increasing mortality salience (MS) intensifies people's attitudes toward political issues and figures. However, whereas in some studies MS increases affirmation of preexisting political ideologies, be they liberal or conservative (supporting a “worldview‐defense hypothesis”), in other studies MS elicits a general shift toward conservatism, regardless of preexisting ideology (supporting a “conservative‐shift hypothesis”). The current study used meta‐analysis to assess the overall magnitude of MS effects on explicitly political attitudes and to clarify the nature of these effects by comparing effect sizes for these competing hypotheses. The overall effect of MS on political attitudes was large (r = .50). The effects of MS‐induced worldview defense (r = .35) and conservative shifting (r = .22) were significant and statistically equivalent. We discuss the conditions (e.g., contextual salience of political values) under which conservative shifting or worldview defense occurs.

Terror management theory posits that to maintain psychological security despite the awareness of personal mortality, humans must maintain faith in cultural worldviews. These worldviews provide ways for humans to believe they are significant enduring beings in a world of meaning rather than mere animals fated only to obliteration upon death. We review basic support for terror management theory and research exploring the implications of terror management theory for understanding prejudice, stereotyping, intergroup conflict, and political attitudes. This research shows that when the psychological need to defend these worldviews is heightened by reminders of death (mortality salience), prejudice, stereotyping, and support for charismatic leaders and aggression against outgroups is increased. Terror management concerns also lead targets of prejudice to disidentify with their ingroup and confirm negative stereotypes of their group. We conclude by considering the implications of terror management theory and research for the alleviation of prejudice and intergroup conflict.

This article examines how the subjective experiences of “feeling right” from regulatory fit and of “feeling wrong” from regulatory non-fit influence the way people process persuasive messages. Across three studies, incidental experiences of regulatory fit increased reliance on source expertise and decreased resistance to counterpersuasion, whereas incidental experiences of regulatory non-fit increased reliance on argument strength and increased resistance to counterpersuasion. These results suggest that incidental fit and non-fit experiences can produce, respectively, more superficial or more thorough processing of persuasive messages. The mechanisms underlying these effects, and the conditions under which they should and should not be expected, are discussed.

Killing appears to perpetuate itself even in the absence of retaliation. This phenomenon may occur in part as a means to justify prior killing and so ease the threat of prior killing. Additionally, this effect should arise particularly when a killer perceives similarity to the victims, because similarity should exacerbate threat from killing. To examine these ideas we developed a bug-killing paradigm in which we manipulated the degree of initial bug-killing in a "practice task" in order to observe the effects on subsequent self-paced killing during a timed "extermination task." In Studies 1 and 2, for participants reporting some similarity to bugs, inducing greater initial killing led to more subsequent self-paced killing. In Study 3, after greater initial killing, more subsequent self-paced killing led to more favorable affective change. Implications for understanding lethal human violence are discussed.

Prior terror management research shows that mortality salience (MS) motivates both self-esteem striving and worldview bolstering. The present research examined these processes in the context of dating preferences. It was hypothesized that in short-term romantic contexts, MS-induced self-esteem striving motivates interest in dating a physically attractive other, whereas in long-term romantic contexts, MS-induced motives for worldview validation heighten interest in dating a same-religion other. Study 1 showed that in a short-term dating context, MS increased preference for an attractive but religiously dissimilar person, whereas in a long-term dating context, MS increased preference for a religiously similar, less attractive person. Study 2 clarified that MS motivates preference for attractive short-term partners for their self-enhancing properties rather than their potential sexual availability. Study 3 supported the theorized processes, showing that under MS, self-esteem-relevant constructs became spontaneously accessible in short-term dating contexts, whereas worldview-relevant constructs became spontaneously accessible in long-term dating contexts.