Article

Deliver Us from Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (Impact Factor: 2.52). 10/2004; 30(9):1136-50. DOI: 10.1177/0146167204267988
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT

According to terror management theory, heightened concerns about mortality should intensify the appeal of charismatic leaders. To assess this idea, we investigated how thoughts about death and the 9/11 terrorist attacks influence Americans' attitudes toward current U.S. President George W. Bush. Study 1 found that reminding people of their own mortality (mortality salience) increased support for Bush and his counterterrorism policies. Study 2 demonstrated that subliminal exposure to 9/11-related stimuli brought death-related thoughts closer to consciousness. Study 3 showed that reminders of both mortality and 9/11 increased support for Bush. In Study 4, mortality salience led participants to become more favorable toward Bush and voting for him in the upcoming election but less favorable toward Presidential candidate John Kerry and voting for him. Discussion focused on the role of terror management processes in allegiance to charismatic leaders and political decision making.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Claude Miller
  • Source
    • "An important social psychological insight is that, beyond individual differences associated with conservatism, conservative tendencies can be affected by contextual changes. Various studies using limited ad hoc or student samples have shown that participants respond to contextual threats by shifting toward conservative positions (e.g., Bonanno & Jost, 2006; Echebarria-Echabe & Fernández- Guede, 2006; Florian, Mikulincer, & Hirschberger, 2001; Landau et al., 2004; McGregor, Nail, Marigold, & Kang, 2005; McGregor, Zanna, Holmes, & Spencer, 2001; Ullrich & Cohrs, 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Major terrorist events, such as the recent attacks in Ankara, Sinai, and Paris, can have profound effects on a nation's values, attitudes, and prejudices. Yet psychological evidence testing the impact of such events via data collected immediately before and after an attack is understandably rare. In the present research, we tested the independent and joint effects of threat (the July 7, 2005, London bombings) and political ideology on endorsement of moral foundations and prejudices among two nationally representative samples (combined N = 2,031) about 6 weeks before and 1 month after the London bombings. After the bombings, there was greater endorsement of the in-group foundation, lower endorsement of the fairness-reciprocity foundation, and stronger prejudices toward Muslims and immigrants. The differences in both the endorsement of the foundations and the prejudices were larger among people with a liberal orientation than among those with a conservative orientation. Furthermore, the changes in endorsement of moral foundations among liberals explained their increases in prejudice. The results highlight the value of psychological theory and research for understanding societal changes in attitudes and prejudices after major terrorist events.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · Psychological Science
  • Source
    • "ived as justifying military aggression , and , indeed , MS increased support for a preemptive strike against Iran when participants were exposed to such rhetoric , but not when they were exposed to more conciliatory remarks . In assessments of the psychological processes involved in Americans ' reactions to the 9 / 11 terrorist attacks ( e . g . , Landau et al . , 2004 ; Pyszczynski et al . , 2006 ) , participants reminded of these attacks were likely to view violence as justified even in the absence of direct manipulations of such construals . Approximately two months following the attacks , Kaiser et al . ( 2004 ) found that the more participants endorsed just world beliefs before the attacks , the m"
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current research examined the role of retributive justice and cost-benefit utility motivations in the process through which mortality salience increases support for violent responses to intergroup conflict. Specifically, previous research has shown that mortality salience often encourages political violence, especially when perceptions of retributive justice are activated. The current research examined whether mortality salience directly activates a justice mindset over a cost-benefit utility mindset, and whether this justice mindset is associated with support for political violence. In Study 1 (N = 209), mortality salience was manipulated among Israeli participants who then read about a Hamas attack on Israel with either no casualties or many casualties, after which justice and utility motivations for retribution were assessed. Study 2 (N = 112), examined whether the link between death primes and support for an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is mediated by justice or cost-benefit utility considerations. Results of both studies revealed that primes of death increased justice-related motivations, and these motives, rather than utility motives, were associated with support for violence. Findings suggest that existential concerns often fuel violent intergroup conflict because they increase desire for retributive justice, rather than increase belief that violence is an effective strategy. These findings expand our knowledge on the motivations for intergroup violence, and shed experimental light on real-life eruptions of violent conflict indicating that when existential concerns are salient, as they often are during violent conflict, the decision to engage in violence often disregards the utility of violence, and leads to the preference for violent solutions to political problems – even when these solutions make little practical sense.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2015 · Frontiers in Psychology
    • "On the other hand, to obtain a meaningful view of self and reality, people often turn to predictable and structured facts about social life that regulate their attitudes and behaviors. In line with the need to maintain socially accepted aspects of identity, individuals prefer the existing status quo embedded in a socially shared reality (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Landau et al., 2004). Thus people are motivated to " see the way things are as the way they should be " (Kay et al., 2009). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Threats to masculinity can trigger compensatory mechanisms such as risk-taking, aggression, or disparagement of gender atypical others. In Study 1 (N = 76) we tested whether threat to men’s agentic self (information about the level of testosterone) influences men’s (a) attitudes toward parental duties, and (b) their support for gender equality. Polish men (but not women) whose gender identity was threatened manifested more traditional attitudes toward parental duties, were more willing to endorse stereotypical gender roles, and showed less support for gender equality and less willingness to support collective egalitarian actions. In Study 2 (N = 313) we found that agency is related to gender system justification in men, suggesting a potential mediator of the effects related to compensatory mechanisms evoked by a gender identity threat among men. This was confirmed in Study 3 (N = 131), where participants read a short scientific text either (a) emphasizing the existence of stereotypical gender differences in terms of agency and communality, or (b) claiming that there are no such differences. Results indicated that in the “no differences” condition, men (but not women) showed lower acceptance of gender inequality and a greater willingness to engage in domestic activities. This effect was mediated by participants’ self-perceived agency.
    No preview · Article · Nov 2015 · Psychology of Men & Masculinity
Show more