methods II preview assigment
Livan044
Running head: OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 1
Our Optimism in the Face of Death
Jane Doe
Florida International University
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 2
Abstract
Methods I Students: Make sure that YOU provide the abstract!
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 3
Our Optimism in the Face of Death
Though a truly diverse species, the one commonality we all face as a human race is the
uncertainty concerning the end of our days. Terror management theory (TMT) addresses the
universally debilitating anxiety that while we are consciously aware that we fight for survival on
a daily basis, we are mortal animals and will inevitably experience death (Schimel, Hayes,
Williams, & Jahrig, 2007). To deal with this notion, we structure our lives with self-implicated
fundamental ideals and beliefs, whether religious or worldly, that provide a cultural set of norms
and values fulfilling feelings of security and order (Rutjens, van der Pligt, & van Harreveld,
2009).
The anxiety buffer hypothesis states that when our self-esteem is reinforced, anxiety
lessens, thereby acting as a buffer from the angst provoked at the thought of death (Schimel et
al., 2007). Methods of coping include proximal, or conscious, efforts to distract our attention
from our mortality (Friedman & Rholes, 2008). Such proximal efforts can be argued to include
pro-social actions that let us attain a feeling of tranquility about the impact we want to make
before our death. Pro-social behaviors are more likely to be acted upon if one’s culture endorses
it or when reminded of their own vulnerabilities (Zaleskiewicz, Gasiorowska, & Kesebir, 2015).
Studies show that actions or characteristics that lead to the benefit of another, a seemingly
selfless act, will allow one to “soothe concerns about one’s fragility” and boost our self-esteem
(Zaleskiewicz, Gasiorowska, & Kesebir, 2015, p. 68). A common example would be seeing a
homeless man or woman begging for money at a street-light. Chances are they’re holding up a
sign describing their physical or mental affliction such as, “hungry, wounded veteran”. The sight
may have anyone wondering about how they are fighting to survive. Such death related thoughts
might elicit some sympathy for the cards life dealt them and you may decide to give them some
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 4
money or go so far as to buy them a meal. The resulting satisfaction in your altruistic act should
then allow you to be relieved of death-related thoughts.
Another line of defense against feeling the effects of TMT is the mortality salience
theory. This idea posits that our reliance on fundamental beliefs and psychological structures
only increase when individuals are reminded of the inevitability of their demise (Friedman &
Rholes, 2008). Mortality salience is cultivated when opposing thought and arguments make a
case against the values and traditions one chooses to rule their life by (Schimel et al., 2007). In a
tumultuous world where nothing is certain but the choices we make, coming in contact with
alternative conceptions to what we believe may leave us vulnerable to the anxiety described in
TMT. When given the opportunity, our defense in mounted with the depreciation of the opposing
voice in order to give ourselves confidence in the cultural foundations we identify with (Rutjens,
van der Pligt, & van Harreveld, 2009). An interesting consequence, however, is that we tend to
react paradoxically when reminded of our impermanence.
Thinking about death seems to shine a light on our optimistic outlook in societal progress
and what the future may bring (Kelley & Schmeichel, 2015). This development was supported in
an experimental study conducted by Rutjens, van der Pligt, and van Harreveld (2009) where they
had participants rate on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (completely) how much they agree with an
excerpt in which the main idea was that progress was an illusion. Results found support with
increased faith in progressive hope (Rutjens, van der Pligt, & van Harreveld, 2009). We tend to
focus on positive aspects of our lives in order to avoid negative thoughts that are attached to
mortality salience, such as fear for what may become of those we hold dear and have no choice
but to leave behind (Friedman & Rholes, 2008). This innate response is supported by how quick
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 5
people are to stick to their moral codes and the popularity of religious explanations of
immortality after death (Kelley & Schmeichel, 2015).
There are several variations to experiments that catechize TMT and its conjugate topics.
Most studies begin with a short answer question asking participants to describe their emotions at
the thought of their death or to write about their experience in a neutral topic therefore placing
them in either the mortality salient condition versus a control condition. They may then choose to
test optimism with the presentation of a pessimistic essay threatening their worldviews. Typical
in some studies, like that of Kelley and Schmeichel (2015), is the addition of activities in
between measured tasks to allow delay in thoughts of death so that they fade from conscious
thought. This delay is then followed by a divulging word-completion task or word search that,
unbeknown to the participant, allows them to resurface. In order to explore the effect on
individuals when faced with their demise, we constructed a three-part study modeled after these
previous research ideas.
Study One
The first part of our study asks participants to answer a self-reflective question in one of
three different conditions on what they think of their own death, dental pain, or the how they got
into college. The second task involves all participants completing the same word fragment
activity. Finally, after reading an essay concerning the progress we’ve made as humans, they are
asked to answer questions on the excerpt using a scale from 1- 6 (1 being equal to answering
they strongly disagree and 6 as they strongly agree). First, we predict that participants who wrote
about death should complete more word-fragments with death-related words (e.g. SKU_ _ with
SKULL, COFF_ _ with COFFIN, and DE_ _ with DEAD) than participants who wrote about
dental pain or getting into college (who will complete the same word fragments with neutral
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 6
words, like SKUNK, COFFEE, and DEAL). Second, we predict that participants who wrote
about death will disagree with the pessimistic position of the human progress essay’s author
more than participants in the other two conditions.
Methods Study One
Participants
This study consisted of a total of 99 participants. Forty-six of the people in this sample
were male (47%) while 53 were female (54%). The age demographic ranged from as low as 14
to a maximum of 85 years of age (M = 23.26, SD = 8.53). Thirty-two percent of participants
identified as Caucasian (N = 32), 46% as Hispanic (N = 45), 2% as Native Indian (N = 2), 11% as
African American (N =11), 6% as Asian American (N =6), and 3% reported "Other" (N = 3). Of
the people participating in this study, 86% were identified as Florida International University
students (N=85) while 14% were not (N=14). See Appendix A.
Materials and Procedures
As students of a Research Methods class at Florida International University (FIU), we
were all asked to inhabit the role of a researcher in a study that tests whether or not being aware
of one’s own mortality, or being mortality salient, can cause personal distress. This would result
in the participant’s choice to cope by portraying a more optimistic outlook about the future. The
study consists of the completion of two phases. In the first phase researchers approached people
and asked them to participate in a study consisting of completing a survey. Those participating
had to be individuals of no personal connection to the researcher and not currently enrolled in a
psychology research methods class in the Spring semester of 2018. The objective was for each
researcher to have 3 completed surveys, one in each of the following conditions acting as the 3
levels to our independent variable: “Mortality Salience” (MS), “College” (C), and “Dental Pain”
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 7
(DP). Expressed to the potential participant in the initial introduction was that there were no risks
to their person if they consented. Benefits to their involvement would be purely be their
assistance in the completion of a class assignment. Verbal consent was taken after subjects were
informed that the study was for our research methods class and that the duration of their
involvement would only last approximately 5-10 minutes. Once a verbal assertion was noted, the
next phase of the study commenced.
In phase 2, randomly assigned surveys were divided into 2 parts and were identical in all
conditions with the exception of the first 2 questions in the second part. At the top of the page,
the introduction to the survey and its already previously voiced purpose was reiterated. Part I of
the survey asked the participant their demographic information. Included were questions that
asked for the participant’s gender, age, race/ethnicity, if English was their first language, and
whether or not they were currently enrolled as an FIU student.
Part II had tasks a-e. Tasks a and b were the only short answer questions in the survey
and also introduced the independent variable for the study. Task a either asked the participant to
describe the emotions that the thought of their “own death” (MS condition), “having dental pain”
(DP condition), or “attending college” (C condition) aroused in them. Task b asked the
participant to write as specifically as they could what happens to them “physically when you die”
(MS condition), “when you have to undergo a painful dental procedure” (DP condition), or “the
physical steps you took to get to college” (C condition).
Task c, the measured dependent variable of the study, consisted of 12 word-completion
exercises asking the participant to fill in the spaces with letters that would complete the first
word they thought of (i.e. YE_ _ completed as YELL). Six of the twelve exercises were designed
so that they could only be completed with words unrelated to death (i.e. YE_ _ as YELL, FO_ _
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 8
as FORT, SHI_ _ as SHIRT, CLO_ _ as CLOWN, LI_ _ as LIES, and DRI_ _ as DRIPS). The
other six could either be completed as death-related or neutral words (i.e. STI_ _ as STIFF or
STILL, COFF_ _ as COFFIN or COFEE, SKU_ _ as SKULL or SKUNK, DE_ _ as DEAD or
DEAL, COR_ _ _ as CORPSE or CORAL, and GRA_ _ as GRAVE or GRAPE). The task was
scored by counting how many of the 6 words were completed with death-related words.
Following the word-fragment question is Task d. The instructions in all 3 conditions
introduces the following as an excerpt from a blog published some months ago that addressed the
issue of human progress:
The question of whether there is human progress is easy to answer; I think
progress is an illusion. We always seem to focus on progress in science and
technology, but meanwhile there wars and conflicts going on all around the world.
There is plenty of evidence that we haven’t witnessed any real progress since the
Middle Ages! After all, we fail to find answers to environmental problems;
political systems do not function any better than they did 100 years ago; there is
still poverty in the world; and so on. We don’t seem to learn from history, and we
keep making the same mistakes over and over again. Moreover, once we have
managed to control one disease, it always seems like there is another one to deal
with. That’s why I do not believe that our children will encounter a world that is
any better than the world we live in today. People are people. Morally, politically,
and socially, we simply do not make any progress. All in all, I think we have to
face reality: progress is an illusion!
The instructions continue by asking the participant to answer the 10 questions following
the blog excerpt. All of these questions used the same 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 9
disagree to 6 = strongly agree) as potential answers. Question 1 had the participant rate
whether they shared the author’s views about progress. Question 2 and 3 had participants
rate how they felt, if the author’s views were too pessimistic or too optimistic for them
respectively. Question 4-10 had them rate the following statements: I feel like I could
have written this essay, I do not agree with anything in this essay, this essay makes some
good points but I do not agree with all of them, the essay describes most American’s
attitudes about progress in the United States today, the essay describes most people’s
attitudes about progress throughout the world, I am optimistic about the future, and
finally, the United States still allows people to achieve their dreams. The participant’s
response for Question 4 (whether or not they agree that they could have written the essay)
is analyzed to address our hypothesis that a participant writing about death in Tasks a and
b versus in the other conditions would be more likely to disagree with the pessimistic
viewpoint of the author.
The final Task, e, simply asked the participant to recall without checking the
beginning of the survey what they were asked to write about. They had to mark with an X
one of the following options: death, dental pain, or getting into college. This serves as a
manipulation check so researchers know if the subject was paying attention to Tasks a
and b. After all parts of the survey are completed, participants were debriefed. They were
informed of Terror Management Theory concept and the main hypothesis, participant’s
optimism about human progress would be enhanced when they think about death.
Results Study One
Using the essay condition as our independent variable (Mortality Salient vs Dental Pain
vs College) and whether participants recalled what they were asked to write about as the
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 10
dependent variable, we ran a manipulation check using chi-squared in which we saw a
significant effect, X2(4) = 131.09, p < .001. Most participants recalled writing about death (85%),
dental pain (85%), and college (91%) in their respective MS, DP, and C conditions. These
findings indicate that participants were paying attention to the instructions of the short answer
task as was intended. See Appendix B.
We conducted a One-Way ANOVA with the three condition levels as our independent
variable (Mortality Salient vs Dental Pain vs College) and the number of death-related words the
participant completed as our dependent variable. Results showed a significance between the
conditions, F (2, 96) = 7.42, p = .001. Further testing by administering a Tukey LSD post hoc
test revealed that participants completed more word-fragments with death-related words in the
mortality salience condition (M = 2.91, SD = 1.01) than in both the dental pain (M = 2.15, SD =
0.62) and college (M = 2.24, SD = 0.94) conditions. Participants in the dental pain and college
conditions, however, did not differ in significance from one another. These results provide an
affirmation of our hypothesis that participants that are death-aware are more likely to complete
the word-fragment task with death related words than the dental pain or college conditions. See
Appendix C.
We ran a second One-Way ANOVA with condition as our independent variable
(Mortality Salient vs Dental Pain vs College) and the participant expression of whether they
believe they could have written the essay as our dependent variable. The purpose of this analysis
was to show if condition affects their optimism about human progress after being asked to read
the human progress essay. Results show the analysis was significant, F (2, 96) = 4.08, p = .020.
A Tukey HSD post hoc test showed that participants in the Mortality Salience condition
significantly agreed the least that they could’ve written the essay (M = 3.03, SD = 1.07) as
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 11
compared to the Dental Pain condition (M = 3.73, SD = 0.98). However, results were not
significant when compared to the College condition (M = 3.45, SD = 0.94). The Dental Pain and
College conditions did not significantly differ from one another. This data set eludes to a more
optimistic viewpoint concerning human progress when one is actively thinking of death. See
Appendix D.
Discussion Study One
The conclusion of this study reflects support for our position in our hypotheses that
mortality salience results in more death related words when doing the word-fragment completion
task and the optimism we express on progress made by the human race. The non-significant
effect of the college condition when compared to the mortality salient and dental pain conditions
leads us to the idea that the next TMT experiment may only need to be limited to the latter
conditions. Of interest for further study would be whether conscious awareness of being
provoked to think about death would affect the direction participants may take on the pessimistic
essay and the number death-related words completed in the word-fragment task.
Study Two
The premise of TMT is for humans to effectively calm the anxiety thoughts of death
provoke within us in order to reassume normal stress levels. This begs the question; how may
our coping methods be influenced when we are previously warned about the priming effect of
the mortality salient condition?
The priming effect is a learned initial stimulus response recorded into the participant’s
implicit, or unconscious, memory that resurfaces when presented with a later stimulus (Hsu &
Schütt, 2012). Any amount of realization on the subject’s part that this effect is meant to shift the
direction of their initial analyses may cause a change in their thought process. They might
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 12
intrinsically delve deeper into the topic than they were originally meant to. To put it into
perspective, when someone with a phobia is told they are confronting their fears, they might
already have an initial reaction going into the experience.
According to Petty and Cacioppo (1979), fore-knowledge may be concerned with
revealing the position of the upcoming topic or it’s persuasive content. Taking into consideration
the positive or negative cues this knowledge may bestow upon the participant, they may change
their original position to either reflect or oppose the given information (Neimeyer et al., 1991).
The participant might find themselves agreeing with the direction of the warning in an effort to
reduce threats to their self-esteem when they want to seem open to moderate views (Wood &
Quinn, 2003). However, if the statement addresses in what ways the following topic is a
persuasive priming, that would provoke a defensive opinion and the participant may want to
break away form the normative response to find freedom in a seemingly original response (Wood
& Quinn, 2003). When a participant is introduced to this revealing piece of information, it serves
as a warning. The subject is already told what their initial attitude should be or what they are
expected to feel, and what would have been their original viewpoint would change during the
completion of the assigned task (Neimeyer, MacNair, Metzler, & Courchaine,1991). An early
study conducted by Neimeyer, MacNair, Metzler, and Courchaine (1991) tested the effect of
fore-warning versus no warning in the responses of university student when they took a survey
on attitudes concerning honesty in relationships. The study’s results show that the addition of
relevant knowledge strengthened student’s argument whether they were for or against honesty
and contrasted to initial attitudes in previous entries.
When there is a resulting contrast in participant response from their actual experience,
they’ve expressed response bias (Sedgwick, 2014). In a study by McGrath, Mitchell, Kim, and
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 13
Hough (2010), it was cited from an article published by Paulhus in 1984 that response bias could,
in some cases, be motivated by the intent to purposely mislead the experimenter. On another
note, it is most common, when participants are self-reporting behaviors that may go against
societal/cultural norm or bring up feelings of embarrassment (Sedgwick, 2014). This addresses
the problem of self-reporting in surveys and questionnaires. They are limited to the amount of
information the participant is willing to unveil for fear of self-transparency despite their
anonymity in the researcher’s collective data (Schimel et al., 2007).
In our following study we continue to examine the effects of terror management theory
with two main analyses. Each examines two main effects and one interaction for each of our
main dependent variables, number of death-related words and agreement with the author of the
human progress essay. For our first dependent variable, death-related words, we predict a main
effect of condition. Participants in the mortality salience will complete more word fragments
with death-related words than participants in the dental pain condition as was supported in study
one. We do not expect the warning to have an effect on the number of death-related words, and
therefore do not predict a main effect of warning for this dependent variable. We also do not
predict an interaction of condition and warning.
For our second dependent variable, agreement with the author, we predict a main effect
of condition. Those in the mortality salience condition will agree with the author less than
participants in the dental pain condition, just as in study one. We also expect a main effect of
warning such that those in the no-warning condition will agree with the author less than
participants in the warning condition. We expect these main effects to be qualified by an
interaction effect of condition and warning, whereby mortality salience participants disagree with
the author more when they don’t get the warning than when they do.
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 14
Methods Study Two
Participants
A total of 232 people took part in this study. Eighty- nine of the people in this sample
were male (38%) while 143 were female (62%). The age ranged from as low as 16 to a
maximum of 68 years of age (M = 30.69, SD = 12.10). Eleven percent of participants identified
as Caucasian (N = 25), 72% as Hispanic (N = 167), 10% as African American (N =23), 1% as
Asian American (N =2), and 7% reported "Other" (N = 15). Of the people participating in this
study, 28% were identified as Florida International University students (N=66) while 72% were
not (N=166). Our sample included 41.8% of participants that spoke English as their first
language (n = 97) while the remaining 58.2% did not (n = 135). Also asked was the highest level
of education completed of which only 2 participants declined to provide (0.9%). Five
participants completed less than a high school education (2.2%), 35 completed high school or
had a GED (15.1%), 60 had some college education (25.9%), 52 had an associate’s degree
(22.4%), 44 had a bachelor’s degree (19.0%), 12 had some graduate education (5.2%), 12 had a
master’s degree (5.2%), and 10 had a doctorate degree or PhD (4.3%). See Appendix E.
Materials and Procedures
As an extension of study one, study two tests two independent variable and the effect that
they may have on our original dependent variables. This study has the independent variable of
condition with two levels (mortality salience condition vs dental pain condition). We introduced
a second independent variable in which subjects will have either a warning or no warning of how
being mortality salient will affect optimism. Therefore, we are testing the presence of warning
and mortality salience, presence of warning and dental pain, no warning and mortality salience,
and no warning and dental pain on our dependent variables: number of death-related words used
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 15
to complete the word fragments and responses to the “I share the author’s views about progress”
question concerning the human progress essay.
Participants were asked to take part in an online study being conducted for research
purposes. They were instructed to open the survey that was constructed through Qualtrics
software. The survey opened up to a page informing them of potential risks or benefits of their
participation in which they had to agree to participate before starting the actual study. If they
chose not to participate, the survey design was instructed to exit the survey automatically.
The first section of the survey asked the participant to provide demographic information.
They were asked about their gender, age, race/ethnicity, whether English was their first
language, if they were students at FIU, and what their highest level of education was. For
race/ethnicity the options included Caucasian, Hispanic American, African American, Asian
American, or Other. Options for recording highest level of education were to select one of the
following: less than high school diploma, High school diploma/GED, Some college, Associate’s
degree, Bachelor’s degree, Some graduate or professional school, Master’s degree, or
Doctorate’s degree or PhD.
The following section implemented our new independent variable, presence of a warning
about mortality salience or not. The Qualtrics survey randomized which participants were given
the warning. If the participant was given no warning they read the following statement:
Recent research suggests that your feelings and attitudes about significant aspects of your
personal and community life can tell us a considerable amount about your
personality. For the following questions, we'd like your responses to a variety of issues as
well as a fun word completion task. Your honest responses to the questions that follow
are greatly appreciated.
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 16
If the participant were given the warning they read the following statement:
Recent research suggests that being reminded of one's own mortality can make people
feel more optimistic. In this study, we're testing this hypothesis. For the following
questions, we'd like your responses to a variety of issues as well as a fun word
completion task. Your honest responses to the questions that follow are greatly
appreciated.
The statements introduced the next section of the survey in which they answered a short answer
question that placed them in either mortality salience or dental pain condition, the condition
being the second possible main effect. The short answer question they were given was
randomized by the Qualtrics system. The mortality salience condition asked subjects to describe
the emotions that the thought of their own death arouses in them. The dental pain condition
asked them to describe the emotions that the thought of having dental pain arouses in them. The
college condition from the previous study was excluded as there was no significance between
dental pain and college condition in the results.
The next sections of the survey consist of the online version of the word fragment
exercise given in study one followed by as the same article excerpt on the issue of human
progress given in the first study and the related ten questions. The same 12 word fragments were
given, six of which could be completed with a neutral word or a death associated word (i.e.
COFF_ _ as COFFIN or COFEE). The questions pertaining to the article were to be answered
with the same 1-6 Likert scale as study one, 1 being that they strongly disagree and 6 that they
strongly agree. Question 1 asked the participant to rate whether they shared the author’s views
about progress. Question 2 and 3 had participants rate how they felt, if the author’s views were
too pessimistic or too optimistic for them respectively. Question 4-10 had them rate the
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 17
following statements: I feel like I could have written this essay, I do not agree with anything in
this essay, this essay makes some good points but I do not agree with all of them, the essay
describes most American’s attitudes about progress in the United States today, the essay
describes most people’s attitudes about progress throughout the world, I am optimistic about the
future, and finally, the United States still allows people to achieve their dreams.
After these exercises are completed, subjects answered two manipulation checks in
multiple choice format. These were added to ensure that the participants were being attentive to
the survey from the beginning. It also allowed for us to easily identify and eliminate possible
misrepresentative responses from the data. The first question asked the participants to recall
whether the short-answer question in the beginning of the survey asked about death, dental pain,
or getting into college. The second question was meant to be answered correctly only by those in
the warning condition. It asked the participant if at the beginning of the study they were told we
expected people reminded of death to be more pessimistic, optimistic, or angry. The answer
options for this question were pessimistic, optimistic, angry, or I don’t know.
Before the participants were allowed to exit the survey they were thanked for their
participation in the concluding debrief. They were informed about Terror Management Theory as
well as our hypotheses that people tend to embrace their optimism about progress if they are
reminded of their own death and that they will disagree with the pessimistic essay more than
participants not thinking about death, unless they are warned ahead of time.
Results Study Two
Using condition as the independent variable (Mortality Salient vs Dental Pain) and
whether participants answered correctly to the condition manipulation check as the dependent
variable, we conducted a chi-square test. It was significant which illustrates that participants
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 18
were paying attention to condition during this study, X2(2) = 175.89, p < .001. Ninety-three
percent of the participants remembered writing about death in the mortality salience condition
(n=106) and in the dental pain condition, 93.2% of participants recalled writing about dental pain
(n=110). Phi showed a large effect. See Appendix F
A second chi-square test was conducted with presence of warning (warning vs. no
warning) as the independent variable and participants’ responses to the warning manipulation
check as the dependent variable. This test was significant, X2(3) = 106.18, p < .001. This shows
evidence that most participants who received the warning remembered that people who are
reminded of their own death are expected to be more optimistic (88.2%). Those that received no
warning more often selected “pessimistic” (36.3%) or “I don’t know” (36.3%) as their answers
for this manipulation check than “optimistic” (21.2%) or “angry” (6.2%). Phi showed a medium
effect. See Appendix G.
Our first dependent variable, the number of death-related words used to complete the
word fragments, was tested to determine how it was affected by condition and forewarning with
a 2X2 ANOVA. Condition (mortality salience vs dental pain) and forewarning (warning vs. no
warning) were computed as the independent variables and the number of death-related words
was the dependent variable. There was a significant main effect of condition, F (1, 228) =
133.82, p < .001. Analogous to study one, those placed in the mortality salience condition
completed more word fragments with death-related words (M = 2.31, SD = .58) than participants
in the DP condition (M = .77, SD = .42). As for the presence of forewarning, there was not a
significant main effect, F (1, 228) = .54, p = .464. The number of death-related words was not
significantly different between participants in the warning condition (M = 1.64, SD = .90) and
the no warning condition (M = 1.41, SD = .93). The interaction effect of condition and
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 19
forewarning was found to be not significant, F (1, 228) = .20, p = .655. This means that
participants did not differ in their number of death related words between the mortality salient
and warning group (M = 2.28, SD = .54), mortality salient and no warning group (M = 2.36, SD =
.65), dental pain and warning group (M = .76, SD = .43), and dental pain and no warning group
(M = .78, SD = .42). See Appendix H
Using another 2X2 ANOVA we tested our second dependent variable, responses to the “I
share the author’s views about progress” question concerning the human progress essay against
the same independent variables, condition and presence of forewarning. There was a significant
main effect of condition, F (1, 228) = 5.36, p = .022. Participants placed in the mortality salience
condition agreed with the human progress essay author ‘s pessimism less (M = 2.48, SD = 1.52)
than participants in the dental pain condition (M = 2.77, SD = 1.32). There was also a significant
main effect of warning vs no warning, F (1, 228) = 14.18, p < .001. Those that didn’t receive a
warning agreed with the human progress essay author ‘s pessimism less (M = 2.32, SD = 1.46)
than participants in the Warning group (M = 2.92, SD = 1.33). Furthermore, there was a
significant interaction effect of condition and warning, F (1, 228) = 3.92, p = .049. Additional
testing of simple effects showed that for participants in the mortality salient condition they
disagreed with the author significantly less with no warning (M = 1.84, SD = 1.13) than in the
warning condition (M = 2.90, SD = 1.60), F(1, 112) = 14.72, p < .001. Participants in the dental
pain condition did not differ in their agreement with the author when there was no warning (M =
2.63, SD = 1.57) and with a warning (M = 2.96, SD = .832), F(1, 116) = 1.80, p = .183. Those in
the warning condition did not show a difference in their agreement with author in the mortality
salient condition (M = 2.90, SD = 1.60) and the dental pain condition (M = 2.96, SD = .832) ,
F(1, 117) = .062, p = .805. Alternatively, those in the no warning condition disagreed with the
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 20
author significantly less in the mortality salient condition (M = 1.84, SD = 1.13) than in the
dental pain condition (M = 2.63, SD = 1.57), F(1, 111) = 8.42, p = .004. See Appendix I
Discussion Study Two
In accordance with our hypothesis, the results showed that there was only a significant
main effect of condition in relation to number of death-related words in the word-completion
task. Those in the Mortality Salient condition completed more death-related words than those in
the Dental Pain condition regardless of the presence of a warning. There was also no significant
interaction effect just as we had initially predicted before the study was run.
In relation to whether the presence of a warning had an effect on responses to the human
progress essay, there was a main effect of condition, as was expected. Participants in the
Mortality Salient condition agreed less with the author of the human progress essay than those in
the Dental Pain condition. Additionally, results supported our conjecture of a main effect of
forewarning. Those whom had not received a warning about how being reminded of death may
make them more optimistic agreed with the author less than those who had. Finally, there was
evidence in support of our hypothesis that there would be a significant interaction effect of
warning and condition on participant responses on the essay. Participants disagreed with the
author more when they didn’t get the warning than when they did when in the Mortality Salient
condition. In the Dental Pain condition there was no difference in between those that had or had
not received the warning. Subjects that were in the warning condition did not differ in agreement
with the author whether they were in the Mortality Salient or Dental Pain condition while in the
no-warning condition they agree with the author significantly less in the former condition.
General Discussion
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 21
Our first hypothesis stated that being mortality salient would results in more death-related
words and was backed by the results of Study one and two. We also saw evidence that we defend
our fundamental beliefs when they are being threatened as participants were more inclined to
disagree with the author of the pessimistic human progress essay when they were asked to think
about death. The opposition with the author can be viewed as an act to reinforce out self-esteem
in order to lessen our anxiety of the legacy we leave behind after death (Rutjens, van der Pligt, &
van Harreveld, 2009). Though forewarning did not seem to affect the number of death-related
words the participant completed, it did make an impact on their agreement with the author of the
excerpt. Those that didn’t receive the warning tended to disagree with the other more-so than
those that did. Also found was an interaction effect of condition and forewarning. Those in the
Mortality salience condition agreed most with the author when they were forewarned on how
being primed to think of death may boost our optimism in societal progress. This shows evidence
of response bias in the case that participants’ original viewpoint concerning the topic was skewed
due to the provided information (Neimeyer et al., 1991).
Though this study was designed as an extension of previous studies such as that of Kelley
and Schmeichel (2015) , it was conducted by a research methods class of psychology students
therefore there is bound to be errors of internal validity. Errors in our study may include that of
instrumentation in the way students approached participants for the study. Researchers may have
veered off the script provided to introduce the study and so the amount of information subjects
were given beforehand may vary. Also condition in which the subject took the surveys may vary
due to environment or mood. In order to limit these extraneous variables we could screen
participants beforehand and have them take the survey in the same room. Further testing may
also include putting the author’s credibility under scrutiny. We could include an independent
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 22
variable in which in one version of the survey the introduction of the excerpt tells the participant
the author’s credentials so they know that the author is well-versed on the human progress topic.
The other version could could be kept the same. This way we could test whether credibility in the
author plays a role in the position the participants take whether they agree or disagree with the
author.
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 23
References
Friedman, M., & Rholes, W. S. (2008). Religious fundamentalism and terror management. The
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18(1), 36-52. doi:
10.1080/10508610701719322
Hsu, N. & Schütt, Z. (2012). Psychology of priming, Hauppauge, NY, US: Nova Science
Publishers.
Kelley, Nathan. J., & Schmeichel, Bill. J. (2015). Mortality salience increases personal optimism
among individuals higher in trait self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 39(6), 926-931.
doi: 10.1007/s11031-015-9504-z
McGrath, R. E., Mitchell, M., Kim, B. H., & Hough, L. (2010). Evidence for response bias as a
source of error variance in applied assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 450-470.
doi:10.1037/a0019216
Neimeyer, G. J., MacNair, R., Metzler, A. E., & Courchaine, K. (1991). Changing Personal
Beliefs: Effects of Forewarning, Argument Quality, Prior Bias, and Personal Exploration.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(1), 1-20. doi:10.1521/jscp.1991.10.1.1
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Effects of forwarning of persuasive intent and
involvement on cognitive responses and persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 49(2), 173-176. doi: 10.1177/014616727900500209
Rutjens, B. T., van der Pligt, J., & van Harreveld, F. (2009). Things will get better: The anxiety-
buffering qualities of progressive hope. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
35(5), 535-543. doi: 10.1177/0146167208331252
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 24
Schimel, J., Hayes, J., Williams, T., & Jahrig, J. (2007). Is death really the worm at the core?
Converging evidence that worldview threat increases death-thought accessibility. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 789-803. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.789
Sedgwick, P. (Apr 9, 2014). Non-response bias versus response bias. BMJ : British Medical
Journal (Online), 348. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2573
Wood, W., & Quinn, J. M. (2003). Forewarned and forearmed? Two meta-analysis syntheses of
forewarnings of influence appeals. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 119-138. doi:
10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.119
Zaleskiewicz, T., Gasiorowska, A., & Kesebir, P. (2015). The scrooge effect revisited: Mortality
salience increases the satisfaction derived from prosocial behavior. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 67-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.03.005
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 25
Appendix A- Demographics- Study One
Statistics
Gender (1 =
M, 2 = F) Age Race
FIU Student
(1 = Y, 2 =
N)
N Valid 99 99 99 99
Missin
g 0 0 0 0
Mean 1.5354 23.2626 2.2222 1.1414
Median 2.0000 21.0000 2.0000 1.0000
Mode 2.00 20.00 2.00 1.00
Std. Deviation .50129 8.52677 1.33673 .35022
Minimum 1.00 14.00 1.00 1.00
Maximum 2.00 85.00 6.00 2.00
Gender (1 = M, 2 = F)
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 46 46.5 46.5 46.5
Femal
e 53 53.5 53.5 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0
Race
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Caucasian 32 32.3 32.3 32.3
Hispanic 45 45.5 45.5 77.8
Native Indian 2 2.0 2.0 79.8
African
American 11 11.1 11.1 90.9
Asian
American 6 6.1 6.1 97.0
Other 3 3.0 3.0 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 26
FIU Student (1 = Y, 2 = N)
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 85 85.9 85.9 85.9
No 14 14.1 14.1 100.0
Total 99 100.0 100.0
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 27
Appendix B – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study One
Condition (1 = MS, 2 = DP, 3 = C) * Manipulation Check (1 = MS, 2 = DP, 3 = C) Crosstabulation
Manipulation Check (1 = MS, 2 = DP, 3
= C)
Total
Mortality
Salience Dental Pain College
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)
Mortality
Salience
Count 28 3 2 33
% within
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)
84.8% 9.1% 6.1% 100.0%
Dental Pain Count 0 28 5 33
% within
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)
0.0% 84.8% 15.2% 100.0%
College Count 0 3 30 33
% within
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)
0.0% 9.1% 90.9% 100.0%
Total Count 28 34 37 99
% within
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3 =
C)
28.3% 34.3% 37.4% 100.0%
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 28
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymptotic
Significance
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-
Square 131.089a 4 .000
Likelihood
Ratio 133.250 4 .000
Linear-by-
Linear
Association
72.551 1 .000
N of Valid
Cases 99
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5.
The minimum expected count is 9.33.
Symmetric Measures
Value
Approximate
Significance
Nominal by
Nominal
Phi 1.151 .000
Cramer's V .814 .000
N of Valid Cases 99
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 29
Appendix C – ANOVA Word Fragments – Study One
Descriptives
Number of word fragments completed with death
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Mortality
Salience 33 2.9091 1.01130 .17604 2.5505 3.2677 1.00 5.00
Dental Pain 33 2.1515 .61853 .10767 1.9322 2.3708 1.00 3.00
College 33 2.2424 .93643 .16301 1.9104 2.5745 1.00 5.00
Total 99 2.4343 .92760 .09323 2.2493 2.6193 1.00 5.00
ANOVA
Number of word fragments completed with death
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups 11.293 2 5.646 7.422 .001
Within Groups 73.030 96 .761
Total 84.323 98
Post Hoc Tests
Number of word fragments completed with
death
Tukey HSDa
Condition (1 =
MS, 2 = DP, 3
= C) N
Subset for alpha =
0.05
1 2
Dental Pain 33 2.1515
College 33 2.2424
Mortality
Salience 33 2.9091
Sig. .906 1.000
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are
displayed.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 33.000.
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 30
Appendix D – ANOVA Optimism About the Future– Study One
Descriptives
I feel could have written this essay
N Mean
Std.
Deviation
Std.
Error
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Minimum Maximum
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Mortality
Salience 33 3.0303 1.07485 .18711 2.6492 3.4114 1.00 5.00
Dental Pain 33 3.7273 .97701 .17008 3.3808 4.0737 2.00 5.00
College 33 3.4545 .93845 .16336 3.1218 3.7873 2.00 5.00
Total 99 3.4040 1.02936 .10345 3.1987 3.6093 1.00 5.00
ANOVA
I feel could have written this essay
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Between
Groups 8.141 2 4.071 4.084 .020
Within Groups 95.697 96 .997
Total 103.838 98
Post Hoc Tests
Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: I feel could have written this essay
Tukey HSD
(I) Condition (1
= MS, 2 = DP, 3
= C)
(J) Condition (1
= MS, 2 = DP, 3
= C)
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Mortality
Salience
Dental Pain -.69697* .24579 .015 -1.2821 -.1118
College -.42424 .24579 .201 -1.0094 .1609
Dental Pain Mortality
Salience .69697* .24579 .015 .1118 1.2821
College .27273 .24579 .511 -.3124 .8579
College Mortality
Salience .42424 .24579 .201 -.1609 1.0094
Dental Pain -.27273 .24579 .511 -.8579 .3124
*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 31
Appendix E- Demographics- Study Two
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 32
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 33
Appendix F – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 34
Appendix G – Crosstabs and Chi Square – Study Two
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 35
Appendix H – ANOVA Word Fragments – Study Two
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 36
Appendix I – ANOVA Optimism About the Future– Study Two
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 37
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 38
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 39
OUR OPTIMISM IN THE FACE OF DEATH 40