methods II preview assigment

profileLivan044
PaperIII-TerrorManagementTheory.pdf

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