Death reminders evoke ingroup defense through a shared loss-of-control mechanism

Evidence

Study 1 provides evidence for the notion that death-reminded as well as control-deprived people engage in a motivated search for (external) order when lacking self-esteem (i.e., personal control). This most elementary instance of control motivation (Kay et al., 2009) brought them to subsequently defend their ingroup, since this may allow for a control restoration on the group-level (Fritsche et al., 2008). Therefore, the assumption that MS effects on ingroup defense are rooted in control motivation, which is activated by death reminders that entail a loss of control, is consistent with our results. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 74

Categorization

• XREF: Connects directly to the reading purpose: terror management may operate via control restoration, offering a testable route for when a group’s affirmative content is hollowed out and only the defensive boundary remains. — connects to: Death-thought accessibility does not mediate ingroup defense, while control motivation does. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 4; Ingroup defense functions as a compensatory control mechanism when personal control is lost. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 24; Mortality salience triggers ingroup defense through control deprivation — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 27 (+11 more)
• DEFINE: Defines ‘control motivation’ as a motivated search for external order stemming from threatened personal control.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 74

Broader Connections

• Mortality threats drive group identification through perceived loss of control, not symbolic immortality. #corroborates (0.95) — Immo Fritsche, Agency Through the We, 41
• Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. #corroborates (0.85) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 143
• Subtle death reminders drive worldview defense, self-esteem striving, and unhealthy behavior. #exemplifies (0.85) — Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, The Worm at the Core, 763
• Mortality reminders increase perceived in-group entitativity, buffering death anxiety. #expands (0.80) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 257
• Death-awareness drives humans to cling to cultural worldviews and self-esteem #expands (0.80) — Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, The Worm at the Core, 476
• Death-thought accessibility does not mediate mortality salience effects on ingroup defense. #qualifies (0.78) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 160
• Death reminders uniquely trigger worldview and relationship defense, unlike other aversive threats. #qualifies (0.78) — Jeff Greenberg and Spee Kosloff, Terror Management Theory, 19
• Fear of death and self-uncertainty motivate people to join groups #expands (0.78) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2338
• Mortality reminders uniquely trigger worldview defense unlike other threats #qualifies (0.75) — Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, The Worm at the Core, 91