Death-thought accessibility does not mediate ingroup defense, while control motivation does.

Evidence

Study 3 compared control motivation – operationalized as state need for structure – and death-thought accessibility (i.e., the main mediator candidate in TMT) in terms of mediation of MS and control deprivation effects on ingroup defense. Replicating the results of Study 1, control motivation mediated both MS and control deprivation effects, whereas death-thought accessibility failed to mediate any effects. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 4

Categorization

• XREF: Central to the reader’s investigation: if the canonical TMT mediator fails while control motivation succeeds, then terror-management effects may really be control-restoration effects — highly relevant to whether hollowed-out group identities get defended via process-level control seeking. — connects to: Death-thought accessibility does not mediate mortality salience effects on ingroup defense. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 160; Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 143; Empirical support for death-thought accessibility mediating terror-management effects on ingroup defense remains unsettled. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 35 (+7 more)
• QUESTION: Was this ‘death-thought accessibility fails to mediate’ a null result from underpowered design, and has it since replicated?
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 4

Broader Connections

• Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. #corroborates (0.98) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 143
• Death-thought accessibility does not mediate mortality salience effects on ingroup defense. #expands (0.95) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 160
• Mortality salience triggers ingroup defense through control deprivation #corroborates (0.90) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 27
• Empirical support for death-thought accessibility mediating terror-management effects on ingroup defense remains unsettled. #qualifies (0.88) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 35
• Mortality threats drive group identification through perceived loss of control, not symbolic immortality. #corroborates (0.88) — Immo Fritsche, Agency Through the We, 41
• Death reminders evoke ingroup defense through a shared loss-of-control mechanism #corroborates (0.85) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 74
• Ingroup defense functions as a compensatory control mechanism when personal control is lost. #corroborates (0.82) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 24
• Worldview and self-esteem defense is bidirectional with death-thought accessibility. #complicates (0.80) — Jeff Greenberg and Spee Kosloff, Terror Management Theory, 19
• Illusory pattern perception drives both death and control threats toward ingroup defense #qualifies (0.72) — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 74