Death-thought accessibility does not mediate mortality salience effects on ingroup defense.

Evidence

It is noteworthy that control motivation mediated MS/control deprivation effects on ingroup defense in Study 3, whereas death-thought accessibility failed to mediate MS effects. In addition to demonstrating the uniqueness and non-reducibility of the mediational role of control motivation to implicit death cognition, this finding suggests that death-thought accessibility may not play a critical mediational role in MS effects on ingroup defense. To our knowledge, there is not a single published study, reporting a statistical mediation of MS effects on ingroup defense by death-thought accessibility. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending ingroups, 160

Categorization

• QUESTION: Strongly relevant to the reader’s test: if the boundary defense operates under proximal control-restoration rather than distal death-thought activation, then a hollowed-out identity that offers no affirmative order-structure may not trigger boundary defense at all under MS.
• XREF: connects to: Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 143; Mortality salience effects grow over time while uncertainty and meaninglessness effects decay. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 163; Fear of death and self-uncertainty motivate people to join groups — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2338 (+2 more)

Related

• Mortality salience triggers ingroup defense through control deprivation (similarity 0.89)
• Mortality salience effects grow over time while uncertainty and meaninglessness effects decay. (similarity 0.88)
• Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. (similarity 0.87)
• Mortality threats drive group identification through perceived loss of control, not symbolic immortality. (similarity 0.86)
• Death-thought accessibility does not mediate ingroup defense, while control motivation does. (similarity 0.85)
• Death reminders evoke ingroup defense through a shared loss-of-control mechanism (similarity 0.84)
• Empirical support for death-thought accessibility mediating terror-management effects on ingroup defense remains unsettled. (similarity 0.83)
• Mortality reminders increase perceived in-group entitativity, buffering death anxiety. (similarity 0.83)
• Ingroup defenses like prejudice function primarily to restore an orderly worldview. (similarity 0.82)
• Mortality reminders uniquely trigger worldview defense unlike other threats (similarity 0.81)
• Boredom salience serves as a comparison condition to isolate control restoration from meaning maintenance. (similarity 0.80)
• Illusory pattern perception drives both death and control threats toward ingroup defense (similarity 0.79)
• Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas — Controlling death by defending ingroups Mediational insights into terror management and control restoration (similarity 0.79)
• Death reminders uniquely trigger worldview and relationship defense, unlike other aversive threats. (similarity 0.79)
• Mortality salience effects require sufficient delay before defense measurement. (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Mortality reminders uniquely trigger worldview defense unlike other threats #contradicts (0.85) — Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, The Worm at the Core, 91
• Fear of death and self-uncertainty motivate people to join groups #corroborates (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2338
• Group-defense reactions can be triggered without any conscious perception of group threat #qualifies (0.75)