Acceso usuarios
Lilan Chen, Rachele Benjamin, Yingzhi Guo, Addison Lai, Steven J. Heine
We assessed the evidential value of the large literature (k = 643–825 studies) investigating the mortality salience (MS) hypothesis from terror management theory, employing a multitool assessment approach. First, we reviewed and evaluated recent efforts to replicate past experiments testing the MS hypothesis, summarizing the conflicting evidence and arguments to the evidential value of the MS literature. Next, we performed a random effects meta-analysis on the MS literature using multiple bias-correction meta-analytic techniques, including selection models, precision-effect test and precision-effect estimate with standard errors, weighted average of adequately powered studies and weighted least square, as well as the more recently developed p-curve and z-curve. Overall, the different meta-analytic tools often pointed to conflicting conclusions, reflecting methodological and philosophical differences among these tools. A synthesis of our findings suggests there are nonzero effects underlying some studies of the MS hypothesis, although the effects are highly heterogeneous, most studies are underpowered, and many individual effects may be spurious. We recommend future replications to assume a smaller effect size (r = .18) and to strictly follow expert guidance in the experimental protocol. Given the conflicting findings that emerged, we suggest future attempts to evaluate other literature would benefit from a multitool assessment approach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
