Reframing death to live diversity: Positive death valence reduces implicit homonegativity

  1. Mel Stiller

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Drawing on an extension of terror management theory, this study examines whether positive death valence might faciliate radical, intersectional interventions in homophobic prejudice. Prior research showed that a more positive view on one's own mortality in wave 1 was associated with less stereotypes about sex, gender and desire in wave 2. The present online study explores whether positive death valence reduces homonegativity. Using reaction time tests and surveys, 77 out of 191 US participants continued from wave 1, assessing death attitudes, to wave 2, assessing homonegativity. Consistent with the prediction, participants who viewed death more positively exhibited significantly less homophobic prejudice. By contrast, survey measures revealed no association between death valence and homonegativity. Future research should incorporate further assesment methods, cross-cultural samples and additional dimensions of prejudice to better understand the role of positive death valence for anti-discriminatory interventions.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/14776536.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes The author discussed the topic extremely well bringing literature and information from different sources however the introduction has a couple of typing or spelling errors. For instance, paragraph 1line 1(homphobia instead of homophobia). The author also needs to choose a tense in terms of writing this section and stick to it throughout.
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Neither appropriate nor inappropriate I find the study to have a lot of methodological concerns and will recommend the author follow guidelines for such studies or study design. The method and the results section are currently mixed up. What is the study design, how did the study sample arrive, and other key points that can help readers understand the methods used and promote replicability? I would say study tools and measures instead of materials. Why was the chosen population for this study selected? What criteria were considered? What ethical considerations were put in place before participant recruitment?
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Somewhat unsupported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Neither appropriate and clear nor inappropriate and unclear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly The first paragraph of the results section should be part of the method section titled data analysis.
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Moderately likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved The authors were clear in the presentation of key findings however, the method used is not known. The method is too narrow.
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? No, it needs a major revision

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.31234/osf.io/k8fqb on OSF Preprints