Terror management theory (TMT) posits that mortality salience (MS) leads to more negative perceptions of persons who oppose one's worldview and to more positive perceptions of persons who confirm one's worldview. Recent failed replications of classic findings have thrown into question empirical validity for this established idea. We believe, that there are crucial methodological and theoretical aspects that have been neglected in these studies which limit their explanatory power; thus, the studies of this registered report aimed to address these issues and to directly test the worldview defense hypothesis. First, we conducted two preregistered lab studies applying the classic worldview defense paradigm. The stimulus material (worldview-confirming and -opposing essays) was previously validated for students at a German university. In both studies, the MS manipulation (between-subjects) was followed by a distraction phase. Then, in Study 1 (N = 131), each participant read both essays (within-subjects). In Study 2 (N = 276), the essays were manipulated between-subjects. Credibility attribution towards the author was assessed as the dependent variable. In both studies, the expected interaction effects were not significant. In a third highly powered (registered) study (N = 1356), we used a previously validated worldview-opposing essay. The five classic worldview defense items served as the main dependent measure. The MS effect was not significant. Bayesian analyses favored the null hypothesis. An internal meta-analysis revealed a very small (Hedges' g = 0.09) but nonsignificant (p = .058) effect of MS. Altogether, the presented studies reveal challenges in providing convincing evidence for this established idea.

恐怖管理理论（TMT）认为，死亡显着性（MS）导致对反对世界观的人的消极看法和对确认世界观的人的更正面看法。最近对经典发现的失败复制，已经使这一既定思想的经验有效性受到质疑。我们认为，这些研究中忽略了关键的方法论和理论方面，这限制了它们的解释力；因此，对这份注册报告的研究旨在解决这些问题并直接检验世界观防御假说。首先，我们使用经典的世界观防御范例进行了两项预注册的实验室研究。刺激材料（确认世界观和反对世界的论文）以前是针对德国大学的学生进行验证的。在两项研究中，MS操作（受试者之间）后均是分心阶段。然后，在研究1（N  = 131），每个参与者都阅读两篇文章（主题内）。在研究2中（N  = 276），论文是在主题之间进行操纵的。作者的可信度归因被评估为因变量。在两项研究中，预期的相互作用效应都不显着。在第三项功能强大（已注册）的研究中（N  = 1356），我们使用了先前经过验证的与世界观相反的论文。五种经典的世界观防御项目是主要的依存措施。MS效果不显着。贝叶斯分析偏爱原假设。内部荟萃分析揭示了非常小（树篱克 = 0.09）没有显着，但（p = .058）MS的效果。总而言之，目前的研究揭示了为这一既定思想提供令人信服的证据所面临的挑战。