Mortality Salience Effects on the Life Expectancy Estimates of Older Adults as a Function of Neuroticism

Research has shown that reminders of mortality lead people to engage in defenses to minimize the anxiety such thoughts could arouse. In accord with this notion, younger adults reminded of mortality engage in behaviors aimed at denying vulnerability to death. However, little is known about the effects of mortality reminders on older adults. The present study examined the effect of reminders of death on older adults' subjective life expectancy. Mortality reminders did not significantly impact the life expectancy estimates of old-old adults. Reminders of death did however lead to shorter life expectancy estimates among young-old participants low in neuroticism but longer life expectancy estimates among young-old participants high in neuroticism, suggesting that this group was most defensive in response to reminders of death

Investigating the Role of Normative Support in Atheists' Perceptions of Meaning Following Reminders of Death

According to terror management theory, humans rely on meaningful and permanence-promising cultural worldviews, like religion, to manage mortality concerns. Prior research indicates that, compared to religious individuals, atheists experience lower levels of meaning in life following reminders of death. The present study investigated whether reminders of death would change atheists' meaning in life after exposure to normative support for atheism. Atheists (N = 222) were either reminded of death or a control topic (dental pain) and exposed to information portraying atheism as either common or rare, and then asked to rate their perceived meaning in life. Results showed that reminders of death reduced meaning in life among atheists who were told that atheism is common. Results were consistent with the view that atheism reflects the rejection of religious faith rather than a meaningful secular terror managing worldview. Discussion considers implications for maintaining healthy existential wellbeing, identifies limitations, and highlights future research directions

The Path or the Goal? Decision vs. Information Focus in Biased Information Seeking after Preliminary Decisions

Research on the phenomenon of selective exposure to information demonstrates that after preliminary or final decisions, people show a preference for supporting rather than conflicting information (confirmation bias). In this article, we examine conditions that increase or decrease distortions in the search for information. We report on four experiments indicating that the confirmation bias is influenced by whether people focus on their decision or on the presented pieces of information during the information search. Focusing on the decision, for example, because a reward for a correct decision is promised or simply because participants repeatedly think of it, increases the confirmation bias. On the other hand, if participants focus on the available pieces of information because they have to invest money in order to search for information or because they have to evaluate the individual pieces of information, the confirmation bias decreases. Implications for theoretical understanding and interventions for decision-making situations are discussed

“Whimsy Little Contracts” with Unexpected Consequences: An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Understanding of Arbitration Agreements

Arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous in consumer contracts. These arbitration clauses require consumers to waive the constitutional right to a civil jury, access to court, and, increasingly, the procedural remedy of class representation. Because those rights cannot be divested without consent, the validity of arbitration agreements rests on the premise of consent. Consumers who do not want to arbitrate or waive their class rights can simply decline to purchase the products or services covered by an arbitration agreement. But the premise of consent is undermined if consumers do not understand the effect on their procedural rights of clicking a box or accepting a product. This Article reports on an empirical study exploring the extent to which consumers are aware of and understand the effect of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. We conducted an online survey of 668 consumers, approximately reflecting the population of adult Americans with respect to race/ethnicity, level of education, amount of family income, and age. Respondents were shown a typical credit card contract with an arbitration clause containing a class action waiver printed in bold and with portions in italics and ALLCAPS. Respondents were then asked questions about the sample contract as well as about a hypothetical contract containing what was described as a “properly-worded” arbitration clause. Finally, respondents were asked about their own experiences with actual consumer contracts. The survey results suggest a profound lack of understanding about the existence and effect of arbitration agreements among consumers. While 43% of the respondents recognized that the sample contract included an arbitration clause, 61% of those believed that consumers would, nevertheless, have a right to have a court decide a dispute too large for a small claims court. Less than 9% realized that the contract had both an arbitration clause and that it would prevent consumers from proceeding in court. With respect to the class waiver, four times as many respondents thought the contract did not block them from participating in a class action as realized that it did, even though the class action waiver was printed twice, in bold, in the sample contract, including one time in italics and ALLCAPS. Overall, of the more than 5000 answers we recorded to questions offering right and wrong answers, only a quarter were correct. Turning to respondents’ own lives, the survey asked if they had ever entered into contracts with arbitration clauses. Three hundred and three respondents claimed never to have done so. In fact, 264, or 87%, had at least one account subject to an arbitration clause. These and other findings reported in this Article should cause concern among judges and policymakers considering mandatory pre-dispute consumer arbitration agreements. Our results suggest that many citizens assume that they have a right to judicial process that they cannot lose as a result of their acquiescence in a form consumer contract. They believe that this right to judicial process will outweigh what one respondent referred to as a “whimsy little contract.” Our results suggest further that citizens are giving up these rights unknowingly, either because they do not realize they have entered into an arbitration agreement or because they do not understand the legal consequences of doing so. Given the degree of misunderstanding the results demonstrate, we question whether meaningful consent is possible in the consumer arbitration context

Women want the heavens, men want the earth

This version of the article may not completely replicate the final version published in Journal of Individual Differences.. It is not the version of record and is therefore not suitable for citation. The version of record can be found at https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a00028