JASP Analysis Report

Key Insights

  1. The economic threat condition increased self-sacrifice tendencies, albeit minimally (t(249) = -1.96, p = .03, Cohen’s d = -.25)

  2. Of Narcistic Personality tendencies, anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, self control, BIS, BASDrive, BASReward, BASFun, Faith in intuition, need for cognition, uncertainty aversion, and self-esteem, only the latter moderated this relationship.

Self-esteem Moderation

  • The interaction term was marginally significant, b = −0.540, SE = 0.334, p = .090, 95% CI [−1.237, 0.086].

  • However, the confidence interval crossed zero, suggesting the moderation effect is not reliable. It is exploratory, and future research is needed

  • Self-Esteem itself significantly predicted SS scores (b = 0.620, SE = 0.261, p = .009), while the main effect of Condition remained marginal (b = 1.969, SE = 1.064, p = .064).

Why the other nulls?

  This can be more attributed to the under-powered nature of our study given that there was very little variance explained by the IV to begin with, and by adding moderators, we divided the variance seen in DV between two variables. Therefore, there was even less variance explained by either, pushing the results towards non-significance.

Cont’d

  1. Interestingly, those in the economic threat condition experienced a LOWER felt uncertainty with a small-medium effect size (Mann-Whitney U = 10,285.50, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -.30)[^1]
  2. Of all moderators mentioned before, only Uncertainty Aversion moderated the relationship, albeit marginally significant (F(3, 246) = 11.52, p < .001, b = 0.192, SE = 0.124, 95% CI [−0.038, 0.442], p = .097)1

Possible Explanations for the Puzzling Result

  1. Defensive certainty. Threat triggers motivated cognition. People clamp down on what they “know” to manage anxiety. Feeling uncertain is aversive, so they suppress it. Classic terror management response.
  2. We tested the differences in WVD ~ Condition. Results are null.
  3. Standard TMT would predict threat increases uncertainty and defensive responses (including WVD). We are NOT seeing these.

The Puzzle

Economic threat increased willingness to self-sacrifice.

But the mechanism is unclear.

Standard Terror Management Theory predicts threat → existential anxiety → defensive responses (worldview defense, punitiveness, uncertainty).

Did our manipulation follow this pathway?

What We Tested

Outcome Condition Effect
Self-sacrifice ↑ significant
Felt uncertainty ↓ significant (opposite)
Worldview defense — null
Threat-related affect (manipulation check) — null

What This Means

The manipulation worked—self-sacrifice increased.

But classic TMT markers are absent:

  • No increase in anxiety or threat affect
  • No increase in punitive judgment
  • Uncertainty actually decreased

This is not defensive responding.

Alternative Framing

What if economic threat activates something other than existential anxiety?

Solidarity hypothesis: Economic threat triggers collective, prosocial impulses—without the defensive, punitive worldview bolstering.

“We’re in this together” rather than “the world is scary.”

People rally. They don’t defend.

Supporting Evidence

Decreased uncertainty under threat suggests clarity, not chaos.

The threat may have provided a coherent narrative: “Times are hard. We must pull together.”

This is mobilization, not defense.

Proposed Confirmatory Study

Question: Does economic threat increase self-sacrifice through collective identification rather than existential anxiety?

Design: Measure both pathways:

  • Existential anxiety (threat affect, uncertainty, WVD)
  • Collective identification (group solidarity, shared fate, “we” orientation)

Test: Which pathway mediates the threat → self-sacrifice relationship?

Hypothesis

Economic threat will increase self-sacrifice.

This effect will be mediated by collective identification, not existential anxiety.

Participants who feel “we’re in this together” will show elevated self-sacrifice—regardless of anxiety levels.

Other Exploratory Analysis: Results

  • Condition (economic threat vs. control) explained 1.4% of variance (B = .18, p = .066)

  • Stepwise regression identified two additional predictors:

    • Self-esteem (β = 0.144, p = .026)
    • Faith in intuition (β = 0.128, p = .048)
    • Jointly explaining 4.4% of variance

  • Effect sizes are small; bootstrap CIs crossed zero

  • Faith in intuition did not moderate the effect of condition (p = .208)

Faith in Intuition

A subscale of the Rational-Experiential Inventory measuring trust in gut feelings, hunches, and first impressions.

Why might it predict self-sacrifice?

Self-sacrifice is fast, affective, morally charged—not calculated.

Those who trust their gut may act on the felt compulsion without second-guessing. The emotional signal (“my group needs me”) is sufficient.

This aligns with dual-process theory: System 1 drives the sacrificial impulse; System 2 would inhibit it.

Self-Esteem

Global evaluation of one’s own worth.

The puzzle: Higher self-esteem predicted more willingness to self-sacrifice. Why?

Identity-consistency model: High self-esteem individuals already see themselves as moral and capable. Self-sacrifice is consistent with that self-image. They’re not seeking worth—they’re expressing it.

Resource model: Self-sacrifice requires believing your contribution matters. Low self-esteem individuals may feel their sacrifice wouldn’t count.

Proposed Confirmatory Questions

  1. Does reliance on intuitive thinking predict willingness to self-sacrifice under threat?

  2. Does self-esteem predict self-sacrifice through identity-consistency rather than compensatory motives?

Future study considerations:

  • Adequate power to detect small effects
  • Re-test moderation by condition
  • Measure sacrificial identity as potential mediator