DEATH CONCERN: l\1EASUREMENT AND CORRELATES1

DEATH CONCERN: MEASURE/CORRELATES

TABLE 3
MEANS, STANDARD DEVIA".:"IONS, AND F RATIOS FROM ANALYSES OF VARIANCE
Scale High Middle Low F p
M SD M SD M SD
Death Concern 88.81 4.13 74.27 1.30 58.81 6.39
Seate Anxiety 40.77 9.03 34.22 6.76 33.68 8.12 5.31 <.Ol
Trait Anxiety 44.72 8.47 41.13 7.23 37.13 6.92 S.52 . <.Ol
R-S 55.04 16.56 46.18 16 1I 40.22 13.21 S.17 <.Ol
1-E 13.45 4.95 11.54 3 44 11.72 4.92 1.20 N.S.
Succorance 16.00 4.56 16.18 4.50 12.36 S.75 4.12 <.OS
Change 14.40 3.97 17.00 4.70 18.31 5.33 3.93 <.05
Heterosexuali ry 18.86 S.58 IS.SO 6.20 14.59 S.22 3.45 <.OS

three t rests were conducted. The high Ss are significantly different from the
lows ( p = .01, two-tailed) on the R-S scale, Scace Anxiety, Trait Anxiety, and
n Change. The differences between these cwo groups on n Succorance and n
Heterosexuality are signifi anc (p = .05, two-tailed). The middle group pre
sents a mixed picture. It is significantly different from the high group on State
Anxiety (p < .01, two-tailed) and significantly different from the low group
on n Succorance ( p < .05, two-tailed). Ics differences from the high group
approach significance (p < .10, two-tailed) on the R-S scale, n Change, and n
Heterosexuality while its difference from the low group approaches significance
for Trait Anxiety. Thus, the middle group is similar co the low group on four
of the measures and similar co the high group on the remaining cwo. Finally,
scores on the I-E scale for :he high and low groups were compared and were not
=
significantly different ( t 1.28).
The data collected ch:.is far with the Death Concern Scale suggest that it is
a promising instrument for utilization in furure research. The scale possesses a
high level of reliability in terms of internal consistency for both males and fe
males and a high level of stability for females. The coefficient of stability
should be obtained on a male sample coo.
The present srudy did not find any significant sex difference in death con
cern. This finding supports that of Handal ( 1969) but is discrepant with the
finding of Feldman and Hersen (1967). These discrepancies probably reflect
the use of different measuring instruments.
All buc one of the hypotheses regarding the construct validity of the scale
have been confirmed. Death concern is positively related co scare anxiety, trait
anxiety, and sensitization for females and co manifest anxiety for males and fe
males. However, no relationship was evident between death concern and ex
cernality. Since most of the personality measures were employed with a female
sample, fumre research should be directed coward the attainment of comparable
data with a male sample.
Construct validity is a continuous process and additional research on death
568 L. S. DICKSTEIN

concern utilizing a wider variety of variables for both sexes is necessary. le is

especially relevant co note chat all of che relationships reported in chis paper are
between paper-and-pencil self-report measures. Research with ocher methods
of personality measurement is needed.
The relationship between death concern and anxiety holds both for meas
ures of the predisposition coward anxiety such as manifest anxiety and trait
anxiety and for a measure of the current scare of anxiety of Ss. This finding
does not support the distinction which has been presented between state and trait
anxiety ( Spielberger, et al., 1970). According co the distinction Ss differing in
trait anxiety should differ in state anxiety when confronted with a srressful situ
ation. Since Ss were volunteers without any obligation co fulfill a research
requirement, it is difficult to construe the setting as a stressful one. It is possible,
though, that psychological assessment in any setting is a stressful experience.
The relacionshi ps between death concern and measures of anxiety suggest
that the former is simply one manifestation of a more generalized tendency to be
anxious. However, death concern and general anxiety are far from synonymous
constructs. The correlation between death concern and manifest anxiety is quite
moderate indicating only about 13% common variance between the two meas
ures. This correlation is almost identical with the correlations reported between
the Death Anxiety Scale and both the anxiety scale of the Zuckerman Affect Ad
jective Check Lise and the Manifest Anxiety Scale for both males and females
(Handal & Rychlak, 1971).
The meaning of the mean scores for high, middle, and low Ss on state and
trait anxiety may be clarified by comparison with the norms reported for female
undergraduates by Spielberger, et al. (1970). They report means of 35.12 and
38.25 for state and trait anxiety respectively. The middle and low death-concern
groups are not very discrepant from these norms. The high death-concern
group, however, shows a pattern of elevated mean scores for both state and trait
anxiety of 5.65 and 6.47 points respectively. Thus, the data suggest a high level
of anxiety for the high death-concern Ss rather than a low level of anxiety for
the low Ss.
The relationship between death concern and sensitization may be inter
preted two ways. One possibility is that high death-concern Ss are characterized
by the defensive strategy of acknowledging threatening stimuli whereas low
death-concern Ss tend to avoid such acknowledgment. Death concern would be
one specific instance of this general personality difference. Alternatively, the R-
S scale may itself be another measure of anxiety. The present finding cor
responds nicely with the finding (Byrne, Steinberg, & Schwartz, 1968) chat sen
sitizers report more physical complaints on a health survey than do repressers.
Sensitizers appear to be more concerned about physical well being and death is
the threat par excellence to such well being. The present finding also cor responds
with the correlation of .508 reported by Talor and Reznikoff ( 1967)
 DEATH CONCERN: MEASURE/CORRELATES 569

between the Death Anxiety Scale and the R-S scale for males and with the corre
lation of .51 reported between the same two measures for a sample containing
both sexes (Handal & Rychlak, 1971).
Again, it is instructive to compare the three means of the present study
with existing norms for female undergraduates. Byrne, et al. (1963) report a
mean of 42.68 on the R-S scale for 571 female undergraduates while Cosentino
and Kahn ( 1967) report a mean of 41.47 for 399 female undergraduates. Again,
it is primarily the high death-concern group which is discrepant from the norms.
The failure to confinT'. the hypothesis of a relationship between death con
cern and exrernaliry suggests that concern about death does not necessarily imply
a general belief that events are outside of one's control. This finding does not
correspond with the significant but low correlation of .232 between the Death
Anxiety Scale and the I-E sea.le reported by Tolor and Reznikoff (1967) for
males. An attempt at replication of the finding with males is needed.
Perhaps the most intriguing findings of the present study concern the dif
ferences between che groups on the EPPS. Death concern is positively corre
lated with n Heterosexuality and n Succorance and negatively correlated with n
Change. These results must be interpreted with caution for several reasons.
First, hardly any research has been conducted on the construct validity of the
various need scales ( RadcEffe, 1965; Stricker, 1965). Secondly, the scale uti
lizes a forced-choice technique and the scores on the different needs are ipsa
tive rather than normative. Thus, a high score on heterosexuality does not indi
cate an absolute level on the motivation for sex but rather a high score relative
to the other needs included in the inventory. Thirdly, the obtained findings
were nor predicted in advance and, hence, an attempt should be made to replicate
them.
In the absence of recent norms for the various needs of che EPPS, the mid
dle group is especially important in interpreting the mean scores of the two ex
treme death-concern groups. If the middle group is regarded as a normative
group, it appears that the high death-concern group is the discrepant group with
regard to heterosexuality and change while the low death-concern group is dis
crepant with regard to succorance.
The means on succorance are vimially identical for the high and medium
Ss while the low death-concern Ss are markedly lower. Succorance is defined
on the EPPS by the endorsement of items indicating a desire to have others pro
vide help when in trouble, to seek encouragement from others, to have ochers be
sympathetic and understanding about personal problems, etc. The low score of
the low death-concern group may be interpreted as a form of defensiveness. Ap
parently, Ss low on death concern are reluctant to acknowledge any failing in self-
sufficiency. This finding is especially interesting as the only indication of
defensiveness in the low group. On all of the other measures the low group cor
responded ro existing norms for the scales or was similar co the middle group.
570 L. S. DICKSTEIN

The high death-concern group is discrepant with regard to change. These

Ss tend to avoid the endorsement of items indicating a desire to do new and dif
ferent things, to travel, to experience novelty, to experiment, etc. The reluctance
to experience change is consistent with a high level of concern about death.
Clinging to the familiar may be a defense against the passage of time leading
to inevitable death. In addition, change itself is a form of death insofar as it
represents the abandonment and loss of past modes of being. This finding is
consistent with the report of Dickstein and Blatt ( 1966) that high death-con
cern males tend to have low future time-perspective. Avoidance of thoughts
about the future is a way of defending against the perception of change and the
passage of time.
The high death-concern group is the discrepant group with regard to hetero
sexuality too. High Ss are more likely to endorse items indicating a desire to go
out with members of the opposite sex, to kiss those of the opposite sex, to be
come sexually excited, etc. It is tempting to interpret the relationship between
sexual motivation and death concern dynamically. High death-concern Ss may
experience stronger sexual impulses which, in turn, arouse feelings of guilt lead
ing to concern about death. Greenberger ( 1965) has suggested that one possi
ble meaning of death from the standpoint of psychoanalysis is punishment for
sexual impulses. She reports that women dying of cancer told TAT stories with
themes of punishment significantly more frequently than a matched group of
hospital patients. Sarnoff and Corwin (1959) have reported that sexual arousal
of males produces greater fear of death particularly among chose with a high
level of castration anxiety as measured by the Blacky test.
An alternative interpretation is that confrontation with death evokes strong
er sexual impulses perhaps as a defense against the termination of physical pleas
ure implicit in death or perhaps in accordance with the well known Epicurean
motto. This interpretation is supported by Greenberger's ( 1965) finding that
the cancer patients told TAT stories of illicit sex more frequently than the con
trols although she interprets this finding somewhat differently as an indicator
of the Harlequin Complex ( McClelland, 1963). The evocation of sexual im pulses
in women by confrontation with death is also reported by Paris and Good stein
(1966) who found that women report a higher level of sexual arousal after
reading material about death than men do.
The findings reported in this paper strongly suggest that concern about
death is a personality variable which interrelates in complex ways with other
personality variables. Systematic research may contribute much toward an un
derstanding of how man copes with the ultimate threat to individual personality.

REFERENCES
BYRNE, D. The Repression-Sensitization Scale: rationale, reliability and validity. Jour
nal of Personality, 1961, 29, 334-349.
BYRNE, D. Ret,ression-Sensitization as a dimension of personality. Progress in Experi
mental Personality Research, 1964, 1, 169-220.
 DEATH CONCERN: MEASURE/CORRELATES 571

BYRNE, D., BARRY, J.. & NELSON, D. Relacion of the revised Repression-Sensitization
Scale co measures of self description. P1ychological Reports, 1963, 13, 323-334.
BYRNE, D., STEINBERG, M., 6: SCHWARTZ, M. Relationship between Repression-Sensi
tization and physical illness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1968, 73, 154-
155.
COLLETT, L., & LESTER, D. ':"he fear of death and the fear of dying. Jottrnal of Psy
chology, 1969, 72, 179-181.
COSENTINO, F., & KAHN, M. Further normative and comparative data on the Repression
Sensitization and Social Desirability Scales. Psychological Reports, 1967, 20, 959-
962.
DICKSTEIN, L., & BLATT, S. Death concern, futurity, and anticipation. Journal of Con sulting
P1ychology, 1966, 30, 11-17.
EDWARDS, A. Edwards Per1or:al Prefet"ence Schedule. New York: Psychological Corp.,
1959.
FEIFEL, H. Attitudes coward death: a psychological perspective. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical P1ycholog1, 1969, 33, 292-295.
FELDMAN, M., & HERSEN, M. Accitudes coward death in nightmare subjects. Journal of
Abnormal P1ychology, 1967, 72, 421-425.
GREENBERGER, E. Fantasies of women confronting death. Journal of Comttlting Psy
chology, 1965, 29, 252-260.
HANDAL, P. The relationship between subjective life expectancy, death anxiety, and
general anxiety. Journ"'l of Clinical Psychology, 1969, 25, 39-42.
HANDAL, P., & RYCHLAK, J. Curvilinearity between dream content and death anxiety
and che relationship of death anxiety co Repression-Sensitization. Journal of Ab
normal Psychology, 19:'l, 77, 11-16.
LESTER, D. Experimental anc. correlacional studies of the fear of death. Psychological
Bulletin, 1967, 67, 27-36.
LEVITT, E. The psychology of anxiety. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.
LOMONT, J. The Repression-Sensitization dimension in relation co anxiety responses.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 84-86.
MCCLELLAND, D. The Harllquin complex. In R. White (Ed.), The study of lives.
New York: Atherton, 1963. Pp. 94-119.
PARIS, ]., & GOODSTEIN, L. Responses co death and sex stimulus materials as a function
of Repression-Sensitization. Psychological Repom, 1966, 19, 1283-1291.
RADCLIFFE, J. Review of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. In 0. Buros (Ed.),
The sixth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, N. J.: Gryphon, 1965.
Pp. 195-200.
ROTTER, J. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80, No. 1 (Whole No. 609).
SARNOFF, I., & CORWIN, S. Castration anxiety and the fear of death. Journal of Person ality,
1959, 27, 374-385.
SPIELBERGER, S., GORSUCH, R., & LUSHENE, R. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, manual.
Palo Alco: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1970.
STRICKER, L. Review of Edw:;:rds Personal Preference Schedule. In 0. Buros (Ed.), The
sixth mental measuremrnts yearbook. Highland Park, N. J.: Gryphon, 1965. Pp. 200-
207.
SULLIVAN, P., & ROBERTS, L. Relationship of Manifest Anxiety co Repression-Sensitiza
tion on the MMPI. Jo rnal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 33, 763-
764.
TAYLOR, J. A personality sc::.le of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 1953, 48, 285-290.
TOLOR, A., & REZNIKOFF, iv.:. Relacion between Insight, Repression-Sensitization, In cernal-
Excernal Control and Death Anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1967, 72,