ArticleSocial and personality psychology compass2021
Exploring the landscape of psychological threat: A cartography of threats and threat responses.
Article in Social and personality psychology compass, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Self-Protection Motivation and Its Psychological Construction: A Process Model Distinguishing Two Unique Motivational Orientations.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026Review
- Mapping the landscape of psychological literature on threat from 1961 to 2023 through structural topic modeling.PloS one · 2026Article
- Fight, Flight, or Vote Right? A Systematic Review of Threat Sensitivity in Political Conservatism.Brain sciences · 2025Review
- Effect of Trust in Science on Parental Reactions to Messaging about Children's Epigenetics-Related Obesity Risk.Public health genomics · 2025Article
- Economic Threats, Political and National Identification Predict Affective Polarization: Longitudinal Evidence From Spain.International review of social psychology · 2024Article
- A Threat-and-Defense Perspective on the Psychological Dynamics Behind the Covid-19 Pandemic.International review of social psychology · 2023Article
- A new variation of modern prejudice: young Korean men's anti-feminism and male-victim ideology.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Article
- The association of self-perceived changes due to COVID-19 with mental and physical health among adult primary care patients with multiple chronic conditions: A US-based longitudinal study.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Over the recent years, research in the field of threat and defense has accumulated evidence on how encounters with various psychological threats influence human behavior, cognition, motivation, affect, and health. Unifying different theoretical threat models, the General Process Model of Threat and Defense claims that different threatening concerns have a similar underlying dynamic. Some years after the publication of this theory, we deem it important to take a comparative look at psychological threat, comparing threats regarding their properties and outcomes on personal and social level. As potential dimensions to describe psychological threats, we discuss the existential nature of concerns, phenomenological worlds involved, and thwarted needs in threat encounters. We also discuss data-driven approaches to threat classifications, describing first empirical efforts to create threat taxonomies, and suggest directions for future research. This research will enhance our understanding of threat dynamics, and will help us make stronger, more clear-cut assumptions about human behavior upon experiencing threat.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.