The Psychology Linking 9/11, COVID, & Political Polarization

Some psychologists believe that Terror Management Theory, or TMT, may explain America’s response to 9/11 and Covid-19, as well as better explain the strong reaction to George Floyd’s death. In this video, we break down the psychological theory connecting mortality awareness to ideology, examine how researchers have applied it to some major events in recent American history, and look at the legitimate criticisms of the theory itself. Whether you are wondering why we seem more polarized than ever, or why political disagreements seem more like attacks on who we are, this video gives you a framework, and the vocabulary, to think about it more clearly. Timestamps: 1:03 – What is TMT? 7:49 – TMT & politics 9:30 – 9/11 & TMT 10:55 – COVID-19, George Floyd protests, & TMT 15:26 – Criticism of TMT Sources: 1. Pyszczynski, Lockett, Greenberg & Solomon (2020). "Terror Management Theory and the COVID-19 Pandemic." Journal of Humanistic Psychology. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles... 2. Burke, Martens & Faucher (2010). "Two Decades of Terror Management Theory: A Meta-Analysis of Mortality Salience Research." Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3. Burke, Kosloff & Landau (2013). "Death Goes to the Polls: A Meta-Analysis of Mortality Salience Effects on Political Attitudes." Political Psychology. 4. Landau, Solomon, Greenberg et al. (2004). "Deliver Us from Evil: The Effects of Mortality Salience and Reminders of 9/11 on Support for President George W. Bush." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 5. Becker, E. (1973). The Denial of Death. Free Press / Simon & Schuster. 🔔 Subscribe for rigorous, accessible deep dives into the political theory, ethics, and philosophy underneath the debates and beliefs shaping our world. 📲 For more content: Instagram:   / kraftythinking   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?... Substack: https://substack.com/@kraftythinking The content in this video is for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing I say should be interpreted as legal, medical, or professional advice of any kind. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, the views presented are not personal endorsements — they're examinations of ideas, arguments, and perspectives from across the political and philosophical spectrum. I regularly steelman positions I disagree with and present the strongest version of competing arguments as part of a genuine effort to encourage critical thinking, not to advocate for a particular side. Any sponsorships or paid partnerships are disclosed clearly in the video and in the description above. All references to laws, cases, historical events, and philosophical arguments reflect my best research at the time of publication. Laws change and information evolves — always do your own due diligence.