Religion and Death Anxiety: Psychological Research
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Religion, Spirituality & Meaning-Making · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Religion and death anxiety have a relationship, but the strongest psychological evidence does not support a simple rule that religious people fear death less. The best synthesis to date found a weak overall negative association between religiosity and death anxiety, substantial variation across studies, and evidence that the relationship may sometimes be nonlinear rather than steadily increasing or decreasing. In particular, both strongly religious and strongly nonreligious people can report relatively low death anxiety, while uncertainty or ambivalence may be associated with more anxiety in some samples. The major systematic review and meta-analysis behind this conclusion extracted 202 effect sizes from 100 studies and emphasized how much the findings depended on what researchers measured, whom they studied, and how religiosity was distributed in the sample. Jong and colleagues’ systematic review and meta-analysis remains a central evidence base for this question.
Newer research strengthens the case for studying specific religious and spiritual dimensions rather than treating “religion” as one variable. A 2026 U.S. nationwide probability-sample study of 3,010 adults found different patterns for beliefs, religious or spiritual peace, behaviors, and spiritual struggles; several belief variables showed curvilinear associations, while religious/spiritual struggles were associated with greater death anxiety. Because the study is observational, these findings identify associations rather than proving that any belief or practice causes death anxiety to rise or fall. Scorpiniti and Ironson’s 2026 study is especially useful because it included adults across a broad religious and nonreligious spectrum.
Psychology can examine how mortality-related fear, meaning, identity, community, belief certainty, spiritual struggle, and coping are related. It cannot determine whether a religious teaching about death or an afterlife is true. This article therefore addresses human experience and psychological evidence while treating religious and nonreligious worldviews with equal respect.
What Is Death Anxiety in Psychological Research?
Death anxiety is a research construct describing apprehension, fear, uneasiness, or distress related to death and dying. It can refer to one’s own death, the process of dying, the death or dying of other people, or several of these concerns at once. Researchers have developed multiple questionnaires because death-related fear is multidimensional. The classic Templer Death Anxiety Scale helped establish systematic measurement of the construct, while later instruments separated fear of one’s own death, one’s own dying process, the death of others, and the dying of others. Templer’s original scale remains historically important, but no single scale captures every possible form of mortality-related concern.
A systematic review of 89 psychometric studies covering 21 self-report death-anxiety scales and six subscales found that no measure had adequate evidence on every evaluated quality criterion. The Templer Death Anxiety Scale, Concerns about Dying Instrument, and Death Concern Scale had comparatively strong support, yet important psychometric gaps remained. Zuccala and colleagues’ systematic review makes a practical point that matters throughout this literature: a questionnaire score is a measurement result, not a psychiatric diagnosis.
Death anxiety is not the same as mortality salience
Death anxiety and mortality salience are related ideas, but they are not interchangeable. Death anxiety is usually measured as a person’s reported fear, apprehension, or concern. Mortality salience is an experimental condition in which researchers make thoughts of death temporarily accessible—for example, by asking participants to write about their own death—and then examine subsequent attitudes or behavior. Much of terror management research studies responses to mortality salience rather than measuring persistent death anxiety directly. Confusing the two can make experimental findings sound more clinically specific than they are.
Death anxiety is not, by itself, a mental disorder
Thoughts and feelings about mortality occur in ordinary human life, religious reflection, philosophical reflection, serious illness, aging, bereavement, parenthood, exposure to danger, and major transitions. A person can be deeply concerned about death without meeting criteria for any mental disorder. A 2025 meta-analysis found positive associations between death anxiety and general anxiety, depression, and psychological distress across a large literature, while also reporting substantial heterogeneity, generally poor study quality, and evidence of small-study effects. Dumitru and colleagues’ meta-analysis therefore supports clinical relevance without turning death anxiety into a diagnosis.
Does Religion Reduce Death Anxiety? What the Evidence Actually Shows
The most defensible answer is: sometimes, for some people and some religious or spiritual dimensions, but there is no universal protective effect. The 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis found high heterogeneity and only a weak negative overall association between religiosity and death anxiety. A later review summarized the linear relationship as inconsistent and probably close to zero on average. Jong’s 2021 review also concluded that evidence that fear of death broadly motivates religious belief is weak, subtle, and inconsistent.
These results matter because “religiosity” can mean affiliation, private belief, public worship, prayer frequency, religious identity, intrinsic commitment, perceived closeness to God, belief in an afterlife, religious hope, or many other constructs. “Death anxiety” can likewise refer to several fears. Two studies can appear to ask the same question while measuring substantially different psychological phenomena.
The possible inverted-U pattern
One recurrent hypothesis is curvilinear: death anxiety may be lower among people with highly settled religious commitments and among people with highly settled nonreligious worldviews, while people who are uncertain, conflicted, or moderately committed may report more anxiety. In the 2018 meta-analysis, 10 of the 11 studies that directly tested curvilinearity provided some support for an inverted-U pattern. The authors explicitly cautioned that more evidence was needed, particularly from nonreligious people and from non-Western and non-Abrahamic contexts. That caution is central to interpreting the finding.
The 2026 nationwide U.S. probability sample adds unusually current evidence. Strong worldviews—religious and secular—were associated with lower death anxiety on several belief dimensions, while ambivalence was associated with higher anxiety. The same study also found that religious/spiritual struggles, including insecure attachment to God and a negative view of God as measured in that research, were associated with greater death anxiety. These associations were reported by Scorpiniti and Ironson, who controlled statistically for multiple demographic and psychological variables. Statistical adjustment strengthens description of the association but still does not establish causation.
Why a straight line can miss the psychology
If the true pattern is nonlinear in some populations, averaging everyone together can conceal it. A study that compares “more religious” with “less religious” may mix highly committed believers, people with moderate participation, people in spiritual conflict, agnostics, atheists, and people whose identity and practice do not align. The resulting single correlation can be near zero even when psychologically meaningful subgroups differ. This is one reason recent work increasingly separates belief, behavior, identity, peace, struggle, and worldview certainty.
Religion Is Not One Psychological Variable
A religious tradition can organize meaning, moral commitments, relationships, rituals, community membership, narratives of suffering, practices surrounding death, expectations about an afterlife, and relationships with the sacred. These dimensions can move together, but they can also diverge within the same person. Someone may attend services regularly for family or cultural reasons while feeling uncertain about theological beliefs. Another person may hold strong beliefs with little institutional participation. A third may describe a rich spiritual life outside organized religion.
This multidimensionality is one reason the field’s major reference works treat religion and spirituality as complex psychological domains rather than a single score. The APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality includes theory and evidence on religion as a resource in the face of anxiety and mortality while situating those processes within broader psychological, cultural, and developmental contexts.
Belief content and belief certainty
Beliefs about death may carry very different meanings. For one person, an afterlife belief may provide continuity, hope, reunion, or a coherent account of mortality. For another, the same broad category of belief may include fear of judgment, moral concern, uncertainty, or spiritual conflict. A questionnaire category such as “afterlife belief” cannot by itself tell us whether the belief functions as comfort, challenge, obligation, hope, fear, or all of these at once.
The 2026 U.S. study illustrates this point by separating afterlife beliefs, religious/spiritual centrality, religious/spiritual peace, positive views of God, behaviors, and struggles rather than collapsing them into one religiosity index. Its results suggest that clarity, peace, and struggle can matter differently.
Religious practice and community
Prayer, scripture reading, worship, memorial practices, sacraments, pilgrimage, meditation, communal mourning, and other practices can focus attention, structure emotion, activate memories and relationships, and place mortality inside shared narratives. The psychological meaning of a practice depends on the person, tradition, situation, and social environment. Frequency alone cannot establish whether a practice is comforting, obligatory, conflicted, joyful, avoidant, or distressing.
Religious communities can also provide social contact, practical help, intergenerational continuity, ritual recognition of loss, and trusted roles. They can be sources of belonging and identity around serious illness or bereavement. These social pathways may overlap with specifically religious meaning, which makes it difficult for observational studies to isolate one causal ingredient.
Terror Management Theory and Mortality Salience
Terror Management Theory is one of the most influential psychological frameworks connecting mortality awareness with cultural worldviews. In broad form, it proposes that awareness of inevitable death creates existential vulnerability and that people regulate this vulnerability partly through culturally shared meaning systems, self-esteem, and forms of literal or symbolic continuity. Religion can function as one such worldview, but secular moral, national, philosophical, relational, and cultural worldviews can also provide meaning and continuity.
An influential 2010 meta-analysis synthesized 164 articles containing 277 experiments and reported a moderate average effect of mortality-salience manipulations on worldview- and self-esteem-related outcomes. Burke, Martens, and Faucher also found that effect sizes varied by sample and procedure, including stronger effects in U.S. and college-student samples.
Mortality-salience evidence now requires replication-aware interpretation
The historical evidence base has been challenged by newer high-powered and replication-focused work. A 2021 registered report designed to test worldview defense under mortality salience did not obtain the expected effect across its planned studies. Schindler, Reinhardt, and Reinhard’s registered report therefore weakens any claim that the classic effect is automatic or robust across contemporary samples and procedures.
Many Labs 4 tested a classic mortality-salience effect across 17 laboratories and 1,550 participants and found little evidence for the effect in either original-author-advised or independent protocols. The Many Labs 4 report concluded that the necessary conditions may be incompletely understood or the original finding may not generalize as once assumed. A separate series of five studies likewise failed to reproduce basic mortality-salience patterns, with pooled effects not differing reliably from zero. Treger, Benau, and Timko emphasized methodological and sociocultural uncertainty rather than treating the failures as a final verdict on the entire theory.
A 2023 meta-analysis focused specifically on interactions between mortality salience and salient social norms found a raw small-to-medium interaction effect, but bias-adjustment methods produced substantially smaller estimates and in several cases reduced the effect to nonsignificance. Schindler and colleagues called for preregistered, high-powered experiments with validated manipulations.
What TMT can and cannot establish about religion
TMT offers a psychologically coherent account of why culturally shared worldviews might become relevant when people think about death. The current evidence does not justify treating every religious belief as a defense against death anxiety, nor does it establish that mortality fear is the origin of religion. Experimental mortality salience, self-reported death anxiety, long-term religious commitment, spiritual struggle, and theological conviction are distinct constructs. A respectful scientific account keeps those distinctions visible.
Age and the Life Course
Age does not have a single universal relationship with death anxiety. Intuitively, people may assume that proximity to death makes older adults more fearful, but many studies do not support that simple prediction. Developmental experience, health, bereavement history, family roles, future time perspective, worldview stability, and cultural expectations can all change with age.
In a national U.S. survey, Krause, Pargament, and Ironson found lower death anxiety among older age groups and reported that religious hope moderated the age–death-anxiety relationship. Their study is observational, so it does not show that religious hope itself caused the age pattern.
A large systematic review and meta-analysis of religiosity/spirituality and mental health in adults aged 60 and older included seven studies in its pooled analysis of religiosity and death anxiety. The pooled cross-sectional association was small and did not reach conventional statistical significance. Coelho-Júnior and colleagues also identified a longitudinal study in which secure attachment to God predicted lower death anxiety later, underscoring the difference between pooled cross-sectional evidence and particular longitudinal pathways.
Attachment to God as one later-life pathway
A longitudinal study of 936 U.S. adults aged 65 and older reported that secure attachment to God was associated with a decrease in death anxiety over time, with a stronger association among Black older adults than White older adults in that sample. Jung’s study is valuable because it shows that a religious construct can operate differently across social groups. It also cautions against describing an effect found in one national cohort as a universal property of religion.
Culture, Religious Tradition, and Social Position
Culture shapes how death is spoken about, which emotions are acceptable to express, how bodies and funerals are treated, which relationships continue symbolically after death, how ancestors are remembered, and what families or communities expect from a dying or bereaved person. Religious traditions are embedded in these cultural contexts, so the same questionnaire score can carry different meanings across societies.
A 2024 pilot study in multicultural Singapore found that highly and moderately religious participants reported higher death anxiety than nonreligious participants, and it did not reproduce the commonly proposed inverted-U pattern. Belak and Goh’s study included only 110 participants, so it should not be treated as a population-wide conclusion. Its value is precisely that it demonstrates how results can depart from patterns reported in more heavily Western literatures.
The 2018 meta-analysis explicitly identified underrepresentation of nonreligious participants and the need for more research in non-Western and non-Abrahamic contexts. In the studies for which the proportion of nonreligious participants could be determined, many samples contained few or no nonreligious respondents. Jong and colleagues therefore warned that a literature about “religion and death anxiety” can give misleadingly universal impressions when the underlying sampling is narrow.
Measurement equivalence matters across cultures
Translating a death-anxiety scale does more than replace words. Ideas such as death, dying, judgment, continuity, ancestors, fate, spiritual peace, or a good death can carry different cultural assumptions. Researchers must examine whether a scale measures the same latent construct in different groups before interpreting score differences as psychological differences. The broader psychometric literature on death-anxiety measures shows that measurement quality is uneven even before cross-cultural equivalence is considered.
Cultural competence therefore requires more than inserting religion as a demographic checkbox. Researchers and clinicians need to understand what a person’s own language, community, tradition, and history make a belief or practice mean.
Serious Illness, Cancer, and End-of-Life Contexts
Death anxiety can become especially salient after a diagnosis that changes a person’s expectations about survival, functioning, or the future. In medical settings, mortality concerns are also entangled with symptom burden, pain, uncertainty, treatment decisions, family responsibilities, financial pressure, and prior mental health. Associations observed in healthy community samples should not be assumed to transfer unchanged to people with serious illness.
A 2024 systematic review focused on cancer patients concluded that most included studies reported an inverse relationship between spirituality/religiosity and death anxiety. Gorji and colleagues reviewed 15 studies, many of which were cross-sectional. Their findings support an association in this clinical population, while the design of the evidence limits causal conclusions.
A separate 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis of 52 cancer studies found that death anxiety was positively correlated with factors such as symptom burden, anxiety, depression, fear of recurrence, and psychological distress, while it was negatively correlated with age, social support, meaning in life, spiritual well-being, and religious beliefs, among other variables. Li and colleagues analyzed correlates rather than randomized evidence that increasing religiosity will reduce death anxiety.
Why medical findings should not become spiritual prescriptions
A negative correlation between religious or spiritual variables and death anxiety does not justify telling patients to become more religious, pray more, or adopt a particular belief. People enter illness with existing identities, commitments, doubts, communities, and values. For some, religious care is deeply important; for others, secular sources of meaning are central. Patient-centered care asks what matters to the person and supports that framework without imposing another.
Similarly, spiritual support is not a substitute for pain control, oncology, palliative medicine, treatment of depression or anxiety disorders, or other indicated care. Religious leaders, chaplains, psychologists, physicians, nurses, and family members can have complementary roles when the patient wants them involved.
Possible Psychological Pathways
Research suggests several plausible pathways through which religious or spiritual life may relate to death anxiety. These pathways are best treated as hypotheses and partially supported mechanisms rather than universal causal explanations.
Meaning and coherence
A worldview can place death within a larger narrative about identity, values, relationships, moral life, continuity, or transcendence. Psychological coherence may reduce uncertainty for some people. Secular worldviews can also provide coherent accounts of mortality. This helps explain why strong commitment at either end of a religious–nonreligious spectrum can sometimes be associated with lower death anxiety.
Hope and expectations about what follows death
Religious hope and afterlife beliefs may be associated with lower fear when they are experienced as secure and comforting. The evidence is more complex when beliefs include uncertainty, threat, judgment, or spiritual struggle. The age-related study of religious hope reported by Krause and colleagues and the multidimensional 2026 U.S. findings reported by Scorpiniti and Ironson illustrate why content and emotional meaning matter more than simply asking whether a person “believes.”
Attachment and relationship with the sacred
For traditions in which a relationship with God is central, attachment-related constructs may organize feelings of security, trust, proximity, abandonment, or conflict. Jung’s longitudinal later-life study found that secure attachment to God predicted decreases in death anxiety over time in its U.S. sample. That finding concerns a specific psychological representation within a specific cultural context; it should not be generalized to traditions that conceptualize the sacred differently.
Belonging and social support
Religious communities can provide companionship, shared language, practical care, rites surrounding illness and death, and recognition of grief. Social support itself is associated with many mental-health outcomes and can partly account for correlations attributed broadly to religion. At the same time, belonging has religious meaning for many people and cannot always be cleanly separated into “social” versus “spiritual” components.
Ritual and emotional organization
Ritual can organize attention, time, memory, bodily action, and interpersonal coordination. Funerals, prayers, vigils, memorial practices, and other rites can give form to experiences that are otherwise difficult to articulate. Psychology can study these functions without determining the theological truth of the ritual or sacred claims associated with it.
Spiritual struggle
Religious life can also include conflict: feeling abandoned, fearing condemnation, experiencing guilt, questioning previously secure beliefs, or struggling with a religious community. The 2026 U.S. probability-sample study found that measures of religious/spiritual struggle were associated with higher death anxiety. This recent evidence is a reminder that the same broad domain can contain both resources and stressors.
Why the Research Produces Mixed Results
Mixed findings are not a sign that the topic is scientifically meaningless. They reflect a field in which both the predictor and outcome are complex, culturally loaded, and measured in many different ways. Several recurring methodological issues explain why studies disagree.
Cross-sectional studies cannot determine direction
If religiosity and death anxiety are measured once, a correlation cannot tell us whether religious life shaped mortality concerns, mortality concerns shaped religious involvement, both were influenced by another variable, or all three occurred together. Health, personality, education, family history, community integration, recent bereavement, and socioeconomic conditions can all influence observed associations.
Selection and survivorship shape samples
People who remain highly involved in a religious community may differ systematically from people who leave. People who describe themselves as strongly nonreligious may also differ from people who are uncertain or unaffiliated for practical reasons. Samples recruited from congregations, universities, hospitals, or online panels therefore answer somewhat different questions.
Religiosity measures are often too broad
The older literature frequently used affiliation or a single global religiosity item. Newer studies increasingly separate centrality, belief, practice, peace, struggle, attachment, and social participation. The difference is consequential: Scorpiniti and Ironson’s 2026 findings showed that distinct religious/spiritual dimensions had distinct relationships with death anxiety.
Death-anxiety measures are imperfect
Different questionnaires emphasize different facets of mortality concern. Some scales mix cognitive and emotional items; some are unidimensional, while others separate death from dying or self from others. Zuccala and colleagues’ psychometric review found no self-report measure with adequate evidence across all evaluated criteria. Measurement choices can therefore change the pattern a study detects.
The literature has demographic and cultural blind spots
The 2018 meta-analysis noted especially limited representation of nonreligious participants and non-Western, non-Abrahamic contexts. That limitation is important because religious identity, secular identity, death practices, and the social meaning of belief differ markedly between societies.
Experimental mortality-salience effects are contested
Early meta-analytic evidence supported mortality-salience effects, yet later registered reports, multi-lab replications, and bias-adjusted meta-analytic work have weakened confidence in the universality and size of classic worldview-defense effects. The 2010 meta-analysis, Many Labs 4, and the 2023 challenging meta-analysis should be read together rather than choosing only the result that fits a preferred theory.
Death Anxiety, Grief, Anxiety Disorders, and OCD
Death anxiety belongs to research on attitudes toward mortality and can appear in many ordinary or clinical contexts. It does not identify the cause of a person’s distress and does not specify a diagnosis. Clinical interpretation depends on the pattern of symptoms, duration, impairment, avoidance, compulsions, trauma exposure, mood symptoms, medical context, developmental stage, cultural norms, and the person’s own understanding of the experience.
Death anxiety versus grief
Death anxiety is primarily concern about mortality, dying, or death. Grief is the psychological, emotional, physical, and social response to significant loss, especially bereavement after someone has died. The two can overlap: a bereavement may intensify awareness of one’s own mortality, while longstanding death fears can shape the experience of loss. They remain conceptually distinct. The Hub’s Grief: Psychological Responses to Loss explains ordinary grief, prolonged grief disorder, and related clinical distinctions in greater depth.
Death anxiety versus an anxiety disorder
A person can worry about death without having an anxiety disorder. Clinical assessment asks whether fear is persistent, disproportionate to context, difficult to regulate, linked to avoidance or other symptoms, and causing significant impairment. Serious medical illness can make mortality concerns realistic and immediate, so assessment must distinguish understandable concern from a psychiatric syndrome while still addressing suffering.
Religious death fears versus scrupulosity
Fear involving sin, judgment, morality, or spiritual consequences is not automatically obsessive-compulsive disorder. Scrupulosity is an OCD presentation characterized by obsessions and compulsions organized around moral or religious themes. Repetitive reassurance seeking, compulsive confession, ritualized prayer performed to neutralize obsessional fear, checking, and severe certainty seeking can be clinically relevant when they fit the broader OCD pattern. The separate article Scrupulosity OCD: What Is It? Religious Obsessions, Moral Fear, Rituals, Guilt, and Treatment covers that diagnostic and treatment territory.
Religious belief itself is not evidence of psychopathology. Clinicians evaluate culturally shared beliefs and practices within the person’s community and tradition, alongside reality testing, distress, functioning, other symptoms, and the full clinical context. Unusual or intense spiritual experiences require the same contextual care rather than automatic pathologizing.
What Faith-Sensitive Clinical Care Looks Like
Faith-sensitive care begins with the patient’s own framework. A clinician can ask whether religious or spiritual beliefs are important to the person, whether those beliefs are currently a source of comfort or struggle, whether the patient wants them included in care, and whether a trusted religious leader or chaplain should be involved. The purpose is to understand the patient accurately and support informed, culturally competent care.
A clinician does not need to share the patient’s worldview to work respectfully with it. Competence includes learning the difference between a religious practice and a symptom, recognizing when a community norm shapes expression, avoiding theological argument, and knowing when consultation with a culturally knowledgeable professional is useful.
Religious or spiritual resources should be integrated only when they fit the patient’s values and treatment goals. A therapist can explore meaning, hope, guilt, community relationships, or mortality concerns without prescribing religious commitment. Likewise, a secular patient should not be steered toward religious practices on the assumption that they are inherently protective.
In serious illness, collaboration can be especially valuable. Palliative-care teams, mental-health clinicians, chaplains, clergy, and medical specialists address different needs. Spiritual care can accompany evidence-based medical and psychological treatment while respecting the boundaries of each discipline.
Practical Implications for People Experiencing Death Anxiety
Mortality concerns deserve language before they deserve a label. It can help to identify what the fear is actually about: pain, loss of control, separation from loved ones, uncertainty, unfinished responsibilities, spiritual questions, judgment, nonexistence, the dying process, or the effect of one’s death on others. Different concerns call for different forms of support.
For a religious person, support may include talking with a trusted clergy member, chaplain, spiritual director, family member, or community elder, especially when the concern involves doctrine, ritual, reconciliation, or spiritual struggle. For a nonreligious person, a therapist, trusted friend, philosophical community, or other source of meaning may be more appropriate. These options can coexist with professional mental-health or medical care.
A mental-health assessment is appropriate when death-related fear persistently disrupts sleep, work, study, caregiving, relationships, medical care, or everyday functioning; when avoidance becomes severe; when intrusive thoughts or compulsions dominate the day; or when depression, panic, trauma symptoms, or other significant symptoms are present. In serious illness, the treating medical team can also address symptoms, prognosis questions, palliative needs, and uncertainty that may be intensifying anxiety.
A questionnaire score can help researchers quantify a construct and may support clinical conversation, but it cannot determine by itself whether someone has a disorder, what caused the fear, or which treatment is appropriate.
What We Can Conclude With Confidence
First, religion and death anxiety do not have a single universal relationship. The largest dedicated systematic review and meta-analysis found a weak average negative association with substantial heterogeneity. The 2018 evidence synthesis remains consistent with the later conclusion that a simple linear relation is probably near zero on average. Jong’s 2021 review reinforces that point.
Second, a nonlinear relationship is plausible. Highly settled religious and highly settled nonreligious worldviews can both be associated with relatively low death anxiety, while uncertainty may be associated with more anxiety in some datasets. This pattern appeared in earlier studies synthesized by Jong and colleagues and received new support in the 2026 U.S. probability sample. It is still not a universal law.
Third, dimensions matter. Religious hope, attachment to God, spiritual peace, community participation, afterlife beliefs, and spiritual struggles are psychologically distinct. They should not be collapsed into a single assumption that “religion protects” or “religion increases fear.”
Fourth, age and culture moderate interpretation. Older-adult evidence includes both null pooled associations and specific longitudinal effects. The older-adult meta-analysis, the U.S. longitudinal attachment study, and the Singapore pilot study demonstrate why sampling context belongs in the conclusion, not just the methods section.
Fifth, mortality-salience experiments should be interpreted with modern replication evidence in view. Historical meta-analysis supported the paradigm, but registered replication work, multi-lab replication, and bias-sensitive meta-analysis show that classic effects are less secure than older summaries sometimes imply.
Finally, psychological findings concern human responses to belief, meaning, identity, and mortality. They do not test whether sacred claims are true or false. That boundary is both scientifically necessary and essential to respectful psychology of religion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does religion reduce death anxiety?
On average, the relationship is weak and highly variable. The largest dedicated meta-analysis found a weak negative association, while a later review concluded that the linear association is inconsistent and probably near zero. Specific beliefs, spiritual peace, struggles, community contexts, age, and culture can produce different patterns.
Are religious people less afraid of death than atheists?
There is no reliable universal ranking. Some evidence supports a curvilinear pattern in which highly committed religious and strongly nonreligious people report lower death anxiety than people who are uncertain or moderately committed. Other samples do not reproduce that pattern. Comparing broad labels such as “religious” and “atheist” can conceal differences in conviction, identity, community, and meaning.
Can a strongly nonreligious worldview be associated with low death anxiety?
Yes. The proposed inverted-U pattern explicitly allows for low death anxiety at both strongly religious and strongly nonreligious ends of a worldview spectrum. The 2018 meta-analysis found limited but notable evidence for this, and the 2026 U.S. probability-sample study reported patterns consistent with strong religious or secular worldviews being associated with lower death anxiety than ambivalence on several belief dimensions.
Does belief in an afterlife eliminate fear of death?
No. Afterlife beliefs can be comforting for some people and can also coexist with uncertainty, fear of judgment, spiritual struggle, or concern about the dying process. Research measures associations between reported beliefs and reported anxiety; it does not support a guarantee that a particular belief removes fear.
What is mortality salience?
Mortality salience is an experimental manipulation that makes thoughts of death temporarily accessible. Researchers then measure changes in attitudes, judgments, or behavior. It is not the same as having chronically high death anxiety, and mortality-salience findings should not be translated directly into clinical claims.
Does Terror Management Theory prove that religion exists because people fear death?
No. TMT proposes mechanisms by which cultural worldviews may help people manage mortality awareness, but it does not establish the historical, philosophical, or theological origin of religion. Moreover, contemporary replication evidence has challenged the robustness of some classic mortality-salience effects. Many Labs 4 and recent meta-analytic re-evaluation make strong causal claims especially inappropriate.
Does death anxiety increase with age?
Not consistently. Some studies report lower death anxiety at older ages, and a meta-analysis of religiosity/spirituality in older adults found only a small, statistically nonsignificant pooled association between religiosity and death anxiety in its cross-sectional subset. Coelho-Júnior and colleagues provide the broader older-adult synthesis.
Is death anxiety a diagnosis?
No. Death anxiety is a psychological research construct, and self-report scales measure aspects of it. A systematic review of those measures found important psychometric limitations. Clinical diagnosis requires a full assessment of symptoms, impairment, duration, context, differential diagnoses, medical factors, and cultural meaning.
Can religious or spiritual struggles increase death anxiety?
They can be associated with greater death anxiety in some studies. The 2026 nationwide U.S. study found consistent adverse associations for the religious/spiritual struggle measures it assessed. This does not mean religious struggle is always pathological; struggle can be part of ordinary development, illness, grief, or faith life, and its significance depends on context.
Should a therapist use religion to treat death anxiety?
Therapy should be guided by the patient’s values, clinical needs, and informed preferences. When religion or spirituality is important to the patient, a culturally competent clinician can integrate those concerns respectfully and may collaborate with chaplains or religious leaders if the patient wants that. Clinicians should not prescribe belief, dismiss belief, or treat religious practice as a substitute for needed medical or psychological care.
Related Articles
Grief: Psychological Responses to Loss — how people respond to bereavement and other significant losses, including the distinction between ordinary grief and clinical conditions.
Scrupulosity OCD: What Is It? Religious Obsessions, Moral Fear, Rituals, Guilt, and Treatment — the separate OCD pathway for obsessional religious or moral fears, compulsions, certainty seeking, and faith-sensitive treatment.
References
American Psychological Association. (2013). APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol. 1): Context, theory, and research. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4311506.html
Belak, R. M., & Goh, K. H. (2024). Death anxiety and religiosity in a multicultural sample: A pilot study examining curvilinearity, age and gender in Singapore. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1398620. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1398620
Burke, B. L., Martens, A., & Faucher, E. H. (2010). Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 155–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309352321
Coelho-Júnior, H. J., Calvani, R., Panza, F., Allegri, R. F., Picca, A., Marzetti, E., & Alves, V. P. (2022). Religiosity/spirituality and mental health in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Frontiers in Medicine, 9, 877213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.877213
Dumitru, E. P., Cardoș, R. A. I., Milea, I., Gambarota, F., Altoè, G., David, D. O., & Cristea, I. A. (2025). A meta-analysis of the association of death anxiety with psychological distress and psychopathology. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(5), 933–943. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02115-7
Gorji, M. A. H., Ghorbani Vajargah, P., Salami Kohan, K., et al. (2024). The relationship between spirituality and religiosity with death anxiety among cancer patients: A systematic review. Journal of Religion and Health, 63(5), 3597–3617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-024-02016-5
Jong, J. (2021). Death anxiety and religion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.004
Jong, J., Ross, R., Philip, T., Chang, S.-H., Simons, N., & Halberstadt, J. (2018). The religious correlates of death anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 8(1), 4–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2016.1238844
Jung, J. H. (2018). Attachment to God and death anxiety in later life: Does race matter? Research on Aging, 40(10), 956–977. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027518805190
Klein, R. A., Cook, C. L., Ebersole, C. R., et al. (2022). Many Labs 4: Failure to replicate mortality salience effect with and without original author involvement. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 35271. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.35271
Krause, N., Pargament, K. I., & Ironson, G. (2018). In the shadow of death: Religious hope as a moderator of the effects of age on death anxiety. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 73(4), 696–703. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw039
Li, Y., Dong, W., Tang, H., Guo, X., Wu, S., Lu, G., Li, X., & Chen, C. (2024). Correlates of death anxiety for patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 33(5), 1933–1947. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.17021
Schindler, S., Hilgard, J., Fritsche, I., Burke, B., & Pfattheicher, S. (2023). Do salient social norms moderate mortality salience effects? A (challenging) meta-analysis of terror management studies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(2), 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221107267
Schindler, S., Reinhardt, N., & Reinhard, M.-A. (2021). Defending one’s worldview under mortality salience: Testing the validity of an established idea. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 93, 104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104087
Scorpiniti, G. L., & Ironson, G. (2026). Spiritual and religious beliefs, behaviors, and struggles in relation to death anxiety: Evidence from a U.S. nationwide probability sample. Journal of Religion and Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-026-02762-8
Templer, D. I. (1970). The construction and validation of a Death Anxiety Scale. The Journal of General Psychology, 82(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1970.9920634
Treger, S., Benau, E. M., & Timko, C. A. (2023). Not so terrifying after all? A set of failed replications of the mortality salience effects of Terror Management Theory. PLOS ONE, 18(5), e0285267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285267
Zuccala, M., Menzies, R. E., Hunt, C. J., & Abbott, M. J. (2022). A systematic review of the psychometric properties of death anxiety self-report measures. Death Studies, 46(2), 257–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1699203