fei75766_ch11_345-376.indd 367  02/06/20 12:38 PM
Chapter 11    May: Existential Psychology367
Over thecenturies, humans havelearned todisavow theircorporeal selves. For
example, bodily functions continue tobeamong themost taboo andheavily sanctioned 
ofsocial norms. Tobe“cultured” istobeincomplete control ofthebiological nature 
ofbeing human. According toterror management theorists, thecruxofthedenial of
ourbodily andanimalistic nature stems from theexistential fearofdeath anddecay of
ourbodies. AsSheldon Solomon andcolleagues putit,“humans could notfunction 
withequanimity iftheybelieved theywerenotinherently more significant thanapes, 
lizards, andlimabeans” (Solomon, Greenberg, &Pyszczynski, 1991, p.91).
Jamie Goldenberg andhercolleagues haveconducted animpressive body of
studies illustrating howthephysical body anditsfunctions undermine ourpsychic 
defenses byreinforcing ourinescapable mortality. Forexample, people respond to
reminders ofmortality (mortality salience) bydistancing from theirphysical bodies, 
reporting lessinterest inthephysical aspects ofsex(Goldenberg, McCoy, Pyszczyn -
ski,Greenberg, &Solomon, 2000), expressing more disgust toward bodily products 
(Goldenberg etal.,2001) andavoiding sensations andexperiences grounded inthe
body (e.g., afootmassage; Goldenberg etal.,2006). 
Furthermore, although allbodies arepotentially threatening onaccount oftheir
umwelt reminder thatwearebasically animals andanimals must die,Goldenberg and
Roberts (2004, 2010) haveargued thatwomen’s more prominent roleinreproduction 
renders women’s bodies especially problematic from aterror management perspective. 
Indeed taboos andregulations about women’s reproductive bodies arelong-standing 
andnearuniversal (seeGoldenberg, Roberts, Morris, &Cooper, 2013), andwhen 
women failtoconceal these functions, theyaremetwithdisgust andhostility. For
example, Roberts, Goldenberg, Power, andPyszczynski (2002) found thatwhen a
female confederate “accidently” dropped atampon from herbag,participants viewed 
heraslesscompetent andlikeable andsatfurther away from her(demonstrating a
disgust-style reaction ofdistancing from potential contamination), compared towhen 
shedropped ahairclip.
Inanelegant ifdisquieting setofstudies, Morris, Goldenberg andHeflick 
(2014) demonstrated thatwomen’s bodies signify a“trioofterror” :pregnancy, men-
struation, andbreastfeeding. Despite these functions being literally life-giving ,remind -
ersofthem inthecontext ofmortality, ledwomen themselves nottofeelproud of
theirembodied human femaleness, butinstead topsychically distance from theirown
bodies andviewthemselves inmore object-like ways. Bringing together terror manage -
ment theory andobjectification theory (Fredrickson &Roberts, 1997), theauthors 
interpret theirfindings assupport forahypothesis thatwomen’s self-objectification 
(seeing theselffrom athird-person point ofview, more asathing andlessasaperson) 
isfueled by,andhelps manage, existential concerns engendered bytheirprocreating, 
lactating, andmenstruating bodies.
Thisresearch, based onterror management theory, points tothegeneral con-
clusion, asMayargued, thataspeople gainpower overnature, theylosetouch with
theirrelationship totheumwelt, ornatural world. Thiscanmanifest inakindof
alienation from ourownphysical bodies, asdemonstrated bythedisgust-like reac-
tions weoften havetocorporeal body functions thatremind usofourmortality. 
Furthermore, taken together withthefeminist objectification theory (Fredrickson &
Roberts, 1997), weseethatwomen’s bodies areparticularly existentially threatening, 
andthusmost societies oblige women toconceal theirreproductive functions andFinal PDF to printer