Are Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Norms on Death Anxiety Valid?

Abstract

Cross-cultural comparisons of norms derived from research on Death Anxiety are valid as long as they provide existential validity. Existential validity is not empirically derived like construct validity. It is an understanding of being human unto death. It is the realization that death is imminent. It is the inner sense that provides a responder to death anxiety scales with a valid expression of his or her sense about the prospect of dying. It can be articulated in a life review by a disclosure of one's ontology. This article calls upon psychologists who develop death anxiety scales to disclose their presuppositions about death before administering a questionnaire. By disclosing his or her ontology a psychologist provides a means of disclosing his or her intentionality in responding to the items. This humanistic paradigm allows for an interactive participation between investigator and subject. Lester, Templer, and Abdel-Khalek (2006–2007) enriched psychology with significant empirical data on several correlates of death anxiety. But all scientists, especially psychologists, will always have alternative interpretations of the same empirical fact pattern. Empirical data is limited by the affirmation of the consequent limitation. A phenomenology of language and communication makes existential validity a necessary step for a broader understanding of the meaning of death anxiety.