Death, Dying, and Bereavement

Death, Dying, and Bereavement

The intricate relationship between culture and our discomfort with the concept of death is often revealed through the array of euphemisms we employ to soften its impact. In Western culture, phrases like “six feet under,” “bought the farm,” and “kicked the bucket” serve as linguistic buffers around the stark reality of mortality. However, even amidst our linguistic evasions, death language seeps into our everyday conversations, subtly intertwining with our expressions. Take for instance the way we label a job with no upward mobility as a “dead-end” or refer to the last finisher in a race as “dead last.” Such language underscores our society’s collective unease with confronting the finality of life. In this comprehensive article, we embark on an exploration of the intricate psychology underlying death, the process of dying, and the complex landscape of bereavement. We also delve into the interconnected realms of medicine, law, social dynamics, and politics that converge around these themes.

The tragic case of Terri Schindler Schiavo serves as a poignant reminder of the myriad ethical and philosophical questions entwined with end-of-life decisions. At the heart of this case lay a profound disagreement among experts regarding Schiavo’s cognitive state, shining a light on the complex intersection of medical understanding and legal interpretation. The terminology of a “persistent vegetative state,” where cerebral functioning ceases while brainstem activity persists, underscores the delicate balance between life-sustaining bodily functions and cognitive existence.

Beyond the medical and legal dimensions, the Schiavo case starkly raised the question of “quality of life,” a nebulous concept that defies easy definition. This prompts contemplation: Who possesses the authority to arbitrate what constitutes a life of sufficient quality to justify its continuation? A deeper exploration of “quality of life” unveils its intricate interplay with societal norms, personal beliefs, and cultural values, laying bare the complex web that envelops the notion of dignified existence.

One facet of this somber saga that can potentially catalyze positive change is the conversation around advance directives. The Schiavo case serves as a potent reminder that the need for clarity in end-of-life wishes transcends age, challenging assumptions that only the elderly necessitate such planning. This incident prompts a societal reckoning with the importance of preparing for unforeseen circumstances, regardless of one’s stage of life.

As we navigate this terrain, it becomes evident that our culture’s intricate dance with death is a reflection of our collective fears and aspirations. The psychology of death extends its influence beyond the individual, permeating social constructs and political discourse. This article seeks to illuminate the multifaceted dimensions of our relationship with mortality, emboldening us to delve into the psychology that shapes our attitudes toward death, the intricacies of the dying process, and the complex journey of bereavement. In doing so, we hope to foster a deeper understanding of these profound themes that touch the very essence of human existence.

Death and Dying

Medical and Legal Definitions

In the realm of medical and legal contexts, the definition of death has evolved in response to both remarkable medical advancements and the complex ethical considerations surrounding the extension of life. Clinical death, colloquially known as cardiac death, is classically characterized by the absence of heartbeat and respiration. Nonetheless, the ever-expanding horizons of medical innovation have brought about the capacity to prolong life far beyond historical norms. Consequently, the imperative has emerged to delineate a state marked by an irreversible and catastrophic loss of brain function, encompassing even brainstem activities. This profound shift has yielded the concept of brain death, a pivotal term in contemporary discussions around life-sustaining interventions (Puswella, Devita, & Arnold, 2005).

Determining brain death is a nuanced and intricate clinical process, necessitating thorough evaluation. Initially, clinicians meticulously exclude reversible factors that might contribute to the patient’s condition, such as sedation or hypothermia. Subsequently, they engage in a series of clinical tests to ascertain compliance with the criteria for brain death. These criteria encompass a range of aspects: from the absence of spontaneous movement, even in response to painful stimuli, to the absence of cranial nerve reflexes like the pupil’s reaction to light. Other benchmarks include the lack of seizures or posturing, the absence of spontaneous respiration upon removing ventilation, a flat electroencephalogram (EEG), and an absence of blood flow to the brain (Puswella, Devita, & Arnold, 2005).

Nevertheless, the definitions of brain death diverge across nations. Elliott (2003) highlights a dichotomy wherein countries such as the United States embrace a comprehensive whole-brain concept of brain death, entailing the cessation of all forms of brain function. Contrarily, the United Kingdom has adopted the notion of brainstem death, where a loss of brainstem function suffices to declare an individual brain dead. It is important to note that when a patient’s cerebral cortex ceases functioning, yet brainstem activities persist and the condition remains irreversible, it signifies the presence of a persistent vegetative state.

This intricate interplay between medical advancements, legal definitions, and the ethical dimensions surrounding the determination of death underscores the evolving nature of our understanding of mortality. It raises essential questions about the extent to which medical progress intersects with our broader societal values, ultimately shaping the delicate balance between prolonging life and respecting the dignity of death. By probing the complexities embedded within medical and legal definitions of death, we unravel the intricate tapestry woven by scientific, ethical, and cultural considerations that together guide our perceptions of life’s finality.

Death Statistics: How and Where Do We Die?

The compilation and analysis of death statistics provide valuable insights into the dynamics of mortality and its evolving landscape. The National Center for Health Statistics (Minino, Heron, & Smith, 2006) stands as a pivotal source, meticulously assembling death records and generating annual reports that elucidate the multifaceted facets of mortality in the United States. The year 2004 unveiled a notable roster of the top 10 causes of death: a roster anchored by heart disease and cancer, followed by cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary disease, unintentional injuries, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, influenza or pneumonia, kidney disease, and septicemia. This catalog of leading causes of death has undergone a profound transformation over the past century, marking a shift from predominantly rapidly progressing infectious diseases to the ascendancy of chronic conditions. This seismic transformation not only reshapes the statistics but profoundly influences our perception and experience of death itself.

In the contemporary landscape, the setting of demise exhibits striking diversity. While hospitals and healthcare establishments like nursing homes and hospice centers host the majority of deaths in the United States, this distribution is significantly influenced by demographic variables and the underlying cause of death. For instance, a study centered on adults aged 65 and older, conducted by Mitchell, Teno, Miller, and Mor (2005), revealed that individuals succumbing to dementia, such as Alzheimer’s disease, were predominantly situated in nursing homes during their final moments. Conversely, patients grappling with cancer shared an almost equal probability of experiencing their final hours at home (37.8 percent) or within the hospital (35.4 percent). Deaths arising from other conditions were most frequently registered within the hospital setting (52.2 percent). Beyond this, research has unveiled variations across ethnic lines, illustrating that African American and Latino patients are more inclined to meet their end within a hospital environment, as opposed to white patients, who often find solace in the familiarity of home or the sanctuary of hospice care (Iwashyna & Chang, 2002).

The trajectory of mortality is not only a statistical narrative; it is a reflection of societal values, medical advancements, and cultural nuances. These intricate patterns not only paint a vivid picture of the final moments of life but also prompt us to probe deeper into the broader narratives of healthcare, end-of-life decisions, and the nuanced choices that shape the experience of dying. In this realm, statistics merge with the profound intricacies of human existence, urging us to contemplate the significance of how and where we conclude our earthly journey.

Advance Directives and End-of-Life Decisions

The intricate intersection of advanced medical interventions and the evolving landscape of end-of-life care necessitates a proactive approach to ensure patients’ preferences are respected. Amid the intricate web of considerations, advance directives stand as a pivotal instrument, offering individuals an avenue to articulate their treatment wishes in the event of incapacitation. Delving into this realm reveals two distinctive forms of advance directives that have emerged to guide end-of-life decisions: the living will and the durable power of attorney for health care.

The living will is a testament to patients’ desires, thoughtfully outlining the medical treatments they wish to receive or decline when they are no longer able to communicate their preferences. This document serves as a guiding light for healthcare providers, offering insights into patients’ envisioned course of treatment. Yet, the inherent limitation of a living will lies in its capacity to anticipate only foreseeable scenarios. Recognizing this, many experts advocate for supplementing the living will with a durable power of attorney for health care, a mechanism wherein patients appoint a trusted individual to make medical decisions on their behalf in the face of incapacitation (Crane, Wittink, & Doukas, 2005).

Complementing these directives, individuals sometimes explore additional avenues to express their end-of-life preferences. A medical directive, an insightful questionnaire, allows patients to detail their treatment preferences across diverse medical contexts. Similarly, a values history questionnaire provides an open canvas for patients to engage in meaningful dialogue about their health-related values and the decisions they have derived from them. Moreover, the do not resuscitate (DNR) order, or the solemn request not to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation in case of cardiac arrest, further amplifies the palette of choices (Crane, Wittink, & Doukas, 2005).

Underpinning the need for informed end-of-life decisions, the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 assumes a pivotal role. By mandating hospitals, nursing homes, and healthcare facilities that receive Medicare funds to initiate discussions about advance directives, inform patients of their rights, and integrate these dialogues into the patient’s medical record, the legislation fosters a climate of awareness and informed choice.

Nonetheless, the landscape of end-of-life choices is complex and influenced by multifaceted factors, including cultural dimensions. An illuminating example emerges from research indicating that African Americans exhibit lower rates of advance directive completion compared to other ethnic groups. Bullock (2006) postulates that this discrepancy may be attributed to a confluence of factors such as religious convictions, distinct perceptions of suffering, reliance on social networks for decision-making, or apprehension toward the healthcare system.

In the symphony of medical advancements, ethical considerations, and individual preferences, advance directives emerge as a harmonious chord that empowers individuals to orchestrate their end-of-life journey according to their values, beliefs, and aspirations.

Palliative and Hospice Care

Within the tapestry of healthcare, the realm of terminal illness has fostered the emergence of vital alternatives to protracted and aggressive medical treatments. A paradigm shift has occurred, emphasizing the importance of alleviating suffering and enhancing the quality of life for patients whose conditions are terminal. In this exploration, we delve into the profound domains of palliative care and hospice care, which have risen to prominence as beacons of compassionate support during life’s final chapters.

Palliative care, a resolute pillar in modern healthcare, is characterized by its unwavering focus on alleviating symptoms, both physical and emotional, that plague patients facing chronic and life-limiting conditions. Distinct from curative care, which targets the underlying disorder, palliative care seeks to ameliorate discomfort and emotional distress. The all-encompassing nature of palliative care is such that it can seamlessly coexist with curative interventions, crafting a holistic approach to care. A poignant example is a patient grappling with cancer, who concurrently receives pain management (palliative care) alongside curative chemotherapy (National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, n.d.).

The essence of quality palliative care pivots on a triumvirate of pillars: effective communication, support for decision-making, and early engagement with insurance mechanisms to alleviate financial burdens. Insights drawn from a pioneering pediatric palliative care program in Seattle underscored the transformative impact of these pillars on health-related quality of life and emotional well-being (Hays et al., 2006).

For those treading the delicate terrain of terminal illness, hospice care emerges as a beacon of solace. More than a mere medical intervention, hospice care epitomizes a collaborative approach to navigating life-threatening illnesses. It envelops medical care, symptom management, and unwavering support for both patients and their families. While the hospice setting can encompass hospitals or healthcare facilities, its essence often flourishes in the intimacy of patients’ homes, with family members shouldering pivotal roles in caregiving.

A disconcerting reality, however, casts a shadow on the availability of these invaluable services. Racial disparities loom large in the utilization of hospice care, with African American and Latino patients significantly underserved. Taxis (2006) delves into the intricate tapestry of perceptions and beliefs underlying this divide. The participants’ voices underscore a profound lack of awareness about the breadth of services, eligibility requisites, and costs. Deep-rooted cultural perspectives on life and death also intersect with these perceptions, while a mistrust of the healthcare system echoes as an additional hurdle.

In the evolving narrative of end-of-life care, palliative and hospice care emerge as a testament to our collective commitment to honoring patients’ autonomy and fostering compassion during life’s final chapters. Amidst the complexities, these facets stand resolute, offering solace and support as individuals navigate the uncharted waters of terminal illness.


In the intricate tapestry of discussions surrounding death and dying, few topics elicit as much debate and controversy as euthanasia. This term encapsulates the practice of intentionally ending a patient’s life in a bid to alleviate their suffering. A nuanced exploration reveals two distinct forms: active euthanasia, involving the administration of lethal drugs to hasten death, and passive euthanasia, wherein life-sustaining treatments or medical interventions are withheld, allowing the patient’s death to unfold.

For over three decades, opinion polls have illuminated a fluctuating range of support, ranging from 50 to 75 percent, among Americans for an individual’s right to terminate their life when diagnosed with a terminal illness. Parallel surveys conducted between 1990 and 1998 mirrored this sentiment, with a majority favoring physicians’ assistance in facilitating death under these circumstances (Allen et al., 2006). Yet, within these consensus zones, divergences arise. Research investigating racial attitudes towards euthanasia underscores that African Americans are less likely to endorse euthanasia compared to their white counterparts (Wasserman, Clair, & Ritchey, 2006). Equally influential, religiosity and affiliation traverse these sentiments, engendering variances in attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (Burdette, Hill, & Moulton, 2005).

The legal contours of euthanasia within the United States are both intricate and fluid. The Supreme Court’s endorsement of an individual’s right to decline life-sustaining treatment or medical interventions in cases of incurable diseases champions passive euthanasia. However, the scenario changes when it comes to active euthanasia, including physician-assisted suicide, which remains illegal in 49 states. The exception lies in Oregon, where the Death With Dignity Act, passed in 1997, permits terminally ill residents to self-administer a physician-prescribed lethal dose of drugs. Legal challenges have punctuated the act’s existence, culminating in the Supreme Court’s validation of its legal standing in 2006 (“FAQ about the Death with Dignity Act,” n.d.). Within this framework, between 1998 and 2003, 171 individuals opted to conclude their lives under the provisions of the Death With Dignity Act (Miller et al., 2004).

Euthanasia represents an intricate amalgamation of medical, ethical, cultural, and legal threads. It underscores the profound complexities of human autonomy, compassion, and the perennial quest to alleviate suffering amidst life’s most challenging chapters. As discussions continue to reverberate, the exploration of euthanasia remains a dynamic and evolving discourse, intertwining ethics, legality, and the fundamental essence of human dignity.


Within the labyrinth of mental health, suicide stands as a formidable challenge, a disconcerting reality that demands our understanding and intervention. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) notes that suicide, though often veiled in secrecy, ranks as the 11th leading cause of death in the United States. Unearthing the risk factors that contribute to this harrowing act paints a mosaic of complex interplay.

A myriad of risk factors interweave in the tapestry of suicide, with no single strand holding primacy. Among these factors, mental disorders such as depression take center stage, casting a shadow that magnifies the urgency of intervention. Substance abuse disorders and the weight of stressful life events, when woven into the fabric of an individual’s vulnerability, can exacerbate the risk. The haunting specter of a previous suicide attempt, familial history marred by mental illness or substance abuse, and the harrowing exposure to family violence reverberate as additional threads in this intricate composition. The presence of lethal means, such as firearms, or the haunting echo of suicidal behavior by others, adds to the complex symphony that underscores the risk (NIMH, 2006).

Disturbingly, while more women attempt suicide, it is men who, in greater numbers, find their journey concluded by it. This unsettling contrast can be attributed, in part, to the methods chosen. Men tend to opt for more lethal means, such as firearms, while women often choose methods with a lower fatality rate, such as poisoning or overdose. Amidst this gender divide, adolescents grapple with a rising tide of suicide rates, prompting a call to action. However, the somber statistics unveil older white males as the group most susceptible to the siren call of suicide.

Stepping into the intersection of culture and despair, a complex tapestry emerges. European Americans, positioned at the forefront, bear the heaviest burden, with Native Americans following in the wake. In contrast, Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans traverse this somber terrain less frequently, grappling with suicide at a reduced frequency.

Dispelling the myth that vocalization negates action, the reality often tells a different story. Many who commit suicide have previously voiced their struggle. Suicidal ideation or attempts should not be trivialized by perceived lethality, but rather met with an earnest response, regardless of their apparent severity (NIMH, 2006). The journey towards comprehending suicide is a multifaceted one, intertwining psychology, sociology, and mental health advocacy in a bid to provide solace and support to those navigating these treacherous waters.

Reactions to One’s Own Death

Confronting one’s own impending mortality is a journey fraught with a tapestry of emotions, a complex mosaic that defies simplistic categorization. In 1969, Kubler-Ross presented a model that sought to capture the spectrum of responses to impending death. This model delineates five stages, each reflecting a distinct facet of this emotional odyssey: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. However, as time has unveiled, the human response to death is a symphony of emotions that often diverges from these rigid stages.

Kubler-Ross’s influential framework has resonated through the corridors of psychology and beyond, yet contemporary research underscores the nuances that often render reactions to death far more intricate than a linear progression. The reality is that our emotional reactions to death can assume myriad forms, shaped by personal experiences, beliefs, and the intricate dynamics of human psychology.

In a society that harbors a profound unease with death, the specter of mortality often breeds fear, a multifaceted emotion comprised of myriad concerns. This fear is not monolithic; it encapsulates various apprehensions, from the enigma of the unknown to the concept of nonexistence after death and the daunting process of dying itself. Unsurprisingly, the age-old fear of death weaves a unique narrative for each individual, transcending generational divides. Younger adults frequently grapple with a heightened fear of mortality, while their older counterparts exhibit a more tempered response (Cicirelli, 2001). The faith an individual holds in a higher power or an afterlife often shapes the contours of their fear, with those who possess a deep belief system reporting lower levels of death anxiety (Harding, Flannely, Weaver, & Costa, 2005).

Thus, the human psyche’s reaction to the inevitability of death defies reduction into a linear sequence or predetermined pattern. Instead, it draws from a palette of emotions as diverse as the human experience itself. As research continues to peel back the layers of our relationship with death, our understanding deepens, reaffirming that the journey towards embracing the enigma of our own mortality is a deeply personal and intricate one.

Bereavement, Grief, and Mourning

In everyday discussion, people often use the terms bereavement, grief, and mourning interchangeably. However, in the death and dying literature they have meanings that are distinct from one another. Although there is some variability among authors, the most common definition of bereavement is the state of having lost someone through death. Grief consists of the emotional and psychological reaction to bereavement, and mourning is defined as the way grief is expressed.

Theories of Grief

Grief Work Perspective

The human experience of grief, with its labyrinthine twists and turns, has captivated the attention of scholars and researchers for decades. For over 30 years, a dominant framework known as the “grief work” perspective, rooted partly in psychoanalytic theory and further developed by Lindemann, held sway in this domain. This perspective posited that the process of working through grief was a necessary endeavor for its resolution. Central to this approach was the notion that acknowledging the reality of loss and effectively channeling resultant emotions were imperative steps. Failure to do so, as per this perspective, could lead to complications stemming from unresolved grief (Center for the Advancement of Health, 2004a).

The grief work perspective’s tenets seem intuitively reasonable, aligning with the notion that confronting and processing feelings is an integral part of the human healing journey. However, beneath its surface lies a bedrock of assumptions. It presupposes that outwardly expressing distress is essential for grief resolution and that suppression of such expression might signal underlying pathology. Despite its dominance, the empirical support for these tenets remains limited (Wortman & Silver, 2001). As our understanding of human psychology deepens, it has become clear that the complex interplay of emotions defies such straightforward categorizations.

The realm of grief encompasses a multifaceted array of emotional responses, transcending facile classification into rigid stages or prescribed expressions. While the grief work perspective has offered insights into the healing process, it remains an incomplete representation of the intricacies involved. Emerging research holds the promise of illuminating the dynamics of grief in a more nuanced light, shattering the confines of a one-size-fits-all approach. The journey of navigating grief, it appears, is an individualized expedition where pathways to healing are as diverse as the human experience itself.

As scholars continue to delve into the realm of grief, new horizons beckon, challenging us to broaden our perspectives and embrace the complex mosaic of emotions that accompany the journey of loss. Through the interplay of research, empathy, and evolving frameworks, we inch closer to unraveling the profound intricacies of grief and its intricate relationship with healing.

Attachment Theory

Attachment theory, pioneered by Bowlby (1980), has wielded a considerable influence on our understanding of the grieving process. Born from the crucible of psychoanalytic theory and infused with insights from the study of attachment dynamics, Bowlby’s framework extended his ideas on attachment to the realm of grieving. His model, like others of its time, proposed stages of grief that bore resemblance to a child’s response to separation from their mother.

Bowlby delineated the protest phase as the initial stage of grief, akin to a child’s distraught reaction to maternal separation. During this phase, intense distress prevails alongside the yearning for proximity to the lost loved one. As the individual grapples with the reality of the loss, the tumultuous emotions gradually give way to a state of despondency and lethargy. Eventually, the individual emerges from this despondent state, regaining control over life and gradually loosening the attachment bond in a phase termed detachment.

Despite its enduring influence, attachment theory’s applicability to grief has been questioned by evolving research. The prevailing notion of a linear sequence of stages has given way to a more complex understanding of the grieving process. As individual experiences diverge, so do the trajectories of grief, challenging the notion of a uniform sequence of emotional stages.

The very idea of detaching from emotional bonds to resolve grief has ignited controversy within the field. While some argue for the adaptive role of maintaining a continued relationship with the deceased, others view it as potentially maladaptive under certain circumstances. Nuanced studies have revealed the dynamic interplay of continuing bonds—where individuals feel a lingering presence and relationship with the deceased—with the progression of grief. For example, differing cultural contexts can shift the role of continuing bonds from being positively associated with adjustment in one context to a negative impact in another.

In essence, attachment theory’s journey through the landscape of grief has proven to be more intricate and intricate than initially envisioned. While its principles have undeniably enriched our comprehension of the grieving experience, they now exist alongside a deeper recognition of the diverse trajectories that individuals chart as they navigate the intricate tapestry of loss and healing.

Dual Process Model of Coping

The Dual Process Model of coping with bereavement, introduced by Stroebe, Schut, and Stroebe (2005), represents a shift from the traditional grief stage models by integrating the broader framework of cognitive stress theory, as developed by Folkman and colleagues. This model acknowledges that the grieving process involves coping with not just the loss of the deceased person, but also with secondary stressors that emerge as a consequence of the loss.

At its core, the Dual Process Model proposes that bereaved individuals navigate two types of stressors: loss-oriented and restoration-oriented. Loss-oriented stressors directly pertain to the emotional upheaval stemming from the absence of the loved one, while restoration-oriented stressors are indirect and concern the practical adjustments required in the wake of the loss, like handling financial responsibilities previously managed by the deceased spouse.

In response to these stressors, the Dual Process Model delineates two coping strategies: loss-oriented coping and restoration-oriented coping. Loss-oriented coping involves addressing the emotional turmoil linked to separation from the lost loved one, while restoration-oriented coping entails adapting to the shifts in roles and identity that accompany the loss.

The model introduces the concept of oscillation, wherein bereaved individuals alternate between loss-oriented and restoration-oriented coping strategies. This oscillation can occur rapidly, as individuals navigate the immediate aftermath of the loss, and also unfold over a longer timescale, encompassing shifts in coping strategies as the grieving process progresses.

This dynamic interplay between confronting and avoiding different stressors reflects the complexity of the grieving process. As individuals grapple with the emotional turmoil of loss, they also grapple with the pragmatic challenges that emerge. Over time, there appears to be a transition from predominantly loss-oriented coping in the early stages of bereavement to an increased emphasis on restoration-oriented coping as individuals gradually adjust to the new reality without their loved one.

The Dual Process Model sheds light on the intricate dance between processing the emotional impact of loss and managing the practical aspects of life without the deceased. It underscores the fluidity of the grieving journey, acknowledging that individuals must traverse a spectrum of emotions and demands as they strive to find equilibrium amidst the complexities of bereavement.

Social-Functional Approach

The social-functional approach, championed by Bonanno and colleagues, offers a distinctive perspective on the adaptive responses to bereavement by drawing from a broader framework of emotion theory. This approach challenges certain assumptions of the traditional grief work perspective and explores the multifaceted interactions between emotions and social networks in the context of loss.

Unlike the grief work perspective, which emphasizes the necessity of openly expressing negative emotions for grief resolution, the social-functional approach takes a more nuanced stance. It acknowledges that while emotional expression can be cathartic, prolonged or excessive expression of negative emotions like anger or sadness could potentially disrupt the fabric of social relationships. In this view, the continual expression of such emotions might hinder the bereaved person’s ability to maintain social connections, thus complicating the grieving process rather than promoting its resolution.

By examining the potential drawbacks of unrestrained emotional expression, the social-functional approach challenges the notion that grief can only be effectively navigated through outward displays of negative emotions. Instead, it underscores the importance of a balanced approach that acknowledges the role of emotions while considering their impact on the individual’s social environment.

Furthermore, the social-functional approach extends its gaze beyond negative emotions to explore the adaptive value of positive emotions in the context of bereavement. Positive emotions, such as laughter and joy, are not dismissed as incongruous with grief. Instead, they are recognized as potentially beneficial for facilitating adjustment and coping. Research within this framework has revealed that the expression of positive emotions during the grieving process can predict better overall adaptation.

Overall, the social-functional approach illuminates the intricate interplay between emotional experiences and the social dynamics that shape the grieving process. It encourages a balanced approach to emotional expression and highlights the adaptive value of positive emotions. By considering the broader context of bereavement, this approach offers a more nuanced perspective on how individuals navigate the complex terrain of emotions and social interactions as they grapple with loss.


In the realm of understanding grief and its resolution, the concept of “meaning-making” has emerged as a compelling alternative perspective, notably championed by Neimeyer (2000). This theory suggests that the process of finding meaning in the face of loss is pivotal to navigating grief and achieving resolution. Meaning-making involves two intertwined processes, both of which contribute to the individual’s journey toward understanding and acceptance.

The first aspect of meaning-making revolves around integrating the loss into one’s existing worldview. In essence, this involves the individual’s attempt to make sense of the loss by fitting it into the framework of their beliefs, experiences, and understanding of the world. This process allows for a deeper connection between the event of loss and the individual’s internal narrative, facilitating a sense of coherence and understanding.

The second facet of meaning-making involves the search for any potential benefits or positive outcomes stemming from the loss. This search for silver linings or lessons learned contributes to the overall process of finding meaning in the experience of grief. By identifying the potential growth or positive changes that have emerged as a result of the loss, individuals can find a sense of purpose and renewal amidst their pain.

However, as with any theoretical perspective, meaning-making has faced critical scrutiny. Some researchers have questioned the universal applicability of the meaning-making framework. Davis and colleagues, for instance, found that not all individuals who engage in meaning-making experience better adjustment, and those who struggle to find meaning may fare worse than those who do not seek it at all. This raises important considerations about the complexity of the grief experience and challenges the notion that meaning-making is a necessary step for everyone.

Integration has also been explored as a means of enriching our understanding of grief. Stroebe and colleagues have combined the Dual Process Model of coping with attachment theory, examining how an individual’s attachment style might influence their grief process. As research continues to shed light on the intricate nature of grief and its resolution, the ongoing effort to synthesize various theories and perspectives will undoubtedly provide a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of this complex human experience.

The Experience of Grief: Influences and Outcomes

What Is “Normal” Grief?

The experience of grief is deeply personal and highly varied, making it challenging to define a single “normal” mode of grieving. People who have traversed the landscape of grief often emphasize that the emotional turmoil and upheaval they encounter are far from their everyday experiences. While many individuals who undergo grief eventually manage to regain a semblance of their pre-bereavement functioning, there exists a subgroup for whom grief is more enduring, intense, and incapacitating. This form of more profound and prolonged grief has been referred to as complicated grief or traumatic grief.

The classification of complicated grief sparks ongoing debates over its distinctiveness from other psychological disorders, such as major depression or anxiety disorders. Some scholars question whether the trajectories of “normal” grieving can be consistently distinguished from those of complicated grief. Yet, recent research indicates that there is only partial overlap between the symptoms of complicated grief and those of depression, anxiety disorders, or post-traumatic stress disorder. This finding lends credence to the notion that complicated grief is a distinct issue. Recent investigations have even identified specific symptoms associated with complicated grief, including separation distress and post-traumatic symptoms like intrusive thoughts linked to the loss. As further studies unfold, the distinctiveness of complicated grief from normal grieving is likely to be elucidated more comprehensively (Matthews & Marwit, 2004).

The evolving understanding of complicated grief underscores the intricate and individualized nature of the grieving process. While categorizing grief is a complex endeavor, it is essential to acknowledge that grief encompasses a vast spectrum of emotions, experiences, and coping mechanisms. The fluidity and diversity of grief experiences encourage researchers and mental health professionals to delve deeper into the unique needs of those grappling with the aftermath of loss, facilitating more nuanced and effective support strategies.

Factors That Influence Grief

The experience of grief is not uniform, and numerous factors contribute to the diverse ways in which individuals navigate their journey through mourning. These factors can be categorized into three main domains: characteristics of the bereaved person, factors associated with the death itself, and the contextual environment surrounding the bereavement.

Characteristics of the Bereaved Person: The individual’s unique characteristics play a pivotal role in shaping their grieving process. Age is a significant determinant, as research indicates that older adults tend to experience less intense and shorter-lived grief compared to younger adults. However, bereaved children can also experience profound grief, regardless of whether the death was expected or unexpected.

Personality traits also influence the trajectory of grief. High self-esteem, internal locus of control (the belief in personal agency), and optimism have been linked to reduced distress during bereavement. Those with a resilient temperament exhibit the ability to maintain stability and functional well-being even in the face of challenging events. Resilient individuals are often perceived as more positive and well-adjusted by their close friends.

The role of religiosity in grief outcomes is complex and controversial. Some studies suggest that religious beliefs offer meaningful avenues for processing grief, contributing to a sense of “meaning-making.” Yet, contradictory findings exist, underscoring the nuanced interplay between religious beliefs, grief, and coping mechanisms.

Understanding the intricate interplay of these factors is vital for providing effective support to individuals navigating grief. Acknowledging the uniqueness of each person’s experience while recognizing common patterns can aid mental health professionals, caregivers, and loved ones in offering compassionate and appropriate assistance during the challenging journey of bereavement.

Characteristics of the death.

The characteristics surrounding the death of a loved one have a profound influence on the grieving process. Several specific factors related to the nature of the death can significantly impact how individuals experience and cope with their grief:

  1. Violent Death: Deaths resulting from suicide, homicide, or accidents are particularly challenging for survivors. These types of deaths are associated with a heightened risk of experiencing complicated grief, depression, or post-traumatic symptoms. The sudden and traumatic nature of these deaths often leaves survivors grappling with shock, guilt, and unresolved questions.
  2. Death of a Child: The death of a child is known to evoke profound grief responses, often marked by intense sorrow and a prolonged sense of loss. Parents who experience the death of a child are at an elevated risk of complicated or traumatic grief, as the natural order of life and death is disrupted.
  3. Unanticipated Deaths: Deaths that occur unexpectedly or prematurely, regardless of the cause, can lead to greater emotional distress and difficulty in finding closure. The shock and lack of preparation for such deaths can amplify feelings of disbelief and sorrow.
  4. Anticipated Deaths: In cases where a loved one’s death is anticipated due to a terminal illness, individuals may experience anticipatory grief. This form of grief begins before the actual death and involves a complex mixture of emotions, including sadness, relief, and guilt.
  5. Multiple Losses: When multiple deaths occur within a relatively short timeframe, individuals may experience compounded grief, which can intensify feelings of sadness and emotional turmoil.

Understanding how the nature of the death influences grief responses is essential for providing appropriate support to individuals navigating their grief journey. Professionals and caregivers should be sensitive to the specific circumstances of the loss and tailor their approach to meet the unique needs of each individual.

Characteristics of the context in which bereavement occurs.

The context in which bereavement occurs plays a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ grief experiences and outcomes. Various factors related to the context can significantly impact how individuals cope with and navigate through the grieving process:

  1. Pre-Loss Relationship Quality: The quality of the relationship between the bereaved individual and the deceased person can greatly influence the grieving process. A positive, emotionally warm relationship tends to evoke stronger feelings of yearning for the deceased. Conversely, a conflicted or strained relationship may lead to a more complex mix of emotions, including relief or guilt.
  2. Caregiving Role: If the bereaved person served as a caregiver for the deceased, the experience of caregiving can have lasting effects on their post-bereavement adjustment. The level of strain experienced in the caregiving role can impact the grieving process. Caregivers who felt strained while caregiving may face more adjustment difficulties after the death, while those who found positive meaning in caregiving may experience reduced depression post-bereavement.
  3. Social Support: The availability and quality of social support are critical factors in shaping how individuals cope with bereavement. Perceived and actual social support, as well as the satisfaction with that support, are associated with better adjustment after the loss. A strong and extensive social network, along with frequent interactions with supportive individuals, contributes to positive outcomes in the grieving process.
  4. Cultural and Religious Context: Cultural norms, values, and religious beliefs can significantly impact how grief is expressed and coped with. The cultural context may influence rituals, mourning practices, and the acceptable ways to process grief. Religious beliefs about the afterlife and the nature of death can provide comfort and meaning for the bereaved individual.
  5. Availability of Professional Support: Access to professional support, such as therapists, counselors, or support groups, can provide valuable resources for individuals navigating grief. These services offer a structured and safe environment for individuals to explore their feelings, thoughts, and coping strategies.

Understanding the contextual factors that influence bereavement allows for more tailored and effective support to be provided to grieving individuals. Acknowledging and addressing these factors can help individuals cope with their grief in healthier and more adaptive ways, promoting better adjustment and healing.

Grief Treatment

The effectiveness of grief treatment varies depending on the nature of the grief and the individual’s specific needs. Several important considerations should be kept in mind when considering grief treatment:

  1. Differentiating Normal Grief from Complicated Grief: It’s important to distinguish between “normal” grief reactions and more complicated or traumatic forms of grief. For individuals experiencing normal grief reactions, seeking professional treatment may not always be necessary or beneficial, as grief is a natural and individual process. However, for individuals experiencing complicated grief, professional intervention may be more beneficial.
  2. Tailoring Treatment Approaches: Grief is a highly personal experience, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to treatment. Effective grief treatment should be tailored to the individual’s unique needs, preferences, and circumstances.
  3. Traumatic or Complicated Grief: Individuals who are experiencing more severe symptoms of grief, such as intense yearning, prolonged distress, or difficulty adapting to life without the deceased, may benefit from specialized grief therapy or support groups. These interventions are designed to address the specific challenges of complicated or traumatic grief.
  4. Treatment Risks: As mentioned, there is a potential risk that seeking treatment for normal grief reactions could make symptoms worse. Some individuals may find that discussing their grief intensifies their distress or leads to unnecessary medicalization of a natural process.
  5. Support Networks: For many people, seeking support from friends, family, and community networks can be as effective as formal therapy. Having a strong social support system in place can help individuals navigate the grieving process.
  6. Cultural and Religious Considerations: Individuals from different cultural and religious backgrounds may have specific ways of coping with grief. It’s important for therapists to be culturally sensitive and respectful of these differences when providing support.
  7. Dual Process Approach: Some therapists may use the Dual Process Model of coping with bereavement, which recognizes the importance of alternating between confronting the loss and focusing on restoration-oriented tasks. This approach can help individuals strike a balance between grieving and adapting to changes in their lives.
  8. Continuing Bonds: Some individuals find comfort in maintaining a continuing bond with the deceased person. Therapists may encourage this approach, acknowledging that such bonds can be healthy and adaptive for some people.

In summary, the decision to seek grief treatment should be carefully considered based on the individual’s needs and circumstances. While treatment may be highly beneficial for individuals experiencing complicated or traumatic grief, those experiencing more typical grief reactions may find solace and support in their existing networks without the need for formal therapy. The overall goal is to provide individuals with the tools and resources that will help them navigate their grief in ways that are most meaningful and healing for them.

Mourning Rituals

Mourning, a vital aspect of the grieving process, is the visible and outward expression of grief. While it encompasses emotions like sorrow, sadness, and longing, it extends beyond individual feelings to encompass the intricate rituals and practices that societies engage in to honor and remember the deceased. These mourning rituals are diverse and richly influenced by cultural, religious, and societal factors. As an expert in psychology, understanding and appreciating the complex tapestry of mourning rituals across various cultures provides valuable insights into the human experience of loss and healing.

Cultural Variability in Mourning Rituals: Mourning rituals reflect the unique beliefs, values, and norms of different cultures. From the Orthodox Jewish traditions of Tahara and Shiva to the diverse practices of Indigenous communities, every culture employs rituals that guide the bereaved through the process of saying goodbye and navigating life without the departed. These rituals often offer a structured framework for mourning, fostering a sense of connection and shared experience among the bereaved.

Orthodox Jewish Mourning: In the Orthodox Jewish community, mourning rituals are highly regulated by tradition and religious principles. These rituals are deeply rooted in ancient practices, symbolizing respect for the deceased and providing a support system for the grieving. The Tahara, which involves the ritual purification of the body, and the Shiva, a seven-day mourning period, are poignant examples of how cultural practices provide a sense of continuity and meaning during times of loss.

Funerals as Bridging Points: Across cultures, funerals serve as significant milestones that mark the transition from life to death. Historically, they held dual roles—aiding the deceased in their journey to the afterlife and providing closure for the living. As Kastenbaum (2004) highlights, funerals were crucial in certifying the completion of one’s earthly journey, enabling survivors to begin the process of recovery and renewal. However, the evolving dynamics of contemporary society have introduced new challenges to the effectiveness of funerals as bridging points between life and death.

Modern Challenges and Innovations: In the modern context, technological advancements have reshaped the role of families in the preparation of the deceased, potentially diminishing the emotional release that comes from hands-on involvement. Rapid societal changes and generational conflicts can also disrupt the alignment between generations’ expectations and the traditions surrounding funerals. Furthermore, shifts away from mainstream religious affiliations have altered the spiritual dimensions of traditional funeral services. These factors, coupled with the increasing prevalence of disconnected interpersonal ties, have led to perfunctory and less meaningful funeral experiences.

Innovative Responses to Contemporary Challenges: As Kastenbaum (2004) suggests, individuals are responding to these challenges by innovatively reshaping funeral practices to better align with their way of life and values. Personalization and creative expression have become central themes, allowing mourners to craft funerals that truly resonate with the essence of the departed and the bereaved. Such innovations underscore the adaptive nature of mourning rituals, demonstrating the human capacity to find new ways of coping with loss and transforming grief into meaningful experiences.

The Role of Psychology in Understanding Mourning Rituals: As a psychological expert, delving into the multifaceted realm of mourning rituals provides a nuanced perspective on the ways cultural practices intersect with individual psychology. It highlights the significance of cultural factors in shaping grief reactions and emphasizes the need for sensitivity to cultural diversity when providing grief support and therapy. Furthermore, understanding the challenges and innovations in mourning rituals sheds light on the evolving landscape of grief in contemporary society, offering valuable insights for designing effective interventions that align with modern needs.

In conclusion, mourning rituals are powerful expressions of cultural identity, human connection, and transformation in the face of loss. As an expert in psychology, recognizing the intricate interplay between culture, tradition, and individual psychology in the context of mourning rituals enhances our understanding of the universal experience of grief and the diverse ways people navigate the journey of healing and remembrance.


In the realm of death, dying, and bereavement, a range of profound issues emerges, from ethical dilemmas surrounding euthanasia to the practicality of advance directives. This domain has witnessed significant recent research and discourse, shedding light on the complexities inherent in these topics.

Amid the multitude of inquiries, it becomes evident that grief is an intensely personal journey. The conventional notion of grief following a standardized sequence of stages has been challenged by empirical evidence. Preconceived ideas about the inevitability of extreme distress during grieving or the significance of outward displays of sorrow have not been consistently supported by research. Yet, within this individualized experience of grief, certain factors exert influence, shaping its trajectory as revealed by the accumulated research.

Moving forward, there is a compelling need to further synthesize the diverse theoretical perspectives in the field of grief. Integrating these theories can lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the intricacies of bereavement. Moreover, the ongoing exploration into complicated grief deserves continued attention, along with the identification of risk factors contributing to this intricate phenomenon. Research endeavors should persist in examining how distinct responses to treatment manifest in cases of complicated versus typical grief. Equally important is the pursuit of identifying protective factors that aid individuals in navigating grief, such as possessing a resilient disposition and expressing positive emotions.

In essence, the exploration of death, dying, and bereavement remains an ever-evolving domain. As we venture into the future, delving deeper into the intertwining factors that influence grief and its diverse manifestations holds the potential to enhance our comprehension of this profound facet of the human experience.


  1. Allen, J., Chavez, S., DeSimone, S., Howard, D., Johnson, K., LaPierre, L., et al. (2006). Americans’ attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, 1936–2002. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 33(2), 5–23.
  2. Bonanno, G. A., & Kaltman, S. (1999). Toward an integrative perspective on bereavement. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 760–776.
  3. Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic Books.
  4. Bullock, K. (2006). Promoting advance directives among African- Americans: A faith-based model. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 9(1), 183–195.
  5. Burdette, A. M., Hill, T. D., & Moulton, B. E. (2005). Religion and attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide and terminal palliative care. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 44(1), 79–93.
  6. Center for the Advancement of Health. (2004a). Chapter 2: Themes in research on bereavement and grief. Death Studies, 28(6), 498–505.
  7. Center for the Advancement of Health. (2004b). Chapter 5: Outcomes of bereavement. Death Studies, 28(6), 520–542.
  8. Cicirelli, V. G. (2001). Personal meanings of death in older adults and young adults in relation to their fears of death. Death Studies, 25, 663–683.
  9. Crane, M. K., Wittink, M., & Doukas, D. J. (2005). Respecting end-of-life treatment preferences. American Family Physician, 72(7), 1263–1270.
  10. Elliott, J. M. (2003). Brain death. Trauma, 5, 23–42.
  11. FAQ about the Oregon Death With Dignity Act. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2017, from
  12. Field, N. P., & Friedrichs, M. (2004). Continuing bonds in coping with the death of a husband. Death Studies, 28, 597–620.
  13. Harding, S. R., Flannelly, K. J., Weaver, A. J., & Costa, K. G. (2005). The influence of religion on death anxiety and death acceptance. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 8(4), 253–261.
  14. Hays, R. M., Valentine, J., Haynes, G., Geyer, J. R., Villareale, N., McKinstry, B., et al. (2006). The Seattle pediatric palliative care project: Effects on family satisfaction and health-related quality of life. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 9(3), 716–718.
  15. Iwashyna, T. J., & Chang, V. W. (2002). Racial and ethnic differences in place of death: United States, 1993. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 50(6), 1113–1117.
  16. Kastenbaum, R. (2004). Why funerals? Generations, 28, 5–10.
  17. Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan.
  18. Lalande, K. M., & Bonanno, G. A. (2006). Culture and continuing bonds: A prospective comparison of bereavement in the United States and the People’s Republic of China. Death Studies, 30(4), 303–324.
  19. Markson, L. J., Fanale, J., Steel, K., Kern, D., & Annas, G. (1995). Implementing advance directives in the primary care setting. Archives of Internal Medicine, 154, 45–59.
  20. Matthews, L. T., & Marwit, S. J. (2004). Complicated grief and the trend toward cognitive-behavioral therapy. Death Studies, 28, 849–863.
  21. McClatchey, R. S., & Vonk, M. E. (2005). An exploratory study of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms among bereaved children. Omega, 51(4), 285–300.
  22. Miller, L. L., Harvath, T. A., Ganzini, L., Goy, E. R., Delorit, M. A., & Jackson, A. (2004). Attitudes and experiences of Oregon hospice nurses and social workers regarding assisted suicide. Palliative Medicine, 18, 685–691.
  23. Minino, A. M., Heron, M. P., & Smith, B. L. (2006). Deaths: Preliminary data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports, 54(19), 1–50.
  24. Mitchell, S. L., Teno, J. M., Miller, S. C., & Mor, V. (2005). A national study of the location of death for older persons with dementia. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 53(4), 299–305.
  25. Moskowitz, J. T., Folkman, S., & Acree, M. (2003). Do positive psychological states shed light on recovery from bereavement? Findings from a 3-year longitudinal study. Death Studies, 27, 471–500.
  26. National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. (n.d.). What is hospice? Retrieved February 20, 2017, from
  27. National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. (n.d.). What is palliative care? Retrieved February 20, 2017, from
  28. National Institute of Mental Health. (2006). Suicide. Retrieved February 20, 2017, from
  29. Neimeyer, R. (2000). Searching for the meaning of meaning: Grief therapy and the process of reconstruction. Death Studies, 24, 541–558.
  30. Park, C. L., & Benore, E. B. (2004). Death-specific religious beliefs and bereavement: Belief in an afterlife and continued attachment. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 1–22.
  31. Puswella, A., Devita, M., & Arnold, R. M. (2005). Determining brain death: The neurological criteria. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 8(3), 640–641.
  32. Schiavo’s feeding tube removed: Husband’s lawyer denounces congressional “thuggery.” (2005). Retrieved February 20, 2017, from
  33. Schonwetter, R. (2006). Hospice and palliative medicine: Ten years has made a difference. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 9(2), 236–238.
  34. Stroebe, M., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (2005). Attachment in coping with bereavement: A theoretical investigation. Review of General Psychology, 9(1), 48–66.
  35. Taxis, J. C. (2006). Attitudes, values, and questions of African Americans regarding participation in hospice programs. Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing, 8(2), 77–85.
  36. Wasserman, J., Clair, J. M., & Ritchey, F. J. (2006). Racial differences in attitudes toward euthanasia. Omega, 52(3), 263–287.
  37. Weinstein, L. B. (2003). Bereaved Orthodox Jewish families and their community: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 20(4), 233–243.
  38. Wortman, C., & Silver, R. (2001). The myths of coping with loss revisited. In M. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care (pp. 405–431). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Back to Developmental Psychology