Cited by 24Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Attentional Bias to Reminders of the Deceased as Compared With a Living Attachment in Grieving

Open access
Schneck, Noam, Tu, Tao, Michel, Christina A., Bonanno, George A., Sajda, Paul, Mann, J. John·2018·Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging

Abstract

Background Grieving individuals demonstrate attentional bias toward reminders of the deceased versus neutral stimuli. We sought to assess bias toward reminders of the deceased versus a living attachment figure and to evaluate similarities and differences in the neural correlates of deceased- and living-related attention. We also sought to identify grief process variables associated with deceased-related attentional bias.Methods Twenty-five subjects grieving the death of a first-degree relative or partner within 14 months performed an emotional Stroop task, using words related to a deceased or a living attachment figure, and a standard Stroop task, to identify general selective attention, during functional magnetic resonance imaging. Subjects rated word sadness, complicated grief symptoms, depression severity, attachment style, emotional pain, nonacceptance, yearning, and intrusions.Results We identified an attentional bias to deceased-related versus living-related words, independent of age, depression severity/history, loss type, word sadness, medication use, and time since loss. Attentional bias correlated with complicated grief severity and intrusive thinking. A conjunction analysis identified joint activation in the fusiform gyrus, posterior cingulate, and temporal parietal junction across living- and deceased-related attention versus general selective attention. Insecure-avoidant attachment style correlated with decreased engagement of this network in deceased-related attention.Conclusions We have demonstrated an attentional bias to reminders of the deceased versus a living attachment in grieving. Overlapping neural circuits related to living- and deceased-related attention suggest that the bereaved employ similar processes in attending to the deceased as they do in attending to the living. Deceased-related attentional bias appears to be linked primarily to intrusive thinking about the loss.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.08.003

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prolonged grief disorder involves both approach tendencies towards reminders of the deceased and avoidance of these reminders as a strategy to minimize associated emotional distress.

    “It seems that prolonged grief disorder involves both approach tendencies towards reminders of the deceased and avoidance of these reminders as a strategy to minimize the associated emotional distress 108,109 .”

    From Emerging experience with selected new categories in the <scp>ICD</scp>‐11: complex <scp>PTSD</scp>, prolonged grief disorder, gaming disorder, and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [109]

    The Discussion reports an attentional bias toward reminders of the deceased that was associated with complicated-grief severity, supporting the approach-related part of the claim. It does not report avoidance of those reminders as a strategy for minimizing emotional distress; its finding about insecure-avoidant attachment style concerns neural activity, not that strategy. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A series of Stroop tasks demonstrated longer reaction times when color naming loss-related words and the deceased name for people with complicated grief versus people without complicated grief.

    “A series of Stroop tasks demonstrated longer reaction times when color naming loss-related words (vs. non-loss words) and the deceased name (vs. name other attachment figures) for people with CG versus people without CG (Maccallum &amp; Bryant, 2010a; O ' Connor &amp; Arizmendi, 2013; Schneck et al., 2018: for a different result with a more complex task, see Mancini &amp; Bonanno, 2012).”

    From Emotion Regulatory Strategies in Complicated Grief: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Schneck et al., 2018

    The Results (Attentional Bias and Grief Process Variables; page unavailable) report slower color-naming responses to deceased-related than living-related words, with a greater difference at higher complicated-grief severity. They do not report a comparison between people with and without complicated grief, or separate results for the deceased’s name versus other attachment figures’ names. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneck, N., Tu, T., Michel, C. A., Bonanno, G. A., Sajda, P., & Mann, J. J.
Affiliations
  • New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Schneck, Noam
Venue
Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-02
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
107-115
ISSN
2451-9022 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2767089596
Cited by
24
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH020004, T32MH015144)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
attentional bias, grief, bereavement, death reminders, attachment figures, complicated grief, emotional Stroop task, fusiform gyrus, posterior cingulate cortex, temporoparietal junction, insecure-avoidant attachment, neural correlates of attention, longing
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Attention, Emotions, Female, Grief, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Object Attachment, Young Adult, Stroop Test

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review