Cited by 223Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Rituals alleviate grieving for loved ones, lovers, and lotteries.

Open access
Norton, Michael I., Gino, Francesca·2014·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Three experiments explored the impact of mourning rituals--after losses of loved ones, lovers, and lotteries--on mitigating grief. Participants who were directed to reflect on past rituals or who were assigned to complete novel rituals after experiencing losses reported lower levels of grief. Increased feelings of control after rituals mediated the link between use of rituals and reduced grief after losses, and the benefits of rituals accrued not only to individuals who professed a belief in rituals' effectiveness but also to those who did not. Although the specific rituals in which people engage after losses vary widely by culture and religion-and among our participants--our results suggest a common psychological mechanism underlying their effectiveness: regained feelings of control.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0031772

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Individuals who performed rituals to manage their grief felt less sad and more in control than individuals who did not perform rituals.

    “Finally, Norton and Gino (2014) demonstrated that individuals who performed rituals to manage their grief felt less sad, and more in control, than individuals who did not perform rituals.”

    From The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework (2018) · cites this paper as Norton and Gino, 2014

  • Norton and Gino (2014) found that engaging in ritual-labeled behaviors, compared with matched behaviors referred to as random actions, led participants to feel a greater sense of personal control after incurring a major loss.

    “Similarly, Norton and Gino (2014) found that engaging in ritual-labeled behaviors (compared with matched behaviors referred to as random actions) led participants to feel a greater sense of personal control after incurring a major loss.”

    From The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework (2018) · cites this paper as Norton and Gino, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Norton, M. I., & Gino, F.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2014
Volume
143
Issue
1
Pages
266-272
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2129753587
Cited by
221
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2
FWCI
11.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
mourning rituals, grief, loss, perceived control, bereavement, mediation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Ceremonial Behavior, Female, Grief, Humans, Male, Middle Aged

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