Cited by 382Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

SEARCHING FOR MEANING IN LOSS: ARE CLINICAL ASSUMPTIONS CORRECT?

G. Davis, Camille B. Wortman, Darri, Christopher·2000·Death Studies

Abstract

Three assumptions guiding research and clinical intervention strategies for people coping with sudden, traumatic loss are that (a) people confronting such losses inevitably search for meaning, (b) over time most are able to find meaning and put the issue aside, and (c) finding meaning is critical for adjustment or healing. We review existing empirical research that addresses these assumptions and present evidence from a study of 124 parents coping with the death of their infant and a study of 93 adults coping with the loss of their spouse or child to a motor vehicle accident. Results of these studies indicate that (a) a significant subset of individuals do not search for meaning and yet appear relatively well-adjusted to their loss; (b) less than half of the respondents in each of these samples report finding any meaning in their loss, even more than a year after the event; and (c) those who find meaning, although better adjusted than those who search but are unable to find meaning, do not put the issue of meaning aside and move on. Rather, they continue to pursue the issue of meaning as fervently as those who search but do not find meaning. Implications for both research and clinical intervention are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07481180050121471

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 54 · Cited by 382

Authors
G. Davis, C. B. W.
Venue
Death Studies
Published
2000-09
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
497-540
ISSN
  • 0748-1187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7683
OpenAlex
W2137644488
Cited by
382
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 18
FWCI
9.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Death Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
bereavement, grief, coping with loss, parental bereavement, infant death, death of a spouse, child death, motor vehicle accidents, adaptation to loss, bereavement interventions
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Bereavement, Humans, Thanatology

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