SEARCHING FOR MEANING IN LOSS: ARE CLINICAL ASSUMPTIONS CORRECT?
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Meaning-making processes are thought to emerge more prominently during later phases of adjustment rather than in the immediate aftermath of trauma.
“This pattern is theoretically coherent, as meaning-making processes are thought to emerge more prominently during later phases of adjustment rather than in the immediate aftermath of trauma (64, 65).”
From Coping strategies and psychological outcomes following the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes: a systematic review with meta-analytic synthesis (2026) · cites this paper as [64]
Recalcitrant experiences may confound expectations and provoke processes of sense-making aimed at resolving the tensions.
“Recalcitrant experiences may confound expectations and provoke processes of sense-making aimed at resolving the tensions”
From Hidden Risks: Artificial Intelligence and Hermeneutic Harm (2025) · cites this paper as Davis et al., 2010
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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