Cited by 497Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Continuing bonds and reconstructing meaning: mitigating complications in bereavement.

Neimeyer, Robert A., Baldwin, Scott A., Gillies, James·2006·Death Studies

Abstract

Drawing on attachment theory and constructivist conceptualizations of bereavement, the authors assessed the relation between continuing bonds coping and meaning reconstruction following the death of a loved one and complicated grief symptomatology. Five hundred six young adults in the first two years of bereavement from a variety of losses completed the Inventory of Complicated Grief along with measures of the strength of their ongoing attachment to the deceased and their capacity to make sense of the loss, find benefit in the experience, and reconstruct a progressive sense of identity following the death. Several variables concerning the survivor, his or her relationship to the deceased, and the nature of the death functioned as risk factors for heightened distress, but their role was generally moderated by meaning-making, often to the point of non-significance. In contrast, higher levels of benefit-finding and positive identity change were associated with lower levels of bereavement complication. Finally, an interaction emerged between sense-making and ongoing attachment to the deceased, suggesting that strong continuing bonds predicted greater levels of traumatic and especially separation distress, but only when the survivor was unable to make sense of the loss in personal, practical, existential, or spiritual terms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07481180600848322

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Meaning-making and bereavement occur within a collective, building coherence through individual and societal meanings.

    “Though not a sociologist, Neimeyer and colleagues repeatedly find that meaning-making and bereavement always occur within the confines of a collective, as they build a coherent sense of why the death happened through each member’s individual meanings and more general societal ones (Neimeyer et al., 2006; Currier et al., 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Neimeyer, R. A., Baldwin, S. A., & Gillies, J.
Affiliations
University of Memphis (US)
Corresponding author
Neimeyer, Robert A.
Venue
Death Studies
Published
2006-09
Volume
30
Issue
8
Pages
715-738
ISSN
  • 0748-1187 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-7683
OpenAlex
W2037241754
Cited by
497
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 26
FWCI
12.92
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 › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
complicated grief, bereavement, continuing bonds, attachment to the deceased, meaning-making, benefit finding, identity reconstruction, separation distress, traumatic grief, young adults, Inventory of Complicated Grief
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Bereavement, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, United States

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