Cited by 40Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Attachment and severity of grief: The mediating role of negative appraisal and inflexible coping

Open access
Delespaux, Emily, Ryckebosch-Dayez, Anne-Sophie, Heeren, Alexandre, Zech, Emmanuelle·2013·OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying

Abstract

According to the Dual Process Model of coping with bereavement (DPM; Stroebe & Schut, 1999), adjustment to bereavement involves a flexible oscillation between two types of coping strategies: loss-oriented (LO) and restoration-oriented (RO). This model postulates that extremely anxious or avoidant attachment disturbs the oscillation process by focusing more on one type of strategy, either LO or RO. The present study examined this assumption. We recruited 321 bereaved individuals who had lost a romantic partner. Our results showed that less negative appraisal of bereavement-related stressors, as well as higher use of RO strategies, mediated the link between attachment avoidance and low severity of grief reactions. However, the DPM variables were not found to mediate the link between attachment anxiety and elevated grief reactions. We discuss how these results provide an empirical basis of the DPM.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2190/om.67.3.b

Cites

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?

  • Delespaux et al. (2013) reported that using more loss- versus restoration-oriented coping showed a large positive association with complicated grief symptoms.

    “and Delespaux et al. (2013) reported that using more lossversus restoration-oriented coping showed a large positive association with CG symptoms.”

    From Emotion Regulatory Strategies in Complicated Grief: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as Delespaux et al. (2013)

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 42 · Cited by 40

Authors
Delespaux, E., Ryckebosch-Dayez, A.-S., Heeren, A., & Zech, E.
Affiliations
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Fund for Scientific Research (BE)
Corresponding author
Delespaux, Emily
Venue
OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying
Published
2013-11
Volume
67
Issue
3
Pages
269-289
ISSN
  • 0030-2228 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-3764
OpenAlex
W2058510885
Cited by
40
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
grief severity, attachment, attachment avoidance, attachment anxiety, negative appraisals, bereavement, mediation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affective Symptoms, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Defense Mechanisms, Female, France, Grief, Humans, Internal-External Control, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Object Attachment, Social Adjustment, Social Support, Young Adult

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