adolescent grief: relationship category and...
TRANSCRIPT
OMEGA, Vol. 54(2) 147-167, 2006-2007
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP CATEGORY
AND EMOTIONAL CLOSENESS*
HEATHER L. SERVATY-SEIB
M. CAROLE PISTOLE
Purdue University, Indiana
ABSTRACT
Bereaved adolescents (N = 90) who had experienced relatively common
death losses (e.g., grandparent, friend) completed the Texas Revised
Inventory of Grief and the Emotional Closeness Scale and Continuum.
Results indicated that present grief was significantly higher for friend than
for grandparent death loss. A MANOVA revealed that those in the high
closeness group reported significantly higher mean scores on past and present
grief than those in the low closeness group. Finally, in a hierarchal multiple
regression, after demographic variables were entered (e.g., age, present at
death), emotional closeness added significant variance to the prediction
of past and present grief. This research contributes to the understanding
of grief intensity following adolescents’ most common death losses and
highlights the importance of counselors’ intentionally and directly assessing
bereaved adolescents’ perceived emotional closeness to the deceased as
part of grief-related counseling.
Because the bulk of the adolescent grief literature has focused on parent or sibling
death (e.g., Balk, 1990; Dillon & Brassard, 1999; Fanos & Nickerson, 1991;
Martinson & Campos, 1991; Worden & Silverman, 1996), little is known about
the grief associated with the death losses of extended family members and peers or
*This research was supported in part by a seed grant from Radford University, Radford, Virginia.
147
� 2006, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
friends. Nonetheless, grandparent and peer are the more common death losses
during adolescence (Balk & Corr, 1996; Crenshaw, 1990; Oltjenbruns, 1996;
Schachter, 1991-1992). For instance, grandparent death is often the first death
that an adolescent experiences (Glass, 1990); and in one study (Ringler &
Hayden, 2000), 26 adolescents had lost a grandparent, 37 had lost a friend, and
14 had lost a grandparent and a friend; only 3 participants had lost a sibling,
and none had lost a parent.
Adolescent family and friend death losses are important because they are
common and because they are distressing. The responses to grandparent death
loss can be similar to the struggles associated with parent or sibling death loss
(Irizarry, 1992; Wass, 1995), and friend death loss often results in a more
profound grief than might have been predicted (Dyregrov, Gjestad, Bie Wikander,
& Vigerust, 1999; Schachter, 1991-1992; Sklar & Hartley, 1990). Examining
adolescent family and friend death loss, Lurie (1993) concluded that “the loss
of a close friend precipitates a grief reaction similar to that of the loss of a close
family member” (p. 203). Similarly, Ringler and Hayden (2000) concluded that
adolescents are “often deeply affected” (p. 227) by family and friend death
loss. If practitioners are to provide effective, useful services to bereaved adoles-
cents, research on the most common death loss experiences is mandatory.
This study examined grief intensity following family kin (e.g., grandparent) and
friend death loss.
Grief Intensity Perspectives—
Evolutionary Salience and Emotional Closeness
Evolutionary salience and emotional closeness are two interesting perspectives
that may account for adolescents’ grief intensity following kinship or friend death
loss. From the perspective of modern evolution theory, in natural selection,
“the genes and behavior that enhance reproductive success are selected for, not
the genes and behavior that promote survival” (Belsky, 1999, p. 141). Littlefield
and Rushton (1986) argued, therefore, that bereaved kin’s grief intensity would
reflect the degree of genetic investment in the deceased and the deceased’s
propagation potential. They found support for this proposal when investigating
grief associated with a child death loss, which is biologically costly because the
genes do not survive to be reproduced. For example, mothers, who have more
genetic investment in each child due to their reproductive capacity being more
limited than men’s, grieved significantly more intensely than fathers. In other
research, kinship has been found to predict grief intensity, and bereaved parents
have displayed more intense grief responses than adults experiencing other kin or
spousal death losses (Burnett, Middleton, Raphael, & Martinek, 1997; Sanders,
1979-1980; Zisook & Lyons, 1988). Cleiren, Diekstra, Kerkhof, and van der Wal
(1994) also found significant grief intensity differences among kin, “with parents
(particularly mothers) . . . of the deceased being more strongly affected than adult
148 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
children, brothers, and widows” (p. 22). And Ringdal, Jordhoy, Ringdal, and
Kaasa (2001) found that grief for close family members was stronger for female
(i.e., more genetically invested) versus male participants and for younger (i.e.,
more reproductive potential) versus older family members.
Another perspective argues that “differences in severity of grief reactions . . . are
likely to follow more accurately the closeness of personal relationships . . . than
anything that directly results from the degree of genetic relatedness” (Archer,
1999, p. 158), with closeness perhaps being confounded with kinship because
family members typically support and sustain daily existence. Consistent with
this thinking, many thanatological researchers (Brent et al., 1992; Cleiren, 1993;
McNeil, Silliman, & Swihart, 1991) have argued that closeness is relevant to
grief intensity and must be assessed (Cleiren et al., 1994; McIntosh, 1993;
Oltjenbruns, 1996; Swanson & Bennett, 1982-1983). In Bugen’s (1977) theory,
centrality, “the closeness of the relationship between the mourner and the
deceased” (p. 197), is a major predictor of grief intensity.
Rationale for the Study
In terms of hypotheses about adolescent grandparent or friend death loss,
a sparse clinical and anecdotal literature suggests that the grief responses to
grandparent death will vary according to the relationship’s closeness (Crenshaw,
1990; Raphel, 1983; Webb, 1993). Similarly, in the few adolescent friend loss
studies (Brent et al., 1992; McNeil et al., 1991) closeness was significantly related
to grief intensity. However, in other research, “the closeness of the student/peer
relationship did not seem to predict the intensity or duration of mourning”
(O’Brien, Goodenow, & Espin, 1991, p. 435). The paucity of research, the
inconsistency in findings, and the lack of kin and friend death loss comparative
studies sheds little light on the contribution of kinship or closeness as a salient
predictor of grief intensity.
At the simplest level of an evolutionary saliency perspective, kin are important
to the adolescent’s inclusive fitness, which in turn is relevant to reproductive
success (Simpson, 1999). Because the likely index of relatedness to grandparents,
aunts, and uncles is 25% (Archer, 1999), adolescents might display more grief
for kin, whose genetic heritage they share and with whom they are linked in
terms of evolutionary survival. In addition, due to grandparents no longer being
at an age where they are reproductively valued, there may be greater grief
intensity for aunts/uncles/cousins, who may still have reproductive value. If so,
adolescents would exhibit less grief for friends, with whom they have no genetic
heritage and no evolutionary survival link.
In contrast, from a closeness perspective, bereaved adolescents may display
greater grief intensity based on their emotional closeness to the deceased, whether
a grandparent, other kin, or a friend. Regarding closeness and kin death loss, we
reasoned that adolescents may or may not have been close to a family member,
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 149
particularly if the deceased lived geographically far away and if interaction was
more intermittent (e.g., twice a year) than continuous (e.g., daily, weekly). In
addition, for a grandparent, grief may be attenuated because the person is at
an age that seems old to the adolescent and so consistent with dying. More
specifically, the adolescent may not perceive the self as close to or emotionally
linked with someone at such a different phase of the life cycle. Nonetheless, if
kinship is a primary predictor of grief intensity, then adolescent grief intensity
would be higher for grandparents and kin death loss, whether or not closeness
is high; but if closeness is the salient predictor, then grief intensity will be
higher when closeness is higher, regardless of relationship category.
Regarding friend death loss, adolescents may have strong grief reactions
because the friendship is close (Oltjenbruns, 1996; Toray & Oltjenbruns, 1996;
Schacter, 1991-1992) and intense (Crenshaw, 1990; Davies, 1991; Raphael, 1983;
Schachter, 1991-1992). Adolescent friendships have adaptive, developmental
advantages linked to identity (Erikson, 1968; O’Brien et al., 1991; Oltjenbruns,
1996; Podell, 1989; Preto, 1999) as well as attachment (Allen & Land, 1999;
Hazan & Zeifman, 1999) and affiliative functions (e.g., shared daily activities,
caring, intimacy). For example, closeness may accrue in friendships as adoles-
cents’ primary social support shifts from parents to friends in early and middle
adolescence (Collins, 1997). In addition, developmental functions may culminate
in adolescents’ friends being important, influential, and connected to the self
(Berscheid, Snyder, & Omoto, 1989). Further, adolescent friend death may elicit a
comparison with the deceased that, because of perceived similarity, may lead
bereaved peers to confront their own vulnerability and mortality, thereby possibly
increasing the emotional intensity of the loss (Crenshaw, 1990; Podell, 1989;
Silverman, 2000; Smith, Lingle, & Brock, 1978-1979). These possibilities suggest
an implicit closeness in adolescent relationships, which could elicit high grief
intensity in response to friend death loss. If so, then grief may be more intense for
friend death loss, if closeness is higher versus lower.
This study examined the relatedness of grief intensity and closeness in
relation to death loss of family kin (i.e., grandparent and aunt/uncle/cousin) or
friend. For hypothesis one (H1), consistent with Archer’s (1999) contention
that closeness rather than kinship is salient to grief intensity, we expected that
mean scores on grief intensity would be significantly higher for friend death
loss than for grandparent or aunt/uncle/cousin death loss. The second hypothesis
(H2) was that adolescents who reported high levels of emotional closeness
would have significantly higher mean scores on grief intensity than those who
reported lower levels of emotional closeness, regardless of relationship category
(i.e., friend, grandparent, aunt/uncle/cousin). In addition, we asked a research
question (RQ): Does the level of emotional closeness predict grief intensity above
and beyond known biographical (i.e., age, sex, time since death, being with
the deceased at the time of death, and suddenness of the death) predictors of
grief intensity?
150 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 90 adolescents aged 14-18 years (M = 15.8, SD = 1.10) who
had experienced a death loss within the previous two-year period. The sample,
which was 77.8% female and 91.1% White, was recruited from one suburban
and two rural high schools in the southeastern region of the United States. The
findings presented here are one segment of a larger investigation. Approximately
half of the participants were from intact families (n = 46, 51.1%), while 14.4%
(n = 13) were from families with divorced parents and 16.7% (n = 15) were from
divorced families with both biological parents remarried. With regard to death
loss, 50% (n = 45) of the sample reported on the death of a grandparent, 25.5%
(n = 23) reported on the death of friend, 11.1% (n = 10) on the death of an aunt,
8.9% (n = 8) on an uncle, and 4.4% (n = 4) on a cousin. Time since death loss
ranged from five days to two years (M = 11.4 months, SD = 7.6). The primary
causes of death identified were cancer (n = 24, 26.7%), old age (n = 11, 12.2%),
car accident (n = 11, 12.2%), and heart attack (n = 10, 11.1%). Data were also
collected on several variables known to be associated with grief intensity includ-
ing participant age and sex, time since death, adolescent presence at the time of
death, and suddenness of the death.
Materials
Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG)
The TRIG (Fashingbauer, Zisook, & DeVaul, 1987) is a brief questionnaire
designed to quantify the intensity of negative grief reactions. A modified version
of the instrument was used in this research in order to make the items more
appropriate for bereaved adolescents who experienced friend or grandparent
death. Several items were revised to smooth readability and reduce repetition of
phrases (e.g., “the person who died”), and one item (i.e., “No one will ever take the
place in my life of the person who died”) was deleted because this item might
not apply to friend-death loss. Three items were added by being more specific
about the phrase “when I think of the person who died.” For example, “I still cry
when I think of the person who died” became “I cry when I think about how
this person used to be before his/her death” and “I cry when I think about how
he/she could have been if not for his/her death.” In the current research the sample
specific reliabilities on the TRIG subscale scores exceeded the original. Two
experts have verified the content and acceptability of the present version of the
TRIG (S. Zisook, personal communication, June 23, 2005; B. Hayslip, personal
communication, July 10, 2005).
TRIG-Past, which is Part I of the measure, consists of eight items assessing
grief-related feelings/behavior at the time of the death loss; a sample item is “After
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 151
this person died, I found it hard to get along with certain people.” TRIG-Present,
Part II, consists of 15 items, such as “It is painful to recall memories of how
he/she used to be.” which tap present grief-related feelings/ behavior. Participants
rated all items based on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 5 = completely
true to 1 = completely false. Higher scores indicate greater negative grief intensity.
In terms of scores’ reliability, Fashingbauer et al. (1987) reported an alpha
coefficient of .77 and a split-half reliability of .74 for TRIG-Past scores, with a
coefficient alpha of .86 and a split-half reliability of .88 for TRIG-Present scores.
For the current sample, Cronbach’s alphas for the scores were: TRIG-Past = .82
and TRIG-Present = .93.
Emotional Closeness
Although a comprehensive discussion is beyond the scope of this article, the
measurement of closeness has been quite varied and fuzzy (Berscheid et al., 1989).
Bereavement researchers have not agreed on a measure of closeness and have
relied on either a single item measure (Grabowski & Frantz, 1992-1993; Park
& Cohen, 1993; Reed & Greenwald, 1991; Russac, Steighner, & Canto, 2002;
Swanson & Bennett, 1982-1983) or a multidimensional measure that includes
related constructs such as intimacy (Cleiren, 1993). Because of such difficulties, a
two-part measure was designed for this study to provide a concise, synthesized,
single factor focus for emotional closeness. As defined in the present investi-
gation, emotional closeness is the bereaved adolescent’s subjectively reported
level of emotional openness, awareness, and understanding in the relationship
with the deceased. Items were generated by two experts in closeness, as the term
is used in death loss research and practice. Face validity was determined by a
review of the items conducted by three other experts in the topic. The two parts
of the measure were designed to be used both separately and together.
The Scale of Emotional Closeness (SEC), Part I, is a brief seven-item
paper-and-pencil questionnaire (see Appendix A) that assesses the extent of
subjectively perceived emotional closeness in the respondent and deceased’s
relationship. Participants rated all items (e.g., “I kept my distance emotionally
from this person”) on a 7-point scale from 7 = very strongly agree to 1 = very
strongly disagree. Two items are reverse scored. Higher scores indicate greater
emotional closeness. Sample-specific psychometrics calculated on the data
indicated that Cronbach’s alpha reliability of the scores was .87, and the mean
inter-item correlation was .47. The SEC correlated significantly with the TRIG-
Past, r = .43, p < .01, and TRIG-Present, r = .45, p < .01, subscales, as is consistent
with expectations that the scales measure separate, highly related variables.
The Emotional Closeness Continuum (ECC; Appendix B), Part II, asks
respondents to “make a vertical slash mark on the line below to indicate your level
of closeness with the person who died.” Following an example of a neutral
response, the question: “How aware was this person of your most personal
152 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
feelings?” precedes the 100 millimeter long horizontal line. This line is anchored
by “Completely unaware of my most personal feelings (–)” on the left and
“Completely aware of my most personal feelings (+)” on the right, with a zero in
the center. A metric ruler is used to determine scores, which range from 0 to 100.
Higher scores indicate greater emotional closeness. Pearson correlations calcu-
lated on the sample data revealed that the ECC was significantly related to the
TRIG-Past, r = .54, p < .01, and the TRIG-Present, r = .47, p < .01, as was expected
for different but associated constructs.
With regard to the SEC and ECC being used together with a total score, the
ECC correlated with the SEC at r = .80, p < .01, as is consistent with the two
measuring a similar construct. A factor analysis was conducted on the sample’s
data using the seven items of the SEC and the one score from the ECC. The
principal component extraction procedure using varimax rotation resulted in a
one-factor solution that accounted for 60.7% of the variance. Factor loadings
ranged from .60 to .86.
Procedure
The procedures for data collection in particular rural and urban schools varied
because of school district specifications. In school I, after a brief description of
the study, students who met research criteria raised their hands and took a
packet (i.e., parental consent form, youth assent form, two separate self-addressed
stamped envelopes for consent forms, and questionnaires). The response rate
(i.e., packets taken versus packets returned) from this school was 11%. In
school II, all students received packets prior to the project description and then
left the packet at the door after class if they did not meet the participant criteria or
were not interested in completing the packet. The response rate was 16%. In
school III, students were presented with consent forms during the first visit by
the researcher and asked to return them the following school day if they were able
and willing to complete the packet. Students then completed the questionnaires
during class time the next day. The response rate was 26%. An ANOVA indicated
that there were no significant mean grief intensity differences due to the varied
procedure, F (4, 174) = .63, p > .05.
RESULTS
To examine H1 that adolescents who experienced a friend death loss
would report higher levels of grief intensity than those experiencing a family
kinship death loss (i.e., grandparent or aunt/uncle/cousin), a one-way MANOVA
using relationship category (i.e., friend, grandparent, aunt/uncle/cousin death)
as the independent variable was performed on the TRIG-Past and TRIG-
Present subscales (see Table 1). The multivariate main effect was significant,
F(4, 174) = 2.35, p < .05, �2 = .05, as was the univariate effect for TRIG-Present,
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 153
F(2, 87) = 3.49, p < .05, �2 = .07. Scheffe post hoc analyses indicated that
adolescents reported higher present grief intensity (i.e., TRIG-Present) for friend
death loss than for grandparent death loss. Because it could be that adolescent
experience of friend death loss was more recent, a post hoc analysis using time
since death as a covariate was calculated. The omnibus finding was relatively
unchanged, F(4, 172) = 2.45, p < .05, �2 = .05., and the analysis did not signifi-
cantly alter the TRIG-Present univariate effect, F(2, 86) = 3.37, p < .05, �2 = .07.
In both analyses, the univariate effect for TRIG-Past, F(2, 87) = 1.65, p > .05,
�2 = .04, and F(2, 86) = 1.84, p > .05, �2 = .04, was not significant.
Two procedures were used to test H2 that closeness would account for grief
intensity over and above relationship category. In the first procedure, the total
score from the SEC/ECC was used as a covariate, along with time since death, in
the MANOVA with relationship category as the independent variable and grief
intensity as the dependent variable. The results revealed that the omnibus effect
was no longer present, F(4, 168) = 1.38, p > .05, �2 = .03; there were no significant
mean differences in grief intensity.
Because failure to reject the null hypothesis does not constitute support
for the hypothesis, a second procedure was performed. Emotional closeness
was dichotomized into a categorical variable. Participants’ total scores on the
SEC/ECC were divided based on a mean split into high emotional closeness and
low emotional closeness, with two participants excluded because of failing to
complete one or both of the closeness measures. A 2 × 3 MANOVA, using level
of emotional closeness (i.e., high, low) and relationship category (i.e., friend,
grandparent, aunt/uncle/cousin) as the independent variables and time since death
as the covariate, was performed on the TRIG-Past and TRIG-Present subscales
(see Table 2). The main effect for level of emotional closeness was significant,
F(2, 81) = 10.10, p < .001, �2 = .20. Univariate analyses indicated that those
in the high emotional closeness group scored significantly higher on both
the TRIG-Past (M = 26.23; SD = .92), and TRIG-Present (M = 54.91; SD = 1.95)
than those in the low emotional closeness group (M = 20.20; SD = 1.02 for Past;
154 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
Table 1. Grief Intensity by Relationship Category
Friend
(n = 23)
Grandparent
(n = 45)
Aunt/Uncle/
Cousin
(n = 22)
Relationship M SD M SD M SD F(2, 87) �2
TRIG-Past
TRIG-Present
23.78
54.65
6.69
10.95
21.78
45.76
6.64
13.28
24.41
49.68
6.64
15.14
1.65
3.49*
.04
.07
*p < .05
M = 44.77; SD = 1.95 for Present), F(1, 82) = 12.18, p < .001, �2 = .13; and
F(1, 82) = 19.22, p < .001, �2 = .19, respectively. The main effect for relationship
category was not significant, F(4, 164) = 1.45, p > .05, �2 = .03; and there was
no significant interaction effect, F(4, 164) = .44, p > .05,�2 = .01.
To analyze RQ1, whether emotional closeness adds to the prediction of grief
intensity above and beyond the biographical predictor variables, two hierarchal
multiple regressions (n = 84) were computed with age, sex, time since death,
presence at death, and suddenness of death entered together at Step 1 and the
total SEC/ECC score entered at Step 2 (see Tables 3 and 4). For TRIG-Past,
R was significantly different from zero at the end of each step. For step 1, R2 = .24
(Adjusted R2 = .19), F(5, 78) = 4.88, p < .001. Beta weights indicated that par-
ticipant age, time since death, and presence at death were significant contributors
to TRIG-Past. For step 2, with all variables in the equation, the equation was
significant, R = .66, F (6, 77) = 10.03, p < .001, with �R2 = .20 indicting that
emotional closeness explained significant additional variance in TRIG-Past,
R2 = .44 (adjusted R2 = .40), Finc (1, 77) = 27.50, p < .001. After Step 2, time
since death, presence at the time of death, and emotional closeness contributed
significantly to the prediction of TRIG-Past.
For TRIG-Present, R was significantly different from zero at the end of each
step. After step 1, with participant age, sex, time since death, presence at the time
of death, and suddenness of death in the equation, R2 = .21 (Adjusted R2 = .16),
F(5, 78) = 4.24, p < .01. Participant age and time since death contributed
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 155
Table 2. Grief Intensity by Level of Emotional Closeness and
Relationship Category
TRIG-Past TRIG-Present
Relationship category M SD n M SD n
Friend
High emotional closeness
Low emotional closeness
Grandparent
High emotional closeness
Low emotional closeness
Aunt/Uncle/Cousin
High emotional closeness
Low emotional closeness
25.25
20.43
24.80
20.00
28.63
20.18
6.31
6.78
5.67
6.06
5.50
4.79
16
7
15
28
11
11
57.37
48.43
50.53
43.32
56.81
42.55
10.34
10.36
15.51
11.25
8.13
17.41
16
7
15
28
11
11
Note: High and low emotional closeness was determined through a mean split of
participant totaled score on SEC and ECC.
156 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
Table 3. Intercorrelations among Regression Variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Age
2. Sexa
3. Time since death
4. Presence at deathb
5. Suddenness of deathc
6. Emotional closeness
7. TRIG-Past
8. TRIG-Present
— –.17
—
.15
.01
—
–.09
.00
–.07
—
–.12
–.08
–.06
.01
—
–.16
.17
–.01
.26*
.02
—
–.16
.10
.24*
.21*
.07
.54**
—
–.27*
.26*
.15
.14
.09
.49**
.67**
—
a0 = male and 1 = femaleb0 = not present at death and 1 = present at deathc0 = not sudden and 2 = sudden
*p < .01. **p < .01.
Table 4. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables
Predicting TRIG-Past and TRIG-Present (N =84)
TRIG-Past TRIG-Present
Variable B SE B � sr2 B SE B � sr2
Step 1
Participant age
Participant sex
Time since death
Presence at death
Suddenness of death
Step 2
Participant age
Participant sex
Time since death
Presence at death
Suddenness of death
Emotional closeness
–1.38
–.44
.01
7.14
.57
–1.05
–1.48
.01
4.54
.49
.09
.62
1.57
.00
2.19
1.31
.54
1.37
.00
1.96
1.13
.02
–.23
–.03
.32
.32
.04
–.18
–.10
.32
.21
.04
.48
.05*
.00
.10**
.10**
.00
.03
.00
.10***
.04*
.00
.20***
–3.81
5.50
.01
7.98
2.09
–3.17
3.52
.01
3.00
1.94
.18
1.32
3.35
.01
4.68
2.80
1.19
3.03
.01
4.33
2.50
.04
–.30
.17
.23
.17
.08
–.25
.11
.23
.07
.07
.43
.08**
.03
.05*
.03
.01
.06**
.01
.05*
.00
.00
.17***
Note: TRIG-Past R2 = .24 for Step 1 (p < .001); �R
2 = .20 for Step 2 (p < .001).
TRIG-Present R2 = .21 for Step 1 (p < .01); �R
2 = .17 for Step 2 (p < .001).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
significantly to the prediction of TRIG-Present. For step 2, with all variables
included, the equation was significant, R = .62, F (6, 77) = 7.83, p < .001, with
�R2 = .17 indicating that emotional closeness explained significant additional
variance in TRIG-Present, R2 = .38 (adjusted R2 = .33), Finc(1, 77) = 20.47,
p < .001. Participant age, time since death, and emotional closeness were signifi-
cant contributors to the prediction of TRIG-Present.
Post Hoc Analyses
Because the regression equations were significant, we computed hierarchal
multiple regressions, predicting TRIG-Past and TRIG-Present, for each relation-
ship category (i.e., friend, grandparent, aunt/uncle/cousin), in order to provide the
most information for future research. Again, age, sex, time since death, presence at
death, and suddenness of death were entered together at Step 1, and emotional
closeness was entered at step 2 (see Table 5). For friend (n = 23), the equations for
TRIG-Past were not significant at step 1 F(5, 17) = .98, p > .05 or step 2, F(6, 16) =
2.36, p > .05. However, as indicated in Table 5, ÄR2 = .25 emotional closeness
added to the equation was significant, R2 = .47 (adjusted R2 = .27), Finc(1, 16) =
7.40, p < .05. The TRIG-Present equations were also not significant at step 1,
(n = 23), F(5, 17) = .88, p > .05, or step 2, F(6, 16) = 1.08, p > .05, nor was
the incremental change, ÄR2 for emotional closeness. Nonetheless, emotional
closeness explained additional variance, 25% for TRIG-Past and 8% for the
TRIG-Present.
In contrast, the equations for grandparent (n = 42) on TRIG-Past were sig-
nificant at step 1, F(5, 36) = 2.67, p < .05, and step 2, F(6, 35) = 4.77, p < .001.
Time since death was a significant predictor at step 1; for step 2, time since
death and emotional closeness were significant predictors. For TRIG-Present,
the equation for step 1 was not significant F(5, 36) = 2.31, p > .05, but the equation
for step 2 was significant, F(6, 35) = 4.15, p < .01. Participant age and emotional
closeness significantly predicted TRIG-Present. Emotional closeness explained
additional variance, 18% for TRIG-past and 17% for TRIG-present.
For aunt/uncle/cousin (n = 19), the TRIG-Past equations were significant at
step 1, F(5, 13) = 4.53, p < .05 and step 2, F(6, 12) = 4.39, p < .05, with presence
at death being the only significant predictor for each. The equations for
TRIG-Present were also significant at step 1, F(5, 13) = 46.23, p < .01 and step 2
F(5, 13) = 4.53, p < .05, with age, time since death, and presence at death as
significant predictors.
DISCUSSION
The results of this study generally supported the hypotheses. For H1, adoles-
cents reported significantly higher present grief intensity for friend than for
grandparent death loss. For H2, based on the two procedures, adolescents in the
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 157
158 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
Table 5. Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables
Predicting TRIG-Past and TRIG-Present by Relationship Category
TRIG-Past TRIG-Present
Variable B SE B � sr2 B SE B � sr2
Friend
Step 1
Participant age
Participant sex
Time since death
Presence at death
Suddenness of death
Step 2
Participant age
Participant sex
Time since death
Presence at death
Suddenness of death
Emotional closeness
Grandparent
Step 1
Participant age
Participant sex
Time since death
Presence at death
Suddenness of death
Step 2
Participant age
Participant sex
Time since death
Presence at death
Suddenness of death
Emotional closeness
Aunt/Uncle/Cousin
Step 1
Participant age
Participant sex
Time since death
Presence at death
Suddenness of death
Step 2
Participant age
Participant sex
Time since death
Presence at death
Suddenness of death
Emotional closeness
–1.32
–2.12
.01
3.10
5.23
–.01
–2.64
.01
1.12
5.48
.11
–1.06
1.03
.01
4.05
–1.42
–1.05
–.82
.01
.68
–1.29
.08
–4.01
–2.86
.01
11.42
–1.11
–3.10
–1.89
.01
9.31
.00
.01
1.80
4.71
.01
5.12
3.61
1.60
4.02
.01
4.42
3.08
.04
.80
2.17
.00
4.26
2.01
.71
2.00
.00
3.89
1.77
.03
1.91
3.12
.01
2.82
2.53
1.95
3.09
.01
3.10
2.56
.04
–.18
–.11
.24
.13
.33
–.01
–.14
.33
.05
.35
.55
–.21
.08
.41
.14
–.11
–.21
–.06
.40
.02
–.10
.46
–.55
–.18
.54
.71
–.08
–.43
–.12
.42
.58
.00
.29
.02
.01
.05
.02
.10
.00
.01
.09
.00
.11
.25*
.04
.00
.16**
.02
.01
.03
.00
.15**
.00
.01
.18**
.13
.02
.12
.47***
.01
.07
.01
.07
.23**
.00
.05
–3.92
4.49
.00
6.71
–.53
–2.75
4.00
.01
4.84
–.29
.10
–3.23
6.60
.01
–.78
–1.89
–3.21
2.80
.01
–7.71
–1.63
.18
–18.07
4.01
.01
18.63
4.36
–16.89
5.27
.01
15.87
5.81
.08
2.97
7.80
.01
8.47
5.97
3.03
7.61
.01
8.38
5.83
.08
1.71
4.63
.01
9.09
4.28
1.53
4.29
.01
8.38
3.81
.06
4.10
6.71
.02
6.06
5.45
4.40
6.98
.02
7.00
5.79
.10
–.33
.14
.07
.18
–.02
–.23
.13
.12
.13
–.01
.32
–.30
.23
.22
–.01
–.07
–.30
.10
.21
–.13
–.06
.45
–1.03
.11
1.02
.49
.13
–.97
.14
.96
.42
.17
.16
.08
.02
.00
.03
.00
.04
.01
.01
.01
.00
.08
.07
.04
.05
.00
.00
.08*
.01
.04
.01
.00
.17**
.43***
.01
.43***
.21**
.01
.34**
.01
.32**
.12*
.02
.02
Note: TRIG-Past R2 = .24 for Step 1 (p < .001); �R
2 = .20 for Step 2 (p < .001).
TRIG-Present R2 = .21 for Step 1 (p < .01); �R
2 = .17 for Step 2 (p < .001).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
high closeness group reported significantly higher past and present grief intensity,
regardless of relationship category. Finally, for the RQ, emotional closeness added
significantly to the prediction of past and present grief intensity.
The finding of higher grief intensity for friend versus grandparent death
seems inconsistent with Littlefield and Rushton’s (1986) proposition and
the concept of evolutionary salience being central in predicting grief intensity.
However, grandparents’ age must also be considered when interpreting these
results. Because grandparents are likely no longer of reproductive age, they may
not be evolutionary salient to the adolescent at least in terms of self-report and
awareness, despite the index of relatedness. Besides, it is the adolescent and
not the grandparent who is the one who is reproductively valued. On the other
hand, adolescent friendships might be characterized by evolutionary mutual
benefit (see Archer, 1999), for instance, in terms of developmental tasks. If
so, then an evolutionary-based grief approach would be in favor of adolescent
friendships, given that grandparents are no longer reproductively valued and
that the social environment is characterized by relatives living at a distance
rather than functioning together in small groups (Simpson, 1999). However, this
alternate interpretation is highly speculative, and we suspect that closeness is
a more parsimonious variable, though future research could investigate this
speculation. In addition, because of the age difference between deceased friends
versus grandparents, it could be that current grief is more intense for friend
death loss because this loss is more often perceived as preventable, considered
a disenfranchised experience (Oltjenbruns, 1996; Ringler & Hayden, 2000;
Sklar & Hartley, 1990), has an off-time quality, and is likely somehow
violent (Ringler & Hayden, 2000). Or it could be that present grief is higher for
friend death loss because there are reminders of the person in daily life (e.g.,
at school), or interactions and functions (e.g., support) associated with the person
are still missing.
The finding of significant mean differences in past and present grief for higher
versus lower closeness, regardless of relationship category, is consistent with
Archer’s (1999) premise that closeness, not kinship, is the salient indicator of
grief intensity. This finding is also consistent with Bugen’s (1977) inclusion of
centrality in predicting grief intensity. Nonetheless, future research needs to
determine if this finding remains for other relationship categories (e.g., primary
attachments such as parents or committed romantic partners). In addition, com-
parisons of bereaved adolescents should examine (a) groupings of friend death
loss (e.g., romantic, best friend, friend), (b) groupings of kin death loss (i.e.,
parents/siblings, who share 50% relatedness; grandparents/aunts/uncles, who
share 25% relatedness; and first cousins, who share 12.5% relatedness (Archer,
1999; Simpson, 1999), and (c) groupings of age-related death loss (e.g., similarly
aged, older, and younger individuals). Such research, using path analysis or
structural equation modeling, would allow for a more refined evaluation of
evolutionary based predictions. It could be, for instance, that, in current U.S.
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 159
society, closeness is a proximal factor mediating the more distal evolutionary
salience of kinship.
For the research question, emotional closeness explained an additional 20%
and 17% of the variance in past and present grief intensity, respectively. This
finding is consistent with finding higher past and present grief differences in the
high versus low closeness group, and again indicates that emotional closeness
needs to be considered when examining adolescent death losses. Nonetheless, we
are leery of interpreting the post hoc, relationship category regression analyses
because of the low sample sizes. The primary purpose of these analyses was to
provide researchers with information (e.g., the semipartial correlations) to suggest
future research paths. Nonetheless, we note that emotional closeness was a
positive predictor of TRIG-Past for the friend and grandparent death loss groups.
Although emotional closeness was the primary focus of the present inves-
tigation, it is interesting that time since the death predicted TRIG-Past in several
significant regression analyses. The positive relationship between time since
death and past grief intensity is perhaps counterintuitive, but it is aligned with
previous suggestions that time since death is not a straightforward predictor of
grief intensity for adolescents (Fleming & Balmer, 1996). The current analyses
suggest that the further adolescents are from the death loss, the greater they
perceive their past grief intensity to have been. It could be that: a) adolescents
idealize in their retrospective accounts; b) as they move beyond the initial grief,
they realize how upset they were initially, and appraise and report the past
grief more accurately; and c) the memory of the past grief is stronger in com-
parison to present grief. Future longitudinal research would be useful to examine
the meaning of this finding, and whether it was unique to the present sample or
is a more generalizable result.
Limitations and Future Research
It is important to note limitations of the research. To begin with, the current
sample was relatively homogenous with regard to race, sex, religious affiliation,
and geographic location, which made it difficult to examine the extent to which
these distinctions might affect the generalizability of findings. Likewise, although
the sample is consistent with previous grief-related research, the predominance
of females decreased the power and so did not truly allow for an examination
of sex differences, which may be relevant to evaluating evolutionary based
and closeness hypotheses (Archer, 1999; Marwit & Klass, 1994-1995;
Oltjenbruns, 1996; Silverman, 2000). In addition, a larger N would allow
researchers to group discrete types of kin (e.g., first cousins), whereas this
research, due to the sample size, grouped kin according to the unit that typically
lives under the same roof (e.g., aunt/uncle/cousin) in the cultural group that
was dominant in the sample. Cultural and individual differences are important
for scholars to consider in future research. For example, some adolescents (e.g.,
160 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
poor or marginalized groups) assume adult responsibilities at a much earlier age
than might be likely for this predominately White sample (Preto, 1999). It is not
clear how school and work responsibilities, associated differences in available
caregiving resources in the family, or cultural collectivism would influence the
relatedness of grief intensity, emotional closeness, and relationship category.
A second important limitation concerns the measurement of closeness. The
SEC/ECC was designed for this study. These descriptive items did have strong
internal consistency, but it would be useful for the SEC/ECC to be further
investigated in a validity study, one which might compare the SEC/ECC to the
other approaches to measuring emotional closeness. There are different theoretical
frameworks for understanding closeness, and these varied frameworks may lead
to unrelated research questions and disparate findings (Berscheid & Reis, 1998).
In this study, closeness referred to an individual’s subjective impression of the
level of emotional closeness that existed in his or her relationship with the
deceased. A validity study could help determine convergence of as well as
distinctions in meanings and measures. In the meantime, based on the strong
sample specific psychometrics reported here, future research could explore the
use of the SEC/ECC with additional populations of adolescents and perhaps
adults. Finally, it could be that adolescents’ perceptions of their emotional close-
ness may change as a function of the death itself. Perhaps adolescents perceive
themselves as emotionally closer to the deceased the day after the death than
they would have the day before the death. A prospective study would provide
useful information for tackling this question.
In future research, it might be beneficial for researchers to consider attachment,
when examining closeness in adolescent friend and kin relationships. Because
theory and previous research suggest that attachment quality is relevant to grief
(Harris, 1991; Shaver & Tancredy, 2001; Stroebe & Stroebe, 1993; Wayment
& Vierthaler, 2002), investigating closeness along with attachment and affili-
ative bonds (Weiss, 2001) can contribute to the knowledge base. In doing so,
researchers need to assess: a) whether the adolescent has an attachment or an
affiliative bond to the deceased (Hazan, Gur-Yaish, & Campa, 2004), possibly by
using the WHOTO (Hazan & Zeifman, 1994); b) the quality of the attachment
relationship (Ainsworth, 1988); and c) whether the deceased is a highly preferred
or a subsidiary attachment (i.e., what is the hierarchal placement of the deceased
among the adolescent’s attachments) (Bowlby, 1969; Trinke & Bartholomew,
1997). Because most adolescents are in romantic relationships (Carver, Joyner,
& Udry, 2003), which may be attachment relationships with emotional support
and sexual development functions (Allen & Land, 1999; Furman & Shaffer,
2003; Tracy, Shaver, Albino, & Cooper, 2003), research on closeness and
grief intensity should include several kinds peer relationships (e.g., sexual and
non-sexual romantic relationships, “best” friends, friends).
Finally, because of criticisms of the TRIG (Neimeyer & Hogan, 2001), follow
up research might use other, more sophisticated measures of bereavement (e.g.,
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 161
Hogan Inventory of Bereavement, Core Bereavement Items). A longitudinal
design would also be worthwhile.
Practical Application
According to these results, emotional closeness to the deceased needs to be
actually used in an applied and practical sense when working with individual
adolescents on a day-to-day basis. After asking about the formal relationship with
the deceased (e.g., friend, grandparent, aunt/uncle/cousin), teachers, counselors,
after-care providers, and others who work with adolescents need to go a step
further by intentionally and specifically asking bereaved adolescents, “How
close were you to______?” It is simply not enough to know if a grandparent or a
friend has died. Although many grandparents maintain households for their
grandchildren (Casper & Bryson, 1998), especially in some ethnic minority
groups, other grandparent-grandchild relationships may not be close due to
distance and limited contact. The adolescent might be much closer to a
friend. Or the distance and limited contact may be overcome by phone con-
versations or webcam visits with a grandparent. The present findings suggest
that those working with bereaved adolescents can avoid misguided interven-
tions and have an accurate sense of the experienced grief intensity by asking
specifically about closeness.
Practitioners who work in or interface with schools are also likely to find
value in the present findings. These individuals, as an advocate for bereaved
adolescents, can emphasize and educate others about the relatedness of close-
ness and grief intensity. Another basic application of these emotional closeness
findings relates to policies regarding the allowable number of school absences
following death losses. Teachers and counselors may advocate a flexible policy
that considers the adolescent’s perceived emotional closeness to the deceased,
rather than an allotted number of absences based on and associated with the
formal relationship category (e.g., two weeks for parent death loss, two days for
grandparent death loss, no days for friend death loss).
This research contributes to the adolescent death loss and grief intensity
literature because it examined adolescents’ common death losses, investi-
gated grandparent loss and closeness, and compared kin and friend death
loss. The results suggest that emotional closeness is a useful predictor of grief
intensity, at least for adolescent common death losses. Although this finding
may seem obvious, it is imperative that researchers pursue such investiga-
tions so that bereavement services are based on empirical evidence. In addition,
different levels of analysis (e.g., general evolution theory, mid-level theories)
lead to multiple predictions (Simpson, 1999); so additional research is war-
ranted and needed. Nonetheless, the current study sets the stage for more
complex research examining relationship category and closeness in adolescent
death losses.
162 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
APPENDIX A
Scale of Emotional Closeness (SEC)
The level of closeness we feel to others differs from person to person and over
time. Please think about your relationship with the important person who died
while answering the following questions. Using the following scale, circle the
number that corresponds to how much you agree with each statement.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
very neither very
strongly strongly
agree disagree
1. I felt I could share my most intimate feelings
with this person. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2. I kept my distance emotionally from this person. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3. It was very easy to talk with this person. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
4. I felt close to this person. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
5. It was difficult to talk with this person. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
6. This person understood me. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
7. This person shared his/her most personal thoughts
with me. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
APPENDIX B
Emotional Closeness Continuum
Please make a vertical slash mark on the line below to indicate your level of
closeness with the person who died.
How aware was this person of your most personal feelings?
Completely Completely
unaware of my (–)———————————————(+) aware of my
most personal 0 most personal
feelings feelings
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 163
For example, placing a mark at this point on
the line would indicate that you are unsure.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to thank colleagues P. Nora Reilly, Deborah Bennett, Marilyn
Haring, and Deborah Taub for feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. (1988). On security. Retrieved July 20, 2006, from
http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/attachment/ainsworth/ainsworth_index.html.
Allen, J. P., & Land, D. (1999). Attachment in adolescence. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implication
(pp. 319-335). New York: Guilford.
Archer, J. (1999). The nature of grief: The evolution and psychology of reactions to loss.
Philadelphia, PA: Brunner-Routledge.
Balk, D. (1990). The self-concept of bereaved adolescents: Sibling death and its aftermath.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 112-132.
Balk, D., & Corr, C. A. (1996). Adolescents, developmental tasks, and encounters with
death and bereavement. In C. A. Corr & D. E. Balk (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent
death and bereavement (pp. 3-24). New York: Springer.
Belsky, J. (1999). Modern evolutionary theory and patterns of attachment. In J. Cassidy
& P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
implication (pp. 141-161). New York: Guilford.
Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed.,
pp. 193-218). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Berscheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). The relationship closeness inventory:
Assessing the closeness of interpersonal relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 792-807.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Brent, D. A., Perper, J., Moritz, G., Allman, C., Friend, A., Schwerrs, J., Roth, C., Balach,
L., & Harrington, K. (1992). Psychiatric effects of exposure to suicide among the
friend and acquaintances of adolescent suicide victims. Journal of the Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 629-639.
Bugen, L. A. (1977). Human grief: A model for prediction and intervention. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 47, 196-206.
Burnett, P., Middleton, W., Raphael, B., & Martinek, N. (1997). Measuring core bereave-
ment phenomena. Psychological Medicine, 27, 49-57.
Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of adolescent romantic
relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual
behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 23-56). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Casper, L. M., & Bryson, K. R. (1998). Co-resident grandparents and their grandchildren:
Grandparent maintained families (Population Division Working Paper No. 26).
Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Cleiren, M. P. H. D. (1993). Bereavement and adaptation: A comparative study of the
aftermath of death. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
164 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
Cleiren, M. P. H. D., Diekstra, R. F. W., Kerkhof, A. J. F. M., & van der Wal, J. (1994).
Mode of death and kinship in bereavement: Focusing on “who” rather than “how.”
Crisis: Journal of Crisis Intervention & Suicide, 15, 22-36.
Collins, W. A. (1997). Relationships and development during adolescence: Interpersonal
adaptation to individual change. Personal Relationships, 4, 1-14.
Crenshaw, D. A. (1990). Bereavement: Counseling the grieving through the life cycle.
New York: Continuum.
Davies, B. (1991). Long-term outcomes of adolescent sibling bereavement. Journal of
Adolescent Research, 6, 83-96.
Dillon, D. H., & Brassard, M. R. (1999). Adolescents and parental AIDS death: The role
of social support. Omega, 39, 179-195.
Dyregrov, A., Gjestad, R., Bie Wikander, A. M., & Vigerust, S. (1999). Reactions
following the sudden death of a classmate. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40,
167-176.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.
Fanos, J. H., & Nickerson, B. G. (1991). Long-term effects of sibling death during
adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 70-82.
Fashingbauer, T. R., Zisook, S., & DeVaul, R. (1987). The Texas Revised Inventory of
Grief. In S. Zisook (Ed.), Biopsychosocial aspects of bereavement (pp. 109-124).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Fleming, S., & Balmer, L. (1996). Bereaved in adolescence. In C. A. Corr & D. Balk
(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent death and bereavement (pp. 139-154). New York:
Springer.
Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2003). The role of romantic relationships in adolescent
development. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and sexual
behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glass, J. C. (1990). Death, loss, and grief in high school students. High School Journal,
73, 154-160.
Grabowski, J., & Frantz, T. T. (1992-93). Latinos and Anglos: Cultural experiences of
grief intensity. Omega, 26, 273-285.
Harris, E. S. (1991). Adolescent bereavement following the death of a parent: An explor-
atory study. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 21, 267-281.
Hazan, C., Gur-Yaish, N., & Campa, M. (2004). What does it mean to be attached? In
W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
implications (pp. 55-85). New York: Guilford.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew &
D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes
in adulthood (pp. 151-177). London: Kingsley.
Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as attachments. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical implication
(pp. 336-354). New York: Guilford.
Irizarry, C. (1992). Spirituality and the child: A grandparent death. In G. R. Cox &
R. J. Fundis (Eds.), Spiritual, ethical, and pastoral aspects of death and bereavement
(pp. 131-146). Amityville, NY: Baywood.
Littlefield, C. H., & Rushton, J. P. (1986). When a child dies: The sociobiology of
bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 797-802.
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 165
Lurie, C. (1993). The death of friends vs. family member in late adolescence: The role of
perceived social support and self-worth. Unpublished master’s thesis, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins.
Martinson, I. M., & Campos, R. G. (1991). Adolescent bereavement: Long-term responses
to a sibling’s death from cancer. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 54-69.
Marwit, S. J., & Klass, D. (1994-95). Grief and the role of the inner representation of
the deceased. Omega, 30, 283-298.
McIntosh, J. L. (1993). Control group studies of suicide survivors: A review and critique.
Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior, 23, 146-161.
McNeil, J. N., Silliman, B., & Swihart, J. J. (1991). Helping adolescents cope with the
death of a peer: A high school case study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 132-145.
Neimeyer, R. A., & Hogan, N. S. (2001). Quantitative or qualitative? Measurement issues
in the study of grief. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, W. Stroebe, & H. Schut (Eds.),
Handbook for bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care. (pp. 89-118).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Oltjenbruns, K A. (1996). Death of a friend during adolescence: Issues and impacts. In
C. A. Corr & D. E. Balk (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent death and bereavement
(pp. 196-215). New York: Springer.
O’Brien, J. M., Goodenow, C., & Epsin, O. (1991). Adolescent reactions to the death of
a peer. Adolescence, 26, 431-440.
Park, C. L, & Cohen, L. H. (1993). Religious and nonreligious coping with the death of
a friend. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 17, 561-577.
Podell, C. (1989). Adolescent mourning: The sudden death of a peer. Clinical Social
Work Journal, 17, 64-78.
Preto, N. G. (1999). Transformation of the family system during adolescence. In B. Carter
& M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and
social perspectives (pp. 274-286). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Raphael, B. (1983). The anatomy of bereavement. New York: Basic Books.
Reed, M. D., & Greenwald, J. Y. (1991). Survivor-victim status, attachment, and sudden
death bereavement. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 21, 385-401.
Ringdal, G. I., Jordhoy, M. S., Ringdal, K., & Kaasa, S. (2001). Factors affecting grief
reactions in close family members to individuals who have died of cancer. Journal
of Pain & Symptom Management, 22, 1016-1026.
Ringler, L. L., & Hayden, D. C. (2000). Adolescent bereavement and social support:
Peer loss compared to other losses. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 209-230.
Russac, R. J., Steighner, N. S., & Canto, A. I. (2002). Grief work versus continuing bonds:
A call for paradigm integration or replacement? Death Studies, 26, 463-478.
Sanders, C. (1979-1980). A comparison of adults bereavement in the death of a spouse,
child, and parent. Omega, 10, 303-322.
Schachter, S. (1991-1992). Adolescent experiences with the death of a peer. Omega,
24, 1-11.
Shaver, P. R., & Tancredy, C. M. (2001). Emotion, attachment, and bereavement: A
conceptual commentary. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, W. Stroebe, & H. Schut
(Eds.), Handbook for bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care
(pp. 63-88). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Silverman, P. R. (2000). Never too young to know: Death in children’s lives. New York:
Oxford.
166 / SERVATY-SEIB AND PISTOLE
Simpson, J. A. (1999). Attachment theory in modern evolutionary perspective. In
J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and
clinical implication (pp. 115-140). New York: Guilford.
Sklar, F., & Hartley, S. F. (1990). Close friends as survivors: Bereavement patterns in
a “hidden” population. Omega, 21, 103-112.
Smith, R. J., Lingle, J. H., & Brock, T. C. (1978-79). Reactions to death as a function
of perceived similarity to the deceased. Omega, 9, 125-138.
Stroebe, M. S., & Stroebe, W. (1993). The mortality of bereavement: A review. In M. S.
Stroebe, W. Stroebe, & R. O. Hansson (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement: Theory,
research and intervention (pp. 175-195). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Swanson, E. A., & Bennett, T. F. (1982-1983). Degree of closeness: Does it affect the
bereaved’s attitudes toward selected funeral practices? Omega, 13, 43-50.
Toray, T., & Oltjenbruns, K. A. (1996). Children’s friendships and the death of a friend.
In C. A. Corr & D. M. Corr (Eds.), Handbook of childhood death and bereavement
(pp. 165-178). New York: Springer.
Tracy, J. L., Shaver, P. R., Albino, A. W., & Cooper, M. L. (2003). Attachment styles
and adolescent sexuality. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic relations and
sexual behavior: Theory, research, and practical implications (pp. 137-159).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young
adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603-625.
Wass, H. (1995). Death in the lives of children and adolescents. In H. Wass, & R. A.
Neimeyer (Eds.), Dying: Facing the facts (pp. 269-301). Washington, DC: Taylor
& Francis.
Wayment, H. A., & Veirthaler, J. (2002). Attachment style and bereavement reactions.
Journal of Loss & Trauma, 7, 129-149.
Webb, N. B. (1993). Helping bereaved children: A handbook for practitioners. New
York: Guilford.
Weiss, R. S. (2001). Grief, bonds, and relationships. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson,
W. Stroebe, & H. Schut (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences,
coping and care (pp. 47-62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Worden, J. W., & Silverman, P. R. (1996). Parental death and the adjustment of school-age
children. Omega, 33, 91-102.
Zisook, S., & Lyons, L. (1988). Grief and the relationship to the deceased. International
Journal of Family Psychiatry, 9, 135-146.
Direct reprint requests to:
Heather L. Servaty-Seib
Counseling & Development
Department of Educational Studies
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907
e-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]
ADOLESCENT GRIEF: RELATIONSHIP AND CLOSENESS / 167