How reminiscing about deceased close others together with continuing bonds relates to grief severity and personal growth: a cross-sectional study with bereaved adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: One of the reasons why people engage in reminiscences about their past is to maintain intimacy with deceased close others. Although previous research alerts to the negative effects of reminiscence for intimacy maintenance on mental health, little is known about its relation to individuals' reactions to loss (i.e. grief severity and personal growth). In two samples, we focus on time since loss and continuing bonds, to elucidate the role of reminiscence for intimacy maintenance in grief. METHOD: The samples comprised 111 and 198 bereaved adults. All participants rated the frequency of reminiscence for intimacy maintenance and loss-related variables, such as time since loss, continuing bonds, and grief severity. Sample 2 additionally completed measures of personal growth, loss-centrality, and their interconnectedness with the deceased. RESULTS: Reminiscence on intimacy maintenance was positively related to grief severity. This relation was independent of time since loss and partly driven by externalized bonds. Internalized bonds mediated the relation between reminiscence for intimacy maintenance and grief severity (in sample 1) and personal growth (in sample 2). CONCLUSION: Continuing bonds help explain why reminiscing for intimacy maintenance can be harmful in terms of grief severity but also fosters personal growth after the loss.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".