Embedded Files
online practices may affect grief, thereby placing traditional practices in broader, contemporary perspective, including that of the social media (cf. Gibbs et al., 2015). Beard and Burger (2017) conducted a meta-analysis of U.S. studies inventorizing types of motives for changes in the industry: business-related versus consumer-related. While providing rich data for background understanding, the overview articles did not systematically review nor did the studies empirically examine the impact of body disposal ceremonies in direct association with adjustment to the loss of a close person. Second, some studies have focused more specifically on issues surrounding funeral costs, difficulties, and—sometimes—adaptation. McManus and Schafer (2014) investigated the complex process underlying bereaved persons’ funeral expenditure, and its relationship with personal reactions (there was no quantification of specific psycho-social consequences). Kopp and Kemp (2007) examined the processes a consumer undertakes in making expensive decisions in stressful circumstances such as bereavement. Fan and Zick (2004) looked into the economic burden of funerals and burial expenses. Relatedly, Corden and Hirst (2013a, 2013b) have reported on the costs and burdens of bereavement in general and funerals in particular. Most recently, Lowe et al. (2019) focused on changing and improving memorial services for the bereaved. Taken together, these studies inform readers of the broad spectrum of types of arrangements and potential (financial) burden for bereaved people. They are valuable for the identification of funeral-related difficulties, especially economic ones, and helpful in the construction of our questionnaire. Third, some researchers have explored the functions of funerals. For example, Lensing (2001) looked at the role of the funeral service in providing support for the bereaved and their grief, listing many ways that assistance was provided. There is an extensive literature on effects of rituals (to which we turn for relevant but not direct evidence—these studies are not of funeral arrangements per se). In an unusual experimental study, Norton and Gino (2014) explored the role of rituals in mitigating grief, demonstrating that they alleviated grief, through the mechanism of regaining feelings of control. Vale-Taylor (2009) examined reasons for performing rituals, including those beyond the funeral ceremony per se. This branch of the literature includes both historical and recent comparative accounts, including cultural differences in body disposition and memorialization (e.g., Hunter, 2007 comparing United States with Peruvian functions of rituals; for international comparison: Valentine & Woodthorpe, 2013). There have been Birrell et al. 373 a number of studies on the use of rituals in grief therapy (e.g., empty chair, writing letters, especially for unfinished business and ambivalent relationships; saying goodbye rituals; cf. Castle & Philips, 2003; Rando, 1985; Reeves, 2011; Sas & Coman, 2016) most of which have been descriptive. For example, Doka (2012) affirmed the value of funerals in general and of rituals in therapy, arguing the benefits of involvement in planning and of active participation. Such studies demonstrate many and varied functions of funerals and rituals and attest to beliefs by the bereaved themselves and health-care professionals as to their benefits. However, causal relationships have not been established. Studies evaluating their efficacy are missing. For example, although claims have been made about the therapeutic value of rituals, to the best of our knowledge, no randomized controlled trial investigation has been conducted. Many claims are based on descriptive accounts. These are intuitively plausible, but not yet, to our knowledge, tried and tested. Fourth, coming closer to current interests, there have also been studies of satisfaction and preferences in association with death-related (specifically, bodydisposal) ceremonies. Key questions addressed have been whether rituals are perceived to be helpful (if so, in what respects?) and whether the arrangements are found to be appropriate and appreciated. Some authors give subjective evaluations of perceived benefits or usefulness based on cross-sectional and/or qualitative information (e.g., Bolton & Camp, 1987, 1989; Castle & Phillips, 2003; Caswell, 2011; Servaty-Seib & Hayslip, 2003). For example, Servaty-Seib and Hayslip (2003) cross-sectionally examined the adjustment of adolescents and older persons following parental loss, finding that adolescents’ perceptions of the funeral reflected lower satisfaction and helpfulness, thereby addressing a question about subgroups: for whom do funerals help? (adolescents were less positive). O’Rourke et al. (2011) conducted a large empirical study which identified a number of predictors of satisfaction with funerals (e.g., religiosity). Of similar interest, Banyasz et al. (2017) looked into preferences for bereavement services, finding some differences in association with depression or complicated grief among the family members. In a small study, covering various durations of bereavement, Rugg and Jones (2019) examined what mattered to the bereaved regarding funerals. Although informative for both scientific and applied purposes, it must be noted that satisfaction with and/or preferences for
Report abuse