Development of a Scale to Measure Death Perspectives

Abstract

Kastenbaum and Aisenberg have suggested that persons can cope with the impact of death and dying by altering their understanding of what each means to them as well as by changing their behavioral responses to such experiences. The present study’s purpose was to develop a reliable and valid measure to assess an individual’s particular death perspective based on Kastenbaum and Aisenberg’s distinctions between overcomers and participators. The Death Perspective Scale developed here assessed the extent to which individuals utilize either an overcoming or participating approach to (a) assigning meaning to dying and death and (b) behaviorally responding to death-related experiences. Based upon the data collected from 168 adults varying by age and gender, findings suggested that both overcoming and participating could be reliably assessed, correlated with measures of death anxiety and death attitudes, and varied reliably (p < .05) by age and gender, wherein such differences were for the most part consistent with predictions by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg espoused over 30 years ago. Findings here suggested that overcomers reported more fear of death and dying and were less accepting in this respect, while participators reported fewer death-related fears and were more accepting. Women and older adults were more participating, while men and younger adults were more overcoming, though such effects varied depending upon whether meaning versus response to death was considered. The consistency between the present findings and the predictions Kastenbaum and Aisenberg suggests that while person’s orientations to death and dying seem to transcend sociocultural change, empirically based efforts to better understand how our death system impacts persons need to move forward.

Keywords

death anxiety overcoming participating Terror Management Theory death system

Introduction

Philosophers, sociologists, biologists, and psychologists have sought to gather knowledge about how individuals understand and respond to the reasons, purposes, meanings, and the consequences they associate with death and dying. In this respect, one’s understanding of the reasons for death may best be understood by the meaning one attributes to death. While for many, death is perceived simply as a loss of life and as a loss of the benefits attributed to life, others see dying or death itself as punishment for their sins on earth. Still others may define death as a simple, intrinsic necessity or as an end to one’s existence and the beginning of another.

In this context, the meaning that individuals and cultures assign to death likely influences the way they respond to thoughts of or experiences with death and dying. While death fear/anxiety are often experienced by those confronted with death and dying, these constructs assess one’s affective response to death (see, e.g., Neimeyer, 1998; Neimeyer, Moser, & Wittkowski, 2003), and they do not inform us regarding the cognitions and behaviors that might accompany each; this shortcoming requires research pertaining to how individuals and cultures might manage death anxiety.

In this context, it is instructive to observe that cultures manage and organize reality by defining a normal state of affairs via a cultural ethos (Geertz, 1973). This cultural ethos is characterized by the “veil of order and meaning that societies construct against chaos” (Kearl, 1989, p. 26). In this respect, cultures develop a stance toward death, known as the death ethos, as there is a “need to deny, manipulate, distort, and camouflage death so it is a less difficult threat with which to cope” (Kastenbaum, 2009; Corr & Corr, 2013, p. 71). This death ethos, as discussed by Kastenbaum (2009) in terms of a given culture’s death system, affects the everyday behavior of all of its members in terms of, for example, the willingness to engage in risky behaviors or the likelihood of taking out an insurance policy (Hayslip, 2003).

How a culture’s death ethos is constructed was the concern of McCoy, Pyszcynski, Solomon, and Greenberg (2000) who proposed Terror Management Theory, which suggests that cultures enable persons to overcome their fear of death by instilling the belief in them that what happens to us is “controllable, fair and just” (p. 39). The attempt is made to develop a formula for how to live (that which is controllable) as well as a complementary formula for how not to die (that which is uncontrollable). In this respect, extensive empirical support exists to suggest that a primary operational function of Terror Management Theory is to serve as an anxiety buffer by developing psychological structures to reduce death anxiety (McCoy et al., 2000). These structures, however, do not extinguish conscious death fears, but rather push them into the unconscious (Firestone, 1993).

Related to how persons react to a culture’s death system, as proposed by Terror Management Theory, is the fear or anxiety they attach to death and dying, wherein one’s degree of consciously expressed fear is influenced by the effectiveness of defense mechanisms such as denial and regression (see Galt & Hayslip, 1998–1999; Hayslip, 2003; Hayslip, Guarnaccia, Radika, & Servaty, 2002). In this context, the American death system has been referred to as a death denying one (Kastenbaum & Costa, 1977) manifest in the perception that death itself as well as the dying process is indeed controllable, utilizing denial as a way to bring order to the chaos that is brought about by the fear of death. In this respect, the medium is an undoubtedly influential aspect of American culture and is a powerful influence on the American death system/death ethos in creating a highly selective portrait of death and life in today’s society (Corr & Corr, 2013). Indeed, this unrealistic and distorted picture of death painted by the media has been positively related to increased death anxiety (King & Hayslip, 2002). In this context, McCoy et al. (2000) proposed a mortality salience hypothesis that suggests that reminding persons of the source of their anxiety—their mortality—leads to greater use of defenses and greater liking of similarly minded persons to manage such fear. Thus, cultures can be seen on a continuum of those which value history, accomplishment, and wealth and those who do not (Hayslip, 2003). Indeed, emphasizing control, accomplishment, and wealth may reflect two alternative orientations to death, first discussed by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976) in terms of whether individuals respond to death in either an overcoming or participatory manner.

Overcoming and Participatory Orientations Toward Death

According to Kastenbaum and Aisenberg’s (1976), overcomers are thought to (a) conceptualize death as an external in nature—as something that imposed upon persons, (b) regard death as failure, defeat (loss) or humiliation, (c) have a highly developed need for achievement and independence, (d) believe in technology in enabling them to deal with death’s challenges, and (e) identify with the cultural norm that requires the assertion of power against the threat of the environment (Kastenbaum, 2009; Kastenbaum & Aisenberg, 1976). In contrast, among participators, thoughts and feelings pertaining to death and dying are characterized by (a) conceptualizing death as having an internal locus—in effect, death exists within persons and is on par with other naturally occurring processes that are life promoting, (b) anticipating death as honorific, an opportunity to reunite, or as a fulfillment of life, (c) having a highly developed sensitivity for cooperative behavior, sharing, and affiliation, (d) utilizing positively valued social channels to express oneself and distribute meaningful symbols or tokens, and (e) accepting a cultural norm that stresses a natural and intimate relationship with the environment. While the overcoming response appears to infer the use of denial as a defense mechanism to suppress death anxiety, the participating response seems more indicative of an accepting approach to thoughts and feelings regarding death and dying, wherein there is no need for defense mechanisms to suppress anxieties resulting from feelings of failure to defeat death.

As Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976) discuss, developing a wish for death is also indicative of a participating response to death and dying. In this case, individuals may be beyond fear, sorrow, or an effort to overcome death. The result of this may include life-threatening behaviors (e.g., driving excessively fast, drug abuse) or even suicide. Importantly, it should be noted that neither a participatory nor an overcoming response to death and dying should be considered the most adaptive. Likewise, it is important to accept that an individual’s orientation toward death likely exists along a continuum defined by these two extremes, and consequently, we would expect that individual differences might exist regarding overcoming and participating as well as expect both age and gender differences in each. Complementing this observation is the fact that participatory and overcoming responses inherently reflect the differential meaning attributed to death as per Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976). Thus, while an overcoming response may reflect views of death as defeat or a loss, a participatory response reflects the fact that death is a necessary and natural part of the life cycle or a transition from one’s life on earth to the life after death.

Viewed in the context of the meaning-response construct as it applies to death and dying, the approach to the assessment of one’s death perspective here reflects (a) four principal domains: overcoming response, overcoming meaning, participating response, participating meaning and (b) the operation of each in three primary contexts or subdomains of death: the personal, interpersonal, and sociocultural domains of overcoming and participating.

Purpose of the Present Study

The purpose of the present study was to report upon the development of a scale that focuses on the general death perspective that individuals maintain, taking into consideration the meaning that persons assign to death as well as their response to it. This is in contrast to assessing, through self-report measures, death anxiety, and death fear, which in this case, we see as potential outcomes of adapting either an overcoming or participatory orientation toward death, to the extent that lessening such fear might be considered adaptive. Thus, our purpose here reflects four primary objectives: (a) the establishment of the scale’s reliability, (b) the exploration of the scale’s construct validity in correlating with measures of attitudes toward/feelings about death, (c) the exploration of the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity, as well as (d) the establishment of the scale’s discriminant validity in exploring age and gender differences in overcoming and participating responses to death and dying. To the best of our knowledge, there exist no empirically based measures of overcoming and participating, as per the descriptions of each by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976).

Method

Participants

There were 168 participants (61 men and 107 women ranging in age from 19 to 83 with 45.8% of the participants aged 19 to 30 and 51.2% aged 60 to 83; M = 45.96, SD = 22.21, Mode = 22). Nearly 44% of the participants were single, 35.7% were married, 11.3% were divorced, and 8.3% were widowed. Concerning religion, 37.5% were Protestant, 20.2% were Catholic, 1.8% were Jewish, and 39.3% affiliated with another religion. Only 1.2% of the participants indicated no religious affiliation.

Nearly all of the participants reported having, at a minimum, a high school diploma (98.2%) with 39.9% having some college education, 19% having graduated college, and 20.2% having received some post-Bachelor’s education. Most participants reported that at least one parent was still living (58.9%), and 42.9% of participants reported that both parents were still living. Sixty-two percent of the participants acknowledged a personal experience relating to death and dying within 6 months of completing the questionnaire. Forty-two percent of the participants indicated they had received some form of education or training regarding death and dying via having taken a course, attended a seminar, or received in-service training.

It was expected that the Death Perspective Scale (DPS), reflecting (a) overcoming meaning of death, (b) participating meaning of death, (c) overcoming response to death, and (d) participating response to death, would exhibit both internal consistency reliability as well as both construct and disciminant validity. That these dimensions of death orientation are unique to one another would be reflected in a differential pattern of correlations among them. These expected patterns are supported via Kastenbaum and Aisenberg’s (1976) classic presentation and discussion of the overcoming and participating responses to death, via assumptions about overcoming and participating via McCoy et al. (2000) Terror Management Theory, and via the relationship between responses to and meanings of death consistent with the nature of Geertz’s (1973) cultural ethos and Kastenbaum’s (2009) death system.

The scale’s construct validity was established by correlating death perspective scores with data resting upon numerous self-report measures of attitudes and feelings about death, all of which have acceptable psychometric characteristics: the Death Attitude Profile-Revised (DAP-R; Gesser, Wong, & Reker, 1987), the Multidimensional Orientation toward Dying and Death Inventory (MODDI-F; Wittkowski, 2001), the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale (Collett & Lester, 1969), the Templer Death Anxiety Scale (DAS; Templer, 1970), and the sentence completion task (see Hayslip, 2003), assessing covert anxiety about death.

The convergent and discriminant validity of the DPS was examined via intercorrelations among the overall overcoming and participating scales as well as those involving these overall scales and scales making the distinction between the meaning of and response to death and dying. The DPS’s validity was further examined in ascertaining the extent to which DPS scores varied by gender or age, as per the discussion of overcoming and participating by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976).

Development of the Measure to Assess Death Orientation

Based upon the description of the respective characteristics of overcoming and participating by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976), a 62-item self-report measure was developed to assess each of these death perspectives. This allowed for 15 items per the two orientations targeting the meaning assigned to death and dying (five items per each across the personal, interpersonal, and sociocultural contexts) and 16 items per the two orientations framed in terms of responses to death and dying (six items per the personal context and five items per the interpersonal and sociocultural contexts). A 5-point, ranging from 1 to 5, Likert-type scale was used to ascertain persons’ orientation toward death with a response of 1 indicating stronger agreement with the statement and a response of 5 indicating stronger disagreement with the statement (see Appendix).

Examples of items defining overcoming meaning and response were:

I believe that my death will take away opportunities to achieve my goals; I believe that death ends my existence (meaning); I try to get regular check-ups at the doctor’s office to prolong my life; When I think about my death, I am often concerned about the things I may have not yet achieved (response).

Examples of items defining participating meaning and response were:

I believe that my death will mark the beginning of an after-life; I believe that death affords me the opportunity to reunite with loved ones (meaning); I plan to let nature “run its course” if I am inflicted with a potentially fatal injury or illness. I would appreciate the opportunity to express my experience of dying with others (response).

For overall perspective and subscale scores, lower such scores reflect greater agreement.

Results

Internal Consistency of the DPS

Internal consistencies of the proposed DPS (overcoming perspective and participating perspective) and the respective subscales (overcoming meaning, participating meaning, overcoming response, and participating response) were established by computing Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. For the four subscales, and taking into consideration the need to eliminate items from each to improve internal consistency estimates, alphas were: participating meaning (α = .829; 15 items), overcoming meaning (α = .697; 14 items after the omission of one item), overcoming response (α = .640; 10 items after the omission of five items), and participating response (α = .706; nine items after the omission of six items).

The internal consistency of the DPS was also examined in the context of a more simplified two-dimension approach differentiating an overcoming perspective (consolidating overcoming meaning and overcoming response items) and a participating perspective (consolidating participating meaning and participating response items). In these cases, the internal consistency of both the overcoming perspective (α = .722; 30 items) and the participating perspective items (α = .798; 32 items) was acceptable, wherein the elimination of any of the 62 items originally proposed failed to improved each scale’s internal consistency reliability.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the DPS

That these dimensions of death orientation are distinct from one another is seen in the pattern of correlations among them (see Table 1), where (a) overall perspective scores are independent (r = −.066) of one another but differentially related to each of their respective subscales (rs exceed .72 and fail to exceed −.195 in each case), (b) participating meaning and overcoming meaning are negatively related (r = −.311) to one another, (c) participating response and participating meaning are correlated (r = .494) as are overcoming meaning and overcoming response (r = .323), (d) overcoming response and participating response are comparatively speaking, less highly related (r = .190), (e) participating meaning and overcoming response as well as overcoming meaning and participating response are independent (rs < .10). This pattern is consistent with that discussed by Campbell and Fiske (1959) in terms of convergent and discriminant validity, that is, measures that assess similar constructs are more highly related to one another than are measures that assess different constructs.

Table 1.

Correlations Between Participating and Overcoming.

	Overcoming perspective	Participating perspective	Overcoming meaning	Overcoming response	Participating meaning	Participating response
Overcoming perspective	–	−.066	.810**	.738**	−.177	.012
Participating perspective		–	−.195*	.112	.909**	.719**
Overcoming meaning			–	.323**	−.311**	−.086
Overcoming response				–	.092	.190*
Participating meaning					–	.494**
Participating response						–

Note. Lower overcoming and participating scores indicate greater agreement.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Further Evidence for the Discriminant Validity of the DPS: Age and Gender Effects

The DPS’s discriminant validity was also examined via a 2 (gender) by 2 (age category: young adults aged 19 to 30 vs. older adults aged 60 to 83) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for the extent of death experience and death education (see Table 2). This 2 by 2 ANCOVA was conducted separately for each of six dependent variables: two primary DPS scales (overcoming death perspective and participating death perspective) and their four secondary subscales (overcoming meaning, participating meaning, overcoming response, and participating response). Again, lower scores reflect greater agreement.

Table 2.

DPS Overall and Subscale Observed and Adjusted Scores by Gender and Age.

	Men						Women
	Young			Old			Young			Old
Subscale	Observed M	SD	Adjusted M	Observed M	SD	Adjusted M	Observed M	SD	Adjusted M	Observed M	SD	Adjusted M
Overcoming perspective	92.41	12.28	91.58	96.55	12.98	96.85	94.54	9.81	93.82	94.00	9.89	95.14
Participating perspective	82.50	11.37	81.23	81.03	16.25	82.14	75.67	8.82	74.98	72.05	11.2	72.80
Overcoming meaning	46.35	7.98	46.28	49.73	8.61	49.60	50.23	5.73	50.00	49.72	7.63	50.12
Overcoming response	24.09	5.20	23.45	26.03	4.69	26.48	24.02	5.27	23.54	24.49	5.11	25.08
Participating meaning	40.57	9.29	39.90	38.33	11.53	38.94	35.27	6.38	34.91	32.73	6.08	33.09
Participating response	17.96	2.69	17.38	19.87	5.89	20.43	17.35	4.04	17.08	16.90	4.16	17.13

Note. Lower overcoming and participating scores indicate greater agreement. Adjusted for ‘Death Experience’ and ‘Death Education.’

Findings for the overall DPS scales suggested that men were generally less likely to hold to a participating death perspective (M = 81.69) than were women (M = 73. 89), F(1, 132) = 13.96, p < .05. However, we found no further evidence regarding gender or age effects for either the overcoming perspective or participating perspective scales/subscales.

Among the four secondary subscales, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) yielded a gender effect for the participating meaning and participating response subscales, where men held a less intense belief in a participating meaning of death (M = 39.30) versus women, (M = 32.73), F(1, 136) = 13.99, p < .05. Similarly, men (M = 19.04) versus women (M = 17.15) were found to identify less strongly with a participating response to death, F(1, 136) = 5.27, p < .05.

The effect of age on the four secondary subscales was statistically significant, where older (M = 25.14) adults were less likely to endorse an overcoming response to death than were younger adults (M = 24.04), F(1, 136) = 5.27, p < .05. To a lesser extent, F(1, 136) = 3.43, p < .07, older persons (M = 18.155) and women (M = 17.55) reported a less intense participating response to death.

In examining the interaction of gender and age, this interaction was statistically significant regarding participating response, F(1, 136) = 4.01, p < .05, we found that while the scores of younger versus older women were similar (see Table 2), older men were less likely than both younger men and women in general to endorse a participatory response to death. No further age by gender interactions were found for the remaining overall and subscale scores for the DPS.

Construct Validity of the DPS

Construct validity of the DPS developed here was examined via correlations with measures of overt and covert death anxiety, that is, the Incomplete Sentence Blank (ISB), the Templer DAS, and the Collett-Lester Fear of Death and Dying Scale (FODDS) (see Table 3). Additionally, the DPS’s construct validity was examined via correlations with self-report measures of orientation toward and attitudes about death and dying, that is, the MODDI-F (see Table 4) and DAP-R (see Table 5). Similarly, the DPS was correlated with personality attributes that are likely indirectly related to one’s orientation to death wherein the salience of control of death is central to Rotter’s (1966) Locus of Control Scale (LOC; see Table 6).

Table 3.

DPS’ Correlations With Death Anxiety Measures.

DPS subscales
Scale; Subscale	Overcoming perspective	Participating perspective	Overcoming meaning	Overcoming response	Participating meaning	Participating response
ISB; Overt mention of death/dying	–	–	–	–	–	–
ISB; Separation/isolation	–	−.156^	−.380**	–	–	–
ISB; Loss of control/dependency	–	–	–	–	–	–
ISB; Loss of goals/achievement	−.138^	–	–	−.195*	–	–
ISB; Injury/disease/pain/suffering/indignity	–	–	–	–	–	–
DAS	−.461**	–	–	−.300**	–	−.168*
FODDS; Dying other	.147^	−.263**	.185*	–	−.257**	−.229**
FODDS; Death other	.278**	−.145^	.214**	.286**	−.184*	–
FODDS; Dying self	–	–	–	.303**	−.137^	–
FODDS; Death self	.362**	–	.309**	–	–	–

^p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Note. Lower overcoming and participating scores indicate greater agreement. Abbreviations: ISB, Incomplete Sentence Blank; DAS, Death Anxiety Scale; FODDS, Fear of Death and Dying Scale; DPS, Death Perspective Scale.

Table 4.

Correlations With the MODDI-F.

DPS subscales
MODDI-F subscales	Overcoming perspective	Participating perspective	Overcoming meaning	Overcoming response	Participating meaning	Participating response
Fear of one’s own dying	−.354**	–	−.220**	−.310**	–	−.179*
Fear of one’s own death	−.577**	–	−.484**	−.423**	.160*	–
Rejection of one’s own death	−.502**	–	−.444**	−.340**	–	–
Acceptance of one’s own dying and death	.437**	−.181*	.396**	.337**	−.216**	–
Fear of an other’s dying	−.476**	–	−.401**	−.280**	.150^	–
Fear of an other’s death	−.445**	–	−.306**	−.410**	–	−.137^
Acceptance of an other’s death	–	−.160^	–	–	−.177*	−.158^
Fear of corpses	−.453**	–	−.333**	−.300**	–	–

^p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Note. Lower overcoming and participating scores indicate greater agreement. Abbreviations: MODDI-F, Multidimensional Orientation toward Dying and Death Inventory; DPS, Death Perspective Scale.

Table 5.

DPS’ Correlations With DAP-R.

DPS subscales
DAP-R subscales	Overcoming perspective	Participating perspective	Overcoming meaning	Overcoming response	Participating meaning	Participating response
Fear of death	−.513**	.147^	−.448**	−.359**	.220**	–
Death avoidance	−.419**	–	−.220**	−.390**	–	–
Escape acceptance	–	−.351**	–	–	−.380**	–
Neutral acceptance	.228*	–	.301**	–	−.187**	–
Approach acceptance	.221**	−.543**	.318**	–	−.660**	−.183*

^p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Note. Lower overcoming and participating scores indicate greater agreement. Abbreviations: DPS, Death Perspective Scale; DAP-R, Death Attitude Profile-Revised.

Table 6.

DPS Correlations With Locus of Control.

DPS subscales
	Overcoming perspective	Participating perspective	Overcoming meaning	Overcoming response	Participating meaning	Participating response
LOC; Internal	–	–	–	–	–	−.214**
LOC; Chance	−.330**	–	−.333**	−.143^	.182*	–
LOC; Powerful	−.372**	–	−.322**	−.190*	–	–

^p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Note. Lower overcoming and participating scores indicate greater agreement. Abbreviations: LOC, Locus of Control Scale; DPS, Death Perspective Scale.

Measures of Self-Report Death Anxiety

Templer DAS

Correlations (see Table 3) between the DAS (where higher scores index more death fear) and the overcoming perspective and its subscale, overcoming response, suggest that being more likely to hold an overcoming perspective (r = −.461, p < .01), as well as the overcoming response to dying and death (r =−.300, p < .01) are each associated with more death anxiety. Likewise, a participating response is also related to more overall death anxiety (r = −.168, p < .05).

Collett-Lester DAS

The FODDS (see Table 3) comprises four subscales differentiating the death and dying of self versus others; higher scores index less death anxiety. In this case as well, and paralleling the above findings for the DAS, correlations between the overcoming perspective (including overcoming meaning and overcoming response) and the FODDS subscales indicate that persons generally ascribing to an overcoming perspective experience more fear of the dying and death of others (rs exceeding .146). Alternatively, individuals reporting a greater inclination toward the participating perspective (including participating meaning and participating response) experience less fear of the dying and death of others (rs exceeding −.144). Regarding the death and dying of self, while overcomers report more death fear (rs exceeding .302), participators report more death fear of the self (r = −.137).

Multidimensional Orientation Toward Dying and Death Inventory

Regarding the MODDI-F (see Table 4), which comprises eight subscales (where higher scores index more fear, more acceptance, more rejection) and is intended to gauge an individual’s fear, acceptance and rejection of the dying and death of the self and others, correlations between measures of the overcoming perspective and that of the MODDI-F subscales reveal many significant consistencies. In this case, and paralleling to an extent, the above findings for the DAS, overcomers’ reported a greater fear of dying (own: r = −.354, p < .01, other: r = −.476, p < .01), death (own: r = −.476, p < .01, other: r = −.445, p < .01), and corpses (r = −.453, p < .01). Complementarily, overcomers also reported less acceptance of their own dying and death (r = .437, p < .01) and a greater rejection of their own death (r = −.502, p < .01). In contrast, participators reported more acceptance of death (own: r = −.181, p < .05, other: r = −.160, p < .10). Additionally, those whose participating meaning scores were higher reported less fear of their own death (r = .160, p < .05) and others’ dying (r = .150, p < .10).

Death Attitude Profile-Revised

The DAP-R (see Table 5) comprises five subscales (where higher scores index greater fear and avoidance, more acceptance) and is intended to gauge an individual’s fear of death, avoidance of death, and style of accepting death. Parallel to the above DPS-FODDS/MODDI-F relationships, overcomers reported more fear of death (r = −.513, p < .01). Likewise, overcomers reported more avoidance of death (r = −.419, p < .01). Overcomers also reported a less use of both Neutral Acceptance (ambivalence; r = .228, p < .05) and Approach Acceptance (belief in afterlife as a reward; r = .221, p < .01). In contrast, participators reported less fear of death (r = .147, p < .10) and more use of Escape Acceptance (belief in death as an escape from suffering; r = −.351, p < .01). Participators’ also reported more use of Approach Acceptance (r = −.543, p < .01). In addition, those ascribing to a participating meaning also reported less death anxiety (r = .220, p < .01), more use of Neutral Acceptance (r = −.187, p < .05), Escape Acceptance (r = −.380, p < .01) and especially Approach Acceptance (r = −.660, p < .01); greater Approach Acceptance was also true for those higher on participatory response (r = −.183, p < .05).

Unconscious/Covert Death Anxiety

Regarding unconscious death anxiety, the ISB comprises five dimensions (see Galt & Hayslip, 1998; Hayslip, 2003), where higher scores (interscorer agreement exceeds 80% in each case) represent an individual’s greater use of denial regarding death and dying/lesser conscious awareness of death (see Table 3). The correlations between the DPS subscale overcoming meaning and ISB subscale separation/isolation (r = −.380, p < .01) and between overcoming response and loss of goals/achievement (r = −.195, p < .05) suggest that assigning an overcoming meaning or utilizing an overcoming response to death is driven by greater denial and less conscious awareness of death. This was also the case (greater use of denial) for relationships between overall overcoming and participating perspectives and loss of goals/achievement (see Table 3).

Locus of Control

The LOC measure is comprised of three subscales (Internal, Powerful Others, Chance) and is intended to gauge the extent to which an individual believes in the influence that each of three sources—the self, chance, and powerful others—has upon one’s own life. Persons identifying with the overcoming perspective reported a more belief in the influence of chance (external) and powerful others (external) on their lives (r = −.330, p < .01 and r = −.372, p < .01; respectively). This was equally true for those higher on overcoming meaning and overcoming response (see Table 6). Those who held to a participating meaning of dying and death reported a less intense belief in the influence of chance (r = .182, p < .05) upon the self. Individuals who identified with the participating response to dying and death reported a stronger belief in the influence of the self (r = −.214, p < .01).

Discussion

The intent of this study was to establish a reliable and valid scale to assess a construct known as the death perspective, wherein the scale is referred to here as the DPS. This construct was first discussed by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976) as an aid to identifying how individuals perceive the meaning attached to death and dying and how they respond (behaviorally) to thoughts of and experiences with death and dying.

Reliability of the DPS

Internal consistencies of the primary subscales (participating death perspective and overcoming death perspective) and secondary subscales (overcoming meaning, overcoming response, participating meaning, participating response) were examined via the calculation of Cronbach alpha coefficients. Analysis of these coefficients suggested that the scale is reliable in assessing constructs reflective of the primary subscales and that in an abbreviated form, can be reliably used to reflect the secondary subscales, with the possible exception of overcoming response. Without eliminating any of the originally proposed 62 items, both of the primary subscales evidenced acceptable reliability (α ≥ .70). Alternatively, establishing acceptable internal consistency for the four secondary subscales required elimination of several items, with the exception of the participating meaning items, which demonstrated high reliability (α = .83). Overcoming response was the only subscale whose reliability was dubious (α = .64) despite the elimination of items to improve alpha.

Validity of the DPS

It is important to note at the outset that the pattern of intercorrelations between measures of overcoming and participating is generally consistent with a multitrait–multimethod approach to validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Over and above this evidence for the DPS’s validity, construct validity of the DPS was determined via correlations with measures of (a) death fear/anxiety, (b) orientations toward and attitudes about dying and death, and (c) indirect indicators of an individual’s orientation toward death. These correlations were found to be consistent and generally parallel to the expectations put forth by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976).

For all outcome measures (DAS, MODDI-F, DAP-R, FODDS, ISB) assessing death fears and attitudes, those who were more overcoming in their assignment of meaning and behavioral response to dying and death reported more death anxiety, less acceptance, and greater rejection of death. They also relied to a greater extent upon denial to repress such fears, and in addition, endorsed an external locus of control stance toward events in their lives. This pattern was generally speaking, opposite that for participators. Thus, in concert with the assertions made by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976), there appears to be a very differential pattern of relationships to death anxiety among overcomers versus participators, with the former being threatened by death as something that imposed upon them and the latter being more accepting and seeing death in more internalized and perhaps natural terms. In light of the fact that Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976) suggested that the cultural ethos reinforced an overcoming stance toward death, it is indeed interesting that over three decades later, overcomers are still fighting the fight at the cost of indeed experiencing more, not less anxiety about their own deaths as well as the deaths of others. For overcomers, death is externalized and perceived as being imposed upon them; this pattern for the most part generalizes across the meaning and the response to death and dying. Conversely, those who were generally more participating in their assignment of meaning and behavioral response to dying and death reported less fear of dying and death and were more accepting of each. While it could be argued that each orientation to death can be adaptive, findings here suggest otherwise with regard to anxiety about death among those who were more overcoming. Similarly, the age and gender effects found here for death orientations also parallel predictions by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976) in that men’s and younger adults’ stance on death is quite different, that is, more overcoming in nature, from that of women and older adults.

From an overcoming perspective, when technology fails to stave off death, individuals must cope with mortality and its inevitable consequence, death, and ultimately must come to grips with the fact that a given culture’s control over the circumstance surrounding and causes of death is not absolute. Thus, while death may be externalized, it is nevertheless inevitable. Such is the essential difference between an overcoming and a participatory orientation toward death and dying. In adopting a given orientation toward death, individuals may hold separate beliefs about the meaning of death and subsequently manifest a given behavioral response to death as they apply to the self and to others. Adopting a given orientation to death may, therefore, serve to buffer the individual’s death anxiety/fear in two fundamental ways: (a) greater acceptance of others’ deaths and (b) greater confidence in ability to control one’s own dying and death. It should be noted that the opposite may also be true; individuals may accept their own dying and death and reject/avoid the dying and death of others.

Taken in their entirety, the findings here suggest that there is indeed consistency in the nature of overcoming and participating relative to prediction made by Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976). That while some persons have adopted a participatory stance toward death and others have not may suggest that, as was likely true three decades ago, our culture remains a predominantly overcoming one. However, average scores for overall overcoming and participating (adjusted for the number of items in each) suggest that at least in this sample, persons endorsed overall overcoming to a lesser extent (where lower scores indexed greater agreement) (M = 3.14, SD = .36) than they did regarding overall participating (M = 2.40, SD = .38), paired t(142) = 16.37, p < .001). Thus, there are clearly persons who adopt a participatory stance, that is, women and older adults.

Clearly, there have been cultural shifts in persons’ attitudes, feelings, and experiences regarding death and dying (see Hayslip & Peveto, 2005). In this respect, regarding the impact of cultural change on death attitudes, Hayslip and Peveto concluded that Americans’ death attitudes have changed in complex ways and indeed have trended toward increased ambivalence over the past three decades as a result of shifts in (a) the general awareness of death, (b) the growing population of elderly persons, and (c) media coverage (see King & Hayslip, 2002). The fact that participation scores exceeded overcoming scores here might suggest a shift away from a culturally prescribed stance toward overcoming (see Kastenbaum & Aisenberg, 1976) to a proportionately copresent participatory stance. This shift could be seen as parallel to the overall pattern of ambivalence observed by Hayslip and Peveto, wherein each death orientation coexists. In this respect, that there have been debates regarding the ethics of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, increased acceptance of the need to make timely end-of-life choices and of hospice care (see Corr & Corr, 2013; Hayslip & Peveto, 2005; Werth & Blevins, 2006) as well as a shift on conceptions of grief (see Stroebe & Schut, 1999) is consistent with such ambivalence, borne of the alternative coexistent stance toward death among overcomers versus participators.

In light of this apparent normative shift in the relative salience of distinct death orientations, the findings of the current study may provide further understanding of how our culture’s death system may have shifted somewhat over time, in both a response approach to dying and death and the degree to which that approach has become culturally embedded. Indeed, Kastenbaum (2009) and others (e.g., Hayslip, 2003) have underscored the importance of understanding the nature of an individual’s management of death-related affective responses (most importantly death fear/anxiety) in terms of how his/her death system is constructed. This death system is thought to be stabilized via cultural endorsement. Its construction, however, is dependent upon a given culture’s norms and mores regarding death and dying. As Kastenbaum and Aisenberg (1976) explain, individuals attempt to better cope with the affective responses (death fear/anxiety) to thoughts about or experiences with dying and death by (a) altering their understanding of what dying and death mean and (b) changing their behavioral responses to experiences with dying and death.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this sample was certainly adequate to test the hypotheses of interest regarding the reliability and validity of the DPS, potential variability within the sample here was limited to persons who were primarily residing in the North Texas area, of Western Cultural heritage, attending a university, and reported themselves to be religious. Though a nation’s death system may be generally stable, it is possible that disparities exist between the death systems of particular regions, states, or cities. For example, Texas lies within the Bible Belt and has long been a predominantly conservative/traditionalist state. How religion and conservative politics have shaped the death system within the state is unknown, but it might be expected that traditionalist values are best characterized as overcoming in nature. Thus, traditionalists might hold an overcoming death perspective. Likewise, though it is unknown what effect religion has upon one’s death perspective, it is important to consider that nearly all the participants in this sample reported themselves to be religious. Consequently, including individuals that are either atheist or agnostic may result in a greater variety of death orientation scores. Likewise, it is unknown regarding the potential impact that life events of a death-related nature that are either personal (e.g., the death of a parent) or cultural (e.g., 9/11, Boston Marathon bombings, Sandy Hook shootings) might have on one’s death orientation. These remain directions that future research might take.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Eric Petty earned his B.S. in Psychology from the University of North Texas and is working to help veterans suffering from PTSD to cope with adjustment to civilian life.

Bert Hayslip Jr. is a Regents Professor Emeritus at the University of North Texas, Department of Psychology. His areas of interest are adult development and aging, grandparents raising grandchildren, and death and dying.

Daniela M. Cabellero is a doctoral student in clinical psychology at the University of North Texas. Her interests center on the role of culture in adjustment to life events.

Sharon Rae Jenkins is a Professor of Psychology at the University of North Texas. Her interests are in the projective assessment of personality and clinical aspects of adjustment.

References

Campbell

D. T.

Fiske

D. W.

(1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56: 86–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016.

Collett

L. J.

Lester

(1969) The fear of death and the fear of dying. Journal of Psychology 72: 179–181. doi:10.1080/00223980.1969.10543496.

Corr

C. A.

Corr

D. M.

(2013) Death and dying: Life and living, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Firestone

R. W.

(1993) Individual defenses against death anxiety. Death Studies 17: 497–515. doi:10.1080/07481189308252635.

Galt

Hayslip

(1998–1999) Age differences in levels of overt and covert death anxiety. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying 37: 187–202.

Geertz

(1973) The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays, New York, NY: Basic Books.

Gesser

Wong

P. T. P.

Reker

G. T.

(1987) Death attitudes across the life-span: The development and validation of the death attitude profile. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying 18: 113–128.

Hayslip

(2003) Death denial: Hiding and camouflaging death. In: Bryand

C. D.

(eds) Handbook of death and dying: Volume One—Presence of death, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 34–42. doi:10.4135/9781412914291.n4.

Hayslip

Guarnaccia

Radika

Servaty

(2002) Death anxiety: An empirical test of a blended self-report and projective measurement model. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying 44: 277–294.

10.

Hayslip

Peveto

(2005) Cultural changes in attitudes toward death, dying, and bereavement, New York, NY: Springer.

11.

Kastenbaum

R. J.

(2009) Death, society, and human experience, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

12.

Kastenbaum

R. J.

Aisenberg

(1976) The psychology of death, New York, NY: Springer.

13.

Kastenbaum

R. J.

Costa

P. T.

(1977) Psychological perspectives on death. Annual Review of Psychology 28: 225–249. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.001301.

14.

Kearl

M. C.

(1989) Endings: A sociology of death and dying, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

15.

King

Hayslip

(2002) The media’s influence on college students’ views of death. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying 44: 37–56.

16.

McCoy

S. K.

Psyszcynski

Solomon

Greenberg

(2000) Transcending the self: A terror management perspective on successful aging. In: Tomer

(eds) Death attitudes and the older adult, Philadelphia, PA: Brunner-Routledge, pp. 37–63.

17.

Neimeyer

(1998) Death anxiety: State of the art. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying 36: 97–120.

18.

Neimeyer

Moser

R. P.

Wittkowski

(2003) Assessing attitudes toward dying and death: Psychometric considerations. Omega—Journal of Death and Dying 47: 45–76.

19.

Rotter

(1966) Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 80(1): 1–28.

20.

Stroebe

M. S.

Schut

(1999) The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies 23: 197–224. doi:10.1080/074811899201046.

21.

Templer

D. I.

(1970) The construction and validation of a death anxiety scale. Journal of General Psychology 82: 165–77. doi:10.1080/00221309.1970.9920634.

22.

Werth

J. L.

Jr Blevins

(2006) Psychosocial issues near the end of life: A resource for professional care providers, Washington, DC: American psychological associationdoi 10.1037/11262-000.

23.

Wittkowski

(2001) The construction of the multidimensional orientation toward dying and death inventory (MODDI-F). Death Studies 25: 479–95. doi:10.1080/07481180126858.