Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the way Americans deal with death and dying. Social distancing restrictions prevented or delayed end of life services for families who lost loved ones to COVID-19. Alternatively, some took to the internet to express their grief through online memorialization. Using content analysis, this study analyzes 200 randomly selected online memorials from the COVID Memorial website, a website created to share the stories of those lost to COVID-19 on social media. Our findings offer insight into memorial author demographics, how memorial authors framed and understood death due to COVID-19, and the COVID-19 pandemic through online memorialization. Two major themes emerged during data analysis, “references to COVID-19 death” and “COVID-specific directives to readers.” The former, details how memorial authors framed and understood the death of a loved one to COVID-19. The latter details “advice” or “directives” authors gave to readers about social distancing guidelines and other guidelines meant to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic and mass death from COVID-19 has largely reshaped the way Americans deal with death and dying. Verdery et al. (2020) estimates that nine people in the United States will experience the loss of a close relative (grandparent, sibling, spouse, or child) for every COVID-19 death. Death and dying scholars know that funeral and memorialization services provide opportunities for families to express their grief and to begin the transition into a life without the deceased (Hoy, 2020). Above all, death rituals and memorialization have transformative properties as they allow for bereaved individuals to form their own response to the loss and begin imagining their lives without the deceased (Castle & Phillips, 2003; Kellaher et al., 2010). Partaking in traditional memorialization rituals, often called “celebrations of life” in the United States, involve the gathering of friends and family, sometimes the creation of a video highlighting the deceased life, and the sharing of stories and memories of the deceased.
Unfortunately, COVID-19 and social distancing requirements have changed funeral services and memorialization. As such, friends and families of COVID-19 victims may not have been able to participate in the traditional end of life services and memorialization immediately following the death of a loved one. Services may be limited to only immediate family, held entirely online, or postponed until it was safer for everyone to gather. Instead, many bereaved family and friends of COVID-19 victims went to social media and the internet to express their grief and loss. For example, the COVID Memorial website, established in March 2020, was created to share the stories of those lost to COVID-19 on social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the online memorialization of COVID-19 victims. We begin this paper by exploring the scholarship on the relationship between bereavement and online memorials, specific trends in online memorialization, and how the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, has shaped the memorialization process for those who have died of COVID-19. These first three sections are meant to contextualize our study. Next, we discuss our methodology, research design, and our findings. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the contributions of our research to death and dying scholarship, as well as some strengths and limitations of our study, and some directions for future research.
Literature Review
Online Memorials, Grief, and Bereavement
While traditional memorials, such as funerals or cemeteries, are given a distinct time and place, the internet gives people a new and different place to memorialize their loved ones (Roberts & Vidal, 2000). Memorial websites offer a variety of ways for users to express themselves (Finlay & Krueger, 2011), and inherently, their grief. For instance, these websites often have features that allow for authors of memorials to add pictures, quotes, and even music for a more personalized memorial. Typically, online memorials usually serve the same purpose as traditional memorials, but the accessibility, proximity, and ease of creating and visiting online memorials make them an attractive addition to traditional memorials. These benefits are especially pertinent in the wake of COVID-19, as many could not partake in traditional memorial practices due to distancing guidelines, which we discuss in more detail later.
The flexible timing of creating an online memorial means that those mourning can create one at any time and when it is most beneficial to their grieving process (Roberts & Vidal, 2000). Because online memorials are situated online, they can be visited many times for different reasons throughout the grieving process, and therefore are not limited by time and geographical location (Roberts & Vidal, 2000). One study (Roberts et al., 2000) used an online survey to gather information on individual experiences creating, visiting, and sharing online memorials. Of the respondents, 76% reported having a physical memorial in addition to the online memorials, but the accessibility of online memorials allowed for more frequent visits. The lack of geographical barriers associated with digital memorials also allows for easy sharing with friends and family who live far away (Roberts & Vidal, 2000). Roberts (2004) found that authors of memorials left messages in the guestbooks to update the deceased on their life. Similarly, another study found that authors returned to their memorials to “light a candle” for the deceased (Sultana et al., 2021).
Many turn to online memorialization for social support, as well. It allows those grieving to create and share memories about their loved ones with others (Roberts, 2004). Following this same sentiment, many use online memorialization to find a sense of community (Roberts, 2004), and to share their experiences with others who understand their circumstances. This is especially important for those whose grief is disenfranchised or misunderstood. This is the case for AIDS deaths (Blando et al., 2004), sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (Finlay & Krueger, 2011), suicide loss (Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015), pet loss (Eason, 2019), and even immigrants (Sultana et al., 2021). Research documents that these groups struggle to have their grief and loss validated in a society where their experience of loss is not socially recognized or understood. In some cases (Roberts, 2004; Finlay & Krueger, 2011), community was achieved through guestbooks and strangers leaving their condolences on their online memorials. In their study on people’s experiences creating and engaging with online memorials, Roberts et al. (2000), found that memorial authors were aware of their membership to a mourning community as they visited other memorials to offer words of encouragement and considered their virtual community to be the most supportive of their grief.
Although there are several benefits to online memorials, there are some potential drawbacks. Because online memorials are public and easily accessible, especially memorials posted on social media, they may be subject to internet trolls and online harassment (Marwick & Ellison, 2012; Phillips, 2011). Fortunately, this was not something we encountered while gathering and analyzing data for this study. Nevertheless, this is still a concern for those posting online memorials, especially if those being memorialized experienced social stigma (LGBTQ+, HIV positive, drug addiction, etc.).
Trends in Online Memorialization Scholarship
A consistent trend among research on online memorialization is that the majority of the memorial authors are women (De Vries & Rutherford, 2004; Finlay & Krueger, 2011; Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015; Musambira et al., 2006). For instance, Musambira et al. (2006) found that 26% of the memorials analyzed were authored by mothers alone, versus 2% of memorials single-authored by fathers. To further illustrate this gender divide, Krysinska and Andriessen (2015) found that when the gender of the author could be noted, mothers (17.6%), sisters (10%), and daughters (8%) were more likely to be authors. Compare this with male authorship for the same study: fathers (2%) and brothers (0.8%). One exception to this trend is memorials created for those who died from AIDS (Blando et al., 2004). Because AIDS disproportionately affected the gay community, those writing the memorials were partners or friends of gay men. Across scholarship on online memorialization, men are also more likely to be memorialized than women (Blando et al., 2004; Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015; Musambira et al., 2006). This gender divide in memorial authorship and memorialization suggests that there is a gendered component to online memorializing (Musambira et al., 2006). Musambira et al. (2006) found that men and women tend to follow different bereavement patterns (instrumental vs. intuitive), and the act of creating an online memorial is more characteristic of intuitive bereavement, which is more likely to be expressed by women.
Another common finding are the authors’ attempts to “continue bonds” (continue relationship) with the deceased. This involves the author writing directly to the deceased, rather than about the deceased. In fact, this is one of the most notable changes observed in mortuary writing; from the classic obituary style written about the deceased typically found in newspapers, news websites, and funeral home websites, to writing directly to the deceased. Roberts (2004) found that 30% of memorials examined online were directly addressed to the deceased, but at least 40% contained some message for the deceased. Other studies find similar percentages. For example, Blando et al. (2004) found that 42.3% of memorials were written to the deceased. Krysinska and Andriessen (2015) found that over half the memorials they examined on one website dedicated to suicide resembled letters to the deceased. In addition to writing initially to the deceased, Roberts (2004) found that authors of memorials left messages in the guestbooks to update the deceased on their life. Similarly, another study found that authors returned to their memorials to “light a candle’ and leave a message to let the deceased know they have not been forgotten (Sultana et al., 2021).
Although many memorials contain the above similarities, they can vary depending on the death and relationship closeness. For example, while the memorials examined by Krysinska and Andriessen (2015) exhibited similar components to other memorials (i.e., continuing bonds and majority female authors), the content sometimes consisted of anger or self-blame, which is a common reaction seen with suicide loss. Furthermore, most memorials will be emotional in nature, but Blando et al. (2004) finds that spouses and partners create memorials with a higher emotional intensity and are most likely to talk directly to the deceased than other relationship ties. Generally, it is common to find that family members are more likely than friends or partners to create online memorials. In one study, 62% of memorials were authored by family members versus 8.4% authored by friends (Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015). However, this is not always the case. Because friends and same-sex partners may experience disenfranchised grief, as they may not be included in traditional death rituals or are less supported in their grief than close family members (Bristowe et al., 2016; Piatczanyn, Bennet, & Soulsby, 2016; Millette & Bourgeois-Guerin, 2020), they may be more likely to use online memorials to express their grief. One study found that half of the authors who were the same age as the deceased were friends (Roberts & Vidal, 2000). In Blando et al.’s study of AIDS memorials (2004), friends accounted for 27.9% of authors and partners 19.4%. Sisters were the largest percentage of familial authors at 11.5%. Online memorialization has diversified and provided alternative mechanisms for the bereaved to experience grief and memorialize their loved ones.
COVID-19, Online Memorialization, and Social Media
Due to the transmission of COVID-19, social distancing of six feet, handwashing, wearing masks, and later vaccinations, became the main modes of preventing the spread of the disease. Prior to widespread vaccination, social distancing requirements created unique circumstances for families with loved ones hospitalized or dying from COVID-19. Specifically, hospitals put in place strict no-visitation rules meant to prevent the spread of COVID-19, and consequently, many individuals who died from COVID-19 did so without the accompaniment of friends and family. In these circumstances, early in the pandemic, many friends and families said goodbye to their loved ones through video screens. COVID-19 also shifted funeral services and memorialization. Funeral homes hosting traditional memorial services required social distancing, face masks, and attendance of close, immediate family only. With restricted attendance, many memorial services were streamed online for wider audiences. In other instances, families decided to postpone the memorial services until they could have a safe, large memorial service for all friends and family.
Due to its high death rate, Verdery et al. (2020) finds a “covid-19 bereavement multiplier” which estimates that nine people in the United States will experience the loss of a close relative (grandparent, sibling, spouse, or child) for every COVID-19 death. Furthermore, grief therapists expect an increase in the level of complicated grief, a kind of grief “that destabilizes a person’s life in significant ways” due to the high rates of sudden death associated with the pandemic (Montgomery, 2020). Furthermore, Corr (2002) suggests that the interruption or devaluing of public mourning rituals can contribute to the grieving process becoming disenfranchised. Thus, few formal acknowledgements of the lives lost, restrictions surrounding formal bereavement rituals, and increased social isolation in the early pandemic may contribute to the risk for disenfranchised grief surrounding COVID-19 deaths (Albuquerque et al., 2021). In the absence of traditional memorialization rituals, many individuals took to social media to find support for grief and bereavement.
The nationwide Facebook group called COVID-19 Loss Support for Family & Friends has 14,100 members as of April 2022 and is meant to provide support for those “struggling with the unique challenges of grieving in social isolation (COVID-19 Loss Support for Family & Friends, n.d.).” Alternatively, others participated in social action. A group called COVID Survivors for Change advocates for “elevating survivors’ voices, finding community in tragedy, and empowering our neighbors and lawmakers to better respond to this pandemic and future ones, too” (COVID Survivors for Change, n.d.). The group organized a public COVID memorial by placing 862 chairs on the Independence Mall to represent the 8600 people who had died from COVID-19 in Pennsylvania in October of 2020. The memorial event was livestreamed on Facebook. Several COVID-specific memorial websites such as COVID Memorial and other online memorial websites, such as Legacy.com and ForeverMissed have implemented COVID-specific additions to their websites. Given the diversity that online memorialization provides and the restrictions of traditional memorial practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, COVID-19 memorials present a unique context to study online memorialization.
Methodology
Sampling
The purpose of this study is to thematically analyze COVID-19 memorials posted to social media websites. The COVID Memorial has its own website, Instagram, and Facebook page, and memorials are posted on all three. They were created in March 2020, shortly after COVID-19 began spreading in the United States, and states implemented stay at home orders. The purpose of the COVID Memorial website “is to be a place to share remembrances of loved ones lost to the coronavirus pandemic, and to encourage public health measures that can prevent more deaths in the future” (COVID Memorial, 2020a). The COVID Memorial website and accompanying pages are run by a team of anonymous volunteers who are concerned “that the human impact of this deadly disease is being under-valued by media, government, and society” (COVID Memorial, 2020b).
Of websites available at the time of this study, it was the only one we found that was dedicated specifically to those who lost their lives to COVID-19. Additionally, it is free and available on social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, and therefore, it is easy to access and publicly available. For several reasons, we did not seek Institutional Review Board approval. We believe this study causes no harm to human subjects because the study utilized publicly available data that are intended to be viewed by others. Additionally, no identifiable information is included in our study’s findings, and names have been replaced with pseudonyms to ensure privacy and anonymity.
We randomly sampled 200 memorials from the COVID Memorial Instagram page in the spring of 2021 because the Instagram posts contain an exact posting date and the website does not, which makes the sampling process easier. This was done by using the month and date memorials were posted between March 2020 and April 2021. Each month was assigned a number (1–13), and then we used an online random number generator to select a number for the corresponding month. Next, we used the random number generator a second time to select the specific date (1–31) to sample memorials. For example, the numbers 4 and 17 would correspond to June 17, 2020. For each date generated, all memorials posted for that date were gathered for analysis. If there were no memorials for that date, a new date was generated, and no dates were repeated. This sampling process was done in four stages. Fifty memorials were gathered at a time and analyzed. Our final sample of 200 consists of approximately 20% of the 970 memorials that have been published as of April 2022 on the COVID Memorial website, Instagram, and Facebook pages.
Data Collection and Analysis
We collected data on the gender of the deceased person and their relationship to the memorial author. We also collected data on the gender of the memorial author, date the memorial was posted, word count of the memorial, descriptions of any included pictures, intended audience of the memorial, as well as the content of the memorials. We categorized the gender of the deceased person and the memorial author by looking at the names, pictures, and pronouns used throughout the memorial.
We also analyzed the content of the memorials thematically. Following suit of previous studies that have investigated the content of memorials, we performed a thematic content analysis (Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015). We chose this method because it proved useful for analyzing memorials in previous studies and would allow us to appropriately identify major themes memorial authors used to make sense of COVID-19 death. Research analyzing online memorials demonstrates that memorial content and thematic categories derived for analysis tend to be similar (Blando et al., 2004; Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015; Musambira et al., 2006; Nager & De Vries, 2004). Given that we were coding a new type of online memorial—COVID-19 memorials—we remained flexible during our coding process to allow themes to emerge during our data analysis.
We utilized Microsoft Excel to create a demographics table for our memorials as well as a coding table for data analysis. We first collected data on memorial demographics and entered them into a table in Microsoft Excel. We then open coded each memorial line by line looking for specific references to COVID-19. If a specific reference was found, we would transcribe the text from the memorial and enter it into the aforementioned coding table in Microsoft Excel. Each author was assigned approximately 25 memorials to analyze at a time and after the analysis was complete, we would meet to discuss commonalities and discrepancies in our coding process. This process helped to ensure intercoder reliability (Fusch & Ness, 2015). After sampling and analyzing 200 COVID memorials, we felt we had reached data saturation, as many of the memorials portrayed consistent themes (Fusch & Ness, 2015).
As open coding process progressed, we noticed some consistent themes among the memorials—directives to readers about social distancing and masking guidelines, and commentary on COVID-19 death. Two main thematic categories emerged from these observations, “COVID-specific directives to readers” and “references to COVID-19 death.” The coding category “COVID-specific directives to readers” details “advice” or “directives” authors gave to readers about social distancing guidelines and other guidelines meant to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The coding category “references to COVID-19 death” details how memorial authors framed and understood the death of a loved one to COVID-19.
During the second round of coding, we coded within the main thematic categories for subthemes. In our coding within the “COVID-specific directives for readers” category, we found three major subthemes: “follow the guidelines/be careful,” “life is precious,” and “a call to action.” Additionally, our analysis produced four main subthemes for the “references to COVID death” coding category, including “died/passed away from COVID,” “losing the battle to COVID-19,” “taken by COVID”, and “consequences of COVID-19 death.” In the next section of this paper, we summarize the demographic characteristics of the memorials, as well as further elucidate the results from the thematic content analysis.
Findings
Demographic Characteristics of COVID Memorials
COVID-19 Memorial Demographics.
Thematic Coding Categories.
References to COVID-19 Death
The results from our thematic content analysis can be seen in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, - 95 out of the 200 memorials analyzed directly referenced COVID-19 when speaking about their loved one’s death. Interestingly, more than half of the memorials analyzed (52%) had no specific reference to COVD-19 death in the memorials, however, since the memorials were posted on COVID-19 specific memorial pages and social media pages, this is implied. The most common references to COVID death in the memorials were the authors simply stating that their loved one had passed away due to COVID-19. Fifty-six percent of the authors simply stated that their loved one “passed away” or “died” from COVID-19. The other subthemes provide more insight into how COVID-19 death was framed in alternative ways, as well as how the COVID-19 pandemic complicated the death and mourning processes for bereaved families.
In other memorials, COVID-19 deaths were talked about in more complicated ways, for example, as a “battle.” Twenty-one percent of the COVID memorial authors discussed how their loved one had “fought COVID-19” or “lost their battle” to COVID-19. As one author states in their memorial for their brother, “He fought hard, but it wasn’t enough. My brother has just passed away. COVID-19, I hate you.” This author’s brother was in a fight for his life against COVID-19, but unfortunately, lost that battle. Two other memorial authors frame the death of their loved one in similar ways: “Today, my Godfather has lost his battle to Covid-19” and “After contracting Covid-19, he fought furiously to survive, but ultimately succumbed to the virus over 1 month later.” The framing of COVID-19 death as a battle is interesting as it implies an ongoing conflict between life and death, death being the enemy. This framing similarly implies a level of individual agency, autonomy, or control in terms of the overall outcome of the COVID-19 illness and the person’s ability to stay alive. “Battling” also implies that the person who died from COVID-19 is not merely a victim, rather they are active and engaged in their fight against their illness. The battle framing is not surprising to see in a American cultural context which highly values individual autonomy and views victimization as weakness. Most importantly, however, the notion of battling an illness likely helps friends and family who have lost someone to COVID-19 make sense of the loss. If someone put up a good “fight” against COVID-19 or “furiously battled” COVID-19, then all efforts have been exacerbated to prevent the death, and there should be minimal regrets, blame, or guilt surrounding the COVID-19 death.
Alternatively, 17% of memorial authors also referred to their loved one being “stolen” or “taken” by COVID-19. The framing of “taken” juxtaposed against the “battle” frame provides some greater insight into how memorial authors frame COVID-19 deaths. For example, one author said, “I hate that Covid took you away from us…” and another author said, “This morning the coronavirus took my mother, 80.” As mentioned before, the “battle” framing implies individual agency on the part of the deceased to beat or win against COVID-19. Alternatively, “taken” removes individual agency and instead implies that life was stolen prematurely or unnecessarily. It implies that the events leading up to their death from COVID-19 could have been prevented, but simultaneously implies nothing could have been done to prevent what happened. Furthermore, the “taken” and “stolen” framing likely play a similar role in allowing friends and families to make sense of their loved one’s tragic and untimely death from COVID-19, as the battle frame does.
Finally, memorial authors were also likely to comment on some of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and how it shaped the death and mourning process. Six percent of the authors commented on how their loved ones died alone or how they were not able to gather as a family to mourn the death of their loved one due to quarantine requirements in hospital settings. For example, one author stated, “Rest in Peace dear, and all the too many others lost to this devastating virus, and merciful peace to those suffering the shock of not being with them at the end.” Another author commented on how her family could not be together to mourn the death of her aunt or attend the funeral, “My beloved Aunt passed away today due to COVID-19. We cannot be together as a family or attend the funeral.” The COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing guidelines, and stay at home orders have largely reshaped how families are able to mourn and memorialize the loss of a loved one and we see this expressed in the memorials we analyzed.
COVID-Specific Directives to Readers
We found that many memorial authors gave “advice” or “directives” to memorial readers about the COVID-19 pandemic, most in reference to following social distancing guidelines to prevent spread of the virus and to protect the unnecessary loss of life. Forty out of the 200 memorials analyzed included these “directives” or “advice” to readers. The most frequent occurring subtheme within the “directives to readers” category was “follow guidelines/be careful (64%).” In many of the memorials, it was common to find the author asking others to be mindful of the stay-at-home orders and social distancing guidelines. Statements from memorial authors such as “People, please take notice and follow the guidelines,” “Please take the precautions that are being advised seriously,” and “Please stay home. Please take care of each other. And if you have to venture out, please adhere to the physical distancing guidelines” emphasize individual urgency to take responsibility and to keep themselves and others safe. Noticeably, the most repeated sentiment among this subtheme was the authors pleading for readers to take the virus and social distancing guidelines seriously. One author goes as far to say that “this virus should be treated like nuclear fallout.” Additionally, some authors had very simple directives, just asking others to “please stay home.” Given the cultural and social climate surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, many authors may have felt the need to reemphasize the seriousness of the virus because of misinformation or those entertaining COVID-19 conspiracies.
The second most reoccurring subtheme was “life is precious.” The “life is precious” subtheme like “follow the guidelines” subtheme emphasized obeying social distancing guidelines, however, authors in this subtheme emphasized how abiding by social distancing protocol can save lives. This subtheme accounted for about 36% of the “directives to readers” category, and authors asked others to be sensible, follow guidelines, or stay home to prevent unnecessary deaths. This is exemplified by those authors saying, “we can help reduce the chance of others losing their family members too.” In similar sentiments, another author reminded others to think about their own families’ vulnerabilities to the virus, “when you feel like giving up on social distancing, please stay inside to honor his memory & to maybe save the lives of other grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters, sons & daughters who we don’t want to lose a moment too soon.” Furthermore, the preciousness of life was also discussed in terms of being thankful that other family members are still alive. Some authors emphasized cherishing their loved ones while they are still here and to “count your blessings and be grateful that you’re a survivor during a time like this.” Directives such as these illustrate that the authors of these memorials and posts understand how widespread COVID-19 is, and because of this pervasiveness, everyone is at risk for COVID-19. Finally, authors also reinforce “life is precious” by humanizing the numbers surrounding COVID-19 deaths. For example, one author reminds us to “never lose sight of the people every one of these numbers represent.” Another author humanizes those lost as more than just COVID victims: “[we] want people to know he’s not just a number of Covid victims, he was a father and grandfather and an all-around beautiful person.” These quotes are meant to remind readers that it is easy to lose sight of the lives being lost when the numbers seem intangible, if you are not personally affected.
Lastly, about 18% of the “directives to readers” category we considered specific “calls to action.” Directives consolidated into this category were asking readers to do a specific action. A few asked for donations in the deceased’s name (whether to a charity or to help pay funeral expenses). One author asked readers to “consider joining your local COVID Mutual Aid group.” Another wrote a poem that would be read at the deceased’s funeral and asked readers to “please have a read and keep her in your thoughts at 2:30 p.m.” One author asked readers to continue his friend’s work: “We must continue the work he so passionately espoused to preserve our global biodiversity.” The few directives in this category varied but were compiled together because of the nature of the special requests made by the authors. Writing directly to the deceased was not a regular feature of the memorials analyzed. Instead, authors may be trying to keep their bond alive by asking others to keep their lost loved ones on their mind. or to donate money or join a cause in their memory. This allows the deceased to be gone, but not forgotten, which helps these authors cope with a tragic loss.
Discussion
Utilizing a content analysis of 200 online memorials for people who have passed from COVID-19, this paper explored the framing of COVID death and the pandemic. Though similar in many ways to previous studies on online memorialization, our study offers several contributions to scholarship on death and dying, grief and bereavement, and online memorialization. First, our study finds a higher frequency of men writing online memorials than previous studies. Second, our study explores online memorialization on social media rather than on specific online memorial websites. Finally, our study contributes to the literature on online memorialization by adding an additional research context—the COVID-19 pandemic—and how this shapes understandings of death and dying, grief, and mourning.
The demographic characteristics of the COVID memorials mimic findings of previous research. Like previous studies, we find that most authors (62.5%) are women, and men (59%) are more likely than women (34%) to be memorialized (Blando et al., 2004; De Vries & Rutherford, 2004; Finlay & Krueger, 2011; Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015; Musambira et al., 2006). Additionally, most memorials were created by immediate family members (children, spouses, siblings), which resembles previous research as well (Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015; Roberts & Vidal, 2000; Sultana et al., 2021). Our demographic research diverges from previous research, however. Though immediately family were most likely to be memorial authors, 26% of the memorials in this sample were authored by extended family members. Although women were more likely to be authors of the COVID memorials we analyzed, our study had a larger percentage of male authors than found in past studies (Finlay & Krueger, 2011; Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015; Musambira et al., 2006). For instance, 20% of memorials were authored by men in our study compared to 3% in Krysinska and Andriessen’s (2015) study on suicide memorials. Moreover, the frequency of male memorial authors in this study may be underestimated because the gender was undetermined for 17.5% of the memorials analyzed.
Men may be more likely to be COVID memorial authors due to the nature of the memorials—social media posts rather than memorials submitted to a website. Most Americans, men and women, tend to have social media accounts on Facebook or Instagram, and perhaps the medium of memorials (social media) can impact gender composition of authorship. For instance, access and ease of posting online memorials on social media likely make it easier for men to participate. This suggests that the relationship between grief, death, online memorialization, and gender should be further explored, and investigating online memorialization on social media may provide more insight into the gendered dimensions of grief and online memorialization.
The memorials analyzed for our study are like findings from previous research investigating the memorialization of persons who died from sudden or tragic deaths (Ellis et al., 2015; Hurley, 2014; Semino et al., 2018) and those who experience disenfranchised grief (Blando et al., 2004; Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015). These memorials tend to contain high levels of emotionality, such as self-blame, regret, dismay, frustration, and anger, as we found in our own study. For this study, memorial authors expressed frustration, regret, and anger. Connected to emotionality in memorials was giving voice to survivor’s grief. Blando and colleagues’ study (2004) of online memorials written for men who had died of AIDS found the memorials served the specific purpose of giving authentic voice to disenfranchised grievers' sense of loss and suffering. Both loved ones of AIDS and COVID-19 victims experience disenfranchised grief but in different ways. The authors in Blando’s study were dismayed at the lack of recognition of their grief as well as disregard of the AIDS epidemic and the death of persons from AIDS. Alternatively, for the COVID-19 pandemic it is suggested that disenfranchised grief is experienced because traditional death rituals, at least in the early pandemic, were restricted (Corr, 2002). Moreover, the HIV/AIDS epidemic and COVID pandemic are similar in terms of their politicization, of being downplayed by the American public, and neglected by the American government and many public officials (Escandón et al., 2021), though the stigma associated with having AIDS and dying from AIDS continues to be much more severe. However, it does appear there may be some stigmatization at work in COVID-19 deaths, as over half of online memorials (52%) did not directly reference death from COVID-19. We draw the comparison between AIDS and COVID death because the context in which death occurs—the social and cultural climate of national epidemics or global pandemics—shape the grief and memorialization process. Like Blando et al. (2004), we believe the COVID online memorials provided a space where authors could express grief, frustration, and anger, humanize the lives lost to COVID-19, and challenge the trivialization of COVID-19 by those who completely ignore social distancing regulations, intentionally cough on others, refuse to wear a mask, or openly deny the existence of COVID-19 altogether (Miller, 2020).
A large feature of the online memorials analyzed for this study were “directives” or “advice” given to readers. Krysinska and Andriessen (2015) noted directives to readers in 8% of the suicide memorials they analyzed. These directives took the form of advice to prevent suicide, about how to cope with loss, as well as asking readers to interact with the memorial. Alternatively, the directives to readers in our study looked different. The directives from memorial authors were more action oriented, specifically asking readers to do things e.g., abide by social distancing, stay at home orders, and masking protocols to prevent the spread of COVID-19. These directives insinuate it is the public’s responsibility for preventing unnecessary infections and death from COVID-19, especially as these memorials were written during and responding to an ongoing pandemic.
One notable finding of our study not previously discussed in online memorial literature is the framing of COVID-19 deaths as either “losing a battle” or being “stolen.” Research on death and dying finds that it is common to frame death and dying as a battle, especially when referring to illnesses such as cancer (Ellis et al., 2015; Hurley, 2014; Semino et al., 2018). We note that the “battle” frame seems to imply a sense of agency on the part of the victims. This rhetoric is critiqued by some stating that patients should never be considered a “loser” to a disease that they ultimately have no control over (Ellis et al., 2015). However, using this “lost battle” metaphor may serve an important purpose for those mourning a loss to such illness. Looking at the death in such a way may provide comfort and a sense of control to those grieving an uncontrollable situation (Hurley, 2014). Alternatively, the “taken” and “stolen” frame emphasizes the opposite—a lack of agency and uncontrollable situation. It also serves to make sense of death and the loss of a loved one for memorial authors. The “stolen” and “taken” frame is not found in other studies of online memorialization, and we find it in this study likely due to the nature of COVID death itself and the memorials analyzed. The battle metaphor is used most often in tandem with cancer and other illnesses, but it makes sense for this rhetoric to be present in memorials for COVID-19 victims. Most interestingly, however, these notions surrounding COVID death provide insight into the framing of death and dying in an online setting, and, in particular, how one frame asserts agency over a disease and the other asserts the opposite, a lack of agency.
A feature of many online memorials which is different from traditional memorials is directly writing to the deceased as a way of continuing bonds. Compared to previous research (Bell et al., 2015; Krysinska & Andriessen, 2015), our analysis did not find many instances of authors writing directly to the deceased. Rather, the intended audience of most memorials was the general reader on social media. Most memorials included a more traditional tribute to their loved one describing their familial role, their interests, and hobbies, how they were as a person, etc., and included a picture in the memorial. All characteristics that resemble traditional memorials written for newspapers or funeral home websites. The primary reason for this is likely due to where the memorials were posted, on public social media pages, meant to be read and consumed by others. The memorial authors in our study offered other ways to continue bonds with their deceased loved one. Some memorial authors asked readers to carry on their loved one’s work and legacy or donate money in honor of their loved one to specific memorial funds or an organization the deceased was a part of. These actions are alternative ways the authors keep their loved one’s memories alive, which falls under the realm of continuing bonds (Bell et al., 2015).
Limitations
Although this study has presented valuable insight into online memorialization, death and dying, and grief caused by a global pandemic, it is not without limitations. First, since we studied COVID-19 memorialization online, traditional ways of memorializing people who have died from COVID-19 likely look different and our findings do not reflect this type of memorialization. Additionally, since these memorials were shared via Instagram, there were limitations in terms of word length and how many pictures could be included in the memorials. Memorials created on online memorial websites such as ForeverMissed and NeverGone have entire pages dedicated to memorializing loved ones and therefore may provide more insight into the COVID memorialization process.
Despite these limitations, our study and methodology were rigorous. First, we used random sampling which minimizes bias and improves sample representativeness. Additionally, collecting and studying memorials of COVID-19 death online is useful given how the pandemic and social distancing guidelines limited traditional memorialization options. Moreover, we analyzed memorials that were posted on social media, which is an understudied medium for online memorials. By doing so, we explored a different kind of online memorialization, and this allowed us to find some notable differences compared to more traditional online memorials.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to investigate online memorialization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, in this study, we had a higher frequency of male memorial authors probably due to the accessibility of social media. Future research should explore the relationship between gender and authorship in online memorials, particularly on social media. Memorials in our study also presented alternative directives to readers and continuing bonds with the deceased compared to previous studies of online memorials. This study also investigated online memorialization primarily on social media websites and within a new research context, COVID-19. This is important because memorialization on Facebook pages is becoming more common and future studies exploring memorialization on social media websites could provide more insight into shifting trends in online memorialization. Because this research took place during an ongoing pandemic and some restrictions were placed on traditional memorialization, many individuals expressed grief online instead. Future research should explore how the grieving process and online memorialization shifted during the COVID-19 pandemic or how the grieving process might look different in traditional setting. Finally, analyzing memorials at different times during the pandemic may provide greater insight into the long-term effects of COVID-19 on grief and mourning, especially considering many have endured loss to COVID-19. This study, if anything, demonstrates the regret, anger, and frustration of those who have lost loved ones to COVID-19 during an ongoing global pandemic.
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.
