From Private Pain to Shared Sorrow: A Process Model of Collective Bereavement

Social Identity and Self-Categorization

Social Identity Theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and its cognitive elaboration, Self-Categorization Theory (SCT; Turner et al., 1987), provide foundational insights into how individual psychological processes become collective. SIT proposes that individuals derive a significant portion of their self-concept from social group memberships, imbuing these identities with emotional and evaluative significance. Consequently, the motivation to maintain a positive social identity shapes how individuals perceive and respond to both in groups and outgroups. SCT further specifies the cognitive mechanisms of this process, noting that individuals categorize themselves at varying levels of abstraction, ranging from the unique individual (personal identity) to specific groups (social identity) and even to humanity as a whole (superordinate identity). The salience of a particular identity depends on contextual factors that render group membership psychologically prominent, leading to depersonalization. This shift does not imply a loss of self; rather, it represents a cognitive transition where the individual perceives themselves through the lens of the group’s defining attributes (Turner, 1985). Depersonalization is central to understanding collective phenomena. When depersonalized, individuals see themselves as interchangeable exemplars of the group rather than unique persons, assimilating their thoughts, feelings, and motivations to group norms (Turner et al., 1994). For collective bereavement, the implication is profound: when a social identity is salient, a loss affecting the group is experienced as a loss affecting the self. This mechanism explains how people can genuinely grieve for strangers who share their group membership; the deceased is not a “stranger,” but a fellow member of the “we.”

Intergroup Emotions Theory

Intergroup Emotions Theory (IET; Mackie & Smith, 2015; Smith, 1993; Smith & Mackie, 2015) extends these principles into the affective domain, suggesting that emotions can be experienced on behalf of a group. According to IET, when individuals identify with a social group, they appraise events not only for their personal implications but also for their consequences for the group. These group-based appraisals generate affective experiences that arise from, and are directed toward groups, namely intergroup emotions. IET distinguishes these group-level emotions from mere aggregated individual emotions through four criteria (Smith et al., 2007): (a) they are distinct from an individual’s personal emotions regarding the same target; (b) they depend on the strength of group identification; (c) they are socially shared and converge among group members; and (d) they motivate and regulate specifically group-level behaviours, such as collective action.

While research has documented group-based anger, guilt, and pride (Mackie & Smith, 2018), the specific dynamics of group-based grief (named as collective bereavement in this article) remain under-explored. I propose that collective bereavement is a distinct group-based emotion that emerges when individuals appraise a loss as relevant to a shared identity. This conceptualization offers several theoretical advantages. First, it explains the “grief for strangers” paradox through the lens of group-relevant appraisal. Second, it predicts that the intensity of collective bereavement will fluctuate according to the strength of group identification. Third, it frames collective bereavement as a motivational force for collective action. Last, this perspective distinguishes collective bereavement from concurrent individual grief by identifying the group-level appraisal and identification processes that make sorrow genuinely shared.

Collective Emotions: Conceptual Clarifications

Recent scholarship has sought to clarify the diverse varieties of collective emotional experience (Goldenberg et al., 2020; von Scheve & Ismer, 2013). Thonhauser (2022) proposes a taxonomy distinguishing among several modes: emotional sharing (jointly feeling an emotion from a collective perspective), emotional contagion (the automatic spread of affect), emotional matching (similar emotions without shared intentionality), emotional segregation (separating personal from collective experience), and emotional fusion (the merging of self and collective in affect).

Collective bereavement, as conceptualized here, primarily involves emotional sharing in Thonhauser’s sense: group members jointly experience grief regarding a loss they collectively appraise as significant to their group. This grief is “shared” in a robust sense; it arises from a collective evaluative perspective by appraising the loss from the standpoint of the group rather than being merely parallel individual reactions.

However, collective bereavement is a dynamic process that may incorporate other elements of this taxonomy. Emotional contagion often amplifies and accelerates the spread of grief through social networks and digital media. Conversely, some individuals may engage in emotional segregation, acknowledging the collective tragedy while compartmentalizing it from their private emotional lives. In particularly intense cases, emotional fusion may occur, where the boundaries between personal sorrow and collective mourning dissolve entirely. Specifying these nuances is essential for understanding how collective bereavement emerges, intensifies, and is sustained over time.

Stage 1: Event Appraisal as Group-Relevant Loss

Existing bereavement models assume that grief requires personal acquaintance with the deceased, and thus cannot explain mourning among strangers. This stage addresses that gap by specifying how loss is appraised at the group rather than personal level. The process begins when an event is appraised as a loss relevant to a social group. Not all deaths trigger collective bereavement; the appraisal process acts as a “gatekeeper” involving three interrelated components. First, the event must involve the perception of significant loss, which includes not only mass death but also symbolic losses such as the destruction of cultural sites or the erosion of collective rights. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, involved not only loss of life but also the disruption of social rituals and the erosion of communal life itself (Stroebe & Schut, 2021).

Second, the loss must be perceived as affecting a group rather than merely isolated individuals: a single death may trigger collective bereavement if the deceased is perceived as representing a meaningful social category, where “one of us” has been lost.

Third, the appraisal process involves causal attribution and perceived injustice. Drawing on appraisal theories of emotion (Lazarus, 1991; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), I propose that how a loss is explained shapes the emotional response it evokes: losses attributed to identifiable outgroup agents, or perceived as preventable and unjust, evoke more intense collective grief mixed with anger.

This is vividly illustrated by the differential responses to femicides in Turkey. The murder of Özgecan Aslan, a young woman killed while resisting a sexual assault, generated unprecedented collective grief because she was appraised as an “innocent” victim. In contrast, cases like that of Hüsne Aslan who was killed shortly after by her boyfriend, received minimal collective response due to victim-blaming attributions that violated conservative norms (Lerner, 1980). This highlights how moral framing functions as a gatekeeping mechanism for collective mourning.

Media plays a crucial role in shaping these appraisals. Extensive media coverage constructs events as nationally or globally significant, frames deaths as affecting particular communities, and provides narratives attributing causality and assessing justice. Social media has amplified these dynamics, enabling rapid dissemination of information and collective sense-making in real time (Proust, 2024). The framing of losses as affecting “us”, whether through nationality, identity category, or shared humanity shapes which social identities become relevant to the bereavement response.

Stage 2: Social Identity Salience Activation

Prior accounts of collective emotion have not specified the conditions under which group membership becomes psychologically active during bereavement. This stage provides that specification. When a loss is appraised as group-relevant, the corresponding social identity becomes salient. Following Self-Categorization Theory (SCT), this salience depends on accessibility (the readiness of the identity) and fit (how well the identity accounts for the current context). Identity salience is intensified when the loss involves intergroup dimensions, such as a perceived threat from an out-group.

Importantly, multiple identities may be activated simultaneously. A single tragedy might activate national, religious, or superordinate human identities. The specific configuration of these identities determines who is included in the grieving “we” and who remains an outsider (Reicher & Hopkins, 2001).

Stage 3: Group-Based Emotional Experience

This stage is what distinguishes genuine collective bereavement from mere emotional contagion or coincident individual sadness: the grief is experienced not as personal sorrow that happens to be shared, but as an emotion arising from and directed toward a collective “we.” Once social identity is salient, individuals experience grief as group members. Consistent with IET, this experience is shared -individuals feel they are mourning “with” others, creating a phenomenology of sharedness even when alone. It is also modulated by identification, meaning those with stronger group identification experience more intense collective grief. Finally, the mourning becomes group-oriented, directed toward “our” dead rather than “my” dead. This group-based grief is often a “cluster emotion,” accompanied by anger toward the responsible party, fear of future threats, or collective guilt.

Stage 4: Collective Coping Responses

Individual bereavement models identify coping responses, but do not theorize their collective analogues or the feedback loops through which coping reconstitutes group identity. This stage provides a novel group-level account of coping that individual models cannot offer. Collective bereavement motivates coordinated responses. Adapting the Dual Process Model to a group level, I distinguish between two orientations. Collective Loss-Orientation encompasses shared rituals such as vigils and moments of silence, as well as the construction of memorials that establish the meaning of the loss. Wagoner and Brescó de Luna (2022) argue these artifacts re-integrate the deceased and the bereaved into the social order. Collective Restoration-Orientation, on the other hand, involves political mobilization, advocacy, and social movements that transform grief into action. The Black Lives Matter movement, reinvigorated by the murder of George Floyd, exemplifies how collective grief motivates sustained action toward systemic change (Proust, 2024). Crucially, these responses create a feedback loop: participating in a ritual reinforces identity salience, which in turn intensifies the emotional experience. This recursive dynamic distinguishes collective bereavement from a one-off emotional reaction, positioning it as an evolving social process.

Enhancing Solidarity

Following Durkheim, 1965 observation that shared emotional experiences reinforce social cohesion, I argue that collective bereavement enhances solidarity through three key mechanisms. First, shared grief creates perceived similarity among group members. The experience of mourning together signals common values, attachments, and vulnerabilities. Recognizing that others share one’s emotional response reinforces the sense of belonging to a meaningful collective. Second, collective mourning rituals bring people into physical and symbolic proximity, reinforcing awareness of group membership. Vigils, memorial services, and moments of silence create contexts in which group identity is enacted and experienced. Third, the vulnerability exposed by loss may motivate increased interdependence and mutual support among group members. Awareness that “we” are at risk may strengthen bonds of mutual obligation.

Empirical evidence supports this: research following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States (9/11), documented significant increases in national unity and identification (Li & Brewer, 2004; Moskalenko et al., 2006). This solidarity involves both cognitive effects (heightened awareness of shared identity) and motivational effects (a desire to protect group bonds in the face of threat).

Sensitizing Society

Collective bereavement functions as a powerful mechanism for sensitizing society to issues that might otherwise remain invisible or marginalized. By transforming private tragedies into public concerns, this function operates through several pathways. Sustained attention keeps the causes of loss salient long after the immediate event, as media and public discourse continue to engage with the underlying issues. Affective persuasion draws on the emotional intensity of shared grief, which can overcome cognitive barriers to attitude change, since emotions focus attention and motivate action more effectively than dispassionate information (Lerner & Keltner, 2000). Finally, shared grief can reveal structural injustices by unmasking systemic failures or differential vulnerabilities across groups.

The Black Lives Matter movement illustrates this dynamic, where shared grief over police killings transformed individual losses into a global reckoning with systemic racism (Lebron, 2017). Similarly, in Turkey, the Özgecan Aslan case sensitized the nation to femicide, while the more recent Narin Güran tragedy drew attention to failures in child protection. These cases show how shared sorrow translates into heightened awareness of structural vulnerabilities, placing neglected issues at the center of the public agenda.

Sustaining Collective Memory

Collective bereavement contributes to the formation of collective memory -shared representations of the past that define a group’s identity (Halbwachs, 1992; Wagoner & Brescó de Luna, 2022). Brescó de Luna and Wagoner (2019) further show that memorial sites affectively intertwine personal and collective memories, functioning as cultural and historical artifacts that mediate these processes and give meaning to the past in light of present and future challenges. Through mourning rituals, commemorations, monuments, and narrative construction, collective bereavement inscribes losses into the group’s history.

This function is critical because collective memories of loss provide “templates” for interpreting new events. As Volkan (1997) suggests with “chosen traumas,” certain losses become central to identity across generations. In Turkey, annual commemorations of the Soma mine disaster or the 1999 Marmara earthquake serve as occasions where collective remembrance connects past loss to present political demands for accountability and preparedness. However, this function is often a site of struggle; whose deaths are remembered and how they are framed remains a matter of ongoing political negotiation (Schwartz, 2000). Malkinson and Witztum (2000) illustrate this through Israeli bereavement culture, showing how the national mourning narrative evolved from idealization toward individualized grief as the perceived legitimacy of war shifted -a transformation driven by growing tension between official commemoration and personal loss.

Strengthening Belongingness

Finally, collective bereavement can strengthen individuals’ sense of belonging to the group. Participating in shared mourning affirms membership, connects individuals to something larger than themselves, and provides meaning in the face of loss. Research following September 11 found that university students reported increased identification not only with their nation but also with their university, family, and ethnic group (Moskalenko et al., 2006), suggesting that collective bereavement activates and strengthens multiple levels of group belonging.

This belongingness function may be particularly important for marginalized groups: when LGBTQ + or Indigenous communities collectively mourn victims of hate crimes or historical injustices, grief serves as an assertion of group existence and worth. Collective bereavement thus serves an identity-affirming function that may be especially significant for groups facing ongoing marginalization or threat.

Propositions on Emergence and Intensity

Proposition 1

Events framed as group- relevant losses elicit stronger collective bereavement than those framed as isolated individual tragedies.

Theoretical basis: IET predicts that group-based appraisals, not personal attachments, are the proximal cause of collective emotion-a claim that individual bereavement models, focused on attachment bonds, cannot make. Evidence for this proposition suggests that group-based portrayals intensify emotional responses (Gordijn et al., 2001). In Turkey, the 2024 murder of Narin Güran was rapidly framed as a national loss affecting “all our children,” generating widespread mourning that transcended regional boundaries. This aligns with findings that perceiving harm as group-level rather than personal is a stronger predictor of collective reaction (van Zomeren et al., 2008).

Proposition 2

Higher social identity salience at the time of loss exposure amplifies the intensity of collective bereavement.

Consistent with SCT, subtle category priming triggers group-level emotions (Seger et al., 2009), and the Soma mine disaster illustrates how heightened working-class and national identities united a politically divided public in shared sorrow.

Proposition 3

Strength of identification with the affected group positively predicts intensity of collective bereavement, independent of personal ties to victims.

Identification modulates group emotions across contexts (Smith et al., 2007), including post-9/11 grief (Moskalenko et al., 2006) and fan mourning for celebrities (Radford & Bloch, 2012). Identification with “Turkish womanhood” similarly predicted stronger grief after Özgecan Aslan’s murder, and parental/national identification drove responses to Narin Güran in 2024.

Proposition 4

Perceived injustice and victim innocence intensify collective bereavement, particularly its anger and outrage component.

Unjust, preventable losses threaten just-world beliefs (Lerner, 1980), heightening moral outrage among identified group members. The contrast between the nationwide mourning for Özgecan Aslan and the minimal response to Hüsne Aslan (whose death was moralized and subjected to victim-blaming) illustrates how innocence appraisals act as a “gatekeeper” for collective grief: having a boyfriend outside marriage enabled victim-blaming that suppressed mourning. Similarly, following the 2023 earthquakes, grief was selectively regulated: deaths attributed to structural negligence evoked outrage, while those associated with rule violations were often moralized and normalized.

Proposition 5

Extensive, emotionally evocative media coverage expands the scope and intensity of collective bereavement.

Digital mourning hashtags, such as #NarinİçinAdalet (“Justice for Narin”), nationalize regional grief through emotional contagion (Proust, 2024). Social networks facilitate massive-scale affective spread (Kramer et al., 2014), transforming local tragedies into global or national phenomena. This dynamic is perhaps most strikingly illustrated by the global spread of collective bereavement following the events in Gaza, where hashtags such as #GazaGenocide and #FreePalestine mobilized hundreds of millions of users across platforms, transforming geographically distant suffering into a globally shared emotional experience (Amnesty International, 2024). These cases collectively demonstrate that digitally mediated mourning can transcend national boundaries, though the scope of collective bereavement remains shaped by whose losses are deemed visible and grievable in the first place (Butler, 2009).

Propositions on Functions and Consequences

Proposition 6

Collective bereavement temporarily enhances ingroup solidarity and prosocial behaviour.

SCT predicts that shared identity-relevant experiences increase perceived ingroup similarity; IET further predicts that co-experienced group emotions create motivational convergence toward prosocial action. Shared grief reinforces social bonds through emotional synchrony. Post-9/11 research documented short-term increases in trust and prosociality (Putnam, 2002), and symbolic expressions of national solidarity (Skitka, 2005), while ritual studies show shared emotional arousal strengthens cohesion (Collins, 2004; Páez et al., 2015). For example, in Turkey, major tragedies like Soma mine disaster briefly bridged political divides through common mourning rituals.

Proposition 7

Collective bereavement following preventable or systemic losses increases support for structural change.

Grief combined with injustice appraisals motivates demands for reform. Social movement research links moral emotions to collective action (Jasper, 2011; van Zomeren et al., 2008). In Turkey, collective grief over the 2015 Ankara bombings (the deadliest terrorist attack in the country’s history, killing 103 people at a peace demonstration) fuelled demands for security reforms, while the 2023 earthquakes transformed shared sorrow into protests against negligent building codes and disaster preparedness, which is consistent with international examples like Black Lives Matter.

Proposition 8

Participation in collective mourning rituals sustains collective memory and strengthens long- term group identification.

Mourning practices preserve memories of “chosen traumas” (Volkan, 1997) which are losses that become central identity anchors across generations. Several cases illustrate this dynamic. The Saturday Mothers, holding weekly vigils in Istanbul since 1995, have transformed private grief into enduring political resistance, sustaining memory despite official silence. Historical traumas such as the Holocaust, the Srebrenica genocide, and the Alevi community’s commemorations of the Sivas Madımak arson (the killing of more than 30 people, most of them Alevi intellectuals, in a hotel fire in 1993 in Turkey) exemplify how ritualized mourning keeps historical losses alive, fostering intergenerational vigilance and solidarity. In contemporary conflict, the Israel-Palestine case illustrates how recent events, such as the events of October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and the destruction in Gaza, reactivate historical traumas like the Holocaust and the Nakba, cementing collective memory through ongoing mourning rituals.