Affect control theory (ACT) has the potential to extend dominant understandings of adaptation to bereavement. Using narratives from bereaved caregivers, we assessed attributions they made about the death of a loved one from cancer. We transformed these attributions into actor-behavior-object events along the evaluation, potency, and activity dimensions of ACT. After creating hypothetical baseline deflections for events, we simulated the attributions as events in INTERACT. We found eight emergent categories of resolutions that caregivers used to make sense of the death: caregivers redefined the event to align with their sentiments about the deceased or the death. We also found racial differences in the attributions. White caregivers were more likely to blame themselves or others for the death of their loved one, while black caregivers were more willing to admit their deceased loved one’s faults. These findings demonstrate how caregivers make sense of their grief in a framework of cultural sentiments and underscore the utility of affect control theory in qualitative and theory-generating research.
BonannoG. A.WortmanC. B.LehmanD. R.TweedR. G.HaringM.SonnegaJ.CarrD.NesseR. M. (2002). Resilience to loss and chronic grief: a prospective study from preloss to 18-months postloss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1150–1164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1150.
3.
BowlbyJ. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3: Loss, sadness, and depression. Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
4.
BowmanK. F.RoseJ. H.RadziewiczR. M.O’TooleE. E.BerilaR. (2009). Family caregiver engagement in a coping and communication support intervention tailored to advanced cancer patients and families. Cancer Nursing, 32(1), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NCC.0000343367.98623.83.
5.
BoyleK. M.McKinzieA. E. (2015). Resolving negative affect and restoring meaning: Responses to deflection produced by unwanted sexual experiences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 151–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272514564073.
6.
BrittL.HeiseD. R. (1992). Impressions of self-directed action. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(4), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786951.
7.
CarrD. S (2003). A “good death” for whom? Quality of spouse’s death and psychological distress among older widowed persons. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(2), 215–232. https://doi.org/10.2307/1519809.
8.
CarrD.BoernerK. (2009). Do spousal discrepancies in marital quality assessments affect psychological adjustment to widowhood?Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(3), 495–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00615.x.
9.
CharmazK. (1980). The social reality of death: Death in contemporary America. Addison-Wesley.
10.
CharmazK.MilliganM. J. (2006). Grief. In StetsJ.TurnerJ. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of emotions (pp. 517–543). Springer.
11.
ClarkC. (1997). Misery and company. University of Chicago Press.
12.
DavisC. G.Nolen-HoeksemaS. (2001). Loss and meaning: How do people make sense of loss?American Behavioral Scientist, 44(5), 726–741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764201044005003.
13.
DokaK. J. (1989). Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow. Lexington Books.
14.
ErolR. Y.OrthU. (2011). Self-esteem development from age 14 to 30 years: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024299.
15.
FrancisL. E. (1997a). Emotion, coping, and therapeutic ideologies. In FranksD.EriksonR.Cuthbertson-JohnsonB. (Eds.), The sociology of emotions: Real life applications (pp. 71–101). JAI Press.
16.
FrancisL. E. (1997b). Ideology and interpersonal emotion management: Redefining identity in two support groups. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787102.
17.
FrancisL. E.KypriotakisG.O’TooleE. E.BowmanK. F.RoseJ. H. (2015). Grief and risk of depression in context: Emotional outcomes of bereaved cancer caregivers. Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying, 70(4), 351–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222815573720.
18.
GuarnacciaC. A.HayslipB.Jr. (1998). Factor structure of the bereavement experience questionnaire: The BEQ-24, a revised shortform. Omega, 37(4), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.2190/L6HW-VGKF-KNPT-VT3F.
HollandJ. M.NeimeyerR. A. (2010). An examination of stage theory of grief among individuals bereaved by natural and violent causes: A meaning-oriented contribution. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 61(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.61.2.b.
23.
HorwitzA.WakefieldJ. (2007). The Loss of sadness. Oxford University Press.
24.
JakobyNinaR (2015). The Self and Significant Others: Toward a Sociology of Loss. Illness, Crisis & Loss, 23(1), 129–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1054137315575843.
25.
KalichD.BrabantS. (2006). A continued look at Doka’s grieving rules: Deviance and anomie as clinical tools. OMEGA-Journal of Death and Dying, 53(3), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.2190/FVTR-T8EV-3TQ6-QAJC.
26.
Kübler-RossE. (1969). On death and dying: What the dying have to teach doctors, nurses, clergy and their own families.
MaciejewskiP. K.ZhangB.BlockS. D.PrigersonH. G. (2007). An empirical examination of the stage theory of grief. Jama, 297(7), 716–723. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.297.7.716.
29.
MacKinnonN. J.HeiseD. R. (2010). Self, identity, and social institutions. Palgrave.
NeimeyerRobertAPrigersonHollyGDaviesBetty (2002). Mourning and meaning. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(1), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276402236676.
34.
NelsonS. M. (2006). Redefining a bizarre situation: Relative concept stability in affect control theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(3), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250606900301.
35.
OsgoodC. E.MayW.MironM. S. (1975). Cross-cultural universals of affective meaning. University of Illinois Press.
36.
ParkC. L. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 257–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018301.
RozalskiV.HollandJ. M.NeimeyerR. A. (2017). Circumstances of death and complicated grief: Indirect associations through meaning made of loss. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 22(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2016.1161426.
40.
SawickaM. (2017). Searching for a narrative of loss: Interactional ordering of ambiguous grief. Symbolic Interaction, 40(2), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.270.
41.
ShoffC.YangT. C. (2012). Untangling the associations among distrust, race, and neighborhood social environment: A social disorganization perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 74(9), 1342–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.012.
42.
SteamsC. Z.StearnsP. N. (1986). Anger: The struggle for emotional control in America’s history. University of Chicago Press.
43.
StroebeM.SchutH. (2010). The dual process model of coping with bereavement: A decade on. OMEGA, 61(4), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.61.4.b.
44.
StroebeM.SchutH.BoernerK. (2010). Continuing bonds in adaptation to bereavement: Toward theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.007.
WilliamsA.McCorkleR. (2011). Cancer family caregivers during the palliative, hospice, and bereavement phases: A review of the descriptive psychosocial literature. Palliative Support Care, 9(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1478951511000265.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
