Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Suicide bereavement is a uniquely challenging form of loss, yet little is known about how it is expressed in language and how it reflects the meaning-making process. Here, we leveraged naturalistic online language to capture grief expressions beyond traditional help-seeking populations, applying a validated computational text-analysis method (LIWC-22) to 713 posts from the r/SuicideBereavement subreddit and comparing them to 1149 bereavement posts in the r/GriefSupport subreddit. Compared to other bereaved individuals, suicide-loss survivors used more cognitive processing words, reflecting deeper engagement in meaning-making, and displayed distinct attentional focus, frequently revisiting the past and the deceased’s life to make sense of the loss. They also expressed greater anger and interpersonal conflict, and used language emphasizing collective and relational aspects of grief. These findings illuminate transdiagnostic processes relevant to bereavement, advancing understanding of suicide loss and suggests new avenues for monitoring and supporting survivors’ adjustment in online and community-based postvention contexts.

Keywords

suicide bereavement suicide-loss survivors reddit LIWC-22 linguistics

Introduction

Suicide bereavement affects a substantial portion of the population. Between four and six immediate family members are deeply impacted by each suicide (Berman, 2011; Chen et al., 2009), and when friends and other contacts are included, this figure may rise to as many as 60 individuals (Berman, 2011). In fact, a recent meta-analysis found that approximately 4.3% of people are exposed to suicide annually, and 21.8% during their lifetime (Andriessen, Rahman, et al., 2017). Suicide-loss survivors—individuals who have “lost a significant other or a loved one by suicide, and whose life is changed because of the loss” (Andriessen, 2009, p. 43)—are at heightened risk of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behaviors (Bolton et al., 2013; Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2005; Pitman et al., 2016). These figures underscore the urgent need for research that can inform effective postvention services.

Although some suicide-loss survivors navigate their loss by seeking formal postvention services (De Groot et al., 2006; Lindqvist et al., 2008) or informal support from friends and family, a sizeable number prefer to process their grief online, whether anonymously or not. Existing research offers insights into grief expression in both formal and informal settings, yet little is known about online expressions of suicide-loss grief. Addressing this gap is important because online expressions are likely to persist, and such expressions offer a unique, underexplored window into survivors’ coping processes and grief experiences (Leaune et al., 2022; Scourfield et al., 2020). The present study addresses this gap by examining the linguistic features of online expressions of suicide-loss grief relative to grief from other causes, integrating perspectives from clinical psychology and computational linguistics to advance understanding of bereavement processes.

Themes in Suicide Loss Grief

Themes such as abandonment, rejection, blame, shame, and stigma are recurrent in suicide-loss grief (Bell et al., 2012; Jordan & McGann, 2017). Suicide-loss survivors often view suicide as a voluntary act, leading to feelings of abandonment and rejection. This perceived intentionality complicates meaning-making, prompting survivors to question the assumptions underlying their relationship with the deceased (Jordan & McIntosh, 2011; Sands et al., 2011). Stigma and moral judgments surrounding the intentional act of suicide (Owens et al., 2008; Vandecreek & Mottram, 2009, 2011) can further shape grief, sometimes compelling survivors to conceal the mode of death and withdraw from social support networks (Cerel et al., 2008; Jordan, 2020).

Suicide-loss survivors frequently grapple with unanswered questions about why the suicide occurred (Tal Young et al., 2012). For much of the public, suicide remains a baffling cause of death (Jordan, 2020). Survivors require significant time and psychological effort to make sense of this seemingly senseless loss, form a coherent narrative, and restore meaning to their lives (Armour, 2006; Currier et al., 2009; Neimeyer, 2005). This process often involves assigning responsibility to themselves or others, leading to self-blame or anger toward the deceased or family members (Andriessen, Krysinska, & Grad, 2017; Jordan & McGann, 2017; Sugrue et al., 2013). Such anger and blaming may reflect efforts to shift focus away from oneself to deflect guilt and perceived failure (Peters et al., 2013). In some instances, suicide brings relief to survivors from the disruption and problems associated with the life of the deceased. Ironically, this relief also contributes to feelings of guilt (Jordan, 2001).

Existing literature on the expression of suicide bereavement has largely relied on case reports, interviews, and self-report questionnaires, with samples often limited to help-seeking individuals and first-degree relatives such as spouses (De Groot et al., 2006), parents (Wilcox et al., 2015), children (Brent et al., 2009), and siblings (Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2005). Such samples often overlook suicide-loss survivors who do not engage with formal services due to costs, stigma associated with suicide, or distrust of mental health professionals (Moore et al., 2013; Toller, 2011). With the exception of a few studies (e.g., Pitman et al., 2016; Tal Young et al., 2017), other relationships, such as friendships, have also typically not been represented. These limitations constrain representativeness and obscure the diversity of bereavement experiences.

Online Expressions of Suicide-loss Grief

Studying online expressions of suicide loss may provide a unique window into the worldview of suicide-loss survivors as social presentation concerns are diminished. Due to perceived or actual stigma about suicide (Peters et al., 2016; Sanford et al., 2016), when interviewed by researchers or mental health professionals, suicide-loss survivors may be motivated to withhold disclosure of details surrounding the death, or to disclose these details in a more positive manner than they genuinely feel (Peters et al., 2013; Trimble et al., 2012). Writing, however, allows bereaved individuals to introspect on inner thoughts and feelings and organize their experiences in a coherent manner (Pennebaker et al., 1997). When such writing is done online in a way that is not directed towards any particular person (“undirected”), not constrained to self-presentation concerns because users can post anonymously behind pseudonyms (“unfiltered”), and are spontaneous (“unguided”), it has the potential to reflect profoundly authentic experiences. Thus, linguistic analysis of online grief offers a naturalistic and unobtrusive window into survivors’ cognitive, emotional, and social processing (Pennebaker et al., 2003; Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010).

Such online writing has taken two major forms. Online memorials have emerged as a prominent avenue for suicide-loss survivors to express their grief. These memorials are purposively set up and cannot be anonymous. Using a linguistic word count approach (Pennebaker et al., 2003), Lester (2012) analysed 34 memorial posts and found that suicide-loss survivors made fewer references to the self (first person singular pronouns, e.g., I) and to the deceased (second person pronouns, e.g., you) than other bereaved individuals. There were also more words depicting anger and sadness, indicating greater emotional distress. In another study, Scourfield et al. (2020) compared words used in public Facebook memorials for 52 suicides and road traffic accident deaths. Unlike Lester (2012), they did not find any significant differences in the use of first-person singular pronouns. However, Scourfield et al. (2020) found that suicide memorial posts had more cognitive processing words, non-fluencies (e.g., oh, um) and question marks, suggesting that suicide-loss survivors experienced greater difficulties making sense of their loss. At this point, it is worth noting that both studies had small sample sizes of posts mostly written by the deceased’s first-degree relatives, which limited the range of experiences that were captured. Moreover, the posts were not anonymous, thus suicide-loss survivors who choose to post on these sites despite the lack of anonymity may be a self-selected sample who are more open to discussing suicide.

In parallel with this work, researchers in recent years have increasingly employed machine learning-aided analyses of social media data to study grief, trauma, and mental health at scale (Doyle et al., 2024; Guntuku et al., 2017; Low et al., 2020). While such approaches have advanced large-scale identification of linguistic patterns, narrative forms, and indicators associated with psychological distress and adaptation, they often offer limited insight into the specific psychological processes through which individuals adapt to loss. In contrast, theory-driven linguistic tools such as LIWC provide interpretable, psychologically grounded categories that map directly onto constructs central to bereavement research, including meaning-making, emotional processing, and social orientation (Boyd et al., 2022). Given that meaning reconstruction is widely regarded as a core process in suicide bereavement (Neimeyer, 2005; Sands et al., 2011), an interpretable linguistic approach is particularly well suited to examining how suicide-loss survivors make sense of their loss in naturalistic online contexts.

The Present Research

Building on prior work on online grief expression and recent computational approaches to studying bereavement, we examined Reddit as a novel data source for studying suicide bereavement. Reddit forums (“subreddits”) provide undirected, anonymous, and unguided posts, minimizing self-presentation concerns and offering spontaneous expressions of grief (Chung & Pennebaker, 2007). This methodological innovation allows for unprecedented access to diverse and naturalistic grief expressions that extend beyond traditional samples.

Our study addressed two core questions: (1) Are there distinctive linguistic features in suicide bereavement posts compared with non-suicide bereavement posts? (2) What do these features reveal about the uniqueness of suicide bereavement? Addressing these questions integrates clinical psychology with computational linguistics, offering insights into the core mechanisms of grief and potential targets for intervention. Beyond theoretical importance, identifying the linguistic markers of meaning-making and emotional adaptation may inform community-based postvention. Online forums represent accessible, peer-led spaces where bereaved individuals express their grief openly, offering an opportunity to understand and support adaptive coping at scale.

We analysed posts on two subreddits, one where users experienced suicide bereavement (r/Suicidebereavement) and one where users experienced bereavement following other deaths (r/GriefSupport). We focused on four linguistic categories: function, cognitive processing, emotion, and social processing words. For function words, we focused on pronouns as they have been well documented in the literature to reflect one’s subject of attention (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). For example, extensive research has demonstrated that greater use of first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, me, my) reflects greater self-focus (Brockmeyer et al., 2015; Chung & Pennebaker, 2007) and an attempt to look inward and make sense of one’s internal thoughts and feelings, in order to gain closure or emotional relief (Pennebaker et al., 1997; Wilson & Gilbert, 2008). As suicide-loss survivors are at higher risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms (Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2005), which are associated with greater self-focus (Brockmeyer et al., 2015; Pennebaker et al., 1997 Wilson & Gilbert, 2008), we hypothesized that they would use more first-person singular pronouns. In addition, we expected that suicide-loss survivors would use fewer first-person plural pronouns (e.g., we, our) than other bereaved individuals because of the stigma associated with suicide, which often leads suicide-loss survivors to be isolated from existing social support systems (Cerel et al., 2008; Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2008; Jordan, 2020). We also hypothesized that suicide bereavement posts would have a greater focus on the past, and less focus on the present and future, as there is a greater need to process past events leading up to the suicide, and the suicide itself.

We also focused on content words that indicate cognitive processing (e.g., know, think, because) because they are associated with an active attempt to make sense of a stressful event (Klein & Boals, 2010), which is a key aspect of the coping process (Park & Ai, 2006). Multiple studies have demonstrated that cognitive processing words are used more frequently when describing negative, stressful or traumatic events, such as the death of a loved one (Pennebaker et al., 1997), the ending of a romantic relationship (Boals & Klein, 2005) and a physical or sexual assault (Kleim et al., 2018), because the writer is in the midst of making sense of the event so as to eventually produce a coherent narrative (Boyd et al., 2020). Because suicide-loss survivors have a stronger need to make sense of the suicide (Andriessen et al., 2017; Neimeyer, 2005), we also expected a greater percentage of overall cognitive processing words in the suicide bereavement posts, and that they would use more causation (e.g., because, why) and insight (e.g., realise, know) words, as found in previous research (e.g., Pennebaker et al., 1997; Rivkin et al., 2006).

In addition, consistent with prior research showing elevated depressive symptoms, anxiety, and anger in suicide-loss survivors (Bell et al., 2012; Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2005; Kaltman & Bonanno, 2003), we further predicted that suicide-loss survivors would use more sadness, anger, and anxiety words than other bereaved individuals. Lastly, because there are often strong moral judgments surrounding the act of suicide (Owens et al., 2008), we predicted that suicide bereavement posts would have more moralization words (e.g., right, wrong, judge) than non-suicide bereavement posts. We also predicted that suicide-loss survivors would use more words related to interpersonal conflict (e.g., argue, fight, accuse) and fewer words related to communication (e.g., say, tell).

Method

Design

This study used a quantitative analysis of text drawn from the social media platform Reddit, which allows anonymous, spontaneous, and undirected self-expression, providing an ecologically valid source of language relevant to understanding grief processes. This approach aligns with contemporary calls in clinical psychological science to integrate computational linguistics and digital data sources to better understand mental health phenomena (Boyd et al., 2022). Professional norms on data mining were also followed (Landers et al., 2016).

Demographic Characteristics

Our analysis treats the Reddit post as the unit of observation, meaning we are analyzing human-generated content rather than human participants. Although Reddit’s overall demographics indicate that users are predominantly American (47.89%), male (63.8%), and young (36% aged 18–29 years, 14% aged 30–49 years) (Statista, 2023), demographic data for each subreddit are not available. Hence, we have no demographic data on the content creators, specifically lacking information on their racial/ethnic identity, cultural background, sex, gender, or socioeconomic status (e.g., income and education).

Procedure

Data Acquisition

Data were obtained from the subreddits r/SuicideBereavement (https://www.reddit.com/r/SuicideBereavement/), a specific community for individuals who have lost someone to suicide., and r/GriefSupport (https://www.reddit.com/r/GriefSupport/), a generic community for individuals dealing with loss or bereavement of any kind.

Sample Size Determination

We aimed to extract the 2,000 most recent posts from each subreddit, counting backwards from the project’s end date. This sample size was determined by practical constraints, including the project timeline (6 months) and the technical limit of the Reddit ExtractoR package (Rivera, 2023), which permits a maximum of 1,000 posts per extraction. To meet this target, extractions were conducted at two time points. In total, 2,000 posts were retrieved from each subreddit, covering the period from January 13, 2023, to June 21, 2023.

Data Pre-processing

A total of 225 users (post authors) had submitted more than one post (r/SuicideBereavement: k = 195; r/GriefSupport: k = 30). Because multiple posts from the same user would violate the assumption of independent observations and potentially bias comparisons between subreddits, only the first post per user was retained for analysis. Posts containing fewer than 25 words were also excluded to reduce noise and potential bias (Ashokkumar & Pennebaker, 2022). In addition, non-English posts and those authored by moderators or bots were removed.

To ensure independence between groups, posts from users who posted in both subreddits were excluded. For r/GriefSupport, additional filtering removed posts that mentioned suicide-related terms (e.g., “suicid*,” “hang*,” “overdose,” “took/taken his/her own life,” “kill* himself/herself”). Posts describing losses other than death (e.g., relationship break-ups, anticipated death, or pet loss) were also excluded. After filtering, 713 posts from r/SuicideBereavement and 1,423 posts from r/GriefSupport remained. A random sample of 10% of the filtered posts was manually checked to verify the effectiveness of the filtering process. Subsequently, abbreviations, acronyms, and internet colloquialisms (e.g., “idk” → “I don’t know”, “bc” → “because”) were converted into standard words detectable by the LIWC-22 dictionaries. Using a text-mining package (Feinerer & Hornik, 2023), hyperlinks, extra white spaces, and meaningless character strings commonly found in internet-extracted data (e.g., “&”, “&#x200B;”, “<3”) were removed.

Text Analysis

Text analysis was conducted using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count 2022 (LIWC-22; Boyd et al., 2022), a widely validated tool for quantifying psychological and linguistic processes in natural language. LIWC-22 categorises words into function and content categories, including cognitive, emotional, and social processes. For each category, LIWC-22 calculates the percentage of words in a text that match that category.

The LIWC-22 dictionaries have been validated across diverse contexts, including blogs, spoken language, social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Reddit), novels, and student writing (Boyd et al., 2022). Internal consistency for the dictionaries used in the current study ranged from 0.69 (third-person plural pronouns) to 0.99 (cognitive processes), as assessed by the Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20; see Table 2 in Boyd et al., 2022, pp. 11–12).

Results

This study’s analysis plan were pre-registered on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/25fy7/). We clearly labelled cases where our findings did not conform to our a priori hypotheses; we did not engage in the practice of “Hypothesizing After the Results are Known” (i.e., HARKing) nor p-hacking.

Analyses were conducted on 713 posts from r/SuicideBereavement and 1,149 posts from r/GriefSupport. There were no missing values for the linguistic variables. As Reddit posts are anonymous, demographic information about authors was unavailable.

Multiple two-tailed independent-samples t-tests were conducted to examine group differences across 22 linguistic categories reflecting attentional focus, cognitive processes, emotional expression, and social processes. Holm–Bonferroni corrections were applied to control for multiple comparisons (Gaetano, 2013; Holm, 1979). Results are summarised in Tables 1 and 2. Where illustrative, qualitative excerpts are presented to complement quantitative findings, although these were not subjected to formal mixed-methods analysis.

Table 1.

Independent Samples t-test Results for Attentional Focus

LIWC-22 category	Examples	M (SD)		t	df	p	p’^a	Cohen’s d [95% CI]
LIWC-22 category	Examples	Suicide bereavement (n = 713)	Non suicide bereavement (n = 1149)	t	df	p	p’^a	Cohen’s d [95% CI]
Attentional focus
Subject of attention (Pronoun use)
First-person singular	I, me, my, myself	9.53 (3.31)	10.29 (4.08)	−5.37	1860	<.001	<.022*	−.26 [−.35, −.16]
First-person plural	we, our, us, lets	.89 (1.18)	.70 (1.07)	3.40	1399.08	<.001	<.022*	.17 [.072, .26]
Second person	you, your, u, yourself	1.75 (2.96)	.96 (2.17)	6.16	1184.50	<.001	<.022*	.32 [.22, .41]
Third-person singular	she, he, her, his	3.93 (3.32)	3.61 (2.98)	2.08	1384.77	.033	.20	.10 [.008, .20]
Third-person plural	they, their, them, themsel*	.67 (1.31)	.62 (1.11)	1.06	1331.90	.28	1.00	.052 [−.041, .15]
Temporal focus of attention (Verb tense)
Past focus	was, had, were, been	7.42 (3.30)	6.90 (3.30)	3.31	1860	<.001	<.022*	.16 [.064, .25]
Present focus	is, are, I’m, can	5.30 (2.86)	5.75 (2.98)	−3.19	1860	.001	.022*	−.15 [−.25, −.058]
Future focus	will, going to, have to, may	1.53 (1.57)	1.54 (1.63)	−.12	1860	.91	1.00	−.006 [−.099, .088]

^aHolm-Bonferroni corrected p-value.

*Holm-Bonferroni corrected p-value (p’) < .05.

Table 2.

Independent Samples t-test Results for Cognitive Processes, Emotions and Social Processes

LIWC-22 category	Examples	Mean (SD)		t	df	p	p’^a	Cohen’s d [95% CI]
LIWC-22 category	Examples	Suicide bereavement (n = 713)	Non suicide bereavement (n = 1149)
Cognitive processing
Overall cognitive processing	but, not, if, or, know	14.04 (4.37)	12.81 (4.31)	5.95	1860	<.001	<.022*	.28 [.19, .38]
Insight	know, how, think, feel	4.04 (2.14)	3.49 (1.97)	5.73	1860	<.001	<.022*	.27 [.18, .37]
Causation	how, because, make, why	1.73 (1.22)	1.54 (1.21)	3.21	1860	.001	.022*	.15 [.060, .25]
Discrepancy	would, can, want, could	2.45 (1.61)	2.27 (1.65)	2.30	1860	.022	.15	.11 [.016, .20]
Tentative	if, or, any, something	2.55 (1.96)	2.36 (1.93)	2.03	1860	.042	.21	.097 [.003, .19]
Certitude	really, actually, of course, real	.65 (.85)	.63 (.89)	.64	1860	.52	1.00	.031 [-.063, .12]
Differentiation	but, not, if, or	3.97 (1.95)	3.72 (1.94)	2.66	1860	.008	.064	.13 [.033, .22]
Emotions
Anxiety	worry, fear, afraid, nervous	.25 (.56)	.24 (.52)	.58	1860	.56	1.00	.028 [-.066, .12]
Anger	Hate, mad, angry, frustr*	.27 (.62)	.19 (.51)	3.00	1302.9	.002	.022*	.15 [.056, .24]
Sadness	:(, sad, disappoint*, cry	.65 (.90)	.82 (1.03)	−3.88	1649.9	<.001	<.022*	−.18 [-.27, −.086]
Swear words	shit, fuckin*, fuck, damn	.22 (.73)	.13 (.46)	2.84	1065.7	.005	.045*	.15 [.056, .24]
Social processes
Communication	said, say, tell, thank*	1.88 (1.55)	1.55 (1.44)	4.75	1860	<.001	<.022*	.23 [.13, .32]
Interpersonal conflict	argue, fight, kill, attack	.28 (.67)	.17 (.38)	4.24	1002.1	<.001	<.022*	.23 [.13, .32]
Moralization	wrong, honor, deserv, judge,	.28 (.62)	.18 (.42)	3.69	1113.8	<.001	<.022*	.19 [.098, .29]

^aHolm-Bonferroni corrected p-value.

*Holm-Bonferroni corrected p-value (p’) < .05

Attentional Focus: Subject of Attention

Pronoun use provides insight into attentional focus (Tausczik & Pennebaker, 2010). Comparisons of pronoun use between the two groups are summarised in Figure 1. Contrary to our hypothesis, suicide bereavement posts contained fewer first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, me) than non-suicide bereavement posts, suggesting less self-focus among suicide-loss survivors. An example from r/GriefSupport illustrates the high use of first-person singular pronouns (yellow highlights), reflecting an emphasis on the self and individual grief experience:

Since I lost my son my life has gone downhill I’m struggling with everything I’m working myself to death just trying to feed my daughter and I can barely do that. I’ve asked for help but I don’t expect it honestly. I just want my life back that I had before he was gone I want to give up

(Amnesia_Addams. 19-06-2023)

Figure 1.

Between-group comparisons for subject of attention (Pronoun Use)

In contrast, suicide-loss survivors used more second-person pronouns (e.g., you, your), reflecting direct address to the deceased and an increased attentional focus on them. An illustrative example from r/SuicideBereavement with a high percentage of second-person pronouns (yellow highlights) is shown below:

My baby brother. You had your whole life ahead of you. Your 26 years on this earth were not enough to see how drastically things can change. You were slowly getting on the right path. You were so loved. If you'd have stayed longer I'm sure you would have seen the results of your work.

(Marielllaaa, 20-01-2023)

Contrary to our hypothesis, suicide-loss survivors used more first-person plural pronouns (e.g., we, our) than other bereaved individuals. These pronouns were often used to express a shared grief experience within the subreddit community or to interpret the relationship with the deceased, as illustrated below:

We were all thrown the most terrible wrench in the vision we had for our life. And yet we’re here day in and day out finding our way and supporting each other as we learn how to cope adapt and grow.

(Zestyclose_Pack_3517, 27-04-2023)

First-person plural pronouns (e.g., we, our) were also used by suicide-loss survivors to refer to their relationship with the deceased and to express interpretations of the suicide as an intentional act (“he decided”) directed toward themselves (“he did that to me”):

We were together 18 years. He shot himself in the head on April 26/21 at 1150 pm. I know the exact time because he did it in front of me. We weren’t fighting. We had money in the bank and successful careers. No mortgage. We sold real estate together. On paper we were golden. Until we weren’t. His depression screamed louder in his ear than me. And just like that he was gone. Moments after telling me he would never do that to me, he did that to me. Two weeks after his 51^st birthday he decided I’m better off his widow. He would rather shoot himself in the head than spend another day here with me. And I’m just supposed to be ok with that.

(lindabrum, 19-04-2023)

Another post highlighted how suicide prompted the author to question assumptions about their relationship:

My significant other killed themselves and I didn’t even know they were struggling so bad. Is there any other conclusion on this that our relationship was not working out. I loved them so much and we had our problems which I thought everyone has some issues. I felt that we had good communication and we talked about many issues and improved. I knew they had challenges but I never understood the magnitude before it was too late. I thought we had amazing relationship together and there was much love but this end of it makes me question everything we had.

(muhku666, 13-06-2023)

Lastly, there were no significant differences between groups in the percentage of third-person singular (e.g., he, she) or third-person plural pronouns (e.g., they, them).

Attentional Focus: Temporal focus of Attention

As shown in Figure 2, consistent with our hypothesis, suicide bereavement posts contained significantly more past-tense verbs (e.g., “he lied, stole, and ruined me”) and fewer present-tense verbs (e.g., “I am glad she is resting now”) than non-suicide bereavement posts. This suggests that authors of suicide bereavement posts focused more on the past and less on the present. Contrary to our hypothesis, there were no significant differences between groups in the use of future-tense verbs, indicating similar levels of future orientation in both suicide and non-suicide bereavement posts.

Figure 2.

Between-group comparisons for temporal focus of attention (Verb tense)

Cognitive Processing

Consistent with our hypothesis, suicide bereavement posts contained a significantly higher percentage of words indicative of overall cognitive processing (e.g., know, understand) compared to non-suicide bereavement posts. This difference was particularly pronounced in two subcategories: insight words (e.g., realise, know) and causation words (e.g., because, why). The results for these subcategories are summarised in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Between-group comparisons for Sub-categories of cognitive processing words

Emotions

Suicide-loss survivors expressed significantly more anger but fewer sadness-related words compared to individuals bereaved by other causes (see Figure 4). They also used more swear words. No significant differences were found between groups in expressions of anxiety. A closer examination of the data (non-preregistered analysis) revealed that the difference in sadness was mediated by first-person pronoun usage (ab = .028, 95% CI = .014 to .047). Specifically, suicide-loss survivors used fewer first-person singular pronouns (a = .855, p < .001), which in turn predicted fewer sadness-related words (b = .033, p < .001). However, differences in anger were not explained by the use of first-person singular, first-person plural, or second-person pronouns (all 95% CIs of indirect effects included zero).

Figure 4.

Between-group comparisons for Emotions

Social Processes

Suicide bereavement posts contained a significantly higher percentage of moralization words (e.g., wrong, judge), conflict words (e.g., argue, fight), and communication words (e.g., say, tell) compared to non-suicide bereavement posts. Many posts with high conflict scores concerned familial conflict following the suicide (“It just sucks how much collateral damage comes with this… family dynamics split, tension, anger, resentment, secrets.”), suggesting that suicide bereavement may involve heightened moral and interpersonal tensions that contribute to its unique grief profile.

Discussion

This study examined linguistic markers of grief in suicide- and non-suicide bereavement within large-scale, naturalistic Reddit posts, offering a rare window into spontaneous, unfiltered grief expression free from the self-presentation biases of traditional grief research. Consistent with our hypotheses, suicide-loss survivors used significantly more cognitive processing words, particularly causation (e.g., because, why) and insight words (e.g., realise, know), reflecting intensified meaning-making efforts (Boals et al., 2011; Neimeyer, 2005). This aligns with prior evidence that suicide-loss survivors strive to answer the question “why” a suicide occurred (Andriessen et al., 2017; Kaslow et al., 2011; Pitman et al., 2017) and underscores meaning-making as a core component of suicide bereavement.

The attentional focus findings offer further insight into the meaning-making process in suicide bereavement. Contrary to our hypothesis, suicide-loss survivors displayed less self-focus, using fewer first-person singular pronouns (e.g., I, me) than other bereaved individuals. This contrasts with prior research suggesting higher self-focus among suicide-loss survivors due to their elevated risk for post-traumatic stress and depressive symptoms (Brockmeyer et al., 2015; Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2005; Wilson & Gilbert, 2008), but aligns with Lester (2012), who observed reduced self-focus in online memorial writing. Instead, suicide-loss survivors showed greater focus on the deceased, as indicated by increased use of second-person pronouns (e.g., you). This pattern may reflect an effort to “walk in the shoes” of the deceased — to understand their pain, mental state, and the circumstances leading to suicide (Sands, 2009, p. 1). In doing so, survivors may have been shifting attention away from themselves toward the deceased, which may explain why suicide-loss survivors used fewer first-person singular pronouns (reflecting less self-focus) and more second-person pronouns (reflecting greater focus on the deceased).

Second, the increased use of second-person pronouns (e.g., you) among suicide-loss survivors may reflect their effort to make sense of what the suicide signifies about their relationship with the deceased and to express emotions such as anger toward them (Sands, 2009). Previous studies have shown that people use online platforms to communicate with deceased loved ones as a means of reflecting on the relationship and processing the loss (De Groot, 2012; Williams & Merten, 2009). Given the perceived intentionality of suicide, survivors often interpret it as an interpersonal message from the deceased about their relationship (Jordan & McGann, 2017), which can challenge their assumptions about that relationship. Thus, suicide-loss survivors may feel a greater need to address the deceased directly as part of making sense of the death and reaffirming continuing bonds — an essential component of bereavement (Goodall et al., 2022; Hunt et al., 2019; Klass et al., 1996).

Third, contrary to our hypothesis, suicide-loss survivors used a greater proportion of first-person plural pronouns (e.g., we, our) than other bereaved individuals, reflecting a stronger focus on their collective selves. Many survivors framed their grief as a shared experience within the subreddit community, suggesting that despite potential isolation from existing support networks due to the stigma surrounding suicide (Cerel et al., 2008; Dyregrov & Dyregrov, 2008; Jordan, 2020), they may find connection through groups who share similar losses. This sense of collective grieving can facilitate the meaning-making process by providing survivors with opportunities to share their narratives and gain insight from others’ perspectives (Neimeyer et al., 2014; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004; Wolchik et al., 2009).

Fourth, consistent with our hypothesis, suicide-loss survivors exhibited a stronger focus on the past and a reduced focus on the present. This finding aligns with prior research (e.g., Andriessen et al., 2017; Jordan et al., 2011; Pitman et al., 2017) and suggests that revisiting the past may be a key mechanism through which survivors attempt to make sense of the suicide (Hogan et al., 1996). Contrary to our expectations, there was no significant difference in future focus between the groups, indicating that, regardless of the type of loss, envisioning a future without the deceased remains a considerable challenge for the bereaved (Bryant et al., 2014; Robinaugh & McNally, 2013).

Emotions

The finding that suicide-loss survivors expressed more anger than other bereaved individuals aligns with previous research showing heightened anger toward themselves, others, and even the deceased (Jordan & McGann, 2017; Peters et al., 2013; Ross et al., 2021). Interestingly, this difference was not mediated by the use of first-person pronouns (e.g., “I”) or third-person pronouns (e.g., “she”). Although it is possible that some writers referred to the deceased by name (e.g., “Mary”), which LIWC does not classify as self- or other-focused language, such cases were rare.

Contrary to our hypothesis, suicide-loss survivors used fewer sadness-related words than other bereaved individuals. This difference was mediated by their lower use of first-person pronouns, supporting the notion that sadness is a self-focused emotion (Mor & Winquist, 2002). However, if sadness word usage predicts depression (Rude et al., 2004), it remains unclear why suicide-loss survivors use fewer sadness words despite being at higher risk of developing depression (Brent et al., 2009; De Groot & Kollen, 2013).

Finally, anxiety—typically linked to future-oriented thoughts—did not differ significantly between groups in either anxiety-related words or future-focused expressions. Words such as “worry,” “fear,” and “afraid” often signal a future time perspective, and prior research has found a relationship between a negative future orientation and worry (Åström et al., 2019). Given the lack of difference in future focus, it is unsurprising that expressions of anxiety were also similar across groups.

Social Processes

In line with our hypothesis, suicide bereavement posts contained a significantly higher percentage of moralization words (e.g., “wrong,” “judge”) than non-suicide bereavement posts, consistent with research showing strong moral judgments surrounding suicide (Owens et al., 2008). Suicide-loss survivors also used more words pertaining to interpersonal conflict and difficulties (e.g., argue, fight) than other bereaved individuals. This is consistent with previous research demonstrating increased conflicts about who is responsible for the suicide, and also due to conflicting grieving styles (Kaslow et al., 2011; Parrish & Tunkle, 2005).

Contrary to our hypothesis, there were more communication-related words (e.g., say, tell) in suicide bereavement posts than non-suicide bereavement posts. This appears to contradict previous research demonstrating that suicide-loss survivors tend to experience more isolation from their social support systems (Cerel et al., 2008; Jordan & McGann, 2017; Kaslow et al., 2011). Closer examination of the suicide bereavement posts revealed that many suicide-loss survivors were not referring to communication in the present, but to their communication with the deceased in the past (e.g., “she’d confided in me during our video chats”, “we spoke about that stuff”). Once again, this may be part of suicide-loss survivors’ attempts to make sense of their relationship and communication with the deceased.

Implications for Theory and Practice

Our study yielded a combination of findings that both supported and contradicted our hypotheses. The results that aligned with our predictions reinforce the robustness of existing knowledge, demonstrating that these patterns can be replicated in a novel medium of expression. Conversely, the unexpected findings are particularly valuable, as they highlight potential misunderstandings or gaps in current theoretical and clinical perspectives on the suicide-loss process.

These findings carry important implications for clinical practice and for supporting suicide-loss survivors in their bereavement journeys. Meaning-making is central to adapting after suicide loss, with extensive research demonstrating it to be a strong predictor of both wellbeing (Coleman & Neimeyer, 2010) and post-traumatic growth (Smith et al., 2011). Clinicians should therefore be well equipped with appropriate assessments and interventions to facilitate this process. Moreover, as language is a core medium through which meaning-making occurs, the present study’s focus on linguistic expression offers particular relevance for informing how clinicians might support survivors in constructing meaning from their loss.

Our findings further suggest ways in which clinicians can support suicide-loss survivors in the meaning-making process. First, because suicide-loss survivors tend to focus less on themselves and more on the deceased, interventions might accordingly encourage survivors to tell their story by sharing their experiences and working through their relationship with the deceased. In these narratives, it is important to acknowledge the act of suicide without allowing it to define the entirety of the deceased’s life (Dransart, 2013). Through this balanced approach, survivors can gradually integrate the loss and construct meaning from it (Pritchard & Buckle, 2018).

Second, because suicide-loss survivors were more likely to use first-person plural pronouns, clinicians may find it helpful to assess the extent to which survivors experience their grief as shared with others. In treatment, this could involve fostering a sense of community and strengthening social support, while also gently guiding survivors toward processing their individual experiences of grief—an aspect they may find more difficult to access.

Third, suicide-loss survivors showed greater expressions of anger and interpersonal conflict in their posts. Clinicians can support survivors in processing these emotions by creating a safe, nonjudgmental space and introducing interventions that facilitate continuing bonds with the deceased. Approaches such as grief letters (Larsen, 2022) and empty-chair work (Kellogg, 2014; Neimeyer, 2021) allow survivors to communicate directly with the deceased —a tendency reflected in their frequent use of second-person pronouns (e.g., you) (Sands, 2009). These practices not only help survivors express unresolved emotions but also provide opportunities for meaning-making. In addition, clinicians can offer psychoeducation about the nature of suicidal thoughts and behaviors—for example, that their loved one may have sought to end psychological pain rather than relationships—helping survivors reframe the loss in a less self-blaming or conflict-laden light (Berardelli et al., 2020; Jordan & McGann, 2017).

Finally, the finding that suicide-loss survivors place greater focus on the past and the deceased suggests that clinicians should attend to suicide-loss survivors’ attentional focus at different stages of treatment. It may be necessary for suicide-loss survivors to first work through the past and their loss before shifting attention toward the present and future. Indeed, our findings suggest that suicide-loss survivors often “walk in the shoes” of the deceased as a way of making sense of their loss. Once they feel they have “walked” sufficiently in those shoes, they may be more ready to “take them off” (Sands, 2009; Sands et al., 2011) and reorient their focus toward themselves. At this stage, clinicians can gently guide survivors to reconnect with their own personal experiences, enabling them to access the pain and emotions inherent in grief (Worden, 2018). As our findings also indicate that such personal experiences may be more difficult to access, it may be clinically meaningful for clinicians to support suicide-loss survivors through this process with sensitivity and patience.

More broadly, the results of this study suggest that social media sites such as r/SuicideBereavement hold promise as valuable resources for suicide-loss survivors on their bereavement journey. These forums provide platforms for survivors to share their grief and receive mutual support, reducing isolation and facilitating meaning-making (Bell et al., 2012; Feigelman et al., 2008; Hoy, 2016; Neimeyer et al., 2014). It is therefore important for clinicians to be aware of such supportive platforms so they can guide survivors toward appropriate resources (Falconer et al., 2011; Jordan, 2020). For survivors who face psychological or physical barriers to accessing professional services, these online resources can serve as an important alternative (Andriessen et al., 2019). The benefits of these forums may be enhanced through facilitation or moderation by clinicians (Bailey et al., 2017) to mitigate potential risks such as unstructured or negative interactions (Chapple & Ziebland, 2011; Kramer et al., 2015). While these findings highlight the value of human-driven forums like Reddit, the growing use of generative AI platforms for grief support (Yang & Khanna, 2025) presents both opportunities and risks, underscoring the need for future research on how survivors navigate these evolving forms of support.

Beyond their value for survivors and clinicians, online bereavement forums also constitute an important resource for researchers studying suicide loss. Although computational analyses of social media have increasingly been used to examine suicide risk, ideation, and trajectories (see Abdulsalam & Alhothali, 2024, for a review), comparatively little work has focused on the experiences of suicide-loss survivors. Naturalistic platforms such as Reddit offer unique opportunities to study bereavement processes at scale, particularly when combined with interpretable, theory-driven linguistic approaches.

Taken together, these findings underline the importance of tailored, language-sensitive approaches to supporting suicide-loss survivors. They highlight the need for clinicians to attend not only to the content of survivors’ narratives but also to the linguistic patterns through which grief and meaning-making are expressed, thereby offering pathways for more nuanced and effective support.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the word-count strategy employed (LIWC-22) was unable to capture subtleties such as irony, metaphor, and other nuanced forms of communication (Pennebaker & Francis, 1996). Nevertheless, this approach offers the undeniable advantage of enabling reliable and efficient analysis, less prone to human biases and errors (Lester, 2012), and is the most practical method for processing vast volumes of text—often numbering in the thousands or even billions of utterances (e.g., Ashokkumar & Pennebaker, 2021; Massell et al., 2022).

Another limitation is the absence of demographic information for post authors, including racial/ethnic identification, cultural or geographic background, sex/gender, and socioeconomic indicators such as income and education. Thus, we could not examine how factors such as age, nationality, gender, culture, time since death and perceived closeness to deceased may influence the experience and expression of suicide bereavement. As these factors have been shown to affect the bereavement process following a loss (Doka & Martin, 2010; Lobb et al., 2010; McGill et al., 2023), future research should examine them in the context of suicide loss. Indeed, to deliver effective postvention services, clinicians and researchers need to have a good understanding of the bereavement process and needs of suicide-loss survivors as a group, while also considering the individual differences between suicide-loss survivors (Andriessen & Krysinska, 2012).

Finally, this study focused on the negative emotion categories of anger, sadness, and anxiety because these were the categories available in LIWC-22. We were unable to examine other emotions commonly associated with suicide bereavement, such as guilt, shame, and regret (Jordan, 2001; Stroebe et al., 2014), nor did we investigate positive emotions that are part of the bereavement experience (Bonanno & Kaltman, 2001; Wortman & Boerner, 2011). Suicide-loss survivors’ meaning-making processes may involve post-traumatic growth (Drapeau et al., 2019; Moore et al., 2015), encompassing a renewed outlook on life, greater resilience in the face of stress, and increased pro-social emotions such as compassion and hope (Jordan, 2020; Jordan & McGann, 2017). Future research should explore how clinicians can harness these positive and pro-social emotions to foster post-traumatic growth and healing in suicide-loss survivors. Addressing these limitations in future research will strengthen the evidence base and enhance the development of targeted, language-sensitive interventions, providing clearer guidance for clinicians working with suicide-loss survivors.

Finally, as this study focused on human-driven online forums such as Reddit, it does not address the emerging use of generative AI for grief support (Yang & Khanna, 2025). Given concerns that AI may both expand access and pose risks (e.g., inadvertently encouraging harmful behaviours), future work should examine how survivors engage with AI-mediated support in relation to peer-driven platforms.

Conclusion

In sum, by combining computational linguistic analysis with theoretical and clinical perspectives, this study offers new insights into the language, attentional focus, and emotional expression of suicide-loss survivors, highlighting how their bereavement journey differs from other types of loss. Suicide-loss survivors used more cognitive processing words, reflecting greater engagement in the meaning-making process. Their grief reflects heightened meaning-making, relational focus, moral processing, and collective identity, emphasising the value of tailored, language-sensitive interventions. These findings offer important theoretical and clinical insights, pointing toward richer, more nuanced support for suicide-loss survivors both within therapy and in online communities. While every grief journey is unique, these findings offer important guidance for clinicians seeking to support suicide-loss survivors with sensitivity, depth, and understanding.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Kai Qin Chan

Ethical Considerations

This research was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of James Cook University, approval number H9078.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

Data is available at

Author Biographies

Grace Ooi graduated from James Cook University Singapore with a Master of Psychology (Clinical). She is currently practising as a registered clinical psychologist in a public hospital in Singapore. Her research interests include trauma, grief, and their underlying emotional processes.

Kai Qin Chan is a social psychologist who specializes in emotions.

Avantika Bhatia is the Head of Programme for the MSc in Integrative Psychotherapy programme at Metanoia Institute in London, UK. She holds a Doctorate in Counseling Psychology from the University of Maryland. Her research since has focussed on psychotherapy process and outcome, maternal mental health, youth mental health and women's career development. She is also a practicing psychotherapist.

References

Abdulsalam

Alhothali

(2024). Suicidal ideation detection on social media: A review of machine learning methods. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 14(1), 188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-024-01348-0

Andriessen

(2009). Can postvention be prevention? Crisis, 30(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910.30.1.43

Andriessen

Krysinska

(2012). Essential questions on suicide bereavement and postvention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9010024

Andriessen

Krysinska

Grad

O. T.

(2017). Current understandings of suicide bereavement. In Andriessen

Krysinska

Grad

O. T.

(Eds.), Postvention in action: The international handbook of suicide bereavement support (pp. 3–16). Hogrefe Publishing.

Andriessen

Krysinska

Hill

N. T.

Reifels

Robinson

Reavley

Pirkis

(2019). Effectiveness of interventions for people bereaved through suicide: A systematic review of controlled studies of grief, psychosocial and suicide-related outcomes. BMC Psychiatry, 19(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2020-z

Andriessen

Rahman

Draper

Dudley

Mitchell

P. B.

(2017). Prevalence of exposure to suicide: A meta-analysis of population-based studies. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 88, 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2017.01.017

Armour

M. P.

(2006). Meaning making for survivors of violent death. In Rynearson

E. K.

(Ed.), Violent death: Resilience and intervention beyond the crisis (pp. 101–121). Routledge.

Ashokkumar

Pennebaker

(2022). Tracking group identity through natural language within groups. PNAS Nexus, 1(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac022

Ashokkumar

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2021). Social media conversations reveal large psychological shifts caused by COVID-19’s onset across US cities. Science Advances, 7(39), eabg7843. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abg7843

10.

Åström

Seif

Wiberg

Carelli

M. G.

(2019). Getting “stuck” in the future or the past: Relationships between dimensions of time perspective, executive functions, and repetitive negative thinking in anxiety. Psychopathology, 51(6), 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1159/000494882

11.

Bailey

Krysinska

O’Dea

Robinson

(2017). Internet forums for suicide bereavement: A cross-sectional survey of users. Crisis, 38(6), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000471

12.

Bell

Stanley

Mallon

Manthorpe

(2012). Life will never be the same again: Examining grief in survivors bereaved by young suicide. Illness, Crisis, and Loss, 20(1), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.2190/IL.20.1.e

13.

Berardelli

Erbuto

Rogante

Sarubbi

Lester

Pompili

(2020). Making sense of the unique pain of survivors: A psychoeducational approach for suicide bereavement. Frontiers in Psychology, 30, 1244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01244

14.

Berman

A. L.

(2011). Estimating the population of survivors of suicide: Seeking an evidence base. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 41(1), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1943-278X.2010.00009.x

15.

Boals

Banks

J. B.

Hathaway

L. M.

Schuettler

(2011). Coping with stressful events: Use of cognitive words in stressful narratives and the meaning-making process. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30(4), 378–403. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.4.378

16.

Boals

Klein

(2005). Word use in emotional narratives about failed romantic relationships and subsequent mental health. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24(3), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X05278386

17.

Bolton

J. M.

Leslie

W. D.

Martens

P. J.

Enns

M. W.

Roos

L. L.

Katz

L. Y.

Wilcox

H. C.

Erlangsen

Chateau

Walld

Spiwak

Seguin

Shear

Sareen

(2013). Parents bereaved by offspring suicide: A population-based longitudinal case-control study. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(2), 158–167. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.275

18.

Bonanno

G. A.

Kaltman

(2001). The varieties of grief experience. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(5), 705–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(00)00062-3

19.

Boyd

R. L.

Ashokkumar

Seraj

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2022). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC-22. University of Texas at Austin.

20.

Boyd

R. L.

Blackburn

K. G.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2020). The narrative arc: Revealing core narrative structures through text analysis. Science Advances, 6(32), Article eaba2196. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba2196

21.

Brent

Melhem

Donohoe

M. B.

Walker

(2009). The incidence and course of depression in bereaved youth 21 months after the loss of a parent to suicide, accident, or sudden natural death. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(7), 786–794. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.08081244

22.

Brockmeyer

Zimmermann

Kulessa

Hautzinger

Bents

Friederich

H. C.

Backenstrass

(2015). Me, myself, and I: Self-referent word use as an indicator of self-focused attention in relation to depression and anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01564

23.

Bryant

R. A.

Kenny

Joscelyne

Rawson

Maccallum

Cahill

Hopwood

Aderka

Nickerson

(2014). Treating prolonged grief disorder: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(12), 1332–1339. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1600

24.

Cerel

Jordan

J. R.

Duberstein

P. R.

(2008). The impact of suicide on the family. Crisis, 29(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910.29.1.38

25.

Chapple

Ziebland

(2011). How the internet is changing the experience of bereavement by suicide: A qualitative study in the UK. Health, 15(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459309360792

26.

Chen

Choi

Y. J.

Mori

Sawada

Sugano

(2009). Those who are left behind: An estimate of the number of family members of suicide victims in Japan. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9448-3

27.

Chung

Pennebaker

(2007). The psychological functions of function words. In Fiedler

(Ed.), Social communication (pp. 343–359). Psychology Press.

28.

Coleman

R. A.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2010). Measuring meaning: Searching for and making sense of spousal loss in later life. Death Studies, 34(9), 804–834. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481181003761625

29.

Currier

J. M.

Holland

J. M.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2009). Assumptive worldviews and problematic reactions to bereavement. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 14(3), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325020802537153

30.

De Groot

J. M.

(2012). Maintaining relational continuity with the deceased on Facebook. Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying, 65(3), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.65.3.c

31.

De Groot

Kollen

B. J.

(2013). Course of bereavement over 8-10 years in first degree relatives and spouses of people who committed suicide: Longitudinal community-based cohort study. British Medical Journal, 347, f5519. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5519

32.

DeGroot

M. H.

Keijser

J. D.

Neeleman

(2006). Grief shortly after suicide and natural death: A comparative study among spouses and first-degree relatives. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36(4), 418–431. https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.2006.36.4.418

33.

Doka

K. J.

Martin

T. L.

(2010). Grieving beyond gender: Understanding the ways men and women mourn. Brunner-Routledge.

34.

Doyle

D. T.

Ghosh

J. K.

Suchocki

Keegan

B. C.

Voida

Brubaker

J. R.

(2024, May). Stories that heal: Characterizing and supporting narrative for suicide bereavement. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 18, pp. 354-366). https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31319

35.

Dransart

D. A. C.

(2013). From sense-making to meaning-making: Understanding and supporting survivors of suicide. British Journal of Social Work, 43(2), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct026

36.

Drapeau

C. W.

Lockman

J. D.

Moore

M. M.

Cerel

(2019). Predictors of posttraumatic growth in adults bereaved by suicide. Crisis, 40(3), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000556

37.

Dyregrov

(2005). Siblings after suicide: The forgotten bereaved. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 35(6), 714–724. https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.2005.35.6.714

38.

Dyregrov

(2008). Effective grief and bereavement support: The role of family, friends, colleagues, schools and support professionals. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

39.

Falconer

Sachsenweger

Gibson

Norman

(2011). Grieving in the internet age. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40(3), 79–88.

40.

Feigelman

Gorman

B. S.

Beal

K. C.

Jordan

J. R.

(2008). Internet support groups for suicide survivors: A new mode for gaining bereavement assistance. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 57(3), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.57.3.a

41.

Feinerer

Hornik

(2023). Tm: Text mining package. Version: 0.7-11. https://tm.r-forge.r-project.org/

42.

Gaetano

(2013). Holm-Bonferroni sequential correction: An EXCEL calculator (1.2) [Microsoft Excel workbook]. 2013. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3920.0481

43.

Goodall

Krysinska

Andriessen

(2022). Continuing bonds after loss by suicide: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2963. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052963

44.

Guntuku

S. C.

Yaden

D. B.

Kern

M. L.

Ungar

L. H.

Eichstaedt

J. C.

(2017). Detecting depression and mental illness on social media: An integrative review. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 18, 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.07.005

45.

Hogan

Morse

J. M.

Tason

M. C.

(1996). Toward and experiential theory of bereavement. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 33(1), 43–65. Retrieved from. https://doi.org/10.2190/GU3X-JWV0-AG6G-21FX

46.

Holm

(1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.

47.

Hoy

W. G.

(2016). Bereavement groups and role of social support: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Routledge.

48.

Hunt

Q. A.

Young

T. A.

Hertlein

K. M.

(2019). The process of long-term suicide bereavement: Responsibility, familial support, and meaning making. Contemporary Family Therapy, 41(4), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-019-09499-5

49.

Jordan

J. R.

(2001). Is suicide bereavement different? A reassessment of the literature. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.31.1.91.21310

50.

Jordan

J. R.

(2020). Lessons learned: Forty years of clinical work with suicide loss survivors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 766. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00766

51.

Jordan

J. R.

McGann

(2017). Clinical work with suicide loss survivors: Implications of the U.S. Postvention Guidelines. Death Studies, 41(10), 659–672. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2017.1335553

52.

Jordan

J. R.

McIntosh

J. L.

(2011). Suicide bereavement: Why study survivors of suicide loss? In Jordan

J. R.

McIntosh JL

J. L.

(Eds.), Grief after suicide: Understanding the consequences and caring for the survivors (pp. 3–18). Routledge.

53.

Kaltman

Bonanno

G. A.

(2003). Trauma and bereavement: Examining the impact of sudden and violent deaths. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 17(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0887-6185(02)00184-6

54.

Kaslow

N. J.

Samples

T. C.

Rhodes

Gantt

(2011). A family-oriented and culturally sensitive postvention approach with suicide survivors. In Jordan

J. R.

McIntosh

J. L.

(Eds.), Grief after suicide: Understanding the consequences and caring for the survivors (pp. 301–323). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

55.

Kellogg

(2014). Transformational Chairwork: Using psychotherapeutic dialogues in clinical practice. Rowman & Littlefield.

56.

Klass

Silverman

P. R.

Nickman

S. L.

(Eds.), (1996). Continuing bonds: New understandings of grief. Taylor & Francis.

57.

Kleim

A. B.

Horn

Kraehenmann

M. R.

Ehlers

M. A.

Ehlers

(2018). Early linguistic markers of trauma-specific processing predict post-trauma adjustment. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, 645. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00645

58.

Klein

Boals

(2010). Coherence, cohesiveness, and narrative structure in personal accounts of stressful experiences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29(3), 258–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2021.1902283

59.

Kramer

Boon

Schotanus-Dijkstra

van Ballegooijen

Kerkhof

van der Poel

(2015). The mental health of visitors of web-based support forums for bereaved by suicide. Crisis, 36(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000281

60.

Landers

R. N.

Brusso

R. C.

Cavanaugh

K. J.

Collmus

A. B.

(2016). A primer on theory-driven web scraping: Automatic extraction of big data from the internet for use in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 21(4), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000081

61.

Larsen

L. H.

(2022). Letter writing as a clinical tool in grief psychotherapy. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 89(1), 222–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228211070155

62.

Leaune

Rouzé

Lestienne

Bislimi

Chalancon

Morgiève

Grandgenèvre

Vaiva

Laplace

Poulet

Haesebaert

(2022). The needs, use and expectations of people bereaved by suicide regarding Online Resources: An Online Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), Article 12156. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912156

63.

Lester

(2012). Bereavement after suicide: A study of memorials on the internet. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 65(3), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.65.3.b

64.

Lindqvist

Johansson

Karlsson

(2008). In the aftermath of teenage suicide: A qualitative study of the psychosocial consequences for the surviving family members. BMC Psychiatry, 8(2008), 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-26

65.

Lobb

E. A.

Kristjanson

L. J.

Aoun

S. M.

Monterosso

Halkett

G. K. B.

Davies

(2010). Predictors of complicated grief: A systematic review of empirical studies. Death Studies, 34(8), 673–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2010.496686

66.

Low

D. M.

Rumker

Talkar

Torous

Cecchi

Ghosh

S. S.

(2020). Natural language processing reveals vulnerable mental health support groups and heightened health anxiety on Reddit during covid-19: Observational study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(10), Article e22635. https://doi.org/10.2196/22635

67.

Massell

Lieb

Meyer

Mayor

(2022). Fluctuations of psychological states on Twitter before and during COVID-19. PLoS One, 17(12), Article e0278018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278018

68.

McGill

Bhullar

Batterham

P. J.

Carrandi

Wayland

Maple

(2023). Key issues, challenges, and preferred supports for those bereaved by suicide: Insights from postvention experts. Death Studies, 47(5), 624–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2022.2112318

69.

Moore

Cerel

Jobes

D. A.

(2015). Fruits of trauma? Posttraumatic growth among suicide bereaved parents. Crisis, 36(4), 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000318

70.

Mor

Winquist

(2002). Self-focused attention and negative affect: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 638–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.638

71.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2005). Tragedy and transformation: Meaning reconstruction in the wake of traumatic loss. In Heilman

S. C.

(Ed.), Death, bereavement, and mourning (pp. 121–134). Transaction Publishers.

72.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2021). New techniques of grief therapy: Bereavement and beyond (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351069120

73.

Neimeyer

R. A.

Klass

Dennis

M. R.

(2014). A social constructionist account of grief: Loss and the narration of meaning. Death Studies, 38(6-10), 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2014.913454

74.

Owens

Lambert

Lloyd

Donovan

(2008). Tales of biographical disintegration: How parents make sense of their sons’ suicides. Sociology of Health & Illness, 30(2), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01034.x

75.

Park

C. L.

A. L.

(2006). Meaning making and growth: New directions for research on survivors of trauma. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 11(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325020600685295

76.

Parrish

Tunkle

(2005). Clinical challenges following an adolescent’s death by suicide: Bereavement issues faced by family, friends, schools and clinicians. Clinical Social Work Journal, 33(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-005-2621-5

77.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Francis

M. E.

(1996). Cognitive, emotional, and Language processes in disclosure. Cognition & Emotion, 10(6), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380079

78.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Mayne

T. J.

Francis

M. E.

(1997). Linguistic predictors of adaptive bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(4), 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.4.863

79.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Mehl

M. R.

Niederhoffer

K. G.

(2003). Psychological aspects of natural language. use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–577. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041

80.

Peters

Cunningham

Murphy

Jackson

(2016). Helpful and unhelpful responses after suicide: Experiences of bereaved family members. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 25(5), 418–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12224

81.

Peters

Murphy

Jackson

(2013). Events prior to completed suicide: Perspectives of family survivors. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33(5), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2012.751639

82.

Pitman

A. L.

Osborn

D. P.

Rantell

King

M. B.

(2016). Bereavement by suicide as a risk factor for suicide attempt: A cross-sectional national UK-wide study of 3432 young bereaved adults. British Medical Journal Open, 6(1), Article e009948. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009948

83.

Pitman

A. L.

Rantell

Moran

Sireling

Marston

King

Osborn

(2017). Support received after bereavement by suicide and other sudden deaths: A cross-sectional UK study of 3432 young bereaved adults. BMJ Open, 7(5), Article e014487. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014487

84.

Pritchard

T. R.

Buckle

J. L.

(2018). Meaning-making after partner suicide: A narrative exploration using the meaning of loss codebook. Death Studies, 42(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2017.1334007

85.

Rivera

(2023). RedditExtractoR: Reddit data extraction toolkit. R package version 3.0.9. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RedditExtractoR

86.

Rivkin

I. D.

Gustafson

Weingarten

Chin

(2006). The effects of expressive writing on adjustment to HIV. AIDS and Behavior, 10(1), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-005-9051-9

87.

Robinaugh

D. J.

McNally

R. J.

(2013). Remembering the past and envisioning the future in bereaved adults with and without complicated grief. Clinical Psychological Science, 1(3), 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702613476027

88.

Ross

Kolves

De Leo

(2021). Exploring the support needs of people bereaved by suicide: A qualitative study. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, 82(4), 632–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222819825775

89.

Rude

Gortner

E.-M.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2004). Language use of depressed and depression-vulnerable college students. Cognition & Emotion, 18(8), 1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000030

90.

Sands

D. C.

(2009). A tripartite model of suicide grief: Meaning-making and the relationship with the deceased. Grief Matters: The Australian Journal of Grief and Bereavement, 12(1), 10–17. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/INFORMIT.995255247342864.

91.

Sands

D. C.

Jordan

J. R.

Neimeyer

R. A.

(2011). The meanings of suicide: A narrative approach to healing. In Jordan

J. R.

(Ed.), Grief after suicide: Understanding the consequences and caring for the survivors (pp. 249–282). Routledge.

92.

Sanford

Cerel

McGann

Maple

(2016). Suicide loss survivors’ experiences with therapy: Implications for clinical practice. Community Mental Health Journal, 52(5), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-016-0006-6

93.

Scourfield

Evans

Colombo

Burrows

Jacob

Williams

Burnap

(2020). Are youth suicide memorial sites on Facebook different from those for other sudden deaths? Death Studies, 44(12), 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1614109

94.

Smith

Joseph

Das Nair

(2011). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of posttraumatic growth of adults bereaved by suicide. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 16(5), 413–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2011.572047

95.

Statista (2023, November 16). Regional distribution of desktop traffic to Reddit. Com As of April 2023 by Country. Retrieved from. https://www.statista.com/statistics/325144/reddit-global-active-user-distribution/

96.

Stroebe

van de Schoot

Schut

Abakoumkin

(2014). Guilt in bereavement: The role of self-blame and regret in coping with loss. PLoS One, 9(5), Article e96606. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096606

97.

Sugrue

J. L.

McGilloway

Keegan

(2013). The experiences of mothers bereaved by suicide: An exploratory study. Death Studies, 38(2), 118–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2012.738765

98.

Tal Young

Iglewicz

Glorioso

Lanouette

Seay

Ilapakurti

Zisook

(2012). Suicide bereavement and complicated grief. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2012.14.2/iyoung

99.

Tal Young

Mauro

Reynolds

C. F.

3rd Shear

M. K.

Simon

Lebowitz

Skritskaya

Wang

Qiu

Iglewicz

Glorioso

Avanzino

Wetherell

J. L.

Karp

J. F.

Robinaugh

Zisook

(2017). Complicated grief after suicide bereavement and other causes of death. Death Studies, 41(5), 267–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2016.1265028

100.

Tausczik

Y. R.

Pennebaker

J. W.

(2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29(1), 24–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X09351676

101.

Tedeschi

R. G.

Calhoun

L. G.

(2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1501_01

102.

Toller

(2011). Bereaved parents’ experiences of supportive and unsupportive communication. Southern Communication Journal, 76(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940903159393

103.

Trimble

Hannigan

Gaffney

(2012). Suicide postvention; coping, support and transformation. Irish Journal of Psychology, 33(2–3), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03033910.2012.709171

104.

Vandecreek

Mottram

(2009). The religious life during suicide bereavement: A description. Death Studies, 33(8), 741–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180903070467

105.

Vandecreek

Mottram

(2011). The perceived roles of god during suicide bereavement. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 39(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164711103900206

106.

Wilcox

H. C.

Mittendorfer-Rutz

Kjeldgard

Alexanderson

Runeson

(2015). Functional impairment due to bereavement after the death of adolescent or young adult offspring in a national population study of 1,051,515 parents. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatry Epidemiology, 50(8), 1249–1256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-014-0997-7

107.

Williams

A. L.

Merten

M. J.

(2009). Adolescents’ online social networking following the death of a peer. Journal of Adolescent Research, 24(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408328440

108.

Wilson

Gilbert

(2008). Explaining away: A model of affective adaptation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00085.x

109.

Wolchik

S. A.

Coxe

Tein

J. Y.

Sandler

I. N.

Ayers

T. S.

(2009). Six-year longitudinal predictors of posttraumatic growth in parentally bereaved adolescents and young adults. Omega: The Journal of Death and Dying, 58(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.2190/OM.58.2.b

110.

Worden

J. W.

(2018). Grief counseling and grief therapy: A handbook for the mental health practitioner (5th ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826134752

111.

Wortman

Boerner

(2011). Beyond the myths of coping with loss: Prevailing assumptions versus scientific evidence. In Friedman

H. S.

(Ed.), Oxford Handbook of health psychology (pp. 285–324). Oxford University Press.

112.

Yang

Khanna

G. J.

(2025). AI and technology in grief support: Clinical implications and ethical considerations. Counseling Psychologist, 53(4), 579–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000251352568

Linguistic Features of Suicide Bereavement: A Data Mining Approach

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Themes in Suicide Loss Grief

Online Expressions of Suicide-loss Grief

The Present Research

Method

Design

Demographic Characteristics

Procedure

Data Acquisition

Sample Size Determination

Data Pre-processing

Text Analysis

Results

Attentional Focus: Subject of Attention

Attentional Focus: Temporal focus of Attention

Cognitive Processing

Emotions

Social Processes

Discussion

Emotions

Social Processes

Implications for Theory and Practice

Limitations and Future Directions

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

Author Biographies

References