Zart I Go Perpetual Care

OMEGA, Vol.
40(4) 521–545,1999-2000
PERPETUAL CARE IN CYBERSPACE: A

PORTRAIT OF MEMORIALS ON THE WEB
PAMELA ROBERTS
LOURDES A. VIDAL
California State University, Long Beach
ABSTRACT
This study describes memorials in the newly created “virtual cemeteries.”
Web memorials (N = 276) from three cemeteries were coded for demograph-
ics about the deceased, characteristics of authors, and issues of content,
audience, and theme. While memorials were extremely varied, they were
written frequently for the young (M age = 47, SD = 24) and for more males
than females. Most deaths were recent, but 7.3 percent had occurred
more than twenty years prior to the posting of their memorials. Authors
included family members, friends, and others who were typically younger or
from the same cohort as the deceased. Most memorials were addressed to the
community, but 28.3 percent were written to the dead. The majority of
memorials were written as stories or celebrations but other primary themes
included: grief/missing the dead, retelling the circumstances of the death,
and guilt. Web memorials are discussed as a resource to the bereaved and
researchers alike, providing the bereaved with an opportunity to create a
public memorial regardless of their relationship to the deceased, time elapsed
since the death or message content and allowing researchers better access to
personal writings undertaken during bereavement.
Worden (1991) describes mourning as a series of tasks, the first of which involves
accepting the reality of the loss. Rituals following closely after death can help the
bereaved acknowledge their loss both personally and within the community
(e.g., Bolton & Camp, 1986–87; Kollar, 1989; McGoldrick, 1991; Rando, 1988;
Weeks, 1996; Worden, 1991; Zulli & Weeks, 1997). However, Worden (1991)
521
 2000, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.
522 / ROBERTS AND VIDAL
notes that the value of early postdeath rituals may be limited because they are
scheduled when the bereaved are in shock and feeling numb or dazed. A related
concern is voiced by Imber-Black (1991), who notes that traditional mourning rit-
uals are most effective if they are adapted to present needs, a process that is most
difficult in the early stages of grief. Because of these concerns, Worden and others
(e.g., Imber-Black, 1991; McGoldrick, 1991; Rando, 1988) advocate additional
postdeath rituals later in the bereavement process.
Several authors have described writing as a positive postdeath ritual. Lattanzi
and Hale (1984–85) found that after traditional postdeath rituals have ended, writ-
ing to and about the dead can aid in the expression of emotion, creating a sense of
perspective and sharing about the death. Cable (1996) advocates writing espe-
cially to help the survivors of sudden death express emotions about their loss and
to address unfinished business with the dead. Worden (1991) prescribes writing
as well as reminiscing and creating memory books to facilitate his fourth task of
mourning—emotionally relocating the dead. Kollar (1989) stresses that writing to
the dead may be particularly important for those experiencing disenfranchised
grief, functioning either as a substitute for or an enhancement of the experiences
obtained in traditional postdeath rituals.
Although writing to and about the dead has been described as positive and
therapeutic, researchers have had limited access to personal writings during
bereavement. Published accounts typically come from professional writers (e.g.,
Lewis, 1976) or celebrities (e.g., Delany, 1997) and are written with an eye
toward public consumption. A few researchers have studied ongoing writings for
death themes, as in Rosenblatt’s (1983) analysis of nineteenth century diaries.
However, in the death and dying research literature there have been few examples
of writing as a bereavement exercise, at least one used by ordinary people. Even
Lattanzi and Hale’s (1984–85) research on the benefits of writing during bereave-
ment investigated a select group and analyzed their questionnaire responses
rather than participant writing samples.
Recently, a new forum for writing to and about the dead has emerged on the
World Wide Web. Since 1995, the bereaved have been posting individual memo-
rials to their loved ones at Websites known as “cemeteries.” Like traditional
cemeteries, the Web cemetery provides a site for memorializing and visiting
memorials to the dead. Like obituaries or gravestone inscriptions, Web memori-
als are primarily text based, although some cemeteries allow for pictures and
sounds as well. In most cases, posting a memorial is a simple, inexpensive proce-
dure, accomplished by sending text and demographic information through e-mail
(see Roberts, 1999, for description of varying sites and procedures).
Like other nontraditional postdeath rituals, writing Web memorials may pro-
vide survivors with benefits that are not available in more traditional rituals,
including: 1) Flexible Timing: Posting a memorial can be done at any time and
thus can be utilized as a postdeath ritual when it is most beneficial to the bereaved;
2) Access: There are no restrictions on who writes a Web memorial, therefore
MEMORIALS ON THE WEB / 523
those who have felt disenfranchised in the death system are given the opportunity
to engage in a public ritual when they may have been denied access to others;
3) Visiting: Like other written tributes, Web memorials can be permanent records
which are revisited for varying purposes throughout the bereavement process;
and 4) Sharing: Like letters, Web memorials can be shared with others and uti-
lized to stimulate dialog about the dead; in this case, sharing can take place across
geographical distance and time.
In addition to their potential benefits to survivors, Web cemeteries pro-
vide researchers access to a large sample of writings by the bereaved. From a
research perspective, Web memorials not only represent a new form of tribute to
the dead, but to the extent that they share some of the substance and feeling of
other, more private forms of writing, they also may enhance the general under-
standing of the writing done by ordinary individuals during bereavement. Despite
their promise, memorials in Web cemeteries are new and have not been studied
systematically. As a first step in the investigation of these memorials, the present
study describes the characteristics of the deceased who have been honored in Web
cemeteries and the general content and format of the memorials themselves. In
addition, available information on the authors who have chosen to engage in this
form of memorialization is presented.
METHOD
Sample
In the fall of 1996, searches of the World Wide Web yielded four relatively
large “cemeteries.” One, the Virtual Memorial Garden, is a text-only service,
while the others allow the bereaved to leave pictures and links to other Web sites
as well. Because of their additional features, the three other cemeteries were
chosen for this project and all of the memorials within those cemeteries (Garden
of Remembrance (N = 125), World Wide Cemetery (N = 88), and Dearly
Departed (N = 63)), were analyzed. While they differ slightly in presentation,
none of the cemeteries has length restrictions and there are few format require-
ments for memorials.
Of the three, the Garden of Remembrance (GR) has the most elaborate opening
page, which includes a detailed garden scene as well as recommended CD links
for musical enhancement of one’s visit. Memorials are arranged alphabetically in
six sections (e.g., A–D, E–I) and each memorial contains demographic informa-
tion (name, birth and death dates, and place of death) at the top, then text and
picture (if one is included). Memorials are outlined to provide each a separate
space. All memorials are signed at the bottom by the author(s). The cost to submit
a memorial is $10 and there is a yearly renewal cost of $10.
“Monuments” in the World Wide Cemetery (WWC) provide similar informa-
tion, with specific demographics at the top (name, date and place of birth, date and
place of death, and place of burial), then text and pictures, but all monuments con-
tain the name and the e-mail address of the author(s) of the memorial unless they
request anonymity. Cost per monument is a one-time fee of $7. Unlike the Garden
of Remembrance, each monument is presented as a separate page, at the bottom of
which is noted “We would like to thank those visitors who have left flowers.”
Here, underlined words provide links to the writings of previous visitors to that
monument and a submission page for leaving a note (called “flowers” in the
World Wide Cemetery).
Dearly Departed (DD) is the only free service examined in this article. Memo-
rials are placed in the “Mausoleum” and arranged alphabetically. Although it has
since changed format, at the time the data were collected, memorials in Dearly
Departed were outlined (as in the Garden of Remembrance), so that multiple
memorials could appear on the same page. Demographic information in Dearly
Departed is more individualized than in the other two cemeteries—names and
dates appear first (next to a picture if there is one), but there is no required format
for other information like place of death, place of burial, and author name. Dearly
Departed also includes a general guestbook, where visitors to any memorial can
record their thoughts.
Procedure
Data were collected from October 1996 to January 1997. As cemeteries were
found, memorials were printed off the Web for ease in coding. All memorials
from the three cemeteries (N = 276) were included in data analysis.
Memorials were coded for variables examined in prior research on obituaries,
including: demographic characteristics of the deceased (e.g., age, gender, occupa-
tion, and cause of death) and length of memorial. In addition, the function of
memorials was examined through content analysis of variables such as: time
since death, community notification of postdeath rituals, listing of survivors,
audience, theme, and information about the author (including relationship to the
deceased and approximate age). General characteristics like the inclusion of pho-
tographs and the provision of links to other Web sites were noted also. Reliability
was achieved through consensus—any disagreements were discussed by the
authors until agreement was achieved.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Demographic Characteristics of the Deceased

Age
Memorial submission forms for each of the Web cemeteries request the birth
and death dates of the deceased. Because of this, ages at death were available for
95.7 percent of Web memorials.
Although Web tributes were dedicated to the deceased of all ages (range =
.003-97 years, n = 264), the average person memorialized was fairly young
(M = 47.0, SD = 24.0). Closer examination revealed that 4.2 percent of Web
memorials were dedicated to babies one year and under and 11 percent memorial-
ized persons under the age of eighteen years. When children under eighteen were
omitted from the sample however, the average age of those memorialized on the
Web was still quite young (M = 51.9, SD = 20.5).
The relative youth of the deceased may be explained by the perceived trag-
edy of early deaths, which result in a special need to memorialize them
(see Lattanzi & Hale, 1984–85). The age of the deceased also may be a function
of the average age of computer users (Bikson & Panis, 1997). Some memori-
als for the young noted that a Web format had been chosen specifically
because of the deceased’s interest in computers. For example, a memorial for a
nineteen-year-old stated “. . . When I thought of the computer wizard that you
were, I figured that this was an appropriate place to write you . . . ”1 (GR, 1997).
However, computer experience is expanding to other age groups, as demonstrated
by this memorial to a sixty-six-year old woman:
. . . She asked to be placed on this because her daughter was just teaching her
about the internet and computers. She was just discovering this new world
and learning it, before she was given relief from this life (WWC, 1997).
Consistent with the literature on obituaries (e.g., Kearl, 1986–87; Maybury,
1995–96), age at death was not related to length of Web memorials.
Gender
The gender of the deceased was apparent in all but one memorial, either
from their name or the descriptions in the text. In newspapers, death notices
are submitted for most individuals, consequently their gender distribution is rep-
resentative of general mortality statistics (e.g., Kastenbaum, Peyton, &
Kastenbaum, 1976–77). However, newspaper obituaries are a different matter—
they must be initiated by an interested party and approved by newspaper editors,
so most of the dead are not honored with an obituary. Research has found that sig-
nificantly more males than females are represented in obituaries (Kastenbaum,
Peyton, & Kastenbaum, 1976–77; Maybury, 1995–96). Similarly, in the current
study more males than females were memorialized in Web cemeteries (see
Table 1).
Researchers (e.g., Kastenbaum, Peyton, & Kastenbaum 1976–77; Kearl,
1986–87; Maybury, 1995–96; Stillion, 1985) have posited that gender differences
in the likelihood of obituary memorialization are a byproduct of sexism in the
society; since women are allowed fewer opportunities to achieve notoriety in life,
1 All quotations are verbatim and therefore include the punctuation, sentence structure, spelling and
capitalization present in the original.
Table 1. Significant Gender Differences in Memorials
Gender of the Deceased

Variable Male Female Statistic
Frequency 62.0% 38.0% x2(1) = 17.31, p = .000
Occupation Listed 31.4% 8.7% x2(1) = 18.72, p = .000
Number of Words
Occupation listed M = 193.7 M = 91.0 Focc (1, 271) = 8.65, p = .004
SD = 215.8 SD = 70.4 Fsex (1, 271) = 4.70, p = .031
Fsex × occ (1, 271) = 4.22,
p = .041
No Occupation M = 72.1 M = 69.4

Listed SD = 100.9 SD = 81.4
Military Listed 16.3% 0 x2(1) = 18.67, p = .000

Author Age (n = 210) x2(2) = 6.49, p = .038
younger 43.6% 57.1%
same cohort 43.6% 26.0%
older 12.8% 16.9%
Note: n = 275 unless otherwise noted.
they are less likely to be awarded an obituary at death. Web memorials, however,
do not appear to be linked to fame or fortune and while the frequency difference
may be the result of another form of sexism, it is equally likely to come from an
increased need to memorialize untimely deaths, since more males than females
die in their youth (NCHS, 1995).
Kastenbaum et al., (1976–77) and Maybury (1995–96) have reported that
men’s newspaper obituaries are longer than women’s. Memorials in Web ceme-
teries displayed similar gender differences, with men’s memorials having
significantly more words (M = 110.32, SD = 136.83) than women’s (M =
71.28, SD = 39.38; t(273) = 2.35, p = .020). However, Spilka, Lacey and Gelb
(1979–80) found that when information about occupation was factored out of
obituaries, gender differences in length disappeared. In the present study, only
sixty-three memorials listed the occupation of the deceased, but those that did so
were significantly longer (M = 179.03 words, SD = 204.31) than those with no
mention of occupation (M = 70.94 words, SD = 92.35; t(274) = 18.166,
p = .000). Of the sixty-three memorials listing an occupation, only nine were for
females, but there was a significant gender by occupation interaction such that
memorial length was equal for males and females when occupation was not
included in the memorial (see Table 1). Although the findings from such a small
sample should be viewed with caution, the impact of including occupational

information on the length of men’s memorials is consistent with the findings of
Spilka et al. (1979–80).
In addition to gender differences in frequency, length and mentioning occupation,
other gender differences include mention of military service and age of the author,
with women being less likely to be memorialized by those in their own cohort than
men (see Table 1). No gender difference was found for age of the deceased.
Cause of Death
Cause of death was presented in 34.4 percent of Web tributes (see Table 2) and
those memorials that listed cause of death were significantly longer (M = 141.25
words, SD = 175.03) than those with no mention of cause (M = 71.66, SD = 99.52,
t(274) = 4.21, p = .000). While the single most reported cause of death was cancer,
37.9 percent of listed causes were clearly sudden (due to murder, suicide, or acci-
dents) and others (including heart attacks and strokes) may have been. The high
number of sudden deaths may be an artifact of the youth of the deceased, since
accidents and violent death claim a larger percentage of the young (NCHS, 1995).
Even within our relatively youthful sample, those memorials that listed cause of
death were for younger individuals than memorials that did not mention a cause
(t(262) = 4.70, p = .000) (see Table 2).
On the other hand, the high proportion of sudden deaths may reflect the special
nature of the sudden death experience. Rando (1996) notes that sudden deaths
“shatter the assumptive world,” particularly beliefs about control, order, and
security. Because sudden deaths are unexpected, survivors have no time to pre-
pare for the death before it occurs; all adjustments and preparation come
afterward. Consequently, survivors of sudden death often expend more effort
Table 2. Cause of Death: Frequency and Average Age
Age
Cause of Death % M SD N
cancer 29.5 48.7 17.0 27
accident 23.2 23.2 13.0 21
AIDS 10.5 35.4 4.6 10
suicide 10.5 28.2 10.2 10
homicide 4.2 29.0 19.7 4
heart disease 2.1 79.5 9.2 2
other 20.0 43.0 26.5 19
Total Listed (N = 95) 100 38.0 20.6 93
No Cause Listed 51.9 24.3 171
Note: Ninety-five memorials listed cause of death, but only ninety-three listed both
cause and age.
attempting to understand the death than survivors of more anticipated losses.

Efforts to understand make survivors of sudden death more likely to write about
the death (see Lattanzi & Hale, 1984–85), suggesting that they may be more likely
to write and post a Web memorial, and if they do, to discuss the specific cause of
death in their memorial. Therefore, the high proportion of sudden deaths may be
due to a combination of factors emanating from the special needs of survivors of
sudden death and the youth of the individuals memorialized.
Rando (1996) and others note that survivors of violent death often revisit
the specific circumstances of that death in their efforts to accept and control the
death experience. Evidence for this appears in many of the memorials to murder
victims, where the exact causes and presumed rationale for the death are dis-
cussed. For example:
______ was my sister, and died a very horrible death. She was murdered by
someone who was obsessed with her . . . (GR, 1997).
______ was 12 years old when her young life was taken from her. She was
strangled by “a person or persons” unknown at home (DD, 1997).
. . . . What a sad state of affairs, what a sorry world, That death would come
because you’re a pretty girl . . . (WWC, 1997).
Similar in describing the specific cause of death were the memorials to acci-
dent victims, in which authors typically gave not only the cause but the day and
sometimes hour of death. For example:
______ died on Saturday, October 28, 1995. While rock climbing with
friends on Mt. ______, he slipped on a patch of ice and fell approximately 70
ft. to his death (GR, 1997).
______ was killed in car accident at approx. 10:20 p.m., June 9, 1995 . . .
(GR, 1997).
. . . He died in an automobile accident only an eighth of a mile from home . . .
(DD, 1997).
On the night of October 14, 1994, his parachute failed in a night jump with his
unit and he died instantly . . . (WWC, 1997).
Research on suicide indicates that the bereaved frequently lie about the cause
of death and show a great need to understand the motives behind it (see Stillion,
1996 for review). In the present sample, memorials to suicides are known only if
they are identified as such, but they are notable for their efforts to understand the
motives of the deceased. The examples below are a portion of a mother’s memo-
rial for her son and then the entire text of a memorial from a friend:
. . . When he was last home on leave it seemed to bother him that all of his
friends had married and started their families. He was a somewhat private
person, who kept his feelings closely guarded to some extent and we’ll never
know what was truly on his mind when, on July 17, 1996, ______ chose to
end his life . . . (WWC, 1997).
Ten years ago you decided to leave us of your own will. Today I finally
respect your decision even if I will still grieve for you and I don’t understand
it (GR, 1997).
Despite the apparent effects of the cause of death on the content of memorials, it
must be reiterated that these results should be interpreted cautiously since
the majority of memorials did not list a cause of death. Therefore, while the analysis
of cause of death appears to fit certain patterns outlined in the death and dying liter-
ature, the current results are based on a small and possibly nonrepresentative
sample.
Web Memorials—General Characteristics

Time Elapsed Since Death
None of the cemeteries provided information on the date memorials were

posted, so estimates of time elapsed since death were inexact, relying on
the date of reading and the knowledge that none of the cemeteries appear to have
existed before 1995. Death dates were known for all but three of the deceased, and
most (74%) of those deaths occurred within the five years prior to posting their
memorials (see Table 3 for breakdown). However, some deaths had happened
long ago and their memorials demonstrated the continuing bonds between the
living and the dead described by Klass and others (e.g. Klass, Silverman, &
Nickman, 1996). A death in 1946 was the oldest to be memorialized and 7.3 per-
cent of all deaths had occurred twenty or more years prior to the posting of their
memorials.
Lawuyi (1988) and Alali (1993–94), in their studies of Nigerian obituaries,
demonstrated the cultural importance of memorializing the deceased on ten-year
anniversaries of their deaths. Within Western cultures, many bereavement theo-
rists have described the heightened sense of loss at anniversaries (e.g., Pollock,
1989; Rando, 1988; Rosenblatt, 1996), which could motivate the bereaved to
create a memorial at that time. A few of the Web memorials did mention
Table 3. Time between Death and Posting the Memorial

Time Since Death % of Memorials
Within 1 year 28.2
>1–5 years 45.8
>5–10 years 10.3
>10–15 years 7.3
>15–20 years 1.1
>20 years 7.3
Note: n = 273.
anniversaries (typically birthdays), but there were varied catalysts for memorial-
izing temporally removed deaths. One son, when posting a tribute for his
mother’s recent death, added a memorial to his father who had died in the 1940s.
Another man was moved to write a memorial when he visited the Vietnam Vet-
erans Memorial and saw his friend’s name on the wall. For others, finding the
Web site appeared to be the catalyst for paying tribute to important losses—one
man memorialized a friend who had died in the late 1940s and his son who was
Missing In Action in the Vietnam War.
Time elapsed since death did not affect memorial length and was not related to
the age of the deceased, inclusion of demographic information, or any author
characteristics like age, gender, or relationship. The one significant difference in
time elapsed since death was for audience—memorials for deaths that had hap-
pened within the previous year were less likely to be written to the deceased
(18.7%) than memorials for deaths from one to five years ago (36.4%) and deaths
that had occurred more than five years before the memorial was posted (37.5%)
(x2(2), N = 273) = 8.02, p = .018).
Audience
Like most obituaries, the majority (62.7%) of Web memorials were written
in the third person, presumably to a community audience. However, 28.3 per-
cent were addressed to the deceased and 32.3 percent contained messages for
the dead. Many of the memorials addressed to the deceased were written as let-
ters, much like the following memorial from a sister to her brother:
I do not know why you committed suicide ______, you took the answer to
that question to the grave. I do know that I love and miss you little brother. I
wish I could turn back the clock and change things but I can’t.
I often go down to the beach where you said goodbye to the world. Its a
peaceful spot. Mum and Dad miss you very much, ______ and ______ don’t
understand that you won’t be coming home, they wait for you at the window.
Where ever you are think of me like I think of you. Love, ______ (WWC,
1997).
Web memorials were longer when written to the community than to the
deceased, presumably because many of the memorials to the community served
as a notification of the death and a celebration of the accomplishments of the
deceased. Consequently, they were significantly more likely to mention educa-
tion, occupation, military service, marital status and survivors than were those
memorials addressed to the deceased (see Table 4).
In contrast, memorials to the deceased were dedicated to significantly younger
individuals and were more likely to focus on grief or missing the deceased than
those written to the community. Memorials addressed to the deceased also were
more likely to be written by women than by men (see Table 4).
Table 4. Significant Differences in Audience
Audience
Variable Deceased Community Statistic
Number of Words M = 65.9 M = 109.7 t(249) = 2.57, p = .011

SD = 96.7 SD = 138.8
Age of deceased M = 42.6 M = 49.2 t(238) = 2.03, p = .044

(n = 240) SD = 26.1 SD = 22.5
Education listed 5.2% 13.9% x2(1) = 4.04, p = .045
Occupation listed 6.4% 31.2% x2(1) = 18.40, p = .000
Military listed 2.6% 14.5% x2(1) = 7.91, p = .005
Marital Status listed 55.1% 71.7% x2(1) = 6.61, p = .010
Survivors listed 48.7% 74.6% x2(1) = 16.13, p = .000
Theme (n = 203) x2(2) = 32.84, p = .000

obituary 3.8% 13.9%
storytelling 42.3% 71.5%
grief 58.8% 14.6%
Author gender (n = 203) x2(1) = 5.63, p = .018

male 35.2% 52.8%
female 64.8% 47.2%
Note: n = 251 unless otherwise noted.
Theme
One primary theme was identified for each memorial, according to issues
found in the mourning and bereavement literatures. Themes were divided into the
following categories: standard obituary, celebration/storytelling, detailing grief/
missing, guilt, focusing on death circumstances, philosophical musings about life
and death, religious interpretations, and other.
Standard obituary style, where social markers, accomplishments, and survi-
vors are listed, was used in only 8.3 percent of the memorials. One such memorial,
written for a seventy-seven-year-old woman, told that she had suffered a stroke
and died at home with her family by her bedside. Included also was the name of
the town in which she had resided, survivors (listed by relationship), information
on services to be held, and the location of those services. At the end of the memo-
rial, it stated “She will always be remembered” (GR, 1997).
Harvey, Orbuch, Weber, Merbach, and Alt (1992), in their discussion of

coping with loss, have described the importance of “account-making,” creating
stories about the loss that are eventually shared with others. Harvey et al. note that
recounting stories can help the bereaved interpret their loss, enhance perceived
control, express emotions, and gain some closure. Storytelling was the primary
theme in the majority of memorials (50.4%), and stories often celebrated the
life of the deceased. In these memorials, specific moments or stories were high-
lighted, and generally some of the social characteristics listed in standard
obituaries were omitted. For example:
. . . Although your life was difficult and often unhappy, I always felt the love
flow from you. When it came to your grandchildren, you were never short on
giving—“magic coffee” every Saturday morning, crocheted sweaters and
afghans, marathon “kalooky” games. And, how you could cook! Out of a tiny
stove in a nonexistent kitchen would come six course Passover seders for 20
people. I still don’t know how you did it! But, how well you did do it . . . (GR,
1997).
My cousin ______ was one of the nicest people you would ever want to
know. He was loving and gentle. He had a great sense of humor, and a shy
personality. ______ served in Vietnam as a Marine, and unfortunately came
back a war casualty addicted to drugs. He gave it his best shot . . . but when
life got too tough for him he gave in. Not his fault. I only wish I could have
helped him. I loved him (DD, 1997).
Like the memorial written to a brother who committed suicide (see the Audi-
ence section above), grief or missing the deceased was the primary theme of 19.6
percent of the Web memorials. The memorial below, written for a grandmother,
displays grief/missing after a more expected death:
My Abuela was such a godly and kind person. All I know of love and caring
is because of her. I miss you mama, I miss sitting in your rocking chair and
caressing your arm and brushing your hair. I miss all the lollipops you gave us
and how you prayed for everyone. You are forever in my heart and always on
my mind. Say hello to Jesus and Papa. Te amo mucho mi abuelita (GR, 1997).
A few of the memorials that stress grief demonstrate complicated mourning
(e.g., Rando, 1993), with little evidence of the cessation of grief symptoms over
time and little acceptance of the death even years after its occurrence. One such
memorial was written by a sister for her brother who died as an adolescent in an
automobile accident that occurred over fifteen years prior to the posting of his
memorial. The memorial itself is one page of single-spaced text, which includes
the following:
. . . I loved you so much . . . No one has ever been able to understand the
special bond we shared . . . .
You loved your nieces and nephews, I try to keep you alive for them. I talk
of you often, and think of you every day. I wish I could stop crying, but the
pain never really goes away.
______, you were the closest person to me, the one I could never think of
doing without, but I lost you, and a large part of me died with you, the best
part . . . .
I try to live my life in a way that would make you proud of me, your big
sister. . . . I’ve tried to raise my boys to be good men. I do these things in
memory of you.
I love you as much as I always did, no number of years apart will ever
change that. I am crying now as I type this memorium, another small way I
can keep you alive . . . (GR, 1997).
Several authors included a statement of regret or guilt in their memorials,
although it was not the primary theme. For example, one memorial that told sev-
eral stories about the deceased ended with: “I only wish we had more
time together. He had so much to teach me, and I wasn’t always the best pupil”
(DD, 1997). Other authors (3.6%), however, focused their memorials on guilt or
regrets:
My brother was killed in an auto accident . . . The day before he had called me
on the phone and I wasn’t very nice to him . . . The next morning I received a
phone call telling me my brother was dead. To this day it bothers me, know-
ing my last words to him weren’t pleasant ones. ______ . . . I’m sorry. (DD,
1997).
Rando (1988, 1996) and others have noted that retelling the circumstances of a
death can be an important component in its acceptance, and in the case of violent
or sudden death, in gaining control over the death experience. As discussed
previously, many survivors of violent death included details about the death
circumstances in their memorials. For some authors (4%), retelling the circum-
stances of the death was the primary theme:
______ was my sister, quiet patient and loving. She was my friend.
______ was killed crossing the road after her antenatal appointment. She was
expecting her third son, ______, 14 weeks gestation. She left two little boys
under 5, ______ and ______. Rest in Peace ______ (DD, 1997).
Often the death of a loved one is a catalyst for reconsidering beliefs about life
and death (e.g., Rando, 1988). Musing about life and death was the primary theme
in 2.5 percent of memorials like these:
______ was, I guess, a tortured soul who couldn’t take life as he knew it. We
should remember what he could have been had he not chosen this path of
destruction.______’s death leaves us to wonder if anger is better turned
inward or outward . . . (DD, 1997).
. . . I know there has to be something beyond this realm, I was at your grave,
and I know you weren’t there . . . .
There is an old saying that death is so beautiful, that when you finally see her,
your soul falls in love so fast, that you forget your pain & suffering.
I hope you fell in love and I hope it’s beautiful where you are . . . (GR, 1997).
Finally, religious themes were primary in 4.3 percent of memorials, many of

which quoted from the Bible or religious verse. Others focused on the continua-
tion of the spirit; for example, a memorial to a father said only that he had loved
his family and the following:
May the Lord bless his soul and may we meet again in the next life. God bless
his soul!!!! (DD, 1997).
Theme was related to audience—some themes, especially the standard
obituary, are better suited to community notices than communication with the
dead, although one standard obituary was addressed to the deceased. Storytell-
ing was most common in memorials addressed to the community, while
themes of grief and missing were more frequently addressed to the deceased
(see Table 4).
Not surprisingly, those memorials with grief themes were less likely to men-
tion survivors and occupation than memorials written like obituaries or stories. In
addition, because memorials that stressed grief were written for younger individ-
uals, their authors were more likely to be older than the deceased than were
authors who wrote stories or obituaries (see Table 5).
In summary, the diversity of themes reflects the lack of tradition associated
with Web memorials; while the majority chose to tell stories about and to cele-
brate the dead, others utilized this opportunity to openly grieve, replay the
circumstances of the death, and to confess regrets or guilt. Less than 10 percent
retained the more familiar format of the obituary, suggesting that Web
memorials are not being used as substitutes for traditional means of public com-
munication about the dead but rather are developing their own purposes—
perhaps fulfilling needs that have had no forum in recent times.
In contrast to recent tributes, early American obituaries and gravemarkers
appear more descriptive, often depicting the emotions of survivors and the stories
of the deceased (e.g., Agnew, 1995; Mann & Greene, 1962). Perhaps Web ceme-
teries provide modern survivors the opportunity to express the emotions and
stories that once appeared in obituaries and on gravestones.
General Content
Memorials were examined for content common in obituaries such as: information
on funeral services, suggestions for donations, listing accomplishments, and men-
tioning survivors of the deceased. Notification about services and donation
possibilities was rare (only 1.8% listed service information and 1.5% suggested dona-
tions), presumably because most memorials were posted more than one year after the
Table 5. Significant Differences in Primary Themes
Themes
Variable Obituary Story Grief Statistic
Age (n = 205) M = 56.8 M = 51.9 M = 33.2 F(2, 202) = 14.26,

SD = 20.6 SD = 23.4 SD = 20.6 p = .000
grief < obit &
storya
Survivors Listed 95.7% 73.4% 51.9% x2(2) = 16.54,

(n = 216) p = .000
Occupation Listed 34.8% 33.8% 5.6% x2(2) = 16.63,

(n = 216) p = .000
Author Age x2(4) = 14.83,

(n = 174) p = .005
Younger 75.0% 54.3% 26.1%
Same Cohort 16.7% 35.3% 52.2%
Older 8.3% 10.3% 21.7%
aPosthoc comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s hsd with p < .05.
death. In addition, descriptions of accomplishments and group affiliations were infre-

quent; for example, education was mentioned in only 11.2 percent of memorials,
occupation in 22.8 percent, military service in 10.2 percent, and religion in 3.3 per-
cent of memorials. However, 64.9 percent of the memorials mentioned some
survivors of the deceased (in addition to the author), with 42.4 percent including cur-
rent or deceased spouses/partners, 44.9 percent mentioning children, and 17.4 percent
listing grandchildren. Included as survivors were friends and pets, with at least
thirty-three memorials mentioning friends and three clearly listing pets as survivors.
Friends and pets often are disenfranchised in the death system (see Doka, 1989), but
Web memorials may provide a place to recognize their grief.
Other content issues emanate from the recent creation of Web cemeteries and
their consequent lack of tradition or rigid structure. Many of the memorials con-
tain references that are difficult to understand if one is unacquainted with the
relationship between the author and the deceased. For example, “‘It’s a dog eat
dog world out there and I’m wearing milkbone underwear...’ Norm Peterson,
Famous Beer Drinker” (WWC, 1997), apparently quotes a character from the
television program, “Cheers,” and is all that is written in a memorial to a man
from a woman. On a more heartwrenching note, the memorial to a young woman
says only “She was larger than life, and I loved her that way. She was only 22”
(DD, 1997). While such memorials leave the reader with more questions than
answers about the deceased and their relationships, others provide a vibrant por-
trait of the deceased or highlight their special characteristics, for example:
Jamie was a normal naughty happy go lucky little boy full of cheekiness like
any other little boy . . . (DD, 1997).
. . . You could talk faster than anyone I ever knew . . . (WWC, 1997).
. . . He was debonair. He loved his friends. They loved him. He was handsome
and kind. His goodwill and humor distinguished him. He loved to dance. He
had a marvelous dog, Maribou, who is buried with him in______. Maribou
too was a star in her own right. They were a perfect pair. She got invited to the
parties he didn’t. She’d always bring him along. Like him she was pre-
cious . . . (WWC, 1997).
In their memorials, some authors recorded complaints, directives, and ques-
tions that might cause discomfort in normal discourse. Complaints generally
focused on the actions of others after the death, for example:
Unfairly taken and quickly replaced, but not from one who loves you (DD,
1997).
. . . I nurtured him in his time of need. Me. I spent every moment I could with
him . . . I know he loved me . . . A great father. Proud native american . . .
Those not close to him disrespected his very memory by not even including
me in the scattering of his ashes. He was a Native. He should had had a Native
ceremony to commit his ashes back to the earth (DD, 1997).
Memorials containing directives were noticeable for their dramatic shift in point
of view. In most cases, the author would engage in storytelling about the deceased
and then abruptly shift, addressing the reader directly. Directives included:
. . . Please sign your organ donor card. Heaven knows you don’t need your
organs up there, but we do down here! (GR, 1997).
Please don’t start smoking or quit now if you do. That’s what killed him
(WWC, 1997).
To all Parents who have a child fighting an illness:
Be brave! Be there for your child, and most important live each day for that
child! Give your child 100% attention no matter what. Any illness is bad for
anyone—but for a child it is a nightmare . . . (DD, 1997).
Memorials for sudden deaths often included statements that the author did not
understand why the death had to occur. However in some memorials, direct ques-
tions about the death or life without the deceased were presented, for example:
. . . We loved you so—how did this happen??? (GR, 1997) .
. . . It’s 1995, I am middle aged, and my brother is dead. What next? Without
family you have nothing, and I am quickly running out of family (GR, 1997).
In summary, the content of Web memorials varies greatly, reflecting differ-

ences in both the individuals who are memorialized and the authors who pay
tribute to them. Web memorials appear to highlight the relationships of the

deceased to the living, while leaving issues like community notification to more
conventional types of tributes.
General Format
On several dimensions, Web cemeteries are reminiscent of the NAMES Pro-

ject AIDS Quilt—both are new forms for memorializing the dead with no
required content and few rules for format. Although neither has a traditional
structure, both are housed among other tributes to the dead and their grouped
nature may influence accepted format over time. Quilts range from simple pieces
of cloth with names and dates painted on the fabric to elaborate memorials dis-
playing the images of the dead and lengthy writings of survivors (Ruskin, 1988).
Memorials in Web cemeteries are equally variable.
Length of Web memorials was estimated by multipling the number of lines in
the memorial by the average line length. Those memorials that did not include
text other than the name, birth, and death dates of the deceased were considered to
have zero length for this analysis. Length of Web memorials was extremely vari-
able, ranging from only the name and dates to more than one single-spaced page
(M = 95.61 words, SD = 134.4).
The cost of Web memorials is not tied to the size of tribute, so some authors
included quotations in their memorials. Poems were quoted in 7 percent of memo-
rials and included works by Dylan Thomas, W. H. Auden, e.e. cummings, and
Carl Sandburg. Some type of quotation (verse, prose, song) appeared in 11 per-
cent of the memorials. Quotations could be quite lengthy, with the longest being
280 words.
Photographs were permitted as part of the memorial in each of the three cemeter-
ies. The World Wide Cemetery and the Garden of Remembrance also offered to
create links to the favorite music of the deceased. However, only 8.3 percent of the
memorials included photographs and no one linked a memorial to music. The
majority (95.6%) of pictures were posted in the World Wide Cemetery and most
(87%) of the photos showed the deceased alone. In his study of magazine obituar-
ies, Kearl (1986–87) found gender differences in the likelihood of including a
photo, but our small sample of photographs displayed no such difference.
Linking a memorial to other Web sites is a service provided by all of the ceme-
teries, but only the submission form of the World Wide Cemetery asks directly if
the author would like to establish a link to another site within that cemetery. Few
(6.5%) memorials had links to other sites; 4.7 percent of memorials provided links
to other sites on the Web (usually a Web page dedicated to the deceased) and 2.5
percent had links to other memorials within the same cemetery. Two memorials had
both types of links. In reading the authors’ names, it was apparent that many who
had posted multiple memorials did not use the opportunity to link them—some
apparently because the deceased persons were unrelated. Perhaps others wished to
honor the dead by keeping their tributes separate and special. As more individuals
utilize Web cemeteries in the future, it will be interesting to note if more linked
memorials, akin to family plots, become popular.
Web Memorial Authors

All of the cemeteries request the author’s name and e-mail address with the
submission of their memorial. The Garden of Remembrance prints the author’s
name at the bottom of each memorial and the World Wide Cemetery includes
both the name and e-mail address unless the author requests anonymity. How-
ever, Dearly Departed reproduces only the text of the memorial, so only those
authors who sign the memorial as part of the text are named in that cemetery. The
result of these varied procedures is that 76.8 percent of the memorials listed
author’s names and 27.9 percent provided a direct way to contact the author.
Gender of authors could be determined in 77.5 percent of memorials and there
were no gender differences in age or gender of the deceased, primary theme, or
number of authors per memorial. The few gender differences revealed that men
were more likely to mention education (x2(1, N = 274) = 5.57, p = .018) and occu-
pation (x2(1, N = 275) = 7.26, p = .007) than women—differences that may be
explained by the fact that women were more likely to write directly to the
deceased than were men.
Author’s age in relationship to the deceased could be determined for 76.5 per-
cent of the memorials. Given the general nature of survivorship and the
relationship of age to familiarity with computers, it is not surprising that the great-
est number of authors were younger than the deceased, many were from the same
cohort, but few were older (see Table 6). Age of the deceased varied with the rela-
tive age of the author, so that authors who were younger than the deceased wrote
memorials for considerably older individuals (M age = 64.31, SD = 14.64) than
authors in the same cohort (M age = 36.93, SD = 16.33) and authors who were
older than the deceased (M age = 10.46, SD = 10.22) (F(2) = 175.19, p = .000;
younger > same cohort > older by Tukey’s hsd at p < .05). The majority of the
authors who were older than the deceased were parents, while those from the
same cohort were most often friends. The majority of authors who were younger
than the deceased were their children.
Almost one-half of the authors who were from the same cohort as the deceased
were known to be friends and 7.5 percent were listed as lovers or partners. Friends
and lovers may experience disenfranchised grief (Doka, 1989) because they are
less likely to be included in traditional postdeath rituals and to be supported in
their grief than close relatives. One friend addressed the effects of his outsider
status directly in his memorial:
It’s been seven years since you’ve been gone. For seven years I’ve dealt quite
poorly I might add, with the fact there was no funeral, no wake, no grave to
Table 6. Author Age and Relationship to the Deceased
Author Age (n = 212) Percent
Younger than deceased 48.1

Same Cohort 37.7
Older than deceased 14.2
Author Relationship
Younger Author (n = 102)
child 69.6
grandchild 13.7
other 16.6
Same Cohort Author (n = 80)
spouse 18.8
lover 7.5
sibling 26.3
friend 42.5
other 5.0
Older Author (n = 30)
parent 93.3
other 6.7
visit you at. Your parents wisked you away. Your body cremated, and I didn’t
even get to say ‘good-bye’ . . . (GR, 1997).
Others who may experience disenfranchised grief are parents of stillborn or

newborn babies (e.g., Nichols, 1989). Nine memorials were dedicated to babies
who died before or within four months of birth. Not surprisingly, grief was the
most common theme in memorials written by parents and other authors who
were older than the deceased.
All manner of relationships are represented in the memorials; tributes were
written by grandparents, siblings, cousins, coworkers and those with other ties,
like the former foreign exchange student who writes:
In loving memory of my host father, who taught me that family is some-
thing that goes far beyond the boundaries of blood and genetics. He
showed me that love that extends beyond oceans and cultures . . . Auf
Wiedersehen Papa (GR, 1997).
Like an AIDS quilt, the creation of a memorial can be a solo or collaborative

activity. Two or more authors were listed for 6.9 percent of the Web memorials,
with six being written by three authors and one memorial being signed by sixteen
individuals. Sharing about the deceased through postdeath rituals has been pre-
scribed as a means of accepting the reality of the death and integrating the dead
into the lives of the living (e.g., Imber-Black, 1991; Kollar, 1989; Rando, 1988;
Worden, 1991). The collaborative creation of Web memorials may provide a new
opportunity to accomplish these goals.
Web Cemetery Differences

Table 7 displays significant differences in Web cemeteries on variables that
were equally available to all, including: age of the deceased, length, audience,
theme, provision of various demographic variables and time elapsed since death.
In addition, there were other differences in the cemeteries due to their differing
requirements, such as: inclusion of author name and e-mail address, place of
birth, place of death, and place of internment.
Although there are few constraints on format or content, each cemetery appar-
ently has been creating its own tradition or climate—with the memorials in the
World Wide Cemetery paying tribute to significantly older individuals whose
lives are celebrated by the listing of accomplishments and the inclusion of
photos. Because of these differences, memorials in the World Wide Cemetery were
the longest in the three cemeteries. The general format of the World Wide Ceme-
tery, with separate pages for each monument and more required information at the
beginning of each memorial, may have stimulated these differences.
Dearly Departed has the largest percentage of memorials posted within one year
of the death. Perhaps the fact that Dearly Departed is a free service (and consequently
is easy to use) contributes to this difference. The other cemeteries require their fee to
be sent (sometimes through regular mail) prior to posting a memorial— making their
services more complex, especially for the newly bereaved.
CONCLUSIONS
In the late twentieth century, Americans have witnessed an increase in individual-
ized, mass public mourning, in which death is personalized through the momentos
left at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the quilts created for victims of AIDS and
other public acts of personal grief (Jensen, 1988). Web cemeteries provide another
opportunity for personalizing death, where the bereaved are drawn to a common
space not in the wake of one war or disease, but in the simple need to share about their
loved one and their loss. Like other new forms of public memorialization, the
bereaved are rapidly embracing this opportunity for remembering their dead.
The present study is a first description of how the bereaved are utilizing Web
cemeteries while the cemeteries are still in their infancy. Hopefully, it will pro-
vide a useful baseline for the study of Web memorials as they become more
established with their own traditions and rules.
At present, it appears that Web cemeteries provide the bereaved opportunities that
are less available in classic postdeath rituals. Unfettered by tradition, cost, or struc-
tural constraints, authors are using web memorials to communicate with and tell the
Table 7. Significant Differences in Websites
Websites
Variable Dearly WWC Garden Statistic
Age of deceased M = 44.5 M = 52.5 M = 44.3 F(2, 261) = 3.36,

(n = 263) SD = 23.6 SD = 22.8 SD = 24.3 p = .036
WWC > Gardena
Length M = 100.9 M = 123.7 M = 73.2 F(2, 273) = 3.79,
SD = 97.9 SD = 201.6 SD = 73.2 p = .024
WWC > Gardena
Time since death x2(4) = 52.99,
(n = 273) p = .000
less than 1 year 61.3% 27.3% 12.2%
1–5 years 17.7% 44.3% 61.0%
>5 years 21.0% 28.4% 26.8%
Audience (n = 251) x2(2) = 25.72,
p = .000
deceased 5.0% 35.9% 41.6%
world 95.0% 64.1% 58.4%
Theme (n = 216) x2(4) = 19.59,
p = .001
obituary 8.2% 11.9% 11.0%
storytelling 67.3% 80.6% 52.0%
grief 24.5% 7.5% 37.0%
Education Listed 7.9% 20.5% 6.5% x2(2) = 11.00,
p = .004
Marital Status Listed 84.1% 68.2% 55.2% x2(2) = 15.90,

p = .000
Occupation Listed 9.5% 34.1% 21.6% x2(2) = 12.77,

p = .002
Cause of Death 38.1% 44.3% 25.6% x2(2) = 8.50,

Listed p = .014
Pictures Included 1.6% 25.7% 0 x2(2) = 47.70,

p = .000
Note: N = 276 unless otherwise noted.

aPosthoc comparisons were conducted using Tukey’s hsd with p < .05.
personal stories of their relationship to the dead. The cemeteries look like bereave-
ment itself—representing years of varied emotions and diverse tales of affection and
loss. Written by friends and lovers in addition to family members, Web memorials
pay tribute to qualities rarely lauded in death notices and obituaries—a laugh, a favor-
ite joke, a touch—while omitting the laundry list of accomplishments that are so often
recited to describe a life. While they are public, these are decidedly personal remem-
brances. Consequently, Web memorials deserve further study, both as a new form of
postdeath ritual and for what they can add to the literature on the personal experience
of grief.
Future investigations should more thoroughly document the specific ways the
bereaved are utilizing Web cemeteries, not only through analyzing the texts of
memorials, but by consulting cemetery guestbooks and possibly the authors
themselves. One question for this research is whether Web memorials are used as
a single postdeath ritual which is finished when the memorial is posted or are
revisited throughout bereavement for varying purposes in the different phases of
mourning. Web memorials also should be included in research on the benefits
of writing to and about the dead during bereavement. One pertinent question is
whether writing a public Web memorial brings the same benefits that private writ-
ings to and about the dead are purported to provide. Further research could
examine the specifics of the writing process—for example, investigating the
effect of variables like time since death and audience on the nature and benefits of
writing during bereavement.
As the cemeteries become better established, researchers may want to track
changes in the content, format, and the deceased for whom tributes are written.
Studying links between memorials may illuminate the varying relationships
authors have with the dead. Finally, the texts of memorials may aid researchers in
their study of various societal and historical trends, as has been done in obituary
analysis (e.g., Alai, 1994; Kastenbaum et al., 1976–77; Kirchler, 1992; Maybury,
1995–96; Roniger, 1994).
To some readers, the present investigation may highlight a surprising use of the
World Wide Web. However, to those who have been studying recent uses of technol-
ogy, the creation of Web memorials is not especially remarkable. Reeves and Nass
(1996), in their extensive review of the research, demonstrate that individuals attempt
to interact with machines as they do with other people, applying the same concepts of
place, time, and social interaction that they use in human contact. As computer use
becomes part of daily life, the joy and loss that characterize human existence must
be marked through computer interactions (for example, see Argyle, 1996). Given the
rapid increase in computer usage and the growing number of Web memorials, quota-
tions like the following, with its acknowledgment of the unusual nature of the
medium, soon will become “virtually” unnecessary:
I wish I could maintain a contact with you, to keep alive the vivid memories
of your impact on my life. Perhaps I can do this by sharing my memories in
this seemingly unconventional way. Because I cannot visit your grave today,
I use this means to tell you how much you are loved (WWC, 1997).
REFERENCES
Agnew, E. (1995, March). The romantic rhetoric of 19th century obituaries: “She gave
a few faint gasps and died.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Conference on College
Composition and Communication, Washington, DC.
Alali, A. O. (1993–94). Obituary and in-memoriam advertisements in Nigerian news-
papers. Omega, 28, 113–124.
Alali, A. O. (1994). The disposition of AIDS imagery in New York Times’ obituaries.
Omega, 29, 273–289.
Argyle, K. (1996). Life after death. In R. Shields (Ed.), Cultures of Internet: Virtual
spaces, real histories, living bodies (pp. 133–142). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bikson, T. K., & Panis, C. W. A. (1997). Computers and connectivity. In S. Kiesler
(Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 407–430). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Bolton, C., & Camp, D. J. (1986–87). Funeral rituals and the facilitation of grief work.
Omega, 17, 343–352.
Cable, D. G. (1996). Grief counselling for survivors of traumatic loss. In K. J. Doka (Ed.),
Living with grief after sudden loss (pp. 117–126). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Dearly Departed [Online]. (1997). Available: http://www.members.aol.com/departed/
index.html.
Delany, S. L. (with Hearth, A. H.) (1997). On my own at 107. New York, NY: Harper
Collins.
Doka, K. J. (1989). Disenfranchised grief. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief:
Recognizing hidden sorrow (pp. 3–11). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Garden of Remembrance [Online]. (1997). Available: http://www.rights.org/deathnet/
garden.html.
Harvey, J. H., Orbuch, T. L., Weber, A. L., Merbach, N., & Alt, R. (1992). House of
pain and hope: Accounts of loss. Death Studies, 16, 99–124.
Imber-Black, E. (1991). Rituals and the healing process. In F. Walsh & M. McGoldrick
(Eds.), Living beyond loss: Death in the family (pp. 207–223). New York: W. W. Norton.
Jensen, M. D. (1988, November). Making contact: The NAMES Project in comparison
to the Vietnam Memorial. Paper presented at the meeting of the Speech Communication
Association, New Orleans.
Kastenbaum, R., Peyton, S., & Kastenbaum, B. (1976–77). Sex discrimination after
death. Omega, 7, 351–359.
Kearl, M. C. (1986–87). Death as a measure of life: A research note on the
Kastenbaum-Spilka Strategy of obituary analysis: Omega, 17, 65–78.
Kirchler, E. (1992). Adorable woman, expert man: Changing gender images of women
and men in management. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 363–373.
Klass, D., Silverman, P. R., & Nickman, S. L. (Eds.). (1996). Continuing bonds: New
understandings of grief. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Kollar, N. R. (1989). Rituals and the disenfranchised griever. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Dis-
enfranchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow (pp. 271–286). Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Lattanzi, M., & Hale, M. E. (1984–85). Giving grief words: Writing during bereave-
ment. Omega, 15, 45–52.
Lawuyi, O. B. (1988). Obituary and ancestral worship: Analysis of a contemporary cul-
tural form in Nigeria. Sociological Analysis, 48, 372–379.
Lewis, C. S. (1976). A grief observed. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Mann, T. C., & Greene, J. (1962). Over their dead bodies: Yankee epitaphs and history.
Brattleboro, VT: Stephen Green.
Maybury, K. K. (1995–96). Invisible lives: Women, men and obituaries. Omega, 32, 27–37.
McGodrick, M. (1991). Echoes from the past: Helping families mourn their losses. In
F. Walsh & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), Living beyond loss: Death in the family (pp. 50–78).
New York: W.W. Norton.
National Center for Health Statistics (1995). Report of final mortality statistics, 1995,
45(11), supp 2, (PHS Publication No. 97-1120). Available: http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww.
Nichols, J. A. (1989). Perinatal death. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Disenfranchised grief: Rec-
ognizing hidden sorrow (pp. 117–126). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pollock, G. H. (1989). Anniversary reactions, trauma and mourning. In G. H. Pollack
(Ed.), The mourning-liberation process (pp. 183–203). Madison, CT: International Uni-
versities Press.
Rando, T. A. (1988). Grieving. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Rando, T. (1993). Treatment of complicated mourning. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Rando, T. (1996). Complications in mourning traumatic death. In K. J. Doka (Ed.),
Living with grief after sudden loss (pp. 139–160). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, tele-
vision, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Roberts, P. (1999). Tangible sorrow, virtual tributes: Cemeteries in cyberspace. In
B. deVries (Ed.), End of life issues: Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspectives
(pp. 337-358). New York: Springer.
Roniger, L. (1994). A long-run view of Israeli society through the looking glass of
mourning announcements in the press. Omega, 29, 205–217.
Rosenblatt, P. C. (1983). Bitter, bitter tears: Nineteenth century diarists and twentieth-
century grief theories. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Rosenblatt, P. C. (1996). Grief that does not end. In D. Klass, P. R. Silverman, & S. L.
Nickman (Eds.), Continuing bonds: new understandings of grief (pp. 45–58). Bristol, PA:
Taylor & Francis.
Ruskin, C. (1988). The Quilt: Stories from the NAMES Project. New York: Pocket
Books.
Spilka, B., Lacey, G., & Gelb, B. (1979–80). Sex discrimination after death: A replica-
tion, extension and a difference. Omega, 10, 227–233.
Stillion, J. M. (1996). Survivors of suicide. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Living with grief after
sudden loss (pp. 41–52). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Stillion, J. (1985). Death and the sexes. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Weeks, O. D. (1996). Using funeral rituals to help survivors. In K. J. Doka (Ed.), Living
with grief after sudden loss (pp. 127–138). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
World Wide Cemetery [Online]. (1997). Available: http://www.cemetery.org/
Worden, J. W. (1991). Grief counseling and grief therapy: A handbook for the mental
health practitioner (2nd edition). New York: Springer.
Zulli, A. P., & Weeks, O. D. (1997). Healing rituals: Pathways to wholeness during pro-
longed illness and following death. In K. J. Doka & J. Davidson (Eds.), Living with grief:
When illness in prolonged (pp. 177–192). Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Direct reprint requests to:

Pamela Roberts, Ph.D.
California State University, Long Beach
Human Development Program
1250 Bellflower Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90840-3605

Zart I Go Perpetual Care

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zart I Go Perpetual Care

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OMEGA, Vol.

PERPETUAL CARE IN CYBERSPACE: A

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic Characteristics of the Deceased

Table 1. Significant Gender Differences in Memorials

Gender of the Deceased

Frequency 62.0% 38.0% x2(1) = 17.31, p = .000

Occupation Listed 31.4% 8.7% x2(1) = 18.72, p = .000

No Occupation M = 72.1 M = 69.4

Military Listed 16.3% 0 x2(1) = 18.67, p = .000

Note: n = 275 unless otherwise noted.

sample should be viewed with caution, the impact of including occupational

Table 2. Cause of Death: Frequency and Average Age

attempting to understand the death than survivors of more anticipated losses.

Web Memorials—General Characteristics

None of the cemeteries provided information on the date memorials were

Table 3. Time between Death and Posting the Memorial

Table 4. Significant Differences in Audience

Number of Words M = 65.9 M = 109.7 t(249) = 2.57, p = .011

Age of deceased M = 42.6 M = 49.2 t(238) = 2.03, p = .044

Education listed 5.2% 13.9% x2(1) = 4.04, p = .045

Occupation listed 6.4% 31.2% x2(1) = 18.40, p = .000

Military listed 2.6% 14.5% x2(1) = 7.91, p = .005

Marital Status listed 55.1% 71.7% x2(1) = 6.61, p = .010

Survivors listed 48.7% 74.6% x2(1) = 16.13, p = .000

Theme (n = 203) x2(2) = 32.84, p = .000

Author gender (n = 203) x2(1) = 5.63, p = .018

Note: n = 251 unless otherwise noted.

Harvey, Orbuch, Weber, Merbach, and Alt (1992), in their discussion of

Finally, religious themes were primary in 4.3 percent of memorials, many of

Table 5. Significant Differences in Primary Themes

Age (n = 205) M = 56.8 M = 51.9 M = 33.2 F(2, 202) = 14.26,

Survivors Listed 95.7% 73.4% 51.9% x2(2) = 16.54,

Occupation Listed 34.8% 33.8% 5.6% x2(2) = 16.63,

Author Age x2(4) = 14.83,

death. In addition, descriptions of accomplishments and group affiliations were infre-

In summary, the content of Web memorials varies greatly, reflecting differ-

tribute to them. Web memorials appear to highlight the relationships of the

On several dimensions, Web cemeteries are reminiscent of the NAMES Pro-

Web Memorial Authors

Table 6. Author Age and Relationship to the Deceased

Author Age (n = 212) Percent

Younger than deceased 48.1

Others who may experience disenfranchised grief are parents of stillborn or

Like an AIDS quilt, the creation of a memorial can be a solo or collaborative

Web Cemetery Differences

Table 7. Significant Differences in Websites

Age of deceased M = 44.5 M = 52.5 M = 44.3 F(2, 261) = 3.36,

Marital Status Listed 84.1% 68.2% 55.2% x2(2) = 15.90,

Occupation Listed 9.5% 34.1% 21.6% x2(2) = 12.77,

Cause of Death 38.1% 44.3% 25.6% x2(2) = 8.50,

Pictures Included 1.6% 25.7% 0 x2(2) = 47.70,

Note: N = 276 unless otherwise noted.

Direct reprint requests to:

You might also like