Gender differences in grief narrative construction: a myth or reality?

Figures & data

Table 1. Sociodemographics and loss-related information of study participants.

	Women (n = 29)	Men (n = 21)	Total (N = 50)
Variable	n (%)/M (SD)	n (%)/M (SD)	n (%)/M (SD)	t / Fisher’s exact (FET)
Age (in years)	70.98 (11.62)	71.38 (7.76)	71.16 (9.95)	t (46) = .14, p = .89
Race				FET: p = .17
Caucasian/White	29 (100%)	19 (90.5%)	48 (96%)
Non-White	0	2 (9.5%)	2 (4%)
Ethnicity: not Hispanic or Latino^a	27 (93.1%)	20 (95.2%)	47 (94%)	FET: p = .68
Education^b				FET: p = .36
High school diploma or equivalency	11 (37.9%)	5 (23.8%)	16 (32%)
Some college and above	17 (58.6%)	16 (76.2%)	33 (66%)
Employment				FET: p = .76
Employed	9 (31%)	8 (38.1%)	17 (34%)
Unemployed	20 (69.0%)	13 (61.9%)	33 (66%)
Relationship to deceased				FET: p = .01
Spouse or romantic partner	11 (37.9%)	16 (76.2%)	27 (54%)
Parent	18 (62.1%)	5 (23.8%)	23 (46%)
Time since loss (months)	53.57 (61.58)	50.56 (84.42)	52.30 (71.26)	t (47) = −.15, p = .89
Age of deceased (in years)	50.52 (24.94)	57.81 (17.61)	53.58 (22.25)	t (47) = 1.21, p = .23
Cause of death				FET: p = .05
Non-Violent	19 (65.5%)	19 (90.5%)	38 (76%)
Violent	10 (34.5%)	2 (9.5%)	12 (24%)
Death was expected: yes^c	11 (37.9%)	12 (57.1%)	23 (46%)	FET: p = .31
Professional support: yes^d	13 (44.8%)	6 (28.6%)	19 (38%)	FET: p = .17

*** p < .001; ** p < .01; * p < .05

^a28 females, 49 in total

^b28 females, 49 in total

^conly completed for death through natural causes, 20 males, 23 females, 43 in total

^d28 females, 49 in total.

Table 2. Examples of LIWC indices in participant narratives.

First-person singular pronouns	‘Um well sometimes I’m angry and sometimes like now I’m really sad to talk about it still, it is still early and is easy for me to cry.’
Fillers	‘That everything youknow that my life has completely changed although it’s still the same.’
Non-fluencies	‘Um in terms of actual physical communication uh verbal communication uh we still didn’t have a whole lot of that but when you spend almost fifty years with somebody you don’t need a whole lot of verbal communications.’
Positive emotion words	‘And try to find the happy moments, and the embracement moments, or runaway moments, or whatever it takes.’
Negative emotion words
Sadness words	‘She considers my daughter sort of like competition which is sad because you can never win a competition against someone who’s dead.’
Anxiety words	‘I’m scared too I think, because I’m afraid if I do let go right now, that my son’s going to have a real mess on his hands.’
Anger words	‘Will I miss him? Will I grieve? Will I be angry? I’ll be all those things.’
Social processes
Family	‘Our immediate family, our daughter who flew out immediately she just dropped everything and came out and spent a couple of weeks with us um through the funeral and everything.’
Friends	‘It’s just a whole set of people that I um I never even knew existed in this neighborhood, so I’ve met new people and um nice people.’
Cognitive processes
Insight	‘I think probably the best way is to get it over with and done with quickly and then you can move forward.’
Causation	‘I honor her by living the best way I can because she didn’t get to do it.’

Table 3. Group differences on psychological adjustment and LIWC variables.

	Women (n = 29)		Men (n = 21)		Total (N = 50)		Group Differences
Psychological Adjustment Outcomes	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p	partial η^2
Perceived Social Support	28.37	4.13	25.10	4.25	27.00	4.45	7.30	.01*	.13
Perceived Emotional Support	14.07	2.16	12.69	2.05	13.49	2.21	5.07	.03*	.10
Perceived Instrumental Support	14.29	2.18	12.40	2.33	13.50	2.41	8.50	.01*	.15
Actual Support Received	45.64	8.04	41.02	6.89	43.70	7.85	4.46	.04*	.09
Loneliness	34.39	9.68	41.40	12.79	37.34	11.51	4.81	.03*	.09
Grief Symptoms	17.95	10.11	20.75	12.72	19.13	11.24	.72	.40	.02
Rumination	31.81	12.84	32.20	10.60	31.97	11.84	.01	.92	< .01
Grief Avoidance	1.56	.53	1.79	.66	1.66	.59	1.67	.20	.03
Depression Symptoms	50.07	8.66	63.14	10.61	55.56	11.46	24.48	.01*	.34
Anxiety Symptoms	53.34	10.23	54.48	11.30	53.82	10.60	.12	.73	< .01
LIWC Category
Positive emotion	2.40	.64	2.42	.53	2.41	.53	.01	.93	< .01
Negative emotion	1.54	.43	1.33	.47	1.45	.45	2.81	.10	.06
Anxiety	.20	.10	.20	.10	.20	.10	.07	.80	< .01
Anger	.24	.13	.21	.13	.23	.13	.51	.48	.01
Sadness	.69	.27	.54	.30	.63	.29	3.40	.07	.07
Social processes	12.83	1.89	12.63	2.24	12.74	2.03	.10	.75	.002
	8744	3749	8590	4535	8679	4054	.02	.89	< .01

Length of bereavement was used as a covariate. Bonferroni-corrected significance levels to account for possible alpha error accumulation due to multiple comparisons. Bold values represent parameters that meet the threshold for meaningful effects (partial η²: 0.01 (small), 0.06 (medium), 0.14 (large)) suggested by Cohen (1988), as well as the threshold of p < .05.* indicate significant results at p < .05.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

 Google Scholar