The stigmatization of prolonged grief disorder and disenfranchised grief: A vignette-based experimental study

Abstract

People with prolonged grief disorder (PGD) are at risk of public stigma, but research has yet to examine whether stigma is shaped by different types of relationship losses. In an experimental study, we asked participants (N = 306) to read three scenarios in which targets lost their romantic partner, child, or companion animal. Targets with PGD (vs. integrated grief) elicited more negative emotional reactions and attributions, and their experiences were perceived as less legitimate. Targets who lost their companion animal (vs. other relationship losses) were perceived as the most sensitive and their grief as the least legitimate, but they also elicited the lowest prosocial and fear reactions and were perceived as the warmest. Lastly, targets with PGD who lost their companion animal (vs. other relationship losses) elicited more negative emotional reactions and attributions, and their experiences were perceived as less legitimate. Implications and suggestions for future studies are discussed.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 PGD has also been termed as complicated grief, complicated grief disorder, and persistent complex bereavement disorder (Eisma, 2023; Lenferink et al., 2022). Criteria established on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR) for adults to be diagnosed with PGD include impairment in psychosocial functioning and the experience of severe symptoms (e.g., a sense of disbelief about the death) for more than 12 months (Prigerson et al., 2021). Similarly, criteria established by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) for adults to be diagnosed with PGD include persistent longing for the deceased, intense emotional reactions (e.g., guilt), and functional impairment for at least 6 months (Shevlin et al., 2023).

2 We conducted two one-sided tests (TOST) using −.05 and +.05 Cohen’s d as our interval of significance to determine the equivalence between both gender conditions across public stigma indicators (Lakens et al., 2018). Results showed that means were significantly below the upper bound of the confidence interval, all p ≤ .003, and significantly above the lower bound of the confidence interval, all p ≤ .001, indicating that means were statistically equivalent for female and male targets.

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia to Ecem Sarper (Ref.: 2023.05086.BDANA) and David L. Rodrigues (Ref.: 2020.00523.CEECIND).