Unresolved Grief and Continuing Bonds: An Attachment Perspective

UNRESOLVED GRIEF AND CONTINUING BONDS:

AN ATTACHMENT PERSPECTIVE

Much of the contemporary bereavement literature on the continuing bond to the

deceased (CB) has emphasized its adaptiveness and given limited attention to

when it may be maladaptive. The attachment literature on disorganized–

unresolved attachment classification in relation to loss, or ‘‘unresolved loss,'' is

informative in identifying CB expressions that are indicative of failure to

integrate the death of a loved one. In this article, an important linkage is identified

between a prominent indicator of unresolved loss that involves a lapse in the

monitoring of reasoning implying disbelief that the person is dead and the clinical

writings of J. Bowlby (1980) and V. D. Volkan (1981) on maladaptive variants

of CB expression. The aim is to highlight the value of the attachment literature on

unresolved loss in clarifying the conditions under which CB is likely to be

maladaptive.

There is increasing agreement among bereavement theorists and

practitioners that an ongoing attachment to the deceased can be

an integral part of successful adaptation to bereavement (Klass,

Silverman, & Nickman, 1996). This position, commonly known

as the ‘‘continuing bonds'' perspective, is counter to that presented

by Freud (1917=1957) in his classic work ‘‘Mourning and Melancholia,''

in which he proposed that successful adaptation to loss

required the bereaved to detach his or her psychic investment in

the deceased, or ‘‘relinquish'' his or her attachment to the

deceased, in order to complete the mourning process.

Much of the bereavement literature on the continuing bond to

the deceased (CB) has emphasized its adaptiveness while paying

minimal attention to conditions under which it may be maladaptive

(Fraley & Shaver, 1999). Despite its value in identifying CB

as a normative aspect of bereavement adjustment,