Limitations of Evidence

Thus far in our exposition conclusions have been underpinned by a considerable array of first-hand data, the fruits of systematic studies begun soon after a death had occurred. In this chapter, by contrast, we have no first-hand data and are dependent, instead, on second-hand reports that refer to earlier times. Furthermore these second-hand reports not only deal with extremely complex interactions between a person who, subsequently, has become bereaved and members of his immediate family but come mostly from the parties themselves. Since such reports, as we know (see Volume II, Chapter 20), are notoriously subject to omission, suppression and falsification, they must be treated with reserve. Despite these difficulties, however, it seems that certain patterns can be discerned and that, when examined and construed in terms of the theory sketched in earlier volumes, a set of plausible, interlocking and testable hypotheses emerge.

Evidence at present available strongly suggests that adults whose mourning takes a pathological course are likely before their bereavement to have been prone to make affectional relationships of certain special, albeit contrasting, kinds. In one such group affectional relationships tend to be marked by a high degree of anxious attachment, suffused with overt or covert ambivalence. In a second and related group there is a strong disposition to engage in compulsive caregiving. People in these groups are likely to be described as nervous, overdependent, clinging or temperamental, or else as neurotic. Some of them report having had a previous breakdown in which symptoms of anxiety or depression were prominent. In a third and contrasting group there are strenuous attempts to claim emotional self-sufficiency and independence of all affectional ties; though the very intensity with which the claims are made often reveals their precarious basis.

In this chapter we describe personalities of these three kinds, noting before we start that the features of p