New Places of Remeberrance Individual Web Memorials in the Netherlands

7/24/2019 New Places of Remeberrance Individual Web Memorials in the Netherlands

1/12

This article was downloaded by: [University of Veracruzana]On: 05 August 2015, At: 11:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place,London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Death StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udst20

New Places of Remembrance: Individual Web Memoria

in the Netherlands

Mirjam Klaassensa& Maarten J. Bijlsma

a

aDepartment of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences , University of Groningen

Groningen , The Netherlands

Accepted author version posted online: 26 Jul 2013.Published online: 28 Aug 2013.

To cite this article:Mirjam Klaassens & Maarten J. Bijlsma (2014) New Places of Remembrance: Individual Web Memorials

the Netherlands, Death Studies, 38:5, 283-293, DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2012.742474

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2012.742474

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of tContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon ashould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveor howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic

reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2012.742474http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2012.742474http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07481187.2012.742474http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2012.742474http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/07481187.2012.742474http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udst20http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/07481187.2012.742474&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2013-07-26


2/12

New Places of Remembrance: Individual WebMemorials in the Netherlands

Mirjam Klaassens and Maarten J. Bijlsma

Department of Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences,

University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

The creation of places of remembrance in virtual space constitutes a new ritual tocommemorate the dead. The purpose of this study is to explore for whom individualWeb memorials are meaningful places, who are commemorated, and whether they con-

stitute a community of support. We analyzed 181 Dutch Web memorials and conductedcontent analysis of messages posted in four guestbooks. We found that parents, and inparticular mothers, create Web memorials in remembrance of their deceased children.The memorials provide access to a community of social support, consisting primarilyof strangers and=or people who have experienced a similar loss.

The Internet has provided a relatively new place forbereaved people to express their grief and to memorializetheir deceased loved ones. One form of memorializationonline is through posting memorials at websites knownas Web cemeteries. These memorials primarily containtext but in some of the virtual cemeteries it is possible

to insert pictures and to add sound. Similar to the tra-ditional cemetery, the Web cemetery provides a placeto memorialize and visit memorials to the dead (Roberts& Vidal, 19992000). Unlike physical cemeteries, Webmemorials allow anyone to commemorate a deceasedloved one in his or her own way, whenever and fromwherever he or she chooses, and to share memories andinformation about the deceased person with others (deVries & Rutherford, 2004; Roberts, 2004a).

Web memorials are virtual places that representnew opportunities for postdeath rituals (de Vries &Rutherford, 2004). This phenomenon reflects changingattitudes toward dying and mourning in contemporary

Western societies. Traditional religious rituals haveincreasingly fallen out of favor in the course of seculari-zation and individualization resulting in a quest for newrituals (Wouters, 2002). More than ever, people gobeyond mourning practices and spaces provided by thetraditional authorities of the church and the state (Clark

& Franzmann, 2006). The creation of a Web memorialenables the bereaved to express their emotions freely inpublic spaces (Mellor, 1993), something often discour-aged in contemporary Western societies in which deathhas been sequestered (i.e., removed from the publicsphere into the private world of the individual; Giddens,1991; Mellor & Shilling, 1993). Public access to Webmemorials makes it possible for bereaved individuals tomeet and interact with people who have experienced asimilar loss and offers a sense of empathy and supportin a virtual community of grievers (Moss, 2004; Roberts,2004a, 2004b).

Several studies by Roberts (2004a, 2004b, 2006)

indicate that Web memorialization is experienced asbeneficial in the bereavement process and is thought toconstitute a meaningful ritual. Although research onWeb memorials in the Netherlands is limited, there is awealth of material on this topic in the United States.However, the primary focus of this literature is on mem-orials in Web cemeteries (Roberts & Vidal, 19992000).The present study concentrates on individual Webmemorials in the Netherlands, that is, memorials that

Received 6 June 2011; accepted 11 October 2012.We thank Sjaak Moerman who conducted the analysis of the guest-

book entries as part of his Bachelors thesis together with Maarten

Bijlsma on virtual places of remembrance in 2009.Address correspondence to Mirjam Klaassens, Department of

Cultural Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University ofGroningen, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands.E-mail: [email protected]

Death Studies,38: 283293, 2014

Copyright# Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0748-1187 print=1091-7683 online

DOI: 10.1080/07481187.2012.742474


3/12

are free-standing web pages instead of those that belongto collective web pages of Web cemeteries. We studiedthis type of memorial as it is considered to be the mostpersonal form of Web memorialization (Bijlsma &Moerman, 2009; Roberts, 2004a). The construction ofan individual Web memorial provides mourners freedomto express their grief as they wish, because no standard

template is used, unlike virtual cemeteries (Roberts,2004a). Consequently, studying individual Web memor-ials provides a better understanding of the way grief isexpressed and manifested online.

The purpose of this article is to obtain a better under-standing of those who create Web memorials in theNetherlands, who are commemorated, and whether thememorials provide access to a community of support.In doing so, we examine certain details of those who cre-ate Web memorials (i.e., gender and relationship withthe deceased person) and for whom such memorials areconstructed (i.e., gender, age, and cause of death of thedeceased person). This differs from other studies that

focus on Web memorials created for a specific cause ofdeath, such as persons with AIDS (Blando, Graves-Ferrick, & Goecke, 2004), or particular relationshipsbetween the living and the dead, for example deceasedmothers (Nager & de Vries, 2004) and deceased children(Peelen & Altena, 2008). Previous studies that focuson demographic characteristics of the memorializeddeceased use descriptive statistics (de Vries & Rutherford,2004; Roberts, 2004b; Roberts & Vidal, 19992000). Thisarticle contributes to the existing literature by applying abinary logit model that identifies those demographiccharacteristics of the deceased that increase the likelihoodof a Web memorial being created.

WEB MEMORIALIZATION: A MEANINGFULPOSTDEATH RITUAL

Several reasons are presented in the literature to explainwhy Web memorials are experienced as meaningfulplaces of remembrance for their creators (Roberts,2006). First, the creation and updating of online memor-ials involve writing about and to the deceased person,which can be experienced as helpful and therapeutic(Lattanzi & Hale, 19841985). That is, the act of writingenables mourners to free themselves emotionally andexpress what they are really feeling (Marshall, 2000).

In addition, Web memorials may allow the bereavedto continue their relationship with the deceased person.A typical feature is that guestbook entries and messagesat Web memorials are addressed to the dead and thesedemonstrate continuing bonds between the bereavedand deceased; an assurance that they will not be forgot-ten (Roberts, 2006). It is a way to sustain an ongoingrelationship with the dead, instead of breaking ties

and letting go (Klass, Silverman, & Nickman, 1996;Walter, 1996).

The authors of Web memorials may experience asense of empathy and support in a community of grie-vers; such Web memorials are sites where they can shareabout their loved one and their loss (Moss, 2004;Roberts, 2004a, 2004b). The very personal stories of

the bereaved persons become public as the Internet inte-grates personal and mass media and enables thebereaved (visitors and authors) to take part in two-waycommunication. For example, messages of sympathy orcondolences are sent to the bereaved through the emaillink provided, or by posting in the guestbook that isoften provided at Web memorials. These means of com-munication lead to an expansion of the support networkto include bereaved strangers who have experienced asimilar loss, and=or to the maintenance of existingrelationships. Consequently, Web memorials provide aplace for the bereaved to come together and to form acommunity of support (Roberts, 2004a, 2004b, 2006).

In the face of unwritten contemporary social normsconcerning who is entitled to grieve, Web memorializa-tion also offers an alternative ritual for a group ofgrievers who are excluded from traditional grief andmourning rituals (de Vries & Rutherford, 2004). Doka(1989) identified these grievers as members of a disen-franchised group, who in many cases have no recogniz-able kin ties with the deceased, and whose loss is notsocially recognized; these mourners include friends, par-ents who have lost their children through miscarriage,and pet owners. By creating a Web memorial, these dis-enfranchised mourners have equal access to a supportivecommunity (Roberts, 2006).

The duration of grief is another aspect for whichunwritten social norms are constructed. It is generallyexpected that within one calendar year or less, thebereaved will be over the loss and will function asbefore (de Vries & Rutherford, 2004; Stroebe, Hansson,Schut, & Stroebe, 2008). Although cyberspace is a recentphenomenon, the dead who are remembered and mem-orialized on the Web need not be forgotten. The Webenables relatives to (re)establish their bonds with thedead for decades to come (Roberts, 2004b).

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE CREATION OFA WEB MEMORIAL

A search of the literature on Web memorializationreveals several factors that determine whether memorialsin Web cemeteries are created. First, demographiccharacteristics of the deceased person, such as the gen-der, age, and cause of death, play a role. In Web cem-eteries, more males than females are memorialized(Blando et al., 2004), in particular young males in their

284 M. KLAASSENS AND M. J. BIJLSMA


4/12

late 40s (de Vries & Rutherford, 2004; Roberts & Vidal,19992000). The relative youth of the deceased can beexplained by the perceived tragedy of early death(Roberts & Vidal, 19992000). Roberts and Vidal furthershowed that although the single most reported cause ofdeath was cancer, the majority of the causes were clearlysudden and violent such as murder, suicides, or acci-

dents, whereas other causes may have been sudden, suchas heart attacks and strokes.

The second factor is the demographic characteristicsof those who create Web memorials. They are predomi-nantly female (Roberts & Vidal, 19992000). An under-lying explanation is that Web memorials provide anavenue for emotional expression, including grief, whichtends to be more characteristic of women than of men(de Vries & Rutherford, 2004). Historically, women inparticular have been identified as grievers, who woremourning attire and visited the grave. Walter (1994) alsosuggested that men are less likely to use rituals; the samecan also be assumed of electronic rituals (de Vries &

Rutherford, 2004). However, a study by Blando andcolleagues (2004) indicated that slightly more men thanwomen make AIDS memorials.

This may be due to the fact that a disproportionatelylarge percentage of persons who have died with AIDSin North America have been gay men, and friends andpartners of these deceased individuals likely comprise alarger proportion of men. (Blando et al., 2004, p. 38)

In general, the creators of Web memorials are typicallyyounger or from the same cohort as the deceased(Roberts & Vidal, 19992000), which might be attribu-

ted to age-based computer skills (de Vries & Rutherford,2004).

The third factor is the relationship between thebereaved person and the memorialized deceased.Although memorials are written by children, friends,grandchildren, parents, siblings, spouses, and otherfamily members, the majority of memorials are by chil-dren (de Vries & Rutherford, 2004; Roberts & Vidal,19992000).

When we consider the demographic characteristics ofthe deceased person that are likely to determine theestablishment of a Web memorial, such as age, gender,and cause of death, isolating the effect of these singlecharacteristics may lead to a false impression of theirsignificance, as some of the demographic characteristicsare interconnected. For example, the memorialization ofcertain causes of death could be explained by the preva-lence of such deaths in younger age groups, or amongyoung males, such as traffic accidents. To overcome lim-itations of single characteristics, we examine the mutualdependency of all demographic characteristics of mem-orialized deceased persons by using a binary logit model.

In the next section, the different sources of data andmethodology used in this study are presented and dis-cussed. In the results, we first elaborate on the designand composition of individual web memorials to acquaintthe reader with the topic of investigation and how mour-ners use the Internet to create meaningful places ofremembrance. Then, we discuss for whom and by whom

the Web memorials are created, and whether the bereavedpersons create a community of support through settingup such Web memorials. Finally, we discuss our findingsand present the limitations and conclusions of this study.

METHODOLOGY

The individual memorial websites are often posted asfree-standing web pages and therefore are more difficultfor researchers to access as compared to virtualcemeteries where all Web memorials can be accessedfrom the starting page (Roberts, 2004a). However, in

exploring the World Wide Web, we found a web page(http://rouwverwerking-inmemoriam.startpagina.nl) onwhich 78 memorial authors had placed a link to theirfree-standing websites. The individual memorial websitesthemselves were very helpful in locating additional sites,as many contained links to others, which in turn offeredlinks to other individual Web memorials. To enhance therepresentativeness of our data set and to mitigate thesnowball effect, we collected data by means of onlinesearch engines using different key words. The data collec-tion resulted in a database of 171 individual memorialwebsites, of which 162 were made to commemorate onedeceased person, eight sites for two deceased persons,

and one for three deceased persons. The deceased whowere commemorated by a shared individual Web mem-orial were bonded by family ties. In our data set, a totalof 181 deceased persons were commemorated by Webmemorials.

Viewing our data collection critically, we believe thatwe have gathered a fairly representative group of indi-vidual memorial websites in the Netherlands, throughthe use of different search methods. From email com-munication with the webmaster of the web page men-tioned earlier, we learned that all memorial authorscould add the link of their own memorial to the webpage http://rouwverwerking-inmemoriam.startpagina.nl. Consequently, no selection process occurred on thebasis of demographic background characteristics of thedeceased or the cause of death. Furthermore, we usedthe search engines to find additional sites, and conse-quently to obtain a more representative group of mem-orial authors. We continued looking for data until wewere unable to locate new Web memorials.

For all the cases in our database, data from the Webmemorials, as well as data about the authors and

WEB MEMORIALS 285


5/12

deceased persons was included. First we added infor-mation on the design of the memorial (inclusion ofphotographs, music, videos, or poems), which showshow mourners express their grief and create a meaningfulplace of remembrance according to their taste and needs.Second, we included demographic information of thedeceased (gender, age, and cause of death), and charac-

teristics of those who created Web memorials (genderand relationship to deceased). Furthermore, informationabout whether a memorial provided the means of inter-action with an audience (provision of a guestbook, linksto other individual Web memorials or profile accounts)was noted in the database. This was taken as an indi-cation of the opportunities that the memorial offered tobuild a community of support.

In addition to the constructed database, we usedanother source of datamessages (n 1206) posted inguestbooksto gain more insight into those who visitWeb memorials. We selected the guestbooks of fourindividual memorial sites based on different criteria.

At the beginning of our selection procedure, we selectedthe guestbooks that contained a sufficient number ofentries for analysis, which was set at 100 messages.These guestbooks made it possible to study the use ofthe guestbook over a period of time. Then, we chosethe guestbooks that provided information about thedate on which the messages were posted as well as thename of the poster (to ascertain, where possible, the gen-der of the visitor). Finally, the websites were selected asthe persons memorialized died have different gendersand ages and they died because of different causes: con-ditions originating in the perinatal period (two websitesdedicated to a newborn and stillborn baby girls), traffic

accident (one website dedicated to a 19-year-old boy),and suicide (one website dedicated to a 16-year-old girl).The guestbooks were analyzed for their content, charac-teristics of the visitors, and visitors relationship withthe author.

To obtain more insight into the contents of the guest-books of those four Web memorials, the messages werecoded using MAXQDA, a software program designedfor text analysis. The entries were coded according tothe relationship between visitors and the bereaved. Thecategories used were direct family (e.g., parents, siblings,grandparents); acquaintances (e.g., friends, classmates,other people known to the bereaved); people who hadexperienced a similar loss; strangers (identified on thebasis of messages that stated that the visitor did notknow the author); and people whose relationship couldnot be identified. The names of the visitors and the dateof posting were used to establish the frequency of visitsto the guestbook and by whom, over time. In one guest-book the gender of the guestbook posters was indicatedby each posting, in the other guestbooks it was deter-mined where possible from their names.

The guestbook messages were analyzed usingthematic content analysis to quantify the themes underconsideration. An initial set of codes was establishedbased on the work of de Vries and Rutherford (2004).Following a primary examination of the messages, otherthemes were formulated. A pilot coding procedure wasapplied, with three researchers coding 20 guestbook

entries independently. The codes of these messageswere compared and consequently the categories wererefined and=or extended. This resulted in the followingthemes.

. Expression of sadness over the death or missing

the deceased: Recollections, expressions of loss oremphasizing the absence of the deceased, aswell as emotions described by visitors (e.g.,Tears rolled down my cheeks when reading yourstory).

. Cause of death: The cause of death is mentioned orthe circumstances in which the person died are

described.. References to God: References to God, heaven, or

religious rituals.. Reunion: References to the deceased who lives on

and watches over the bereaved. For example:Im sure that [name of deceased] . . .proudly looksdown at us.

. Expressions of support or sympathy: Declarationsof admiration for the way the bereaved deal withthe situation as well as more general expressionsof support and sympathy.

. Interaction: Expressions resulting from some kindof communication or contact; by way of thanks

for a guestbook entry or as a response to earliercontact or messages in the guestbook.

There are several ethical considerations to keep inmind when analyzing Web memorials. Web memorialsand guestbooks provide rich and unobtrusive data. Theaccounts are very personal and idiosyncratic, and,according to Roberts (1999), they provide a betterway of studying the impact of death on bereavedpeople and their grieving process than other unobtrus-ive measures such as obituaries or gravestones.The method of unobtrusive research does not requirethe researcher(s) to elicit information directly from theresearch subjects. Because the data is accessible toeveryone who uses the Internet and because theaccounts are placed in the public domain by the mour-ners themselves, we did not feel constrained in usingthe data without the consent of those who createdthe memorials. Nevertheless, because of the highly per-sonal nature of the communication, we made sure thatthe anonymity of the deceased persons and the authorswas preserved.



6/12

RESULTS

The Design and Composition of Individual WebMemorials

The primary reason for creating individual Web memor-ials is to remember the deceased person, captured inphrases such as in loving memory or in memoriam.Other reasons expressed by the authors are to share theirpersonal stories, experiences, and emotions with others.This has helped them in their bereavement and theyhope that it would provide comfort and support forothers as well.

The design and composition of the Web memorialsdemonstrate that such memorials are highly personalizedplaces of remembrance and that they provide detailedinformation about the deceased person as well as thebereaved authors. All websites contain the name of thedeceased. Other very common features are the dates ofbirth and death (93.1% and 97.1%, respectively) and a

picture of the deceased when he or she was alive(98.8%), while a few Web memorials carry pictures ofthe deceased after death as well. Music accompanied38.7% of the websites, which was automatically activatedupon visiting the site, or a particular section of the site.The sites for children often contained instrumental chil-drens songs. In other cases, it was the favorite musicof the deceased or it was the music that was played atthe funeral. Fourteen percent of the websites containvideo files of the deceased when he or she was still alive.

The most commonly used background color of indi-vidual Web memorials is black or blue with white starsor clouds, possibly representing a kind of afterlife. Often

used symbols are white stars, doves, angels, candles,roses, and hearts. These symbols are occasionally mixedwith more personal symbolism; for example, a familywith Scottish roots displayed their clans tartan on thesite. Websites dedicated to deceased children deservespecial mention, as these websites differed in their pres-entation. Websites for children are more colorful. Thiscorresponds with the design of childrens graves at cem-eteries that differs from the graves of adults in the use ofcolor (Hallam & Hockey, 2001). The most commonlyused symbols are butterflies, teddy bears, balloons, orcharacters from childrens books or television programs.

At some memorials, visitors can place a message in the

guestbook with a virtual bouquet of flowers, or with alighted candle for the deceased person. These rituals indi-cate that although the virtual world provides a new placeof remembrance, the performed postdeath rituals clearlyborrow elements from traditional rituals, such as placingflowers at the grave or lighting a prayer candle which is acommon practice in the Catholic Church. The creation ofa virtual memorial does not mean that traditional placesof remembrance have been replaced, because we found

that at least 61% of the authors had physical places ofremembrance too, as their virtual memorial carriedpictures of a grave, urn and=or roadside memorial.This suggests that the bereaved who created a Webmemorial were looking for additional channels to articu-late their grief.

The Deceased Who Are Memorialized byWeb Memorials

To understand for whom web memorials are created, wefirst determined the age, gender, and cause of death ofthe deceased honored by a Web memorial. Then, weexamined the combined effects of age, gender, and causeof death by applying a binary logit model.

To compare the deaths memorialized on the Internetwith all deaths in the Netherlands, the age of thedeceased persons for whom a Web memorial is createdis set against the distribution of the age of those who diedin the Netherlands in the same period (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 demonstrates that the age distribution of thosehonored by a Web memorial is positively skewed, as theyare set up for the young, whereas the age distribution ofthe deceased Dutch population is negatively skewed,because in general deaths occur in old age. Even thoughthe Web memorials were dedicated to the deceased ran-ging from 0 to 89 years old, the average age of deathwas 20 years (SD 19.8), which is greatly influenced bythe 04 age category. This is because the most memorialsare created for those in that age group. With regard tothe gender of the deceased persons honored by a Webmemorial, we found that the percentage of males isslightly higher (52% for males and 48% for females).

Our results further showed differences between thedistribution of causes of death in the entire Dutch popu-lation and the distribution of the population honored byan individual Web memorial. From Table 1 it is clearthat causes that occur at a very young age such as con-ditions originating in the perinatal period and congenitalanomalies are overrepresented in the individual Webmemorials, reflecting the causes of death of the youngestage group (see Figure 1). Other causes of death that areoverrepresented in Web memorials are traffic accidents,cancer, and murder. Although diseases of the circulatorysystem are the most common type of death in the Nether-lands, these are underrepresented in Web memorials.

To understand the relative importance of eachdemographic characteristic, we applied a binary logitregression analysis. For the dependent variable we useda dichotomous variable measuring whether a Web mem-orial was created. This variable is defined in such a waythat having a Web memorial is coded 1 and having noWeb memorial is coded 0. The cases that score 0 on thedependent variable are all deaths in the Netherlands overthe period 19972008 minus the memorialized deceased

WEB MEMORIALS 287


7/12

included in our database. The deceaseds gender, age,and several causes of death are used as independentvariables (see Table 2). We inserted seven causes of death

in our regression model. The other causes as presentedin Table 1 could not be used in the model, becausesome were too small in number to compare with alldeaths resulting from this cause in the Netherlands,and others correlated highly with the variable age, such

as conditions originating in perinatal period, which onlyoccurs in the youngest age category. This did not applyto congenital anomalies and this cause of death could

therefore be used in the model.The results of the logistic regression show that the

younger the persons age at death, the greater the likeli-hood that an individual Web memorial would be created.Furthermore, the results of the logistic regression analy-sis show that deceased women were more likely to havean individual Web memorial made for them thandeceased men, which will be discussed later.

The logistic regression showed that traffic accidents,suicides, murder, congenital anomalies, and neoplasmswere significant and increased the likelihood of havinga Web memorial created. Overall, the results of our logis-tic regression show that the background characteristics,

such as age and cause of death, that significantly affectthe likelihood of the creation of a Web memorial arebad deaths (e.g., traffic accidents, suicides, and mur-der); deaths that occur suddenly, unexpectedly, and=orviolently (Seale & Van der Geest, 2004). However, oneoutcome of the logistic regression model does not justifythe bad or disenfranchised death explanation, as themodel shows that cancer has a significant effect on thelikelihood that a Web memorial would be created. Inother words, when a person dies of cancer it is morelikely that a Web memorial would be created to com-memorate the deceased. Although in some cases cancermay lead to an expected and sudden death, commonlythe progression toward death is gradual, and thereforethis cause of death contains elements of what is con-sidered a good death, that is a death that occurs athome, with family members present, in the absence ofviolence, and to a certain extent one where there is exer-cise of control over events (Seale & Van der Geest, 2004).

An explanation is provided by a second regressionmodel, in which we took into account the interactioneffects between the causes of death and the age groups

FIGURE 1 The age distribution of deceased remembered by an individual Web memorial (left) and the age distribution of the dead in the

Netherlands (right) in 19972008; The frequency scales of the two figures are different (color figure available online).

TABLE 1

Causes of Death of the Deceased Memorialized by a Web Memorial

and the Dutch Population (19972008)

Deceased

memorialized

by Web

memorials

Dutch

populationCauses of death % %

Traffic accident 19.5 0.7

Neoplasm (cancer) 18.9 28.8Murder 14.5 0.3Conditions originating in the perinatal

period

13.8 0.3

Congenital anomalies 12.6 0.4Suicide 6.3 1.1Diseases of the circulatory system 4.4 33.3

Other accident 3.1 1.7Diseases of the nervous system 1.9 1.7Chronic lower respiratory diseases 1.3 4.7

Endocrine, nutritional and metabolicdiseases

1.3 0.6

Diseases of the musculoskeletal systemand connective tissue

0 0.4

All othera 2.5 25.8100.1 99.8

N 159 1,655,432

Note: Cause of death was classified using the major categories ofthe International Classification of Disease (ICD, 9th rev.) as definedby the Statline application of Statistics Netherlands.

aThis category is classified by the authors as all other categories ofthe ICD.



8/12

(see Table 2). An interaction effect occurs when theeffect of one independent variable on the dependentvariable depends on the level of a second independentvariable. We expected that the prominence of peoplewho died from cancer in Web memorials stems fromthe young age of the deceased, and therefore we examinedthe possible interaction effects on our data. This modeldoes not include all the interaction effects as some ofthese effects consist of very small cell counts and conse-quently cause quasi-complete separation in the data.

We found a significant positive interaction effect forcancer and the second age group (619 years), whichindicates that people in that particular age group whodied because of cancer have a significantly higher prob-ability of having a Web memorial created for them. Theeffect of the 619 years age group dominated the

outcome of cancer in the first model. When theinteraction effects were included in the second model,cancer does not appear as a significant factor in settingup a Web memorial, which supports our bad deathexplanation.

The Authors of Web Memorials

The creators of individual Web memorials were generallyfamily members, in particular a parent or both parents ofthe deceased (42%). Family groups, brothers and sistersof the deceased together with the parents, were oftenmentioned as founders of Web memorials (27%). Otherauthors were partner(s) (7%), sibling(s) (7%), children(6%), friend(s) (3%), and grandparent(s) (2%). We couldnot determine the relationship in 6% of the cases. One

TABLE 2

Predictors of the Creation of Web Memorials

Model 1 Model 2Background characteristics

of memorialized deceased B a Exp (B) B a Exp (B)

Gender (0 female) 0.425 (0.163) 0.654 .449 (0.164) 0.639Age

05 years 5.733 (0.324)

308.910 5.736 (0.395)

309.754619 years 5.177 (0.315) 177.112 4.815 (0.625) 123.3392039 years 4.535 (0.278) 93.235 4.651 (0.549) 104.711

40 years and older (reference group)

Causes of deathb

Diseases of the circulatory system 0.117 (0.450) 0.890 1.027 (0.790) 0.358

Traffic accident 1.971 (0.307) 7.181 3.963 (0.485) 52.597Other accident 0.741 (0.499) 2.098 0.172 (1.045) 0.842

Suicide 1.072 (0.409) 2.922 2.093 (1.066) 8.112Murder 2.796 (0.304) 16.385 4.695 (0.622) 109.433Congenital anomalies 0.538 (0.295) 1.712 0.541 (0.299) 1.717

Neoplasms (cancer) 1.110 (0.295) 3.033 0.762 (0.472) 2.142All other causes of death (reference group)

Interaction effectsCancer_age2 1.356 (0.760) 3.882Cancer_age3 0.140 (0.699) 1.150

Traffic_age2 1.888 (0.830) 0.151

Traffic_age3 2.286 (0.699) 0.102Circulatory_age1 1.919 (1.285) 6.812Circulatory_age3 1.688 (1.019) 5.408

Suicide_age2 0.979 (0.504) 2.663Suicide_age3 1.424 (1.404) 0.241Murder_age1 3.360 (1.191) 0.035

Murder_age2 2.260 (1.071) 0.104Murder_age3 1.909 (0.784) 0.148

Otheraccident_age3 1.495 (1.228) 4.458Constant 11.385 (0.303) 0.000 11.363 (0.374) 0.000N 1,655,432 1,655,432Nagelkerke R2 .297 .311

2 loglikelihood 2292.731 2245.867

Chi-square 966.966 1013.830

Note: Source: Data of Statistics Netherlands and authors database (19972008).aDependent variable: having a Web memorial established (yes 1, no0).bWhether the memorialized person died because of the particular disease (yes 1, no0).p< 0.1. p


9/12

website was designed by the deceased himself when hewas alive, in preparation for his death. This individualsuffered from a chronic disease and was often hospita-lized. He wrote texts on the website for surviving rela-tives. After his death, the website was maintained andupdated by a family member.

The majority of the Web memorials were created by

bereaved females, although there was a sizeable groupcomprising both genders. On websites made by theparents of a deceased child or a family group, it wastypically the mother who reported about the life anddeath of her deceased child, which is consistent withfindings by Peelen and Altena (2008).

To explain the higher probability of Web memorialsbeing created for women as mentioned earlier, weexamined the gender of the deceased person and therelationship between the author and the deceased byusing chi-square tests. These tests showed that children,although they comprise a small proportion of the totalnumber of authors, were more likely to memorialize

females (i.e., their mothers) than males, v2

(1) 2.270,p< 0.1. This finding is difficult to interpret as littleresearch has been conducted on relationship differencesin memorialization trends (Blando et al., 2004).

We examined the time that elapsed between death andthe establishment of the memorial, by using the date ofdeath of the deceased person and the date of first visibleactivity on the Web memorial to examine whether theauthors could belong to a disenfranchised group oflong-term grievers (Roberts, 2004b). Web memorialsprovide a place to express grief long after the sociallyaccepted duration of one calendar year or less (de Vries& Rutherford, 2004). We found that the majority of

the Web memorials were constructed within the first yearafter the death (55.6%). However, a considerable groupof authors could be regarded as disenfranchised grieversas their memorials were created more than a year afterthe death of their loved one (see de Vries & Rutherford,2004). Of the memorials that were created, 65% were setup 1 to 2 years after the person in question died, 81%after 4 years, and 88% after 6 years. The remainingwebsites were created between 6 and 11 years later.

Virtual Communities of Support

The analysis of individual Web memorials demonstratesthat the memorials incorporated several factors thatmade it possible to create a network of bereaved peopleand to forge a community of support. We found that91% of the memorials contain modes of interaction, suchas a guestbook (75%) and=or email address (62%), or in asmall number of cases a link to a social network site (1%),which enables communication to take place betweenauthors and visitors. Moreover, we found that 63%of the Web memorials were connected to other Web

memorials. Websites were more likely to be linked tothe websites of persons who had died under similarcircumstances (age and=or cause of death). This appearsespecially to be the case for websites dedicated to youngchildren. It implies that authors of Web memorials lookfor support from those who had gone through similarexperiences.

To gain more insight into the virtual community, weidentified those who posted messages in the guestbooksand their relationship with the author(s) of the Webmemorial. We coded the guestbook messages of fourWeb memorials (n1206). The majority of the messageswere posted by persons who did not know the deceased(43%) and those who had undergone a similar experience(25%). A small number were posted by acquaintances ofthe bereaved (11%) or by surviving relatives (2%). Wefound that of all the messages, 81% were written bywomen, and 7% by men. Of the messages that wereposted, 7% of the messages were posted by more thanone person, while the gender of 5% of the posters could

not be determined.An analysis of the individual guestbooks of four Web

memorials revealed some differences in those who postedmessages in the guestbook, which might be explained bythe age, gender, and cause of death of the remembereddeceased. Although the contribution of messages writtensolely by men is small in every guestbook, the guestbookof the Web memorials dedicated to the 19-year-old boywho died in a traffic accident contained far more mes-sages posted by men (16%) than the other guestbooks.Approximately 10% of messages were written solely bymen in the guestbook dedicated to the 16-year-old girlwho died by suicide, whereas the percentage of the mes-

sages in the guestbooks dedicated to the newborn andstillborn baby written solely by men was considerablylower (3% and 2%, respectively). Furthermore, a higherpercentage of the messages posted in the guestbooks inremembrance of the teenage boy and girl were postedby friends, classmates, and other people known to thebereaved (25% and 17%, respectively, compared with9% and 2% in the guestbooks of new and stillborn)reflecting the existing social network of the teenagerswhen alive.

Thematic content analysis of the messages posted infour guestbooks revealed that the means of communi-cation facilitated by Web memorials are used by thosewho visit the guestbooks to connect with the authors.A considerable number of messages (34.8%) showedindications of interaction, referring either to earlier mes-sages posted in the same guestbook or posted on anothermemorial, or referring to earlier contact via e-mail. Themost common type of message was one of (emotional)support for the memorial author(s) and his or her family(79.4%). References to mourning or missing the deceasedwere also found (20.3%) and expressed by people who



10/12

did not know the deceased person but who appreciatedthe tragedy of the loss. The cause of death was mentionedin some messages (17.3%), most notably on the websitededicated to a person who had died by suicide. In termsof the contents of these messages, people expressed theirincomprehension as to why the deceased had chosen sui-cide, or, more directly, they asked why he or she had cho-

sen to do so. Messages referring to the afterlife, religion,or God were uncommon (2.2%), confirming the notionthat the Netherlands is one of the more secular countriesin the world (Venbrux, Peelen, & Altena, 2009).

DISCUSSION

The present study concentrates on individual Web mem-orials, which has received little attention within theliterature on Web memorialization. We found that indi-vidual Web memorials differ from those in Web cem-eteries in several aspects but share commonalities as well.

First, the design and composition of the individualWeb memorials demonstrate that they are highly perso-nalized places of remembrance. The stories, pictures,music, and in some cases videos provide the visitor animpression about the kind of person the deceased was.This finding differs from memorials in Web cemeteries,which primarily contain text (Roberts & Vidal, 19992000). The construction of a memorial is a way to recon-struct the identity of a deceased loved one. Some individ-ual Web memorials invite other mourners to providetheir own memories of the deceased, so that a sharedconstruction of the deceased person is created (seeRosenblatt & Elde, 1990). It is through conversations

with others who knew the deceased that a durablebiography is constructed (Walter, 1996). For theauthors, it is a way to ensure that the deceased is not for-gotten. This is in line with the continuing bonds theoryoffered by Klass et al. (1996), which is about integratingthe memory of the deceased into the ongoing lives ofthose bereaved, instead of breaking ties between thebereaved and the dead and letting go.

Second, our study showed that the deceased memoria-lized by an individual Web memorial died a bad death.Although there are many different perceptions of whatcould be considered a good or bad death across cul-tures and times, there are many similarities as well. Inparticular, although modern societies have apparentlybeen successful in controlling circumstances surroundingdeath, deaths that occur unexpectedly, without warning,or violently, before a fulfilled life could be achieved, ordeaths that occur away from home, or without opport-unity for closure, are considered bad deaths (Seale &Van der Geest, 2004). Some of these deaths (e.g., suicide)could be regarded as disenfranchised deaths as well.Whereas in Western societies suicide is believed to be a

taboo, and consequently the surviving relatives couldbe seen as disenfranchised grievers (Doka, 1989), onthe Web this cause of death appears to be less of a taboo.This suggests that the Web memorial provides a way forthese disenfranchised grievers to emotionally expressthemselves, and the explicit mentioning of the cause ofdeath is a way to come in contact with others who have

experienced a similar loss. The finding that individualWeb memorials commemorate bad deaths does notdiffer from the study by Roberts and Vidal (19992000) on Web cemeteries, which indicated that althoughthe single most reported cause of death was cancer, themajority of causes were clearly sudden and violent.

Third, logistic regression showed that the younger thepersons age at death, the greater the likelihood that anindividual Web memorial would be created. In ourstudy, the average age of the memorialized dead was20 years, which was greatly influenced by the 04 agegroup, and which differs from findings in other studieson Web memorialization that report higher ages at

death. In the Web cemeteries studied by de Vries andRutherford (2004) and Roberts and Vidal (19992000),the average age was late 40s. A possible explanationfor the difference in average age of the memorializeddead by individual Web memorials and memorials inWeb cemeteries is the relationship between the authorof the Web memorial and the deceased person, whichis discussed below.

Fourth, our findings show that parents, and in parti-cular mothers, create a Web memorial to rememberand to commemorate their deceased child. The deathof a child can be regarded as a disenfranchised death.It is often stated that the loss of a small child is underes-

timated in contemporary society, because the parentsgrief seems disproportionate to the lifespan of thedeceased (de Vries, Dalla Lana, & Falck, 1994; Doka,1989). This finding differs from other studies that showthat most memorials in Web cemeteries were foundedby children (de Vries & Rutherford, 2004; Roberts &Vidal, 19992000). Nevertheless, these studies suggestthat children are perhaps disenfranchised grievers as wellas the death of a parent is seen as expected, timely, fair,and less tragic (De Vries & Rutherford, 2004, p. 19).Doka (2008) provided a possible explanation, bysuggesting different typologies of disenfranchised grief.The loss felt by parents who mourn the death of newbornor stillborn babies is thought to be one whereby the lossis not acknowledged (p. 231). Little research has beenconducted on the cause of death of parents being memor-ialized on Web cemeteries. These causes could containelements of what is considered in Western cultures asbad deaths. Further research is required into the causeof death, to obtain more insight into the memorializeddeceased of both types of Web memorials and the rolememorials play in bereavement.

WEB MEMORIALS 291


11/12

Fifth, the present study showed that deceased womenhave a higher likelihood of having an individual Webmemorial created than men, whereas studies on Webcemeteries have indicated that men are honored by mem-orials (de Vries & Rutherford, 2004; Roberts & Vidal,19992000). A possible explanation is provided by Nagerand de Vries (2004), who used attachment theory

(Bowlby, 1969, 1977) to obtain a better understandingof adult daughters who memorialized their deceasedmothers online. This theory tries to explain how indivi-duals connect with one another and why they establishthese connections. According to Nager and de Vries(2004, p. 44), an attachment represents an affectionalbond that has been established between two persons, abond that is believed to be so robust and a connectionso strong that it endures over the lifetime and beyond.The earliest attachment bond is that between parents,mothers in particular, and their infant child. When amother dies, the implication is that not only the childloses that attachment figure, but also the longest stand-

ing relationship with another person (Nager & de Vries,2004). One way of continuing this bond is through theestablishment of a Web memorial.

Similarly, a study by Klaassens, Groote, and Huigen(2009) indicated that the odds of being memorialized bya roadside memorial in the Netherlands are higher forfemales, although the coefficient was not statistically sig-nificant. These findings are difficult to interpret as littleresearch has been conducted on the way the relationshipbetween bereaved and memorialized deceased influencesdifferences in rituals and memorialization places. Asuggestion for further research is to examine whetherthe relationship and background characteristics of the

deceased, such as gender, is related to places and ritualsthat may help mourners to cope with their loss.

Finally, through the creation or visiting of individualWeb memorials, access is provided to a community ofsupport. Although the notion of a virtual community isproposed in studies on Web cemeteries, no research hasbeen conducted as to whether this is applicable to indi-vidual Web memorials as well. The formation of a com-munity around Web cemeteries is not surprising giventhe collective nature of Web cemeteries, which unitesthe bereaved. Our study shows that the Internet also pro-vides other ways to access a virtual community of sup-port, through individual Web memorials. A differencewith the Web cemeteries is that the authors of individualWeb memorials choose whether they want to be part of acommunity and with whom they form this community.Websites were more likely to be linked to the websitesof persons who had died under similar circumstances(age and=or cause of death). This appears especially tobe the case for websites dedicated to young children. Itimplies that creators of Web memorials look for supportfrom those who had gone through similar experiences.

The analysis of guestbooks of four different Websitesshowed that the community of support differs among thebereaved who lost teenage children and the bereavedwho lost a newborn or a stillborn baby. The website ofthe first group was more visited by friends, classmates,and other people known to the bereaved, so that theWeb memorials provided an additional place to remem-

ber the deceased with people he or she has known. Forthe second group, the website provided access to anadditional community of support.

The study has some limitations that should be con-sidered. As we described earlier, individual Web memor-ials differ from memorials in Web cemeteries in severalaspects. These differences may be explained by the typeof Web memorial or by the cultural context of thepresent study. Further research on individual Web mem-orials in other countries is suggested to provide moreinsight into possible cultural differences.

Four guestbooks were selected for thematic contentanalysis. To obtain the full breadth of possible guest-

book messages, we selected guestbooks with at least100 messages. Because we did not study the averagenumber of guestbooks entries of all memorials, it is notknown whether they are representative of individualWeb memorial guestbooks in general. If the selectedguestbooks contain above-average numbers of guest-book entries, this might affect the interpretation of theguestbooks in general. Nevertheless, the analysis ofguestbooks in our study is more exploratory in natureand is intended to gain greater insight into visitors, thecontent of their messages and their interaction with theauthors rather than making general statements of guest-books of individual Web memorials in the Netherlands.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to obtain a deeper under-standing of individual Web memorials in the Nether-lands. We found that bereaved parents in particularcreated an individual Web memorial for their deceasedchild. The former could be typified as disenfranchisedgrievers as the loss of a small child, especially newbornor stillborn babies, is often underestimated. The creationof a personal Web memorial enables mourners to(re)construct and preserve the identity of the deceasedperson and to make that person a part of their own lives.It is a way to continue the bonds between the living andthe dead, so that the dead will not be forgotten. For par-ents, a Web memorial is an important means to recognizethe short existence of their child, as the memorial enablesthem to construct and preserve the identity of theirdeceased child. Especially when the deceased is the firstchild of a couple, the Web memorial is an instrumentthat helps them to construct an identity as parents.



12/12

Individual Web memorials provide access to a com-munity of support. This community is dominated bywomen, who make up the majority of Web memorialscreators as well as the majority of visitors who leave mes-sages in the guestbooks. Web visitors are primarily stran-gers and=or people who have experienced a similar loss,who express their (emotional) support to the founder(s)

and his or her family. Overall, the results of our logisticregression show that the background characteristics ageand cause of death (e.g., traffic accidents, suicides andmurder) significantly affect the likelihood of the creationof a Web memorial. This suggests that virtual Web mem-orial provides an additional network of support forpeople commemorating a bad death. For survivorsof a bad death (i.e., a death that occurs suddenly andunexpectedly), it is not possible to prepare for and tocome to terms with such a death. Therefore, postdeathrituals such as writingwhich in our case concernsWeb memorialscould help the bereaved personsaddress unfinished business with the dead, to express

their loss, and to share it with others. This does notmean that traditional places of remembrance have beenreplaced by virtual memorials, because many of theauthors have physical places of remembrance. This sug-gests the idea that the bereaved who have created aWeb memorial were looking for additional channels toarticulate their grief.

REFERENCES

Bijlsma, M., & Moerman, S. (2009). Herdenken in een post-geografische ruimte [Commemorating in post-geographical space].

Rooilijn, 43(1), 2227.Blando, J. A., Graves-Ferrick, K., & Goecke, J. (2004). Relationshipdifferences in AIDS memorials. Omega, 49(1), 2742.

Bowlby, J. (1969).Attachment and loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. New York:Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds.

London: Tavistock Publications.

Clark, J., & Franzmann, M. (2006). Authority from grief, presence

and place in the making of roadside memorials. Death Studies, 30,579599.

de Vries, B., & Rutherford, J. (2004). Memorializing loved ones on theWorld Wide Web. Omega, 49(1), 526.

de Vries, B., Dalla Lana, R., & Falck, V. T. (1994). Parental bereave-

ment over the life course: A theoretical intersection and empiricalreview.Omega, 29(1), 4769.

Doka, K. J. (1989). Disenfranchised grief. In K. J. Doka (Ed.),Disen-

franchised grief: Recognizing hidden sorrow (pp. 311). Lexington,

MA: Lexington Books.

Doka, K. J. (2008). Disenfranchised grief in historical and culturalperspective. In M. Stroebe, R. Hansson, H. Schut & W. Stroebe

(Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research and practice: Advances

in theory and intervention (pp. 223240). Washington: American

Psychological Association.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity. Self and society in thelate modern age. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Hallam, E., & Hockey, J. (2001).Materializing culture: Death, memory

& material culture. Oxford: Berg.

Klaassens, M., Groote, P., & Huigen, P. P. P. (2009). Roadside

memorials from a geographical perspective. Mortality,14(2), 187201.

Klass, D., Silverman, P. R., & Nickman, S. L. (1996). Continuingbonds, new understandings of grief. London: Taylor & Francis.

Lattanzi, M., & Hale, M. E. (19841985). Giving grief words: Writingduring bereavement. Omega, 15, 4552.

Marshall, L. (2000).Some shadows of eternity: The internet and memor-ials to the dead(Unpublished paper). University of Newcastle uponTyne, UK.

Mellor, P. (1993). Death in high modernity: The contemporarypresence and absence of death. In D. Clark (Ed.), The sociology of

death(pp. 1130). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Mellor, P., & Shilling, C. (1993). Modernity, self identity and the

sequestration of death. Sociology, 27, 411432.Moss, M. (2004). Grief on the web. Omega, 49(1), 7781.

Nager, E. A., & de Vries, B. (2004). Memorializing on the World WideWeb: Patterns of grief and attachment in adult daughters ofdeceased mothers. Omega, 49(1), 4356.

Peelen, J., & Altena, M. (2008). Voor altijd een stralende ster op hetweb. Digitale herinneringen aan vroeg gestorven kinderen [Forever

a shiny star on the web. Digital memories of early deceasedchildren]. In E. Venbrux, M. Heesels & S. Bolt (Eds.), Rituelecreativiteit

(pp. 7588). Zoetermeer: Meinema.

Roberts, P. (1999). Tangible sorrow, virtual tributes: Cemeteries in

cyberspace. In B. de Vries (Ed.), End of life issues: Interdisciplinaryand multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 337358). New York:

Springer.

Roberts, P. (2004a). The living and the dead: Community in the virtualcemetery.Omega, 49(1), 5776.

Roberts, P. (2004b). Here today and cyberspace tomorrow:Memorials and bereavement support on the web. Generations,

28(2), 4146.

Roberts, P. (2006). From my space to our space: The functions ofWeb memorials in bereavement. The Forum. Association for Death

Education and Counseling, 32(4), 14.

Roberts, P., & Vidal, A. (19992000). Perpetual care in cyberspace: A

portrait of memorials on the web. Omega, 40(4), 521545.Rosenblatt, P., & Elde, C. (1990). Shared reminiscence about a

deceased parent. Family Relations, 39, 206210.

Seale, C., & Van der Geest, S. (2004). Good and bad death: Introduc-

tion.Social Science & Medicine, 58, 883885.Stroebe, M., Hansson, R., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (Eds.) (2008).

Handbook of bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory

and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Venbrux, E., Peelen, J., & Altena, M. (2009). Going Dutch: Individu-

alisation, secularization and changes in death rites.Mortality,14(2),97101.

Walter, T. (1994). The revival of death. London: Routledge.

Walter, T. (1996). A new model of grief: Bereavement and biography.Mortality, 1, 725.

Wouters, C. (2002). The quest for new rituals in dying and mourning:Changes in the we-I balance. Body & Society, 8(1), 127.

WEB MEMORIALS 293

Documents

New Places of Remeberrance Individual Web Memorials in the Netherlands