The Uncertain Certainty: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Personal Meanings of Death and Preliminary Insights Into Their Relationship With Worldview.

IF 1.3
Omega Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-13 DOI:10.1177/00302228231157135
Daniel Spitzenstätter, Tatjana Schnell
{"title":"The Uncertain Certainty: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Personal Meanings of Death and Preliminary Insights Into Their Relationship With Worldview.","authors":"Daniel Spitzenstätter, Tatjana Schnell","doi":"10.1177/00302228231157135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The present mixed methods study investigated personal meanings of death, i.e., concepts, views, and expectations associated with one's own death, and explored their relation to worldview. To this end, a sample of 202 young, German-speaking adults completed the <i>Death Statements Test</i>, a new qualitative assessment tool, as well as quantitative measures of religiosity, spirituality, atheism, and agnosticism. Qualitative data was transformed to enable quantitative analyses. Results indicated that the spectrum of personal meanings of death is generally broad and multifaceted. The most prevalent view on death was \"death as source of motivation and meaning in life.\" The frequencies of emotionally positive and negative death meanings were relatively balanced, while neutral statements dominated. Relationships between participants' death meanings and worldview dimensions turned out to be small but existent. The <i>Death Statements Test</i> proved to be a valuable and economic assessment tool, eliciting rich qualitative material on personal meanings of death.</p>","PeriodicalId":74338,"journal":{"name":"Omega","volume":" ","pages":"1483-1508"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12188024/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Omega","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228231157135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present mixed methods study investigated personal meanings of death, i.e., concepts, views, and expectations associated with one's own death, and explored their relation to worldview. To this end, a sample of 202 young, German-speaking adults completed the Death Statements Test, a new qualitative assessment tool, as well as quantitative measures of religiosity, spirituality, atheism, and agnosticism. Qualitative data was transformed to enable quantitative analyses. Results indicated that the spectrum of personal meanings of death is generally broad and multifaceted. The most prevalent view on death was "death as source of motivation and meaning in life." The frequencies of emotionally positive and negative death meanings were relatively balanced, while neutral statements dominated. Relationships between participants' death meanings and worldview dimensions turned out to be small but existent. The Death Statements Test proved to be a valuable and economic assessment tool, eliciting rich qualitative material on personal meanings of death.

不确定的确定性:对个人死亡意义的混合方法探索及其与世界观关系的初步洞察》(The Uncertain Certainty: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Personal Meanings of Death and Preliminary Insights into Their Relationship With Worldview.
本混合方法研究调查了个人对死亡的意义,即与自身死亡相关的概念、观点和期望,并探讨了它们与世界观的关系。为此,202 名年轻的德语成年人样本完成了新的定性评估工具 "死亡陈述测试",以及宗教信仰、灵性、无神论和不可知论的定量测量。定性数据经过转换后可进行定量分析。结果表明,个人对死亡的理解通常是广泛和多方面的。最普遍的死亡观点是 "死亡是人生动力和意义的源泉"。情感上积极和消极的死亡含义频率相对平衡,而中性陈述占主导地位。结果表明,参与者的死亡含义与世界观维度之间的关系很小,但却存在。事实证明,死亡陈述测验是一种有价值且经济的评估工具,它能激发出有关个人死亡意义的丰富定性材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信