Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35293606›Full record

ArticleIntegrative psychological & behavioral science2023

Griefbots. A New Way of Communicating With The Dead?

Belén Jiménez-Alonso, Ignacio Brescó de Luna

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Belén Jiménez-AlonsoUniversitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1849-7740
Ignacio Brescó de LunaUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. ignacio.bresco@uam.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8044-7643

Funding

det obelske familiefond det obelske familiefondvictor grífols i lucas foundation victor grífols i lucas foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a growing number of new digital technologies mediating the experiences of grief and the continuing bonds between the bereaved and their loved ones following death. One of the most recent technological developments is the "griefbot". Based on the digital footprint of the deceased, griefbots allow two-way communication between mourners and the digital version of the dead through a conversational interface or chat. This paper explores the mediational role that griefbots might have in the grieving process vis-à-vis that of other digital technologies, such as social media services or digital memorials on the Internet. After briefly reviewing the new possibilities offered by the Internet in the way people relate with the dead, we delve into the particularities of griefbots, focusing on the two-way communication afforded by this technology and the sense of simulation derived from the virtual interaction between the living and the dead. Discussion leads us to emphasize that, while both the Internet and griefbots bring about a significant spatial and temporal expansion to the grief experience -affording a more direct way to communicate with the dead anywhere and at any time- they differ in that, unlike the socially shared virtual space between mourners and loved ones in most digital memorials, griefbots imply a private conversational space between the mourner and the deceased person. The paper concludes by pointing to some ethical issues that griefbots, as a profit-oriented afterlife industry, might raise for both mourners and the dead in our increasingly digital societies.

Indexed as

CommunicationGriefHumansChatbotsContinuing bondsCultural psychologyDeathDigital footprintDigital immortalityGriefGriefbotsMediationMourning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.