Digital Memorials and Continuing Bonds
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Grief, Loss & Bereavement · Written by Artificial Sapiens
A digital memorial is an online space or preserved digital profile where people remember someone who has died. It may contain photographs, recorded voices, messages, life stories, shared rituals, condolences, and contributions from friends or family. Digital memorials extend remembrance across distance and time: a person can return to a memory years after a funeral, and people who never met can contribute different parts of the same life story.
Continuing bonds describe the ongoing psychological and social connection that bereaved people may maintain with someone who died. An online memorial can provide a place for that connection through storytelling, revisiting photographs, writing a birthday message, sharing favorite music, or acknowledging how the person still influences one's values. Research documents these practices; it does not establish that creating a memorial reliably reduces grief symptoms for everyone. The 2024 systematic review of continuing bonds and the 2025 synthesis of social-media experiences both emphasize variation in meaning and outcomes.
This guide examines what online memorials are, why people use them, the evidence for comfort and distress, how algorithms and digital archives shape remembrance, practical decisions about privacy and access, and the differences between memorial pages and AI systems that imitate a deceased person. It also explains when digital remembrance may call for additional support.
What are digital memorials?
Digital memorials are spaces designed or repurposed to preserve memories of someone who has died. They include dedicated tribute websites, memorialized social profiles, interactive guestbooks, photo and video archives, digital remembrance walls, online ceremonies, and small private groups whose members share stories. Some are created soon after death; others evolve from ordinary accounts that remain accessible long afterward.
A memorial may be public, discoverable by search engines, accessible only to invited people, or kept as a private archive. The memorial's meaning arises from how people use it: one family maintains a collective record of milestones, another preserves a parent's voice for children, and a close friend returns quietly to read old messages. This practical diversity matters more than any one platform label.
Digital memorials overlap with digital legacy, online mourning, and digital afterlife practices. A digital legacy includes a person's broader online records and decisions about posthumous access. Online mourning names expressions of grief on connected platforms. Continuing bonds name an ongoing relationship experienced by the bereaved, including entirely offline memories and rituals. A memorial can support continuing bonds, but the two terms describe different things.
Types of online memorials
A memorialized social-network profile retains selected content and may permit tributes according to platform rules. A dedicated memorial website typically lets an organizer curate a biography, images, stories, anniversaries, and a guestbook. An online obituary or funeral-home tribute often begins with service information and may remain available for later messages. A private shared album or encrypted family archive may preserve personal recordings without a public audience.
Communal memorials may be created by classmates, work colleagues, fans, faith communities, or friends from online communities. They can document collective meaning while also raising questions about whose memories are represented, who controls moderation, and how people with different relationships to the deceased participate.
These categories are practical descriptions, not clinical treatments. No particular website feature is necessary for a healthy grieving process, and choosing to maintain no digital memorial is a legitimate preference.
What does continuing bonds mean in digital grief?
Continuing bonds are enduring connections with someone who has died, expressed through memories, actions, identity, imagined dialogue, rituals, and relationships with others. Bonds can change over time as a person incorporates memories of the deceased into everyday life. A son may preserve his mother's recipes, a friend may play a song on anniversaries, and a partner may recount shared experiences to new family members.
Digital settings add durable traces and opportunities for interaction. People can scroll through past conversations, address posts to the deceased, receive comments from other mourners, and see photographs contributed by someone outside their immediate circle. In the qualitative study by Akinyemi and Hassett, social-media tributes supported individual and shared reminiscence, sometimes revealing unfamiliar aspects of the deceased person's life.
The Hewson and colleagues systematic review assessed 79 included studies of continuing bonds broadly. Experiences clustered around comfort and distress, relational identity, and uncertainty or spirituality. These findings favor an individualized understanding: the psychological significance of a bond depends on its form, context, accompanying emotions, and effect on daily living.
A digital memorial may help someone acknowledge an enduring bond while also making room for new relationships and responsibilities. Equally, a platform can repeatedly expose someone to painful reminders. Research does not support treating frequency of memorial visits, posting to the deceased, or keeping digital possessions as stand-alone indicators of adjustment or disorder.
Why do people create online memorials?
People often want a place to gather dispersed memories. They may fear losing photographs stored on old devices, wish to involve relatives living in different countries, or hope to preserve stories for children who will grow up without the person. Others seek visible acknowledgment of a loss that their wider community barely recognizes.
Online memorials also create continuity around dates that are meaningful to the bereaved. A message on an anniversary can acknowledge both absence and ongoing influence. Because memorials can be revisited and expanded, commemorative activity need not end after the funeral or a formal period of mourning.
The 2025 scoping review by Liang and colleagues included 61 studies on social media and personal grief, identifying continuing bonds, memorial rituals, community, and emotional expression among recurring themes. The themes describe what people do and report; their appearance across studies is not evidence that every practice improves clinical outcomes.
Some memorials become public expressions of recognition after a sudden death, a socially marginalized relationship, or the death of a person whose connections were primarily online. Respectful recognition may matter deeply even when there is little physical infrastructure for shared mourning.
What does research say about the psychological effects?
Research supports the observation that digital remembrance can facilitate social connection, continuing bonds, and expression of grief. Evidence for a consistent therapeutic effect remains limited. Most studies of online memorials use qualitative interviews, analysis of public postings, or observational designs. These methods reveal meanings and experiences but cannot prove that using a memorial caused better psychological adjustment.
The 2025 qualitative meta-synthesis combined seven social-media studies and described broadcast expressions of grief, enduring digital traces, addressable profiles, collective grief, and changes in mourning practices. The 2025 scoping review broadened the landscape to 61 studies and identified important gaps in the evidence base.
A 2026 systematic review of 30 digital-grief-technology studies reported potential benefits alongside risks. It pooled a wide range of technologies, including memorials, support groups, online therapy, virtual reality, and AI tools. Because these technologies differ fundamentally, overall observations about symptom reductions must not be presented as proof that a memorial page or a particular social network is clinically effective.
The strongest practical conclusion is that digital memorials are tools people can use in personally and culturally meaningful ways. Evaluation should ask who uses them, how participation feels, what kinds of relationships they support, and whether their design creates unwanted exposure or privacy concerns.
Potential sources of comfort
A memorial can offer a stable location for a photograph, a familiar phrase, or an account of the person's character. Revisiting it may support remembering and storytelling, particularly when family members are geographically separated. It may also make the loss visible to others who can respond with care.
Shared posting can broaden a person's understanding of the deceased. Akinyemi and Hassett observed collective reminiscence in which participants learned new details through others' contributions. Irwin's study of public Facebook memorials similarly described online postings as ritualized expressions of continuing bonds. Neither study supplies a population-wide benefit estimate.
For people whose loss receives little acknowledgment offline, a community space may provide recognition. A private memorial can be just as meaningful when the deceased wanted limited publicity or when family members prefer quiet remembrance.
Sources of distress and conflict
An archive may contain unexpected content: a photograph from the final illness, a disputed account of what happened, hostile comments, or a recording someone is not ready to hear. Different relatives may disagree over who can post, whether to include cause-of-death information, or whether the account should remain online at all.
Digital remembrance also carries emotional exposure through notifications, anniversaries, reposts, and resurfaced photographs. In Malik's 2026 qualitative study of 24 bereaved participants, digitally preserved traces and algorithmic resurfacing were prominent in everyday experiences of continuing bonds. That study documents subjective experiences; it does not measure how often platform reminders cause lasting harm.
Someone may find comfort in reading an old message in the morning and feel overwhelmed by the same message at night. Emotional intensity at a memorial is part of many ordinary grief experiences; persistent distress deserves attention to functioning, safety, context, and the person's own goals, rather than numerical counting of visits.
Do online memorials prolong grief?
There is no established rule that maintaining an online memorial prolongs grief. Continuing-bonds research identifies both comforting and distressing experiences, and the 2024 systematic review found no basis for a universal recommendation to preserve or relinquish bonds. Associations between intense grief and frequent memorial use are difficult to interpret because people already suffering more may turn to memorials more often.
Clinical concern centers on severe, persistent symptoms and significant impairment, evaluated in their cultural and personal context. A memorial is not itself a diagnostic criterion. A person may keep a profile for decades and function well; another may avoid a memorial because it triggers distress. Both choices can be understandable.
For the larger evidence and diagnostic boundaries, see Grief: Psychological Responses to Loss and Prolonged Grief Disorder: Symptoms and Diagnosis.
How social platforms shape memories and mourning
Digital memorials are partly personal archives and partly environments governed by software. A feed selects which items appear and when. Search systems make some posts discoverable. Platforms change their interfaces, permissions, and retention policies. Consequently, the memorial experience may be shaped by design choices beyond the intentions of the people who are grieving.
The 2025 review of collective memory and social media describes how algorithmic curation and platform structures influence remembering and forgetting across communities. Applied to individual bereavement, this supports attention to the design and ownership of digital spaces, although collective-memory evidence should not be mistaken for a clinical grief intervention trial.
Birthday reminders, memories, and algorithmic resurfacing
A memory notification can feel welcome when it brings back a joyful moment. The same notification may cause a sudden wave of grief during work, school, or a difficult anniversary. People benefit from control over what they see, including the ability to mute reminders, change notification settings, leave groups temporarily, or keep an archive offline.
Plan for this before inviting contributions. Explain that posted images may recur in feeds or searches, and allow participants to decline alerts or remove their own contributions. A memorial should remain available on terms that respect changing preferences.
Public comments and the audience for grief
Public mourning can connect different parts of a person's life but may also pressure bereaved people to explain intimate experiences to strangers. Silence, frequent posts, and private rituals are all possible expressions of grief. The volume of public tribute should never be used as a measure of closeness or respect.
Moderation plans matter. Establish who can approve posts, how misinformation or cruel remarks are handled, whether comments can be disabled, and who will respond to requests for removal. Where death involved violence, suicide, a medical event, or unresolved family disputes, disclosures may carry particular emotional and privacy consequences.
Digital memorials, privacy, and posthumous consent
A deceased person's online profile contains information about living people too: private conversations, tagged photographs, contact lists, and shared life events. A family member's access to a device or account does not automatically make every item appropriate for public memorialization. Ethical decisions should consider the deceased person's expressed wishes, the expectations of people whose data appears in an archive, and applicable law and platform rules.
Kasket's analysis of posthumously persistent Facebook profiles describes how digital privacy is jointly shaped by the person who created a profile and the people connected to it. That shared character creates tensions when mourners wish to preserve material that others want restricted or deleted.
Before making a memorial public, ask whether the deceased wanted a public tribute; whether photographs include children or vulnerable people; whether intimate messages are being quoted with permission; whether cause-of-death details have been confirmed and approved; and whether visitors can contact an administrator to request correction or removal.
Respect disagreements by offering graduated access. A shared family archive may hold personal recordings, while a public memorial contains only a portrait and approved stories. The right decision may change as children grow older and family circumstances evolve.
Who owns photographs, messages, and personal recordings?
Account access, copyright, privacy, and platform terms are different questions. A person who possesses a photograph may not hold its copyright; a shared message includes the sender's private information; and a platform may allow memorialization without transferring ownership of the underlying account.
Keep track of contributors and permissions for significant photographs, audio, and video. Obtain explicit agreement before posting personal correspondence, medical details, or recordings created for a small circle. Allow contributors to withdraw material they uploaded when practicable. For uncertain legal questions, seek jurisdiction-specific professional guidance rather than treating platform permission as legal authorization.
What happens if a memorial platform disappears?
Online permanence is an aspiration rather than a guarantee. Websites shut down, subscription models change, administrators lose passwords, and users can lose access when policies change. A memorial that contains the only surviving recordings of a person's voice carries an avoidable preservation risk.
Keep at least one independently controlled archive in widely readable formats. Store filenames and dates, preserve captions and the names of contributors where permitted, and create an access plan for successors. Review the ability to export images, text, and comments before committing a memorial to one provider.
Facebook, Google, and Apple: what their policies actually allow
Major technology companies provide different tools, and their rules should be checked at the time of use. Memorialization, inactive-account planning, and inheritance of some digital records involve different permissions. A family can preserve memories while remaining within account security boundaries.
Facebook memorialized profiles
According to Facebook's current memorialized-account guidance, such profiles can display a remembrance designation, preserve already-shared content for its original audience, and allow tributes subject to settings. The company states that no one can log in to a memorialized account. A legacy contact can perform certain management actions, but cannot read private messages or log in as the deceased.
Memorialization is distinct from keeping an account active with its old password. Use the platform's formal process, discuss a family's preferences where feasible, and keep copies of appropriate memorial materials separately.
Google Inactive Account Manager and deceased-user requests
Google Inactive Account Manager allows an account holder to designate trusted people for selected data after a defined inactivity period and to decide how some content is handled. Google also offers a deceased-user request process with privacy and security review. It does not supply passwords to relatives.
These tools are best configured by the account holder while living. Survivors should use formal options rather than assume that a memorial organizer has automatic access to all email or cloud storage.
Apple Legacy Contact
Apple's Legacy Contact program permits a designated contact to request access to eligible account data after death using the required access key and documentation. Some data, such as iCloud Keychain information and purchased media, is excluded. Apple warns that a designated contact may have authority to delete eligible data as well as access it.
Legacy access is therefore a serious planning decision. It is useful to discuss with trusted people which memories to preserve, what remains private, and how access information is stored securely.
How to create a respectful online memorial
Begin with the people and purpose, then choose the software. A clear memorial plan answers why it exists, who it serves, what the deceased would have wanted, and who will care for it. Simpler design can lower the emotional and administrative demands on a grieving family.
Step 1: Define the memorial's purpose and audience
Decide whether the memorial primarily preserves family memories, invites a broader community to contribute, announces ceremonies, supports future generations, or provides an intimate place for reflection. These purposes can coexist, but they have different privacy implications.
Ask participants whether they want public search visibility or an invitation-only space. Avoid equating public reach with a better memorial. A private collection of voice messages may fulfill the family's purpose more effectively than a searchable social profile.
Step 2: Choose format, administrator, and access rules
Compare a memorialized existing account, dedicated tribute website, shared album, and private archive. Consider the cost after one year, restrictions on export, policies for inactivity, moderation tools, accessibility, and whether the memorial can be passed to another administrator.
Assign a primary organizer and a backup, preferably people who have agreed to the role. Record how the memorial can be closed, exported, or made private and what should happen if contributors disagree.
Step 3: Gather stories and verify permissions
Invite short memories, photographs, audio clips, descriptions of important relationships, and stories that capture the deceased person's character. Seek permission from contributors to republish material, especially messages or photos involving other people.
Represent the person's life broadly enough to avoid reducing their identity to the circumstances of their death. When accounts differ, describe the diversity of memories rather than declaring a single authoritative narrative.
Step 4: Design space for different grieving styles
Some visitors want to write directly to the deceased, others prefer silent observation, and some feel overwhelmed by public attention. Offer options: a guestbook, a private collection, or a read-only archive. Avoid prompts that imply visitors must share publicly to demonstrate love.
Use descriptive headings, text alternatives for images, readable type, captions for audio and video, and accessible navigation. Older relatives, people with disabilities, and visitors with slow connections should be able to participate.
Step 5: Set boundaries for sensitive content
Agree in advance whether to share images from a hospital or funeral, descriptions of the final moments, health information, and information about suicide or violence. Give mourners a way to flag distressing content. Keep public material factual, respectful, and appropriate for people with different relationships to the deceased.
If a memorial is for a child or teenager, involve caregivers and consider the future privacy of surviving children. Schools and youth groups should use safeguarding procedures and avoid posting students' personal information without authorization.
Step 6: Maintain, back up, and revisit
Set a realistic schedule for moderation and backups. An annual review may be enough for a quiet archive; an active memorial may need more frequent attention. Updating or pausing a memorial does not indicate that someone is grieving correctly or incorrectly.
Write an exit plan. Families should be able to reduce visibility, turn off comments, move data to a different platform, or close the memorial if circumstances change. The option to step away can be as valuable as the option to return.
Shared remembrance when families disagree
Memorials often involve several legitimate relationships with the deceased. A spouse, parent, sibling, former partner, close friend, and community member may recall different aspects of the same person. These differences can produce friction over photographs, language, religious symbols, ownership, and what should remain public.
Separate decisions about the public memorial from decisions about personal archives. Use an agreed editor or small moderation group for shared material. Set aside a process for private objections and allow people to maintain independent remembrance practices when agreement is impossible.
Do not use a memorial to settle family disputes, expose confidential information, or pressure reluctant mourners into participation. The memorial's purpose is remembrance and connection, and it works best when dignity and privacy guide its governance.
Grief rituals, religion, and cultural differences
Digital rituals may include prayer, candles, photographs, shared music, recorded testimony, anniversary messages, or live participation in a ceremony. Their meaning depends on religious, cultural, generational, and personal expectations. An online memorial may complement physical gathering, graveside visits, community traditions, and ordinary family storytelling.
Practices considered comforting in one community may feel intrusive or inappropriate in another. Ask what kinds of photographs, names, language, and ceremonies the family wishes to share. Respect restrictions on depicting the deceased, speaking a name, public mourning periods, and disclosure of death details.
Some people have limited internet access, limited digital literacy, or strong preferences for in-person traditions. The absence of an online memorial does not diminish the significance of their bonds.
Children, teenagers, and digital remembrance
Children may benefit from preserved stories, photographs, and recordings that help them learn about a deceased family member as they mature. What they can understand and what they wish to see changes with age. Adults should explain what a memorial is, allow questions, and avoid presenting an online profile as evidence that the person is physically present or able to communicate.
Teenagers may form relationships primarily through online communities and may want to preserve group messages or pages after a peer's death. They also face risks from repeated exposure to distressing posts, speculation about a death, and peer pressure to participate publicly. Supportive adults can help coordinate consent, privacy, moderation, and access.
Young people should be able to opt out of notifications, viewing graphic material, or contributing posts. Consider future consent: a public childhood tribute may remain searchable when surviving children become adults. For wider support, see How Children Understand Death and Loss and Grief in Adolescence: Support and Challenges.
Sudden deaths, suicide loss, and traumatic reminders
After sudden or violent death, online discussion can become entangled with speculation, graphic details, rumors, or blame. These patterns may increase distress, particularly for people repeatedly exposed to descriptions of the death. Memorial organizers should moderate sensitive information and avoid sharing photographs or accounts that surviving loved ones have not approved.
People bereaved by suicide may have different needs for privacy, recognition, and support. The systematic review by Goodall and colleagues found a complex range of continuing-bonds experiences after suicide loss. A memorial should never imply that one ritual or one interpretation of the death is required.
If online content produces recurring intrusive reminders, people can limit exposure, ask another person to manage the page, or choose an offline way to remember. For focused support, see Grief and Suicidal Thoughts: Support and Safety.
Digital memorials versus AI griefbots
A traditional digital memorial stores or displays material that people created: photographs, writings, recordings, and recollections. An AI griefbot or simulated avatar can generate new replies in an imitation of the deceased person's style or voice. This introduces additional consent, impersonation, emotional, and data-governance questions beyond an ordinary memorial archive.
In a 2024 ethics analysis, Hollanek and Nowaczyk-Basińska examined generative simulations of deceased people and recommended attention to informed consent, transparency, and responsible ways to end a simulation. This is an ethical and design analysis, not evidence that interactions with griefbots improve or worsen clinical outcomes.
An AI-generated response should be clearly represented as synthetic output. It is not an authentic new statement by the person who died. Decisions about using a deceased person's messages or recordings for model training require particular care because those records also contain data about other people.
The specialized evidence and ethical questions surrounding AI griefbots belong to the separate EN-06 article AI Griefbots: Memory, Consent, and Emotional Risks. That future canonical topic will address synthetic interaction directly; the present article focuses on digital memorials and digitally supported remembrance.
When digital remembrance feels overwhelming
Grief varies across time and context. Feeling pain when opening a memorial, crying on an anniversary, or occasionally avoiding photographs is common and does not establish a mental disorder. Practical adjustments can include reducing notifications, placing an archive under someone else's care, viewing memories with a trusted person, or taking a break.
Consider additional professional support when grief-related distress is severe and persistent, daily functioning has markedly deteriorated, social isolation is increasing, or the memorial is repeatedly used in ways that the person experiences as distressing and difficult to control. A clinician can explore grief, depression, traumatic stress, sleep problems, and other factors in context.
Prolonged grief disorder is a clinical diagnosis defined by symptom patterns, duration, impairment, and cultural criteria, not by the use of digital remembrance. The DSM-5-TR requires at least 12 months since the death for adults and six months for children and adolescents; ICD-11 specifies a grief response persisting atypically long, with at least six months and contextual assessment. See the APA's 2024 diagnostic clarification and our Prolonged Grief Disorder guide. Neither timetable alone establishes a diagnosis.
Someone experiencing thoughts of suicide, inability to remain safe, or fear of acting on self-harm thoughts deserves immediate human support through local emergency or crisis services, an emergency department, or a trusted person able to stay with them. A memorial page, support group, or AI service should not be relied on as an emergency response system.
Digital memorials and grief counseling
A counselor can ask what role a memorial plays in someone's life: whether it encourages meaningful remembrance, creates disputes, exposes the person to unwanted reminders, or offers comfort. The question is how the practice fits the individual's values, functioning, and relationships.
Grief counseling may help people make decisions about belongings and online records, manage anniversaries, communicate boundaries with relatives, or explore mixed feelings about keeping a profile visible. Specialist treatment for prolonged grief disorder addresses a different clinical question and should be distinguished from general bereavement support.
Evidence about digital memorials is insufficient to prescribe memorial creation as psychotherapy. Useful supportive conversations may instead explore choice, consent, privacy, social connection, and ways to preserve memories that the bereaved person actually wants. See Grief Counseling: What It Is and When It Helps and How to Cope With Grief: Evidence-Based Support.
Frequently asked questions
Is it healthy to keep an online memorial for years?
It can be. Years of preservation, occasional anniversary messages, or revisiting an archive are common forms of remembrance. A person's wellbeing is better understood through context, distress, relationships, and functioning than through the age of a memorial. Research identifies both comfort and difficulty associated with continuing bonds.
Is talking to someone who died through their profile normal?
Writing a message addressed to someone who died can be a symbolic expression of memory, longing, or connection. Qualitative research documents these practices on social networks. Such writing alone does not show that a person believes the deceased is literally replying, and it does not establish a diagnosis.
Should I memorialize or delete a deceased person's account?
Consider the deceased person's preferences, what loved ones need, privacy rights, the value of preserved material, and current platform rules. Discuss the options before deleting anything because some account changes may be irreversible. If possible, download material that you are authorized to preserve.
Can a memorial page replace an in-person funeral?
It can allow distant people to participate and continue sharing memories, but whether it serves as an appropriate primary ritual depends on the deceased person's wishes and the community's cultural and religious practices. Many families use an online memorial alongside an in-person gathering.
What if a memorial suddenly brings back painful memories?
Unexpected reminders can trigger a grief wave. Change notification settings, ask for help moderating, choose when to view photographs, or take a break. If reminders contribute to ongoing severe impairment or safety concerns, seek appropriate clinical or urgent human support.
Can a child have access to a deceased parent's digital archive?
A carefully curated archive may be valuable at different developmental stages. Caregivers can choose age-appropriate material, explain what the archive contains, and allow the child's preferences to change. Privacy and the child’s future control over public material deserve special attention.
Are AI-generated conversations with the deceased the same as digital memorials?
No. Static memorials preserve past records and contributions; generative simulations produce novel text, audio, or visual responses. Their consent, authenticity, and risk questions differ, and current evidence should not be transferred from online memorial studies to simulated conversational systems.
Is there scientific proof that online memorials reduce prolonged grief?
No robust evidence establishes a specific online memorial as an effective treatment for prolonged grief disorder. Reviews across digital-grief technologies describe heterogeneous findings, and the social-media literature is predominantly observational or qualitative. Specialized care should follow clinical needs and established evidence rather than platform marketing.
Related Articles
Grief: Psychological Responses to Loss — the central explanation of grief and bereavement.
The Dual Process Model of Grief: Coping With Loss and Restoration — how remembering and daily adjustment can coexist.
How to Cope With Grief: Evidence-Based Support — practical coping and support.
Grief Counseling: What It Is and When It Helps — counseling options and evidence boundaries.
Prolonged Grief Disorder: Symptoms and Diagnosis — when clinical evaluation may be appropriate.
Supporting Someone Who Is Grieving — sensitive responses from friends and family.
AI Griefbots: Memory, Consent, and Emotional Risks — research, consent, privacy, and emotional risks in AI simulations of deceased people.
References
Adriaansen, R.-J., & Smit, R. (2025). Collective memory and social media. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102077
Akinyemi, C., & Hassett, A. (2023). He's still there: How Facebook facilitates continuing bonds with the deceased. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 88(2), 620–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228211048672
American Psychiatric Association. (2024). DSM-5-TR update: Prolonged grief disorder, differential diagnosis. Official clarification
Apple. (2026). How to add a Legacy Contact for your Apple Account. Apple Support
Facebook. (n.d.). About memorialised accounts. Facebook Help Center
Facebook. (n.d.). Legacy contacts. Facebook Help Center
Goodall, R., Krysinska, K., & Andriessen, K. (2022). Continuing bonds after loss by suicide: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(5), 2963. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052963
Google. (n.d.). About Inactive Account Manager. Google Account Help
Google. (n.d.). Submit a request regarding a deceased user's account. Google Account Help
Hewson, H., Galbraith, N., Jones, C., & Heath, G. (2024). The impact of continuing bonds following bereavement: A systematic review. Death Studies, 48(10), 1001–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2023.2223593
Hollanek, T., & Nowaczyk-Basińska, K. (2024). Griefbots, deadbots, postmortem avatars: On responsible applications of generative AI in the digital afterlife industry. Philosophy & Technology, 37, 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00744-w
Irwin, M. D. (2015). Mourning 2.0—Continuing bonds between the living and the dead on Facebook. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying, 72(2), 119–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030222815574830
Kasket, E. (2012). Continuing bonds in the age of social networking: Facebook as a modern-day medium. Bereavement Care, 31(2), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/02682621.2012.710493
Kasket, E. (2013). Access to the digital self in life and death: Privacy in the context of posthumously persistent Facebook profiles. SCRIPTed, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.2966/scrip.100113.7
Liang, A. G., Tan, K. H. E., See, J. C., & Kuek, J. H. L. (2025). A scoping review on the use of social media for personal grief. Death Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2025.2585928
Malik, S. (2026). Digitally mediated continuing bonds: Social media, grief, and relational continuity after death. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228261479913
Price, M., Steffen, E. M., & Kamp, K. S. (2025). How do people use social media to maintain continuing bonds in bereavement? A qualitative meta-synthesis. OMEGA—Journal of Death and Dying. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228251396353
Soh, X. C., Goh, A. Y. H., Koh, P. S., & Hartanto, A. (2026). Digital grief technology to support bereavement: A systematic review of potential benefits and risks. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 22, 101148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101148