Grief Counseling Possibly Counterproductive

Dealing with feelings on one's own after a community-wide traumatic event may be better than formal grief counseling. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

“You need to talk about your feelings.” “Do you want to talk about it?” “We need to talk.” Whether it’s the aftermath of a failed relationship or the horrors of a school shooting, Americans do like to talk about things. Talking, we feel, is healthy. Talking will help us heal. But a study from the University of Buffalo suggests that talking’s not the panacea we seem to think it is. Psychologists there have found that people who don’t discuss their feelings after a tragedy actually fare better than those who do.

The researchers were studying the mental and physical toll of grappling with a community-wide trauma—in this case, 9/11. Shortly after the attacks, they offered participants an opportunity to share their thoughts. Some did, some didn’t. Two years later, the scientists found that people who kept it inside were better off than those who let it all hang out. The findings appear in the June issue of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. So maybe we should give the grief counselors a vacation. Turn on some music. Maybe take a walk. Feel our feelings. But not feel like we have to share them with everyone else.

—Karen Hopkin  

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe