HTML last revised 14 February, 2003.This paper presents the findings of a small study administered to a group of 30 community leaders and workers in Montserrat in May 1999 and July 2002. Through self-reporting research instruments they identified their losses due to the volcanic disaster, which occurred in 1997, and the ways in which they have coped with these losses.
The initial study took place during May 19-21, 1999 at a “Coping With Loss” workshop facilitated by lecturers from the Social Work Programme of the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados in Olveston, Montserrat. The research components of the study included a Coping with Loss Questionnaire, an Index of Clinical Stress, and a Generalized Contentment Scale.
The follow-up study during July 2002 contained the same three survey instruments instructing respondents to answer based on their experiences since May 1999. These were administered through the mail or through telephone interviews.
Data from both time periods were compared to ascertain 1) any further losses and types of losses in the last three years due to the initial volcanic disaster and its ongoing activity, 2) increased or diminished coping responses and strengths that may have evolved in reaction to these losses.
It is hoped that the results of the study might: 1) contribute to the discussion about the psychological and mental health needs of the population recovering from this natural disaster, 2) provide additional information for bereavement management strategies, 3) ascertain whether there is a need for more extensive study and research in this area.
As a means of understanding and responding to the people of Montserrat, this study attempts to assess some of the bereavement needs identified from the reports of research participants in Montserrat in 1999 and 2002. This paper presents the findings from the Coping With Loss Workshop held in 1999 and the Follow-up Study in 2002. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the discussion on mental health needs due to the losses experienced as a result of the volcanic eruptions, and to suggest bereavement management strategies.
The “Coping With Loss” Workshop held in Montserrat at McChesney House in Olveston on May 19, 20, 21, 1999 was a response by the Social Work Programme of The University of the West Indies (UWI), Cave Hill Campus, Barbados, to address some of the effects of the devastation that occurred due to the Soufriere Volcano eruptions over the previous years.
Through this psycho-educational workshop some of the very human realities of the emotional, psychological and social dislocation and losses of the children and families of Montserrat were dealt with by the thirty (30) participants. In particular, the issues of loss, grief, stress reactions and coping skills were discussed and knowledge about each area contributed to increased understanding of the plight of individual, families and communities in Montserrat and abroad. Information was gathered from the participants so that others, especially Social Workers would be able to understand some of the dynamics of how people cope and thrive in natural disasters in the Caribbean region. The data gathered through survey instruments and observations were also distributed to the workshop participants after analysis.
The Montserrat National Development Foundation (MNDF) and the Ministry of Education, Health, and Community Services were responsible for administrative details and implementation of the workshop. The workshop team from UWI was comprised of two lecturers in Social Work, and a social work student from Montserrat.
Participants in the group included 25 women and 5 men totaling 30 persons. The selection process for group members was based on individual’ active involvement in the community and most of the participants were attached to an agency. Participants ranged in age from 29 to 59 years of age, were from lower to middle income levels, and had basic secondary to post graduate educational backgrounds. Two non-nationals and two persons of Caucasian ethnic background were included in the group.
There were five (5) main objectives for the workshop. The first objective was to provide the participants with a common language about their grief which included identification of feelings, stressors, and reactions to both primary and secondary losses. The second objective was to help the participants understand the grief process commonly experienced by most people, as well as individual and unique factors. The third objective was to give the participants an opportunity and an emotionally safe environment to share their losses with one another and with the workshop facilitators. This process assisted them in identifying the types of coping mechanisms they employed, or in learning more effective ones. The fourth objective was to demonstrate and encourage strategies that the participants would utilize in assisting and helping others to cope with their losses. And finally, the fifth objective was to motivate and encourage the participant’s application of their new knowledge to their personal, professional, and community lives.
The workshop format and design was psycho-educational in nature. The educational aspect focused on loss and bereavement and included lectures and discussions on the subject. The educational content included fourteen (14) handouts, overhead transparencies and video presentation. Handouts were comprehensive in nature so as to reinforce the lecture content and to provide participants with materials that could be shared among friends and family as well as with other groups to which they belong.
The psychological component of the workshop was comprised of group and individual sharing which provided recognition and insight into the participants’ emotional reactions and coping styles. Emotional support and understanding were gained from the formal and informal processes of group and individual interactions. Alternative and additional resources for counseling and support were addressed so that participants had access to psycho-social assistance after the workshop ended.
The workshop was built on an adult education model and was designed to maximize participation and to draw on the wealth of experience within the group. The ecosystems model of social work theory and a variety of interventions were employed which included individual, pairing, small and large group exercises.
Although group members were offered a wide variety of opportunities to participate, numerous tools and techniques were employed to hold the attention of participants and keep their energy level high over a three-day period. The importance of keeping a positive mood within the group can be appreciated in light of what may have been considered sad and depressing content.
The workshop and research instruments were administered over three days. On the first day, after the opening ceremony, participants expressed their expectations of the workshop, discussed their losses, expressed their feelings about these losses, learned about the grief process, coping skills, stress reduction, and completed the CWL Questionaire. On the second day, community rather than individual losses were emphasised with discussions focusing on the effects on the children and their future, and how the dislocation has eroded Montserrat’s way of life. A natural process of exploring initiatives and gaining commitment to deal with the difficulties emerged from participants. The two other research instruments were administered and a video on dreams was shown. The dream portion of the workshop was a means of eliciting discussion about the types of dreams or unsettling nightmares participants experienced before, during and after the volcanic eruption. On the third day six small task groups were formed to plan initiatives to assist a specific population in the social rebuilding of Montserrat. Completing an evaluation of the workshop and a closing ceremony, brought the workshop to an end.
The research component of the “Coping With Loss” (CWL) workshop included the CWL Questionaire, the Index of Clinical Stress (ICS) and the Generalized Contentment Scale (GCS). The CWL Questionaire was constructed by the workshop facilitators as an exploratory information gathering survey instrument and the focus of the research. Rather than utilizing a standardized survey instrument it was decided that the participants would identify their own losses after an introductory session explaining the different types of losses that a person could experience. This gave the participants the opportunity to state their losses in their own words without numerous or specific categories. The only distinction made was the difference between physical losses and symbolic losses in order to make the information more manageable and to deepen the participants’ understanding of loss in general. The questionaire attempted to identify physical and symbolic losses, grief reactions, personal strengths, and support systems. Also, the questionaire sought to determine major difficulties, fears, concerns and negative outcomes regarding the losses associated with the natural disaster and its effects. Finally, information surrounding positive outcomes and new knowledge generated by the loss experiences were ascertained.
Both of the standardized questionaires, the Index of Clinical Stress and the Generalized Contentment Scale, were developed by Walter W. Hudson and Neil Abell (1992) in the United States. Their applicability to Caribbean populations is unknown and more research needs to be undertaken to determine their usefulness in the Region. Each instrument contains 25 statements with the possibility of seven (7) responses on a continuum from “all of the time” to “none of the time”. (See Appendix).
Question 1 addressed participants physical losses and separations. By far the greatest losses experienced were due to separation from family members and friends due to evacuation from Montserrat (66% of participants), loss of property such as land, house, damaged vegetation and crops (60%), loss of material goods which included cars, furniture, clothes, household goods (49%), financial losses such as money, employment, business (34%), animals which included pets and wildlife (31%), death of a family member or friend (26%), displacement from home due to evacuation from dangerous zones (17%), loss of physical landmarks such as beaches, vistas, recreational facilities, places in Plymouth (14%), loss of personal space due to relocating to much smaller or shared, crowded home (14%), loss of community center/meeting place (6%), and loss of physical safety and health (6%).
Question 2 asked participants to identify their symbolic or non-physical losses and separations. The fact that they identified a substantial amount of these losses is a direct link to the training content since many stated that they had no idea of the magnitude of their losses in this area. Their non-physical losses included loss of safety and security such as financial stability and a sense of permanence (57%), loss of positive feelings, especially happiness, joy, peace, and hope (57%), loss of togetherness and belonging (34%), loss of communication and intimacy with others (34%), loss of independence (26%), loss of lifestyle (26%), loss of privacy (20%), loss of self-esteem, confidence and pride (11%), loss of control (11%), loss of connection to past and history (11%), and loss of connection to the future such as one’s dreams, goals, and plans (8.5%)
Question 3 examined the wide variety of reactions experienced by the participants to the above noted losses. That the participants identified so many and such specific reactions is also directly linked to the training. The highest proportion of respondents acknowledged sorrow and crying as reactions to their losses (37%) and eventually in their grief process, a high proportion of acceptance, hope and gratitude (37%). Reacting rationally, intellectually, logically (34%) to losses assisted many in coping. Escape and avoidance were behaviours utilised as well (29%). Spiritual responses such as reliance on faith and prayer (23%) were reported. Other reactions included panic and fear (17%), depression and suicidal feelings (14%), hurt, anger, and frustration (14%), confusion (11%), increased need for communication (11%), and shock, denial and numbness (8%). Some participants reported increasing helping behavior towards others (65%) and feeling a sense of excitement (6%). Other behaviors reported by a small percentage of people in reaction to their losses included insomnia, substance abuse, lack of sex drive, complain, and lifestyle change.
Question 4 considered the greatest personal strengths that have helped the participants in dealing with their losses. The highest proportion of responses included their spiritual faith and praying (57%). The ability to communicate and share with others (40%), a good support system (25%), cognitive skills such as being logical, having knowledge about volcanos, military training (25%), positive behaviors which include humor, travel, exercise, journal-writing, planning for the future (22%), and acceptance, hope, gratitude (17%) were additional responses. Helping others (14%), self-esteem (11%) and good health (3%) were also reported personal strengths by the participants.
Question 5 asked from where the respondents’ greatest support came. The answers included family and friends (77%), spiritual (37%), government (Britain and Montserrat) (9%), helping others (6%), and community (6%).
Question 6 dealt with the respondents’ reporting of their most difficult problems facing them in relation to their losses which could include areas where they might not be coping. The most reported difficulty (26%) was their displacement from their home where they could not go home or had no where to call “home”. This difficulty included feelings of uncertainty about one’s fate, as did the next response which was adjustment difficulties (23%). Adjustment difficulties included isolation, marginalised grief, loss of security, loss of others who might help to redevelop the island were noted by the respondents (23%). Other difficulties to deal with include property loss (14%), financial losses (9%), separation from family and friends (9%), not enough space (6%), making the decision to stay or leave (3%), cleaning up (3%) and death of a loved one (3%).
Question 7 considered the participants major fears and concerns. The major concern pertained to the status of family members, both near and far, and whether they were able to deal with all the losses (31%). The next major concern was the future challenges of rebuilding society (29%). Fear of volcanic activity (23%) and the losses (17%) of friends and relative due to death and separation, loss of culture and employment were some of the major concerns noted by the participants. Other fears and concerns include the negative changes in Montserrat (14%), the status of personal and government finances (14%), people’s inability to return to their homes (14%), potential health risks (11%), the need for more space (6%), and the influences of foreigners to the island (3%).
Question 8 directed the participants to identify their worst experience due to the disaster. The worst experience reported was the separation and loss of family, friends and church due to relocation (31%) Loss of property (29%), financial losses (14%), loss of community life (11%) were also reported. Personal symbolic losses (11%) such as loss of peace of mind, independence and the attainment of personal goals were identified as well. Difficult family situations (6%), health problems (6%) and death (3%) were noted.
Question 9 asked the participants to review what was the best that came out of this situation. Interestingly, the highest proportion of respondents reported increased self-esteem and personal growth (40%). Participants revealed that they had benefitted from the disaster because they saw that they could cope and survive in spite of what had happened. Some of them were able to develop areas within themselves that they hadn’t anticipated such as writing, decision-making, new goals, etc. Strengthened spirituality (17%), another benefit, included increased faith, trust, and reevaluation of religious beliefs. The fact that life changed in some way by either getting better or starting over (17%) was reported. Greater appreciation of life (14%) and improved relationships (14%) were seen as some of the best things coming out of the situation. The ability to move back into one’s home (11%) or take a break or relax from the situation (6%) were other responses. Three percent (3%) of the respondents stated that “nothing” good came out of the experience.
Question 10 addressed the issue that if one was to give advice to someone who was going through a similar situation, what would that advice be? Participants learned much through their experiences in relationship to the eruption of the volcano. Some of the themes and advice to others included: “Take one day at a time and be prepared for a rainy one. Expect the worst, hope for the best. Make use of opportunities and your inner strengths-and believe in these strengths to cope. Cry, talk to a friend, get help, face your problems, pray and rely on God, there is a reason for what you are going through. Relax. The material is not important. Everyone reacts differently. Form self-help groups. Never give up and believe the best will come.”
The Index of Clinical Stress is designed to measure the way the respondent feels about the amount of personal stress they are experiencing. The highest and most noteworthy of the 25 statements are reported here. The three highest responses from the workshop participants had to do with the statements “I fell very relaxed,” “I feel very calm and peaceful” and “Its very easy for me to fall asleep at night”. Approximately 70% of the respondents felt very relaxed some of the time, a good part of the time, and most of the time. And 77% felt very calm and peaceful. Eighty percent (80%) answered that it was easy to fall asleep.
In contrast the percentage of respondents felt the following some of the time, a good part of the time, most of the time or all the time: Overwhelmed (43%), stretched to a breaking point (37%), wanting to scream (37%), so anxious I want to cry (34%), extremely tense (29%), and near a breaking point (26%). Forty-five percent (45%) felt and enormous sense of pressure, can’t keep up with demands (37%), tense and angry with others (37%), can’t keep up with everything (34%), and very much behind in work (31%).
The Generalized Contentment Scale measures the way the respondent feels about his or her life and surroundings and looks at depression indicators. The following responses include: “some of the time, a good part of the time, most of the time or all of the time: have a great deal of fun (86%), people really care about me (83%), feel great in the morning (80%), enjoy being with other people (86%), feel needed (80%), felt appreciated by others (77%), have a full life (74%), and future looks bright (69%)”.
In contrast, felt downhearted (43%), get upset easily (43%), very depressed (43%), hard time getting started on the things I need to do (40%), feel terribly lonely (37%), feel powerless about life (32%), feel blue (29%), and my situation feels hopeless (23%) are the results that indicate some of the negative feelings experienced about life.
The research participants in the workshop were the people who are currently living in Montserrat and to a great extent have decided to stay in Montserrat and not migrate. Their responses and experiences may be different from those who have decided to migrate or not return to the island. Each person’s circumstances are uniques and play a part in their view of the world and their decision-making process. Therefore, the results of this research may help in determining what further assistance or plans of action might be initiated, both individually and collectively, to further facilitate physical, emotional, and social adjustment and improve the quality of life and well-being for those in Montserrat. Also, the lesson learned from this disaster, at least the psychological and social ones addressed in this workshop, can be utilized to assist in preparing for any future situations that present such loss and destruction.
As stated earlier, the greatest losses experienced were due to separation from family members and friends due to evacuation, loss of property, material goods and animals. What sometimes does not get addressed in disaster situations, because of the overwhelming immediate physical needs and demands, are the emotional and symbolic losses that were disclosed in the questionaire. The losses of safety, stability, positive feelings such as happiness and joy, togetherness and belonging, communication and intimacy with others, independence and lifestyle, are important factors in peoples’ lives. They are usually taken for granted until they are lost. One-fifth of the participants reported the loss of privacy and space as being a major loss to them. This perhaps can be one area that can be addressed in the planning and constructing of housing and community centers. Strategies for minimising some of these symbolic losses could offer reduced stress and increased comfort.
Self-esteem is an important component in the findings. Eleven percent (11%) of the participants reported a loss of self-esteem as one of their symbolic losses. Self-esteem was also recognized as a personal strength that assisted in coping with the losses they faced. When asked what the best outcome was from the situation (CWL Question 9), 40% of the respondents reported self-esteem and personal growth. Experiencing the disaster seemed to benefit them because they were “tested” and realized that they could cope despite the stress and loss.
Another important aspect is the role spirituality and religious faith played for many of the participants as a means of coping and as a support system. Fifty-seven (57%) of the participants reported that their spiritual faith and praying was their greatest personal strength. Perhaps this is one of the greatest strengths of Caribbean people as well as Monserratians. One’s spiritual strength can act as a stabilizing force in time times of disaster. Finding meaning in the tragic events of life is a common human response, and one that could be supported in a myriad of ways. And people without this foundation may have more difficulty in coping with their losses during disasters.
As far as the difficult problems the respondents reported, the uncertainty about housing and the future were highlighted in addition to dealing with their grief issues. Especially in response to CWL Question 7, their major fear after their concern about family is whether or not Montserrat can be rebuilt as a functioning society. Concerns about the amount of work that is necessary for redevelopment, the weak economy, the educational system, the “ugly construction”, the loss of the cultural heritage, and the negative changes that have occurred due to the disaster have increased uncertainty about whether living in Montserrat will be a good decision. These doubts in conjunction with the numerous changes in the society have increased the participants uncertainty about the future.
The workshop also emphasized that some of the grief issues participants were experiencing pertained not only to the disaster but to other life events either prior to or in addition to the losses from the disaster. Many of those losses were not dealt with or resolved and some of these issues became apparent during the course of the workshop. This may indicate that more bereavement services are needed on the island and/or people need to be more informed about grief and loss. Taking the time to deal with these issues is necessary but because of the circumstances surrounding the disaster, people may find them difficult to address. The Index of Clinical Stress (ICS) highlighted some of this stress especially with about one-third of the participants reporting difficulty in keeping up with demands, feeling an enormous sense of pressure, and being behind in work.
Feedback from the participants indicated that offering them a “vocabulary of grief” and providing a safe emotional environment in which to express themselves was very helpful. Encouraging the formation of self-help groups or support for already on-going groups would seem to benefit the participants. The participants’ willingness to help their fellow Montserratians on this subject by sharing their information and their time was apparent. Mechanisms might be able to be put in place for this type of emotional involvement and support. Because of its size and the high levels of social support reported by the participants, development of programmes in this area could be very beneficial to the quality of life. Through this research understanding the human responses of people in disaster situations can inform governments and others on how to address their psychosocial needs which are often overlooked and forgotten.
In July, 2002 the Coping With Loss Questionaire, the Index of Clinical Stress and the Generalized Contentment Scale were mailed to the thirty (30) workshop participants. Of the thirty (30) participants, fifteen (15) were returned. The first objective of this follow-up study is to identify any further losses and types of losses in the last three years due to the initial volcanic disaster and its ongoing activity. The second objective is to determine if there are increased or diminished coping responses and strengths that may have evolved in reaction to these losses. And the final objective is to use these findings to inform bereavement management strategies for the people of Montserrat.
The number of respondents who completed the research instruments and returned them was small. Some of workshop participants had relocated to another country, were unable to be contacted or were not interested in participating in the follow-up study. Of the fifteen who responded (1) one survey packet was incomplete and undecipherable and four (4) of the participants wrote only about personal difficulties that were overshadowing their lives and were not related, at least directly, to the volcanic disaster. These four included loss of health (breast cancer, automobile accident, asthma) and loss of mental health (workplace stress). Thus, the remaining respondents totaled (10) ten. They will be discussed without percentages and in general responses because of their small number.
Question 1 addressed respondents’ physical losses. In agreement with the first study, the loss and separation from family and friends were still the greatest losses totaling six (6). Four (4) of the respondents reported no losses in the last three years. Another four (4) reported loss of money, and three (3) reported loss of their job. Two (2) reported loss of natural resources. Other losses included loss of home/land, space, animals, and material things.
Question 2 asked participants to identify their symbolic losses and separations. Again, the greatest symbolic losses are congruent with the previous results with the most responses in the area of security with five (5). Four (4) reported no symbolic losses at this time. Loss of hope was the response of three (3) participants. With two (2) responses each, loss of the feeling of community and loss of a sense of family were reported. Other responses included loss of feelings of acceptance, hope that the volcano will ever end, feelings that Montserrat is a pleasant place to live, and loss of job security and control.
Question 3 examined the reactions experienced by the respondents to both their physical and symbolic losses. The majority of the responses were positive: hoping for a change, dealing positively with them, taking it easy, coping, very good, one day at a time. Some of the reactions were actions being considered or taken: planning to leave, getting professional help, trying to make new friends, and striving to maintain security. A few responses included avoidance behaviour: trying not to worry, not thinking about losses. One negative emotional response included feeling on edge and insecure.
Question 4 considered the greatest personal strengths that have helped the respondents in dealing with their losses. Nine (9) of the respondents stated that trust in God was their greatest personal strength. Seven (7) of the respondents identified their support systems of family and friends to be their strength. Positive attitudes were included by six (6) of the respondents: believing in myself, determination to excel or succeed, a positive outlook, courage, contentment, having options, and recovering what was lost. Positive behaviours reported were: helping others, sense of humor, being active, receiving counseling, being able to work and support self.
Question 5 asked from where their greatest support came. The respondents’ answers included: friends (8), family(7), God (6), church group (2), community (2), and priest (1). Question 6 dealt with the respondents’ reporting of their most difficult problems facing them in relation to their losses which could include areas where they might not be coping. The most reported difficulty was their finances (4), getting a permanent home (2), problems with family relationships (2), their job, and dealing with hostile treatment as a non-Montserratian (1). Two (2) of the respondents reported not having any difficulties.
Question 7 considered the respondents’ major fears and concerns. Fears of another disaster and how long the current situation with the volcano will last were reported by three (3) respondents. An uncertain future was the major concern of two (2) of the respondents. Two (2) of the respondents reported no major concerns or fears. Others noted fear of relocation to another country, job loss, dealing with health problems and expenses, family conflicts, business problems, car breaking down, road not fixed, and children badly hurt from hostile treatment of others.
Question 8 directed the respondents to identify their worst experience due to the disaster. The worst experience reported was separation from family members (3). Financial loss (2) and relocation (2) were also identified along with many losses, job loss, and hostile treatment. One (1) respondent reported no losses.
Question 9 asked the respondents to review what was the best that came out of this situation. Five (5) of the respondents stated that increased reliance on God and the dedication and support of friends and relatives (3) were the best outcomes. Additional outcomes included: a more active and contented life, being less busy and having more time for self, appreciation of life, home ownership, working together with neighbors, love, and hope.
Question 10 requested that the respondents give advice to others who might be faced with a similar situation. The advice given the most was to “believe and trust in God” (7). “Help others (3), talk about it (2), think positively (2), take one day at a time (2), and, in every situation is good” (2), were the suggestions of the respondents. Other guidance offered was: “love life, live life, cope with losses, make the best of any situation, nothing lasts forever, get support, rest, relax, enjoy new skills, take control of your life, and leave as soon as possible.”
Each of the respondents’ answers in the Index of Clinical Stress and the Generalized Contentment Scale administered in 2002 were compared to their answers in 1999 in order to determine if there were any significant differences in their stress and contentment levels. The comparison of the clinical stress instruments showed that fifty-five (55) out of 350 items (16%) indicated that respondents were less stressed, while thirty-one (31) out of 350 items (9%) indicated that respondents were more stressed than the previous survey. This difference shows a 7% overall reduction in stress between 1999 and 2002.
Six (6) of the participants showed an overall decrease in stress, four (4) showed an increase in stress, and four (4) remained the same.
In comparing contentment of the respondents between 1999 and 2002, fifty-three (53) of the 350 items (15%) indicated more contentment in their lives, while twenty-four (24) of the 350 items (7%) indicated less contentment. This difference shows an 8% overall increase in contentment reported by the respondents. There were two (2) participants who indicated less contentment with their lives compared to 1999.
Looking at the objectives of this study, to determine additional losses and changes in coping responses experienced by the research participants due to the volcano disaster, its important to discuss some important factors that may explain some of the differences between the 1999 and 2002 responses. The first factor has to do with the time the research was administered in relation to the level of volcanic activity and the passage of time that occurred since the volcanic eruption. At the time of the workshop, the losses of Montserratians were relatively recent, within two years of the pyroclastic flow of June 25, 1997. Then, the follow-up study occurred three years later, farther away in time from the disaster, giving the participants time for adaptation to their losses. At the time of the mailed survey, the volcano again became more active which could have had influence on how some of the questions were answered.
A second factor in considering the differences in responses has to do with how the research was conducted. In the first administration of the research instruments, the participants were introduced to new knowledge and one-on-one assistance in identifying and expressing their grief both orally and in writing. This was done in a supportive group setting, which seemed conducive to obtaining a high level of self-disclosure. Administration of the second study was through the mail, without the previous support and further away in time from the presentation of the grief information. This was particularly apparent with some of the responses for the symbolic losses (Question 2) and the reactions to loss (Question 3) which were not as in-depth in description and expression as the first study.
The third factor in the differences of the responses pertains to the changes that occur in the normal grief process and in the resolution or lack of resolution of the bereaved’s losses. Participants could be assessed, based on the results of the study, as having moved through their grief into more acceptance of the events and losses that occurred. Another possibility, that would need more exploration, is the strengthening of defense mechanisms or a desensitization to the feelings of loss and attachment that may develop over time. Increased data and more in-depth exploration may be needed, through case studies or more data collection.
In 2002 the losses experienced due to separation from family members and friends are the most prominent and similar to the 1999 study. Financial and employment losses continued to affect the respondents at the same level of frequency as well. There was less home/property and material losses. Symbolic losses of security continued to be prominent as were positive feelings.
What is significant about the differences in reactions to their losses is that the 1999 study reported more emotional responses, whereas, the later study indicates more cognitive and behavioural responses. This may also infer that the participants have moved closer towards acceptance and resolution of their grief. In both studies the participants saw their greatest strength as a spiritual one. In the first study the descriptions contained a variety of spiritual attributes, but the 2002 study emphasised that trust in God was the key component. Having a good support system continued to be prominent in both studies. However, the ability to communicate and share with others was not mentioned in the later study. This is a significant difference and elicits questions as to why this is no longer important to the participants. Family, friends, church and community continued to be sources of support in both the studies. Missing in the 2002 study was support from the government.
Another significant difference in comparing the studies was in the reporting of difficulties facing the participants. In the 1999 study the major difficulties were displacement of the participants’ homes and adjustment to this displacement. In the 2002 study the major difficulty was finances. Also significant was the reporting of hostile treatment towards non-Montserratians.
In the 2002 study, fear of another disaster and an uncertain future were major concerns of the respondents, replacing concern for family in their dislocation and grief process, and whether Montserrat society could be rebuilt again. Separation and loss of family and friends, and property and financial losses were the prominent “worst experiences” in both studies.
In 1999 the best outcome of the disaster was increased self-esteem and personal growth. This outcome wasn’t even mentioned in the later study. What replaced it was increased reliance on God. More exploration is need in this area to understand the reasons for this change in emphasis. Is it based on fear and helplessness, or acceptance and surrender? The significance of spirituality emerged as advice to others as the majority of respondents was to believe and trust in God. And another significant difference was that the dedication and support of friends and family was an outcome that was new on the 2002 study and absent in the earlier one. Respondents stated that they had increased appreciation of this support.
Another indication that there may be more adaptation and resolution of grief comes from reports showing reduction of stress and increase in contentment. Although not of significant difference, the data shows a movement away from the initial anxious and stressful conditions reported in 1999. However, further research regarding the impact of prolonged stress and loss, as experienced in Montserrat because of the volcano activity, might be suggested. This view is stated due to the mental health and health issues that occurred amongst four of the respondents. They may have occurred whether there was a volcano disaster or not, but examination of a possible connection could be beneficial.
In addressing the bereavement needs and possible responses to these needs, programmes that can ease the separation between families and friends could alleviate the level of grief the society is experiencing. Forums or community groups that focus on increasing communication amongst the citizens in regards to their losses, negative feelings, coping skills, and reduction of isolation and alienation could be encouraged. Further study on understanding the role of stress on the health and mental health needs and concerns of the people would be beneficial. Also, financial and employments needs are of great concern for some of the respondents and affect their stress level. The economic and social development of Montserrat continues to be a top priority. More bereavement services could be made available through governmental and non-governmental agencies. And according to the information obtained, since the greatest strength and best outcome of this disaster has been increased reliance on God, the role of the church in bereavement support and outreach programmes could provide more services with additional assistance.
Coping With Loss Questionaire Index of Clinical Stress General Contentment Scale
Coping with Loss Questionaire
The following questions pertain to your experiences of loss during the recent disasters. When answering, it will be helpful to include your viewpoint as an individual, as well as being a member of your family and community. Please answer as honestly and completely as possible. Thank you.
1. List your physical losses and separations. (People, pets, land and houses, cars, money, material items, etc. that have been important to you.) Check the one that has been your greatest loss.
2. List your symbolic or non-physical losses and separations. (Security, safety peace, hope, control, independence, beliefs, joy, etc. that have been important to you.) Check the one that has been your greatest loss.
3.How did you react to these losses? If you can, explain the process you went through and how you are reacting currently?
4. What have been your three greatest personal strengths that have helped you in dealing with your losses.
5. Outside of yourself, from where has your greatest support come? Your second greatest?
6. What has been the most difficult problem for you to deal with in relation to your losses? (Perhaps, where you haven’t been coping.)
7. Currently, what are your major fears, worries, concerns?
8. Out of this situation what is the worst thing that has happened to you?
9. Out of this situation what is the best thing that has happened to you?
10. If you were to give someone advice on how to go through a similar situation, what would it be?
© Karen Ring, 2003.
HTML last revised 14 February, 2003.
Return to Conference Papers.