Stage Theory of the Development of Childrenʼs Understandings

of Death
The best-known theory of the development of childrenʼs understandings of death was
put forward by a Hungarian psychologist named Maria Nagy (1948, 1959). According to
Nagy (1948, p. 7), there are three major developmental stages in childrenʼs
understandings of death:

“The child of less than five years does not recognize death as an irreversible fact. In
death it sees life.” In this stage, Nagy maintained that children either do not fully
distinguish the concept of death from other concepts or its full implications have not yet
been grasped. For example, death is not seen as final when life and consciousness are
attributed to the dead. This might be because death is understood either as a departure
(a kind of continued life elsewhere) or as a sleep (a diminished form of life). The finality
of death is also not fully grasped when children cannot completely separate death from
life. In short, although death exists, it is not absolutely final or definitive.

“Between the ages of five and nine death is most often personified and thought of as
a contingency.” According to Nagy, children in this second stage accept the existence
and definitiveness of death, but they think of death as a person or reality that is outside
or remote from them. As a result, death is conceived of as final, but avoidable or not
inevitable and not universal. Those caught by the external force do die; those who
escape or get away from the clutches of that force do not die. Later researchers
emphasized the theme of deathʼs avoidability in this stage rather than its personification.
Many children in this stage of their understandings of death are not satisfied with the
simple fact of a loved oneʼs disappearance; they want to know where and how the
deceased person continues to live. This may lead a child to speculate about the nature
of life in the grave on the basis of the childʼs limited life experiences, thus combining
keen insight and misinterpretations, as well as feelings of anxiety and fear about what is
going on.

“In general only after the age of nine is it recognized that death is a process happening
in us according to certain laws.” According to Nagy, in this third stage children
recognize that death is a process operating within us. Such children view death as both
final and universal, an aspect of life that is inevitable and not avoidable. Nagy
suggested that this reflects a realistic view of both death and the world.

Nagy wrote that because “the different sorts of answers can be found only at certain
ages, one can speak of stages of development” (1948, p. 7).

RELEVANCE.
Clearly, childrenʼs understandings of the concept of death will influence how they react
and respond to a significant death-related experience in their lives. Such
understandings are relevant to how they will interpret the meaning(s) of any death-
related experience that they may encounter and what they will view as the most
important aspects of that experience.

CAUTIONS.
Nagy added this caution: “It should be kept in mind that neither the stages nor the
above-mentioned ages at which they occur are watertight compartments as it were.
Overlapping does exist” (1959, p. 81). We should resist the tendency to treat any
stage-based theory in an overly rigid way, to draw unduly sharp lines between its
stages, or to apply it in fixed, mechanical ways. All aspects of cognitive development in
childhood are complex and highly individualized. Particular children are organic, living
beings with multiple dimensions, not elevators moving in an inflexible, mechanical way
through a set of preordained steps or levels.

Further, an inability to grasp the finality or universality of death does not leave a child in
blissful ignorance. Even children who think of death as a kind of ongoing living
somewhere else can find it painful to be separated from a loved one and to experience
other changes in their lives. A child does not have to grasp fully the finality of death or
the complete cessation of bodily activities in order to react to separation from the dead
person.

Further, it is useful to keep in mind that research on childrenʼs understandings of death

—some of which has supported the general outlines of Nagyʼs theory—has been
plagued by methodological problems. That led Stambrook and Parker (1987, p. 154) to
characterize the literature in this field as offering a “confusing array of results.” Once
again, we should draw upon research and theories in the field of death, dying, and
bereavement in a prudent and thoughtful way, rather than uncritically and superficially.

Finally, Nagy (1948, p. 27) herself offered the following lesson: “To conceal death from
the child is not possible and is not permissible. Natural behavior in the childʼs
surroundings can greatly diminish the shock of its acquaintance with death.”
Five Principal Subconcepts Included within the Concept of Death
Mark Speece and Sandor Brent (1994, 1996) proposed that the concept of death is not
a simple, uncomplicated notion. Rather, they contended that this concept embraces five
distinguishable subconcepts, some with their own subordinate components or elements
(see Table 4 at end of document).

The theme of universality is often found in theories of childrenʼs concepts of death,

although it is not often identified as a distinct subconcept. It is reflected in oneʼs
awareness that all living things must eventually die. However, this is a complex point to
grasp, not a simple one. Universality embraces three closely related notions: all-
inclusiveness, inevitability, and unpredictability. All-inclusiveness means that every
living thing will die, that no living thing is exempt from death. Inevitability means that all
living things must die, that death is unavoidable for living things. And unpredictability
means that we do not know when living things will die even though we know that all of
them will and must die.

According to Speece and Brent, the finality of death is captured in two additional
subconcepts. Irreversibility means that once a living thing has made the transition from
being alive to being dead, it can never again be alive (barring miracles or magic).
Nonfunctionality means that death involves the complete and final cessation of all of the
life-defining capabilities or functional capacities typically attributed to a living thing.

In addition to the above, Speece and Brent argued that there are two additional
subconcepts included within the concept of death. Causality is the subconcept whereby
children (and others) seek to understand why and how living things die. Here children
ask about the events or conditions that can and do bring about the death of a living
thing. Noncorporeal continuation is seen when children try to grasp or articulate their
understanding of some type of continued life apart from the physical body that has died.
Speece and Brent believe that most children (and many adults) often indicate their
belief in some type of continued life form of a soul or spirit after the death of the physical
body.

RELEVANCE.
If Speece and Brent are correct in their analysis of the subconcepts included within the
concept of death, it is not surprising that children (as well as many adolescents and
adults) have difficulty grasping the full implications of death. Thus, when children are
bereaved they will ask questions about the meaning of what has happened. For
example, a child who does not grasp some aspects of the subconcept of universality
may accept one death but question if other deaths will occur or if everyone must
eventually die. Similarly, a child who has difficulty grasping the finality of death may
wonder whether or not that person might come back to life at some point.

Also, as children explore the concept of death, they are likely to try to grasp what it
means for their own lives. For example, bereaved children may ask questions like, “Did
I cause the death?”, “Is it going to happened to me?”, and “Who is going to take care of
me?” In these questions, a bereaved childʼs egocentrism is evident, as are concerns
about causality (perhaps associated with magical thinking) and personal safety.

Further, whatever the child accepts as part of the loss- or death-related experience at
any given point and thus what the child is or may be coping with at that point is likely to
evolve as his or her understandings both of death in general and of this particular
experience develop.

CAUTIONS. Speece and Brent (1996, p. 43) noted that, “Most studies have found that
by seven years of age most children understand each of the key bioscientific
components—Universality, Irreversibility, Nonfunctionality, and Causality.” Still, they
added that, “Age by itself explains nothing. It is rather a convenient general, omnibus
index of a wide range of loosely correlated biological and environmental variables.”
Once again, the caution is not to overemphasize age in what we expect children to be
able to understand about death.

A second point concerns the view that children recognize that death is possible for all
other people before they apply it to themselves. Against this, Speece and Brent thought
it more likely that most children understand their own personal mortality before they
understand that all other people die. If so, a bereaved childʼs personal sense of
mortality may be heightened by the death of a significant other in his or her life.

For bereaved children whose understandings of death lead them to their own personal
concerns, it is important to reassure them in a reliable way that someone will be
available to provide them with the support and care they need. They may also need to
maintain an emotional connection with the deceased person by holding onto symbolic
linking objects such as pictures or gifts.
Factors Influencing Death-Related Attitudes and Understandings

CHILDHOOD
Childrenʼs attitudes toward death and their understandings of death are influenced by
many factors. Robert Kastenbaum (1977) suggested that four of the most important of
these influential factors are: developmental level, life experiences, individual personality,
and patterns of communication and support. We have already drawn attention to
physical, psychological (cognitive and emotional), social, and spiritual development and
need not say more about that here.

Life experiences vary widely among children, but obviously the quantity and quality of a
childʼs encounters with death will influence his or her attitudes toward and
understandings of death. For example, children may experience the death of a favorite
pet. In addition, children in our society receive many messages about death from
multiple sources, such as the media, their parents, and other adults. Some of these
messages suggest that death is not an acceptable topic for discussion, even while other
messages (such as the daily fare of traumatic events in television news reports) bring
death-related topics into the homes of children. In addition, familiar forms of childhood
games and play, as well as well-known rhymes, songs, humor, and fairy tales,
demonstrate that death is not absent from the fantasy world of childhood.

Individual personality is another influential factor that can be critical in many ways,
although we do not know exactly how it functions in relationship to childrenʼs death-
related attitudes and understandings.

Finally, patterns of communication and support refer both to the ways in which a child is
or is not willing to share thoughts and concerns with others, as well as to the assistance
and encouragement that is or is not available to that child from others.

RELEVANCE.
Developmental level, life experiences, individual personality, and patterns of
communication and support are important variables in influencing how a child engages
with all of the experiences in his or her life. They will be particularly important in
determining how a child thinks, feels, and acts when confronted by a significant loss or
death in his or her life.

CAUTIONS. One basic lesson from this exploration of factors that influence death-
related attitudes and understanding during childhood is that normal, healthy children do
have thoughts and feelings about death. They are naturally curious about this and
many other subjects. Their desire to know and understand is likely to be heightened
when their thoughts and feelings are stimulated by an important loss or death in their
lives. Adult helpers will want to be sensitive to the ways in which these variables
influence how a child reacts and responds to an important loss or death.
ADOLESCENCE.
Although there is great diversity among adolescents in our society and a wide variety of
death-related attitudes held by those adolescents, researchers (e.g., Keating, 1990)
generally agree that before or by the beginning of the adolescent era individuals with
normal cognitive development are capable of grasping the concept of death and its
principal subconcepts. Still, it is not enough merely to say that adolescents are capable
of thinking about death in ways that are characteristic of adults. Noppe and Noppe
(1991, 1996, 1997) proposed that adolescent understandings of death and their
attitudes toward death may be influenced by ambiguities or tensions arising from
biological, cognitive, social, and emotional factors.

Rapid biological maturation and sexual development is associated in many adolescents

with an awareness of inevitable physical decline and ultimate death. This tension is
reflected in high-risk, death-defying behaviors among adolescents who seek to
challenge or “cheat” death, even though most do not experience tragic consequences.
These behaviors are particularly hazardous in a world of high-powered automobiles,
readily available drugs and firearms, eating disorders, binge drinking, and HIV.
Adolescents conflicted by such challenges and possibilities may look fondly at what they
seem to have lost in moving on from the more restricted, apparently simpler, world of
childhood.

Newly developed cognitive capacities help most adolescents to search for their own
identities and to reevaluate their parentsʼ values, while also challenging them to take
into account the inevitability of death. Of course, thinking about death in the abstract
may or may not coexist with awareness of its personal significance for an individual
adolescent. Still, as they contemplate what the future holds, adolescents may glimpse
both positive and negative possibilities. In the end, they must come to appreciate that
although there is much they can do to influence the shape of their futures, it is also true
that many things are beyond human control.

Changing social relationships with family members and peers can be both enriching and
isolating. As their relationships enlarge in scope, especially by moving outside of their
family of origin, adolescents are challenged to create a viable social life and to avoid a
“social death.” A new peer group offers a context in which an adolescent can try out
and be comfortable in a new identity, but it also imposes scrutiny and its own demands
for conformity. This is further complicated when the chosen peer group is a gang that
devotes some of its energies to violent behavior and strife with others. Also, in many
adolescent peer groups, transient interpersonal difficulties can become sources of
anguish and despair. For many adolescents, this may be compounded by moving into
new academic and cultural settings, and by specific ethnic influences that may
encourage or inhibit certain kinds of public behaviors, such as the expression of grief
and other reactions to loss.

Finally, adolescent feelings about development and death are likely to be closely
intertwined. Achieving autonomy and individuation during the adolescent years is not
only a matter of abandoning parent-child attachments begun in infancy. The real
challenge for developing adolescents is to reformulate and make qualitative changes in
such attachments, even as they develop new peer group attachments. All of this can
involve threats to an adolescentʼs sense of self-esteem and purpose in life.
Developmental feelings of loss and grief—the fear of losing oneʼs self—coexist in many
adolescents with feelings of being intensely alive.

Adolescent attitudes toward death are reflected in the entertainment media (e.g., video
games, music, movies, and television) that are so much a part of the lives of many
adolescents and preadolescents and that are all too often flooded with death-related
topics and themes, especially those associated with violence.

RELEVANCE.
The main issue in this review of factors that influence adolescent attitudes toward and
understandings of death is this. What do individual adolescents learn from all of their
life experiences about death, loss, and grief both in general and as it relates to them
personally? Does a specific adolescent feel distanced from these experiences and
invulnerable to their implications, or do they have personal force and relevance for that
individual? And how does a particular bereavement experience bear upon all of this?

CAUTIONS.
Many adolescents tend to live in the moment and not to appreciate personal threats
associated with death. The key issue for these adolescents may not arise directly from
their capacity to think about death but rather from ways in which the significance of
death-related concepts is or is not related to their personal lives. This may not apply to
adolescents who have broad and personal experiences with death. In general,
however, most adolescents struggle to grasp the personal significance of death by
confronting a paradox: they want to keep their feelings in perspective and distance
themselves from intense death-related experiences, while at the same time they attempt
to find meaning in abstract concepts of death by applying them in ways that have
personal reference and meaning.
Table 1
Principal Eras in Human Development
during Childhood and Adolescence
Era Approximate Age Predominant Issue Virtue

Infancy Birth through 12–18 Basic trust vs. Hope

months mistrust

Toddlerhood Infancy to 3 years Autonomy vs. Will or self-control

shame and doubt

Early childhood 3–6 years Initiative vs. guilt Purpose or

(sometimes called direction
play age or the
preschool period)

Middle childhood 6 years to puberty Industry vs. Competency

(sometimes called inferiority
school age or the
latency period)

Adolescence Puberty to about 21 Identity vs. role Fidelity

or 22 years confusion
Note: All chronological ages given here are approximate.
SOURCE: Based on Erikson, 1963, 1968.

Table 2
Tasks and Conflicts for Adolescents by Maturational Phase
Phase Approximate Age Task Conflict

Early Adolescence 11–14 Emotional Separation

separation from (abandonment) vs.
parents reunion (safety)

Middle 14–17 Competency/ Independence vs.

Adolescence mastery /control dependence

Late Adolescence 17–21 or 22 Intimacy and Closeness vs.

commitment distance
SOURCE: Fleming & Adolph, 1986, p. 103.
Table 3
Piagetʼs System of Cognitive Development
Period and Stage Life Period Some Major Characteristics

There are individual differences in chronological ages. Each stage includes an initial
period of preparation and a final period of attainment; thus, whatever characterizes a
stage is in the process of formation.

I. Period of “Intelligence” Limited language. No concept of

sensorimotor Infancy (0–2) consists of sensory reality.
and motor actions. (By the end of age 2, children
No conscious have attained on average 250–
thinking. 300 words.)

II. Period of preparation

and organization of
concrete operations

1. Stage of preoperational Early childhood (2– Egocentric orientation. Magical,

thought 7) animistic, and artificialistic
thinking. Thinking is irreversible.
Reality is subjective.

2. Stage of concrete Middle childhood/ Orientation ego-decentered.

operations/thinking preadolescence Thinking is bound to concrete.
(7 – 11 or 12) Naturalistic. Recognizes laws of
conservation and reversibility.

III. Period of formal Adolescence and Propositional and hypo-deductive

operations adulthood (12+) thinking. Generality of thinking.
Reality is objective.
SOURCE: From “Concepts of Death: A Developmental Perspective” by H. Wass. In H.
Wass and C. A. Corr (Eds.), Childhood and Death, p. 4. Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, 1984.
Table 4
Subconcepts Embraced by the Concept of Death
Subconcept Subordinate Typical Questions from a Child
Component

Universality “Is it true that all living things must

eventually die?”

All-inclusiveness “Does everyone die?”

Inevitability “Does everyone have to die?”

Unpredictability “Is the timing of death certain and

predictable?”

Irreversibility “Once you are dead, can you come back

to life again?”

Nonfunctionality “What do you do when you are dead?”

Causality “Why do living things die? What makes

them die?”

Noncorporeal “What happens after death? Where does

continuation your soul or spirit go when you die?”
SOURCE: Based on Speece & Brent, 1996.
References
Corr, C. A., Nabe, C. M., & Corr, D. M. (2006). Death and dying, life and living (5th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). New York: Norton. (Original
edition published 1950).
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. London: Faber & Faber.
Fleming, S. J., & Adolph, R. (1986). Helping bereaved adolescents: Needs and
responses. In C. A. Corr & J. N. McNeil (Eds.), Adolescence and death (pp.
97-118. New York: Springer.
Jung, C. (1954). The development of personality. In H. Read, M. Fordham, & G. Adler
(Eds.), The collected works of Carl G. Jung (2nd ed., Vol. 17, p. 7). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 19xx.)
Kastenbaum, R. (1977). Death and development through the lifespan. In H. Feifel
(Ed.), New meanings of death (pp. 17-45). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Keating, D. (1990). Adolescent thinking. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the
threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 54-89). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Nagy, M. A. (1948). The childʼs theories concerning death. Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 73, 3-27.
Nagy, M. A. (1959). The childʼs view of death. In H. Feifel (Ed.), The meaning of death
(pp. 79-98). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Noppe, I. C., & Noppe, L. C. (1997). Evolving meanings of death during early, middle
and later adolescence. Death Studies, 21, 253-275.
Noppe, L. D., & Noppe, I. C. (1991). Dialectical themes in adolescent conceptions of
death. Journal of Adolescent Research, 6, 28-42.
Noppe, L. D., & Noppe, I. C. (1996). Ambiguity in adolescent understandings of death.
In C. A. Corr & D. E. Balk (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent death and
bereavement (pp. 25-41). New York: Springer.
Piaget, J. (1998). The equilibration of cognitive structures: The central problem of
intellectual development. Trans. T. A. Brown & K. J. Thampy. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1958). The growth of logical thinking from childhood to
adolescence. Trans. A. Parsons & S. Milgram. New York: Basic Books.
Speece, M. W., & Brent, S. B. (1994). Childrenʼs understanding of death: A review of
three components of a death concept. Child Development, 55, 1671-1686.
Speece, M. W., & Brent, S. B. (1996). The development of childrenʼs understanding of
death. In C. A. Corr & D. M. Corr (Eds.), Handbook of childhood death and
bereavement (pp. 29-50). New York: Springer.
Stambrook, M., & Parker, K. C. (1987). The development of the concept of death in
childhood: A review of the literature. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 33, 133-157.
Sugar, M. (1968). Normal adolescent mourning. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
22, 258-269.
Wass, H. (1984). Concepts of death: A developmental perspective. In H. Wass & C. A.
Corr (Eds.), Childhood and death (pp. 3-24). Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation.