Death Attitude Profile – Revised (DAP-R)

Abstract

The Death Attitude Profile – Revised (DAP-R) is an authoritative, multidimensional psychometric instrument developed by Paul T. P. Wong, Gary T. Reker, and Gisela Gesser in 1994 to assess the complex topography of human orientations toward death and dying. Conceptualized within an existential psychological framework, the DAP-R transcended the historically narrow empirical focus on unidimensional death anxiety by systematically delineating five distinct, phenomenologically discrete dimensions of death attitudes: Fear of Death, Death Avoidance, Neutral Acceptance, Approach Acceptance, and Escape Acceptance. Comprising 32 self-report items administered via a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree), the instrument allows respondents to register both cognitive-evaluative stances and affective reactions toward mortality.

Extensive psychometric evaluations across normative community samples, geriatric cohorts, palliative oncology populations, and multicultural demographics demonstrate robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging between .65 and .97 across the five subscales. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations have continually validated the five-factor orthogonal/oblique structure, demonstrating superior model fit compared to alternative unidimensional or two-factor conceptualizations. The scale displays strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities, demonstrating theoretical alignment with measures of psychological well-being, terror management defenses, meaning in life, depression, and end-of-life distress. Widely utilized in thanatology, clinical health psychology, existential psychotherapy, gerontology, and suicidology, the DAP-R remains the global gold standard for assessing how human beings confront, conceptualize, and emotionally assimilate the inevitability of their nonexistence.

Keywords

Death Attitude Profile – Revised, DAP-R, thanatology, death anxiety, death acceptance, fear of death, approach acceptance, escape acceptance, neutral acceptance, existential psychology, psychometrics, palliative care

Authors

The Death Attitude Profile – Revised was developed through the collaborative scholarship of three prominent Canadian psychologists whose research has profoundly shaped existential thanatology and lifespan developmental psychology:

• Paul T. P. Wong, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Trent University and former Division Chair at Trinity Western University. Dr. Wong is globally recognized as the founder of Meaning-Centered Therapy (MCT), second-wave positive psychology (PP2.0), and a foremost authority on existential meaning, suffering, and death acceptance. He serves as President of the International Network on Personal Meaning (INPM).
• Gary T. Reker, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Reker is an internationally renowned psychometrician and lifespan developmental psychologist whose empirical contributions focus on structural models of personal meaning, existential well-being, and adjustment in older adulthood.
• Gisela Gesser, M.A.: A research psychologist who worked closely with Wong and Reker in constructing the original Death Attitude Profile (DAP) in 1987–1988, establishing the conceptual taxonomy that served as the direct precursor to the 1994 revised instrument.

Purpose

The historical trajectory of thanatological measurement throughout the mid-to-late twentieth century was predominantly characterized by a conceptual conflation: researchers largely treated an individual’s psychological orientation toward death as synonymous with death anxiety or death fear. Instruments such as Templer’s Death Anxiety Scale (DAS) and the Collett-Lester Fear of Death Scale made seminal contributions to the literature, yet they were structurally constrained by a negative deficit model. This unidimensional paradigm failed to capture individuals who confronted mortality without acute affective distress, those who actively integrated death into their self-schema, or those who viewed mortality through spiritual or liberationist paradigms.

Recognizing these psychometric and theoretical limitations, Wong, Reker, and Gesser designed the DAP-R to achieve several primary objectives:

• Deconstructing Death Acceptance: The central impetus behind the DAP-R was the theoretical differentiation of death acceptance into three functionally and clinically distinct components: Neutral Acceptance, Approach Acceptance, and Escape Acceptance. Prior instruments frequently grouped all non-anxious responses under a vague heading of acceptance, thereby masking crucial variances between a stoic existential recognition of death, a joyous religious anticipation of an afterlife, and a desperate desire for cessation from unbearable earthly pain.
• Differentiating Fear from Defensive Coping: The scale explicitly distinguishes between the raw emotional-visceral experience of Fear of Death and the behavioral-cognitive defense mechanism of Death Avoidance (e.g., active thought suppression, refusal to discuss death, experiential avoidance).
• Facilitating Palliative and Geriatric Assessment: In hospice, oncology, and elder-care settings, clinicians require nuanced diagnostic tools capable of identifying how a patient’s existential framing influences treatment adherence, psychological distress, advance directive completion, and dignified end-of-life closure.
• Informing Suicidology and Crisis Intervention: The scale plays an essential empirical role in suicidology by evaluating Escape Acceptance. Differentiating whether an individual desires physical death as an escape from intractable psychological pain (psychache) or views death through neutral or fearful lenses yields significant prognostic data regarding suicidal intent and self-harm vulnerability.
• Advancing Existential Empirical Research: The DAP-R provides behavioral scientists with a validated quantitative metric to test hypotheses rooted in Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy, Irvin Yalom’s existential psychotherapy, and Terror Management Theory (TMT).

Psychological Construct

The Death Attitude Profile – Revised conceptualizes death orientation as a five-dimensional construct spanning both affective-defensive vulnerabilities and cognitive-existential adaptations. These five dimensions reflect distinct psychological architectures:

1. Fear of Death

This subscale captures the conscious, overt affective apprehension, dread, and terror evoked by the prospect of dying and personal nonexistence. Grounded in basic survival instincts and existential confrontation with finitude, Fear of Death entails deep distress regarding the physical agony of dying, the uncertainty of what follows, the finality of temporal annihilation, and the disruption of ongoing projects and interpersonal attachments. Individuals scoring high on this dimension report pervasive anxiety when contemplating their mortality (e.g., Item 2: “The prospect of my own death arouses anxiety in me”; Item 18: “I imagine death to be horrible”). Psychopathologically, elevated Fear of Death is frequently correlated with hypochondriasis, panic symptomatology, and existential neurosis.

2. Death Avoidance

In contrast to the experiential distress of Fear of Death, Death Avoidance reflects an active, effortful behavioral and cognitive defense mechanism aimed at keeping mortality salience out of conscious awareness. Operating primarily through denial, suppression, and cognitive distraction, individuals high in Death Avoidance strive to maintain psychological homeostasis by insulating themselves from death-related discourse, environments (e.g., funeral homes, hospitals), and personal reflections (e.g., Item 3: “I avoid death thoughts at all costs”; Item 19: “I try to have nothing to do with the subject of death”). Drawing from cognitive-behavioral principles, high Death Avoidance operates as experiential avoidance, paradoxically intensifying covert death anxiety when death-related triggers cannot be escaped.

3. Neutral Acceptance

Neutral Acceptance represents an emotionally calm, philosophically mature, and psychologically integrated acknowledgment of death as an immutable, natural, and unavoidable reality of human existence. Uncolored by either terror or romanticized spiritual yearning, individuals scoring high on this subscale adopt a realistic, grounded stance: death is neither welcomed nor feared, but understood as the natural terminus of the biological life cycle (e.g., Item 6: “Death should be viewed as a natural, undeniable, and unavoidable event”; Item 14: “I would neither fear death nor welcome it”). In existential theory, Neutral Acceptance is considered an index of psychological maturity, congruent with Erik Erikson’s conceptualization of ego integrity.

4. Approach Acceptance

Rooted in transcendental, metaphysical, and religious worldviews, Approach Acceptance involves conceptualizing physical death not as an absolute termination of personal consciousness, but as a meaningful passage or gateway into an advantageous, joyous afterlife. Individuals high in Approach Acceptance frequently hold strong beliefs in personal immortality, divine reunion, or spiritual transcendence (e.g., Item 4: “I believe that I will be in heaven after I die”; Item 8: “Death is an entrance to a new and much better world”). Within clinical populations, Approach Acceptance often serves as a formidable existential buffer against death anxiety, providing positive cognitive reappraisal during terminal illness.

5. Escape Acceptance

Unlike Approach Acceptance, which is motivated by the positive attraction toward a transcendent realm, Escape Acceptance is driven by the perceived intolerability of earthly life. Here, death is embraced not as a joyous homecoming, but as a functional exit strategy—a welcome cessation from chronic physical agony, debilitating psychological suffering, existential despair, or unresolved life burdens (e.g., Item 5: “Death will bring an end to all my troubles”; Item 11: “Death is deliverance from pain and suffering”). While common and psychologically understandable in terminal geriatric or palliative oncology cohorts experiencing intractable physiological distress, high Escape Acceptance in physically healthy populations represents a critical transdiagnostic risk factor for suicidal ideation.

Theoretical Framework

The DAP-R is deeply embedded within 20th-century existential philosophy, clinical existential psychology, and humanistic developmental paradigms. Its theoretical foundation draws principally upon four major scholarly perspectives:

Frankl’s Logotherapy and Personal Meaning

Paul T. P. Wong’s formulation of the DAP-R is intrinsically intertwined with Viktor Frankl’s logotherapy. Frankl posited that the will-to-meaning is the primary human drive, and that confrontation with the “tragic triad” (pain, guilt, and death) provides the crucible through which authentic personal growth occurs. Wong conceptualized death attitudes not as static traits, but as dynamic manifestations of an individual’s overall meaning system. When individuals possess a coherent, deeply rooted sense of life purpose (as measured by instruments such as the Life Attitude Profile), they are significantly more capable of achieving Neutral Acceptance, viewing life and death as interdependent, complementary facets of being.

Yalom’s Ultimate Concerns

The DAP-R directly operationalizes the clinical insights of existential psychiatrist Irvin Yalom, who identified death as the primary “ultimate concern” of human existence. Yalom posited that human beings exist in a perpetual dialectic between the awareness of inevitable physical mortality and the simultaneous desire to continue existing. To manage the raw terror generated by this core conflict, the ego erects massive psychological defense systems, primary among which are denial and avoidant strategies. The DAP-R’s explicit operational separation of Fear of Death (the overt affective awareness) from Death Avoidance (the defense mechanism) translates Yalom’s psychoanalytic-existential formulations into a quantitative paradigm.

Erikson’s Epigenetic Model: Ego Integrity vs. Despair

The theoretical framework of the DAP-R aligns closely with Erik Erikson’s final developmental stage: Ego Integrity versus Despair. According to Erikson, successful late-life adaptation demands an acceptance of one’s sole life cycle as something that had to be and that permitted of no substitutions. An older adult who achieves ego integrity displays a composed acceptance of death without morbid fear, theoretically mapping directly onto the DAP-R’s Neutral Acceptance construct. Conversely, individuals who succumb to despair—viewing their past life as a series of squandered opportunities and catastrophic failures—manifest either intense Fear of Death (fear of the clock running out) or pathological Escape Acceptance (wishing for the curtain to fall on an agonizing narrative).

Terror Management Theory (TMT)

While the DAP-R emerged within existential-humanistic scholarship, its constructs are routinely utilized in social-cognitive research evaluating Terror Management Theory (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon). TMT posits that cultural worldviews and self-esteem function as psychological anxiety buffers against the paralyzing awareness of our mortality. Approach Acceptance mirrors a cultural/religious worldview defense that neutralizes existential threat through literal immortality beliefs, whereas Death Avoidance captures the proximal defense mechanism of cognitive suppression following mortality salience inductions.

Validity

Across three decades of international psychometric validation, the DAP-R has demonstrated exemplary construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across diverse developmental, clinical, and cultural cohorts:

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was established in Wong, Reker, and Gesser’s original 1994 psychometric study using a heterogeneous sample of young adults, middle-aged adults, and elderly populations. The five subscales exhibited distinct, theoretically congruent patterns of intercorrelations. Notably, Fear of Death and Death Avoidance displayed a moderate-to-strong positive correlation (typically $r = .40$ to $.60$), confirming that avoidant coping is largely fueled by underlying fear. Crucially, Neutral Acceptance demonstrated near-zero or mildly negative correlations with Fear of Death, confirming that genuine neutral acceptance is structurally detached from anxiety. Moreover, Approach Acceptance and Escape Acceptance exhibited distinct factor loadings and disparate associative profiles with external psychological measures, validating their separation.

Convergent Validity

The convergent validity of the DAP-R has been repeatedly affirmed through systematic correlations with established thanatological and clinical measures:

• Death Anxiety Measures: The Fear of Death subscale correlates strongly with Templer’s Death Anxiety Scale ($r = .55$ to $.70$) and the Collett-Lester Fear of Death subscales, verifying that it effectively captures the core affective construct of thanatophobia.
• Religiosity and Spirituality: The Approach Acceptance subscale shows substantial positive correlations with intrinsic religiosity, spiritual well-being scales, and frequency of prayer ($r = .60$ to $.82$), while displaying inverse correlations with death dread in spiritually committed groups.
• Depression and Psychache: The Escape Acceptance subscale correlates robustly with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Beck Hopelessness Scale, and Shneidman’s psychache metrics ($r = .45$ to $.68$), confirming that viewing death as an escape reflects elevated psychological and somatic distress.
• Meaning in Life: The Neutral Acceptance subscale correlates positively with the Purpose in Life Test (PIL) and the Life Attitude Profile – Revised (LAP-R) coherence subscales ($r = .35$ to $.52$), demonstrating that realistic death acceptance is anchored in a fulfilled, coherent existence.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by the DAP-R’s ability to differentiate between clinically distinct constructs that superficial inspection might conflate. For instance, while both Approach Acceptance and Escape Acceptance reflect a positive endorsement of death’s arrival, they are distinguished by external correlates: Approach Acceptance is positively associated with subjective vitality, social support, and life satisfaction, whereas Escape Acceptance is negatively correlated with life satisfaction and positively tied to chronic physical pain, depression, and social isolation.

Cross-Cultural and Predictive Validity

The DAP-R has undergone rigorous cross-cultural validation across numerous international linguistic contexts, including Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, Turkish, German, Portuguese, and Persian adaptations. In palliative clinical settings, baseline DAP-R profiles significantly predict patient trajectories: patients with high Fear of Death and high Death Avoidance manifest significantly greater terminal agitation, more frequent emergency department visits, and resistance to palliative transitions, whereas those characterized by high Neutral or Approach Acceptance demonstrate higher quality of life in their terminal phases and more timely engagement with advance care planning.

Reliability

The reliability of the DAP-R has been extensively evaluated across normative adult cohorts, geriatric care populations, university student pools, and multicultural cohorts, establishing robust internal consistency and temporal stability:

Internal Consistency

In the foundational psychometric investigations conducted by Wong, Reker, and Gesser (1994), the subscales demonstrated the following Cronbach’s alpha coefficients:

• Approach Acceptance (10 items): $\alpha = .97$ (exceptionally high internal consistency, reflecting strong conceptual coherence regarding afterlife expectations).
• Fear of Death (7 items): $\alpha = .86$ (demonstrating excellent internal reliability).
• Death Avoidance (5 items): $\alpha = .88$ (indicating robust homogeneous measurement of suppressive behaviors).
• Escape Acceptance (5 items): $\alpha = .84$ (demonstrating high internal coherence regarding the desire for cessation).
• Neutral Acceptance (5 items): $\alpha = .65$ to $.74$ (acceptable to good reliability; historically the lowest of the five subscales due to the philosophical subtlety and cognitive complexity of integrating death as a neutral natural fact).

Replication studies across diverse global samples have consistently yielded comparable parameters. For example, a landmark validation in a Spanish geriatric and palliative cohort reported alpha coefficients of .83 for Fear of Death, .87 for Death Avoidance, .69 for Neutral Acceptance, .93 for Approach Acceptance, and .79 for Escape Acceptance. In a large-scale Chinese oncology nursing sample, alphas spanned from .72 to .91 across the subscales.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments over intervals ranging from 4 to 8 weeks have confirmed that death attitudes, while responsive to profound existential transitions or targeted psychotherapeutic interventions, function as relatively stable cognitive-affective orientations. Wong et al. reported test-retest reliability coefficients ranging from $r_{tt} = .61$ to $.85$ across the five dimensions over a four-week span in a stable community sample, with Approach Acceptance displaying the highest temporal stability ($r_{tt} > .80$) and Neutral Acceptance displaying moderate stability ($r_{tt} \approx .65$).

Factor Analysis

The empirical derivation and structural validation of the DAP-R represent a textbook standard in psychometric scale construction, moving systematically from exploratory factor analysis to rigorous confirmatory factor analytic testing:

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

The 32 items of the DAP-R were derived from an initial, larger pool of items generated by Wong, Reker, and Gesser based on theoretical constructs of existential and thanatological orientations. During the scale’s refinement from the original DAP, items were subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) followed by both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Oblimin/Promax) rotations across broad community samples spanning young adults, middle-aged adults, and elderly populations. The analysis cleanly converged on a five-factor solution accounting for over 60% of the total variance.

Factor loading cutoffs were conservatively established at $lambda ge .40$, with virtually all retained items demonstrating high, clean primary loadings (typically ranging from .52 to .88) and minimal cross-loadings. The five extracted factors corresponded directly to the theoretically posited dimensions:

• Factor 1: Approach Acceptance (10 items capturing belief in an afterlife, heavenly reunion, and spiritual transition).
• Factor 2: Fear of Death (7 items capturing dread, anxiety, fear of finality, and bodily terror).
• Factor 3: Death Avoidance (5 items indexing deliberate suppression of death thoughts and denial behaviors).
• Factor 4: Escape Acceptance (5 items indexing death as relief from suffering, pain, and life’s burdens).
• Factor 5: Neutral Acceptance (5 items capturing the natural, unavoidable, and unemotional reality of mortality).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations have continually subjected the DAP-R to Confirmatory Factor Analysis to rigorously evaluate its dimensional adequacy against competing models (such as a single-factor “general thanatophobia” model or a two-factor “acceptance vs. fear” model). Structural equation modeling has consistently demonstrated that the five-factor correlated model yields significantly superior fit indices across demographic cohorts.

Representative CFA fit indices reported across the thanatological literature include:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Typically between $.91$ and $.96$, exceeding the standard $.90$ threshold for acceptable model fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Consistently reported between $.90$ and $.95$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Ranging from $.042$ to $.065$ with $90%$ confidence intervals below $.08$, indicating excellent to acceptable approximation errors.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below $.06$.

Multigroup CFA has further demonstrated measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar invariance) across gender groups and across distinct age brackets (e.g., comparing emerging adults to community-dwelling geriatric populations), confirming that the DAP-R measures identical psychological constructs across different stages of the human lifespan.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

Below are the structural specifications, administration protocols, and scoring guidelines for the Death Attitude Profile – Revised:

• Instrument Name: Death Attitude Profile – Revised (DAP-R)
• Construct Assessed: Multidimensional death attitudes spanning affective, cognitive, and defensive dimensions.
• Format: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or digital psychometric questionnaire.
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents (ages 16 and older); extensively validated across university students, community adults, elderly cohorts, healthcare professionals (physicians, hospice nurses), and terminal palliative/oncology patients.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Number of Items: 32 authentic items.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree (SD)
  • 2 = Moderately Disagree (MD)
  • 3 = Slightly Disagree (D)
  • 4 = Undecided (U)
  • 5 = Slightly Agree (A)
  • 6 = Moderately Agree (MA)
  • 7 = Strongly Agree (SA)
• Reverse-Scored Items: None. All items are scored in a direct, positive direction toward their respective subscale constructs.
• Subscale Item Allocation & Scoring Methodology: Subscale scores are derived by summing the ratings of the assigned items and dividing by the number of items in that subscale, yielding a mean score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00 for each dimension. A higher mean score reflects a stronger endorsement of that specific death attitude:
  • Fear of Death (7 items): Items 1, 2, 7, 18, 20, 21, 32. (Compute: Sum of 7 items / 7)
  • Death Avoidance (5 items): Items 3, 10, 12, 19, 26. (Compute: Sum of 5 items / 5)
  • Neutral Acceptance (5 items): Items 6, 14, 17, 24, 30. (Compute: Sum of 5 items / 5)
  • Approach Acceptance (10 items): Items 4, 8, 13, 15, 16, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31. (Compute: Sum of 10 items / 10)
  • Escape Acceptance (5 items): Items 5, 9, 11, 23, 29. (Compute: Sum of 5 items / 5)
• Clinical Interpretation Guidelines: The DAP-R does not generate a single composite total score; doing so would be psychometrically invalid because the subscales capture orthogonal and phenomenologically contradictory orientations (e.g., combining Fear of Death with Neutral Acceptance yields uninterpretable numbers). Instead, the profile of five mean scores is interpreted as a holistic existential silhouette:
• High Fear of Death (> 5.0) paired with High Death Avoidance (> 5.0): Indicates acute existential distress managed via avoidant defenses, signaling heightened vulnerability to death-related crises.
• High Neutral Acceptance (> 5.0) with Low Fear (< 3.0) and Low Avoidance (< 3.0): Represents optimal, psychologically mature death integration, typical of healthy ego integrity.
• High Approach Acceptance (> 5.5): Reflects deep transcendental/religious grounding, serving as an effective meaning-centered coping buffer against somatic illness.
• High Escape Acceptance (> 4.5): In physically healthy populations, this requires urgent clinical screening for severe depressive demoralization, psychache, and suicidal intent. In terminal illness, it reflects existential exhaustion and intractable physical or emotional suffering.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Death Attitude Profile – Revised was formally published in 1994 within Robert A. Neimeyer’s landmark compendium, Death Anxiety Handbook: Research, Instrumentation, and Application (Taylor & Francis). Dr. Paul T. P. Wong and his co-authors have placed the DAP-R in the public domain for non-commercial academic research, non-funded educational studies, and direct clinical practice. Researchers and licensed clinicians are permitted to reproduce and administer the DAP-R without paying royalty fees, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Wong, Reker, and Gesser (1994). For commercial use, sponsored pharmaceutical clinical trials, or commercial software integration, permissions must be sought via the authors or the copyright holder.

References

Below is a comprehensive list of primary foundational literature and key validation studies in APA 7th edition format:

• Clements, R., & Rooda, L. A. (1999). Factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Death Attitude Profile-Revised with a sample of urban, elderly African-American adults. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 39(4), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.2190/7A0B-H4XN-3E3N-77U7
• Gesser, G., Wong, P. T. P., & Reker, G. T. (1987). Death attitudes across the life-span: The development and validation of the Death Attitude Profile (DAP). Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 18(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.2190/X9H6-0Q8V-K087-CUCJ
• Neimeyer, R. A. (Ed.). (1994). Death anxiety handbook: Research, instrumentation, and application. Taylor & Francis.
• Reker, G. T. (1992). The Life Attitude Profile-Revised (LAP-R). Student Psychologists Press.
• Reker, G. T., & Wong, P. T. P. (1988). Aging as an existential problem: The role of personal meaning. In J. E. Birren & V. L. Bengtson (Eds.), Emergent theories of aging (pp. 214–246). Springer Publishing Co.
• Tang, C. S. K., Xiang, Z., & Dong, X. Q. (2013). Death anxiety and death acceptance among Chinese older adults: The role of gender and personal meaning. Journal of Aging and Health, 25(8), 1332–1348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264313504456
• Templer, D. I. (1970). The construction and validation of a Death Anxiety Scale. The Journal of General Psychology, 82(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1970.9711295
• Wong, P. T. P. (2008). Meaning management theory and death acceptance. In A. Tomer, G. T. Eliason, & P. T. P. Wong (Eds.), Existential and spiritual issues in death attitudes (pp. 65–87). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Wong, P. T. P., Reker, G. T., & Gesser, G. (1994). Death Attitude Profile-Revised: A multidimensional measure of attitudes toward death. In R. A. Neimeyer (Ed.), Death anxiety handbook: Research, instrumentation, and application (pp. 121–148). Taylor & Francis.
• Yalom, I. D. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. Basic Books.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)