Death Acceptance Scale

Abstract

The Death Acceptance Scale (DAS), developed by Ray and Najman (1974), is a concise 7-item instrument designed to measure an individual’s positive orientation toward mortality. It utilizes a Likert scale format, where all items are positively worded, meaning high agreement correlates with a higher level of death acceptance. While the original publication did not specify the exact Likert format range (though subsequent use implies a 7-point scale), the scale is noted for its brevity and ease of integration into longer research instruments.

A key point of discussion regarding the original scale is item 5, which uses gender-exclusive wording (“younger men”), potentially complicating responses for female subjects. Despite this limitation, the scale provides a simple, direct measure intended to capture acceptance as the conceptual opposite of death anxiety or denial.

Keywords

Death Acceptance, Death Anxiety, Thanatology, Psychological Measurement, Attitude Toward Death, Ray and Najman, Likert Scale.

Authors

J. J. Ray, J. Najman

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Death Acceptance Scale is to provide an empirical measure for the positive pole of attitudes toward mortality, serving as a counter-measure to the heavily researched construct of death anxiety. Ray and Najman (1974) theorized that the emotional and cognitive response opposing anxiety is not merely passive denial, but active death acceptance—a state achieved through conscious thought and effort regarding one’s mortality.

This approach distinguishes between two responses to low death anxiety scores: successful denial (the Freudian sense, where anxiety is present but repressed) and genuine acceptance (where the individual has come to terms with death and may even acknowledge a remnant of lingering anxiety). The DAS aims specifically to identify the latter, measuring those who can be positive about death without resorting to psychological avoidance.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of death acceptance, which is defined by Ray and Najman (1974) as the ability of an individual to acknowledge their concern regarding death while simultaneously maintaining a positive or accepting attitude toward it. This construct implies an internal resolution or cognitive coming-to-terms with mortality, distinguishing it clearly from denial or repression.

Subsequent research by Klug and Sinha (1987) suggested that death acceptance might be better understood as a two-factor structure: Confrontation of Death (acceptance achieved through conscious deliberation) and Integration of Death (a positive, emotional reaction to the idea of death). Although the DAS served as the foundation for these revised factors, the original scale intends to capture this acceptance as a single, unified construct.

Validity

Initial validation studies conducted by Ray and Najman (1974) demonstrated acceptable divergent validity. The DAS showed negative correlations in the -.20s with two established measures of death anxiety (Templer, 1970; Sarnoff & Corwin, 1959). This finding supports the theoretical premise that death acceptance is an independent construct, distinct from the mere absence of anxiety.

Further supporting this independence, the original study found that religious non-believers reported significantly higher scores on the DAS compared to religious believers, a difference not observed when using the established death anxiety scales. Warren (1982) subsequently reinforced the divergent validity, finding that DAS scores were significantly and negatively correlated (r’s ranging from -.23 to -.36) with measures of death fear, anxiety, and concern across mixed samples, including death-involved professionals and at-risk subjects. Subjects who self-identified as accepting of death also registered higher DAS scores.

However, Durlak and Kass’s (1981) factor-analytic evaluation did not isolate an independent acceptance factor. The DAS loaded moderately and negatively onto two factors: Negative Evaluation of Personal Death and Negative Reaction to Pain. Additionally, the revised Death Attitude Scale proposed by Ray and Najman (1987), which included DAS items, correlated negatively with a measure of social desirability (r = -.35) and positively with the Manifest Anxiety Scale (r = .45) and the Self-esteem Scale (r = .20).

Reliability

The internal consistency of the Death Acceptance Scale has shown variability depending on the sample utilized. Ray and Najman (1974) reported an initial Cronbach’s alpha of .58, which is generally considered low for standard psychological scales. This initial finding was based on a sample of Australian sociology students.

However, subsequent research provided improved reliability metrics in different populations. Both Durlak and Kass (1981), using a large sample of 350 college psychology students, and Warren (1982), utilizing a smaller, mixed sample of 76 subjects, reported acceptable alphas of .70. The original authors also reported a high level of item-total correlation in their 1974 study.

Factor Analysis

A key factor analysis investigation was conducted by Durlak and Kass (1981), who included the DAS in a study analyzing fifteen other death-related scales using data from 350 college students. The results indicated that the DAS did not emerge as a stand-alone factor representing pure acceptance, thereby challenging the original conceptual independence.

Instead, the DAS showed moderate negative loadings on two of the five factors identified in the study: Negative Evaluation of Personal Death and Negative Reaction to Pain. This suggests that the scale primarily captures the inverse of negative death attitudes rather than a distinct, positive acceptance factor. Furthermore, Klug and Sinha (1987) developed new scales based on the DAS, suggesting a two-factor model (Confrontation and Integration), which correlated in the .20s with the original DAS, further indicating that the original scale may be conceptually unitary but factorially complex.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-Report Attitudinal Scale

Format: 7-item Likert scale, positively scored (agreement indicates higher acceptance). The typical range used in research is a 7-point response range (Totally Disagree to Totally Agree).

Language Available: English (Original research conducted in Australia).

Population Group: Originally standardized on university students; subsequently tested on mixed adult samples including death-involved professionals (e.g., funeral directors), at-risk groups (e.g., parachutists), and control groups.

Age Group: Adults (Primarily young adults, with the Durlak and Kass study averaging 21 years of age).

Population Details: The initial standardization utilized a survey of 206 Australian first-year sociology students. No average scores or any other form of normative information were reported in the original 1974 study.

Test Methodology: Simple administration suitable for nesting within longer research instruments. Scoring is straightforward, achieved by summing the scores of the seven positively keyed items. The scale is short, making it highly practical for survey research.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Mortality Attitudes, Death Fear, Denial, Confrontation of Death, Integration of Death, Psychological Testing.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source documentation.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source documentation.

Correspondence Address: Refer to original publication: Ray, J. J., & Najman, J. (1974). Death anxiety and death acceptance: A preliminary approach. Omega, 5(4), 311-315.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Death Acceptance Scale was first published in 1974. Information regarding current usage fees or formal copyright permissions is not detailed in the original academic source material, suggesting it is typically used for academic research purposes, citing the original paper.

Test Year: 1974.

Reference’s

• Durlak, J. A., & Kass, R. A. (1981). Clarifying the measurement of death attitudes: A factor analytic evaluation of fifteen self-report death scales. Omega, 12(2), 129-141.
• Klug, L., & Sinha, A. (1987). Death acceptance: A two-component formulation and scale. Omega, 18(3), 229-235.
• Ray, J. J., & Najman, J. (1974). Death anxiety and death acceptance: A preliminary approach. Omega, 5(4), 311-315.
• Ray, J. J., & Najman, J.M. (1987). Neoconservatism, mental health and attitude to death. Personality and Individual Differences, 8(2), 277-279.
• Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
• Sarnoff, I., & Corwin, S. (1959). Castration anxiety and the fear of death. Journal of Personality, 27, 375-385.
• Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 285-290.
• Templer, D. (1970). The construction and validation of a death anxiety scale. Journal of General Psychology, 82, 165-177.
• Warren, W. G. (1982). Death threat, concern, anxiety, fear and acceptance in death-involved and “at-risk” groups. Omega, 12(4), 359-372.

Items of the DEATH ACCEPTANCE SCALE

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements.

totally disagree 12 3 4 5 6 7 totally agree

• Since you only do it once, death should at least be interesting.
• I know that I have nothing to fear when I die.
• Death is not something terrible.
• Death is a friend.
• Death is a good thing because it leaves the way clear for younger men to have their chance.
• To fear pain makes sense, but death is merely a relief from pain.
• People who worry about death must have nothing better to do.