FROM MEMORIES TO DIGITAL IMMORTALITY: PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF DIGITAL AFTERLIFE IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY – A NARRATIVE REVIEW
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.3(51).2026.6454Keywords:
Digital Afterlife, Digital Legacy, Continuing Bonds, Griefbots, Online Mourning, Post-Mortem PrivacyAbstract
Background: The accumulation of digital traces and generative AI has transformed death from a private biological event into a persistent, interactive social presence. This challenges detachment models of grief and revitalizes continuing bonds theory, while creating new vulnerabilities including fear of second loss, algorithmic grief triggers and commercialization of mourning.
Methods: We conducted a narrative review following SANRA guidelines. Literature was searched across Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ACM Digital Library and Google Scholar (2010-2026, focus 2022-2026) for terms related to digital legacy, digital afterlife, online mourning, continuing bonds, griefbots/deadbots, generative ghosts and post-mortem privacy. Thirty-six influential peer-reviewed articles, monographs and conference papers were retained for thematic synthesis.
Findings: We identified three interlocking transformations: from passive archiving to active simulation where griefbots generate novel utterances, from private time-limited to public, networked and algorithmically curated mourning with temporal, spatial and social expansion and platform vernaculars like GriefTok, and from peripheral to central ethics. Building on Price et al. (2025), we propose a four-type typology of digital continuing bonds: passive, active one-way, interactive, and communal. Adaptive value depends on internalized versus externalized bonds, perceived control and offline support. Generative ghosts create ambiguous presence that can scaffold coping through affective scaffolding and habits of intimacy, but also disrupt lived temporality and distort collective memory.
Interpretation: Results inform clinical assessment using Dual Process Model, responsible design principles (opt-in consent, transparency, user control, sunset clause) and regulation of post-mortem privacy at EU level, given the projected 1.4-4.9 billion deceased profiles by 2100.
References
Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019). SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 4, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8
Bao, A., & Zeng, Y. (2024). Embracing grief in the age of deathbots: A temporary tool, not a permanent solution. Ethics and Information Technology, 26(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09744-y
Bassett, D. J. (2022). The creation and inheritance of digital afterlives: You only live twice. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91684-8
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1(3), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311
Brubaker, J. R., Hayes, G. R., & Dourish, P. (2013). Beyond the grave: Facebook as a site for the expansion of death and mourning. The Information Society, 29(3), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2013.777300
Christensen, D. R., & Gotved, S. (2015). Online memorial culture: An introduction. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 21(1–2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2015.988455
Doyle, D. T., & Brubaker, J. R. (2023). Digital legacy: A systematic literature review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), Article 268, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610059
Eriksson Krutrök, M. (2021). Algorithmic closeness in mourning: Vernaculars of the hashtag #grief on TikTok. Social Media + Society, 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211042396
Fabry, R. E., & Alfano, M. (2024). The affective scaffolding of grief in the digital age: The case of deathbots. Topoi, 43(3), 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-023-09995-2
Gibbs, M., Meese, J., Arnold, M., Nansen, B., & Carter, M. (2015). #Funeral and Instagram: Death, social media, and platform vernaculars. Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.987152
Green, B. N., Johnson, C. D., & Adams, A. (2006). Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6
Harbinja, E. (2023). Digital death, digital assets and post-mortem privacy: Theory, technology and the law. Edinburgh University Press.
Harbinja, E., Morse, T., & Edwards, L. (2024). Digital remains and post-mortem privacy in the UK: What do users want? [Conference presentation]. 39th Annual Conference of the British and Irish Law, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) – Digital and Green: Twin Transitions?, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Hollanek, T., & Nowaczyk-Basińska, K. (2024). Griefbots, deadbots, postmortem avatars: On responsible applications of generative AI in the digital afterlife industry. Philosophy & Technology, 37(2), Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00744-w
Jiménez-Alonso, B., & Brescó de Luna, I. (2023). Griefbots: A new way of communicating with the dead? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 57(2), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-022-09679-3
Kasket, E. (2019). All the ghosts in the machine: The digital afterlife of your personal data. Robinson.
Klass, D., Silverman, P. R., & Nickman, S. L. (Eds.). (1996). Continuing bonds: New understandings of grief. Taylor & Francis.
Krueger, J., & Osler, L. (2022). Communing with the dead online: Chatbots, grief, and continuing bonds. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 29(9–10), 222–252. https://doi.org/10.53765/20512201.29.9.222
Lambert, A., Nansen, B., & Arnold, M. (2018). Algorithmic memorial videos: Contextualising automated curation. Memory Studies, 11(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698016679221
Lei, Y., Ma, S., Sun, Y., & Ma, X. (2025). “AI afterlife” as digital legacy: Perceptions, expectations, and concerns. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713933
Meitzler, M., Heesen, J., Hennig, M., & Ammicht Quinn, R. (2024). Digital afterlife and the future of collective memory. Memory Studies Review, 1(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1163/29498902-202400013
Morris, M. R., & Brubaker, J. R. (2024). Generative ghosts: Anticipating benefits and risks of AI afterlives. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.01662
Morse, T. (2023). Digital necromancy: Users' perceptions of digital afterlife and posthumous communication technologies. Information, Communication & Society, 27(2), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2205467
Öhman, C. J., & Floridi, L. (2017). The political economy of death in the age of information: A critical approach to the digital afterlife industry. Minds and Machines, 27(4), 639–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9445-2
Öhman, C. J., & Watson, D. (2019). Are the dead taking over Facebook? A Big Data approach to the future of death online. Big Data & Society, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719842540
Öhman, C. J. (2024). The afterlife of data: What happens to your information when you die and why you should care. University of Chicago Press.
Price, M., Steffen, E. M., & Kamp, K. S. (2025). How do people use social media to maintain continuing bonds in bereavement? A qualitative meta-synthesis. OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228251396353
Recuber, T. (2023). The digital departed: How we face death, commemorate life, and chase virtual immortality. New York University Press.
Savin-Baden, M., & Burden, D. (2019). Digital immortality and virtual humans. Postdigital Science and Education, 1, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0007-6
Sisto, D. (2020). Online afterlives: Immortality, memory, and grief in digital culture. MIT Press.
Sofka, C. J. (1997). Social support 'Internetworks,' caskets for sale, and more: Thanatology and the information superhighway. Death Studies, 21(6), 553–574. https://doi.org/10.1080/074811897201778
Sofka, C. J., Cupit, I. N., & Gilbert, K. R. (Eds.). (2012). Dying, death, and grief in an online universe: For counselors and educators. Springer Publishing Company.
Stendera, M. (2025). Marking time: Griefbots, world-time, and the phenomenology of bereavement. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-025-10099-y
Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (1999). The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies, 23(3), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/074811899201046
Walter, T. (2015). New mourners, old mourners: Online memorial culture as a chapter in the history of mourning. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 21(1–2), 10–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614568.2014.983555
Worth, T. (2025). Ready or not, the digital afterlife is here. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02940-w
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Patrycja Okoń, Jagoda Niczyporuk, Bartosz Wójtowicz, Szymon Skrzypek, Julianna Cholewa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles are published in open-access and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Hence, authors retain copyright to the content of the articles.
CC BY 4.0 License allows content to be copied, adapted, displayed, distributed, re-published or otherwise re-used for any purpose including for adaptation and commercial use provided the content is attributed.
How to Cite
