The Continuum of “Survivorship”: Definitional Issues in the Aftermath of Suicide JULIE CEREL,PHD, JOHN L. MCINTOSH,PHD, ROBERT A. NEIMEYER,PHD, MYFANWY MAPLE,PHD, AND DOREEN MARSHALL,PHD In light of prevailing confusion over the meaning of the term “suicide survivor,” we propose a more exact terminology for designating different levels of impact on those left behind by suicide, ranging on a continuum from those exposed to suicide through those who are affected by it and finally to those who are bereaved by suicide in the short- or long-term, as a function of their loss of a close emotional attachment through this tragic form of loss. We briefly note the possible utility of this terminological specificity in promoting more clearly targeted research and intervention efforts, and call for closer investigation of various categories of “survivorship” in future studies. Suicide is a complex issue. The complexity of conditions that give rise to suicide are matched by that of the terminology used to describe those who cope with its aftermath. Postvention, a term coined by Shneidman (1969) at the very first American Associa- tion of Suicidology meeting, refers to ser- vices for individuals and communities after a suicide occurs. In an attempt to move the field of postvention forward, issues in lan- guage and definition need to be addressed. As participants in the Survivors of Suicide Task Force of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention, as well as research- ers, academics, and clinicians in the field, we have found it crucial to better define what is meant by “survivor of suicide,” a term often used in a way that obscures the considerable variation in the impact of the event on those so labeled. Thus, in this arti- cle we review the origins of existing termi- nology and propose a more nuanced nomenclature that captures the continuum of suicide bereavement. We believe that definitional clarity will promote greater rec- ognition of the public health importance of suicide exposure, help focus postvention policies targeting vulnerable survivor groups, and refine a research agenda that extends beyond individuals with close kin- ship to the decedent. At the same time, we believe it is possible to respect the common lay use of the term “survivors” in the con- text of suicide to denote those who live their lives following the suicide of a family member or other close person. We recog- nize that this term will continue to convey a common identity as people bereaved by this tragic form of loss, and might continue to have utility in policy discussions of the impact of suicide on others beyond the deceased themselves. JULIE CEREL, College of Social Work, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; JOHN L. MCINTOSH, Office of Academic Affairs, Indiana University South Bend, South Bend, IN, USA; ROBERT A. NEIMEYER, Department of Psychology, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA; MYFANWY MAPLE, School of Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia; DOREEN MARSHALL, Department of Counseling, Argosy University, Atlanta, GA, USA. Address correspondence to Julie Cerel, College of Social Work, University of Kentucky, 627 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY 40506; E-mail: julie.cerel@uky.edu Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior 1 © 2014 The American Association of Suicidology DOI: 10.1111/sltb.12093