For most of us, we've been told our whole lives that there are five stages to grief, no more and no less. But we're living in the 21st century, where science is making incredible advances with each day, so what if I told you that people have found that there's more than just the five-stage theory? What if it's not true?
According to Daniel (2023), "by now, most bereavement professionals know that the five stages of grief theory originated by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross (EKR) in her 1969 book, On Death and Dying is not a viable model for assessing or treating bereaved individuals" (p. 1). Kastenbaum (2012) gives a few reasons for this (p. 131):
(a) The existence of these stages as such has not been demonstrated.
(b) No evidence has been presented that people actually do move from Stage 1 through Stage 5.
(c) The limitations of the method have not been acknowledged.
(d) The line is blurred between description and prescription.
(e) The totality of the person’s life is neglected in favor of the supposed stages of dying. (f) The resources, pressures, and characteristics of the immediate environment, which can make a tremendous difference, are not taken into account.
Models that have been offered instead of the five stages of grief theory are models such as continuing bonds (Klass & Steffen, 2018), tasks of grieving (Worden, 2018), meaning reconstruction (Neimeyer & Sands, 2011), Stroebe and Schut’s dual-process model (1999), and the six R's of mourning (Rando, 1993). Despite these models, however, we often find ourselves surrounded by the five stages of grief. That's what we all know, despite these other models having been a thing since as early as 1993!
Shockingly enough, some may say that the five-stage approach was "originally intended to represent the responses of terminally ill people facing their own deaths" (Daniel, 2023, p.2). Instead, it ended up being applied to the process of grieving in general, founding the ideas that we see today. Interestingly enough, Kubler-Ross, the founder of the five-stage theory stated that they were “defense mechanisms in psychiatric terms, coping mechanisms to deal with extremely difficult situations," not necessarily stages (1969, p. 122).
Additionally, "anybody who has worked with grieving individuals has observed a far-reaching range of responses that exist on a spectrum from extreme distress and dysfunction on one end, to relief and serenity on the other" (Daniel, 2023, p. 6). These emotions are much more than just the basics of the five-stage grief response, which only includes denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
Ultimately, this may not be enough for me personally to let go of the five stages of grief idea entirely, but it's enough for me to question what else is out there in terms of grief theories. After all, we're very complex human beings. Something else might be inside us!
References
Daniel, T. (2023). The Stubborn Persistence of Grief Stage Theory. Omega, 302228221149801.
Kastenbaum, R. (2012). Death, society, and human experience (11th ed., pp. 131–131). Pearson.
Klass, D., & Steffen, E. (Eds.), (2018). Continuing bonds in bereavement: New directions for research and practice. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. Macmillan.
Neimeyer, R. A., & Sands, D. C. (2011). Meaning reconstruction in bereavement: From principles to practice. In R. A. Neimeyer, H. Winokuer, D. Harris, & G. Thornton (Eds.), Grief and bereavement
Rando, T. A. (1993). Treatment of complicated mourning (pp. 393–448). Research Press.
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
Worden, W. (2018). Grief counseling and grief therapy, fifth edition: A handbook for the mental health practitioner – grief counseling handbook on treatment of grief, loss and bereavement, book and free eBook (5th ed., pp. 41–53). Springer Publishing Company.