Grief is the affective response to an experienced loss. It testifies to the worth of what was lost and is an expression of personal depth. How does it unfold? Three models have shaped the international discussion since the 1960s — with very different degrees of empirical support.
Bowlby-Parkes phase model (1972/1980)
Working from attachment theory, John Bowlby (Loss: Sadness and Depression, 1980) and Colin Murray Parkes (Bereavement, 1972) described four phases of grief:
- Numbness — the immediate response to the loss, often lasting hours to days
- Yearning and searching — hope for return, mentally holding on to the lost person
- Disorganization and despair — the collapse of the previous structure of life
- Reorganization — the building of a new structure of life in which the lost person is remembered but no longer searched for
Central point: The phases are theoretically grounded in attachment theory (unlike purely observational models) and are passed through non-linearly. Grieving persons move back and forth between the phases.
Worden task model (1982/2009)
In Grief Counseling and Grief Therapy (1st ed. 1982, 4th ed. 2009), J. William Worden shifted the accent from experiencing phases to active doing. Instead of stages he formulates four tasks of grieving:
- To accept the reality of the loss
- To work through the pain of the loss
- To adjust to a world without the lost person
- To find an enduring connection with the lost person that permits going on living
Central point: The grieving person is active, not a passive point of transit. Tasks can be worked on in different orders; some remain open for a lifetime.
Kübler-Ross model (1969) — historically important, scientifically criticized
In On Death and Dying (1969), Elisabeth Kübler-Ross formulated a model with five stages that in popular discourse became synonymous with “stages of grief”:
- Denial
- Anger
- Bargaining
- Depression
- Acceptance
Important: originally for the dying, not for the grieving
Kübler-Ross derived her stages from qualitative interviews with dying patients — not from research with the bereaved. The extension of the model to grieving persons came later and was not part of the original research.
Scientific critique
Several systematic findings call the model into question:
Wortman/Silver (1989), J Consult Clin Psychol — early empirical critique: not all grieving persons reach a stage of acceptance, the absence of denial is not a pathological sign, and emotional well-being oscillates rather than progressing linearly.
Stroebe / Schut / Boerner (2017), Omega — Cautioning Health-Care Professionals: Bereaved Persons Are Misguided Through the Stages of Grief: the systematic finding — the Kübler-Ross model is not sufficiently supported empirically, neither for the dying nor for the grieving. In application it is frequently misunderstood prescriptively: grieving persons feel pressured to “pass through the stages correctly,” and caregivers interpret deviations as pathology. Both effects cause harm.
What remains
Historically, the model opened up medical and societal discourse — dying and grief became legitimate topics. Scientifically, it is today supplemented or replaced by theoretically grounded models (Bowlby-Parkes) and task-oriented models (Worden).
Position of the ontology
The ontology defended here classifies the three models in a differentiated way:
- Worden and Bowlby-Parkes: compatible with the precautionary principle (with qualifications) — they respect the individual reality of grief
- Kübler-Ross: problematic under the precautionary principle — its prescriptive application can harm the grieving
The precautionary principle thus operates not only in the determination of death (cf. donation after circulatory death, irreversible loss of brain function), but also in grief accompaniment: where scientific certainty is lacking, restraint is required in stipulating what the grieving person is “supposed to” pass through.
The personal-ontological point
Grief as an affective response belongs to the personal depth of the relationship — it is not a symptom but a testimony. Whoever grieves testifies to the objective value of the lost person. Grief accompaniment that takes this seriously does not treat grief as behavior to be “worked through,” but accompanies the person who in grieving gives expression to her love.
Ontological classification
Superordinate concepts: State of affairs (models), Grief (affective response)
Ontological relations:
- compatible with the precautionary principle (with qualifications): Worden, Bowlby-Parkes
- problematic under the precautionary principle: Kübler-Ross (prescriptive application)
- grounds personal-ontologically: grief as testimony to the objective value of the lost person
Chapter assignment: Chapter 4: What Is Human Personhood? (German)
Sources: Generated by querying the Personhood ontology.
Further sources:
- Bowlby, John (1980): Attachment and Loss, Vol. 3: Loss: Sadness and Depression. New York: Basic Books. The grounding of the attachment-theoretical phases of grief.
- Parkes, Colin Murray (1972): Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life. London: Tavistock Publications. Empirical elaboration of the phase model.
- Worden, J. William (2009): Grief Counseling and Grief Therapy: A Handbook for the Mental Health Practitioner (4th ed.). New York: Springer Publishing. The four-task model.
- Kübler-Ross, Elisabeth (1969): On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan. The original formulation of the five-stage model for the dying.
- Wortman, Camille B.; Silver, Roxane Cohen (1989): The myths of coping with loss. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57(3): 349—357. Early systematic critique.
- Stroebe, Margaret; Schut, Henk; Boerner, Kathrin (2017): Cautioning Health-Care Professionals: Bereaved Persons Are Misguided Through the Stages of Grief. OMEGA — Journal of Death and Dying 74(4): 455—473. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5375020/
- Avis, Kerry A.; Stroebe, Margaret; Schut, Henk (2021): Stages of Grief Portrayed on the Internet: A Systematic Analysis and Critical Appraisal. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 772696. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.772696/full
- Stroebe, Margaret S.; Schut, Henk (1999): The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies 23(3): 197—224. The dual process model of coping with bereavement.
- Bonanno, George A. (2004): Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist 59(1): 20—28. Resilience as an underestimated norm.
- Bexten, Raphael E. (2017): Was ist menschliches Personsein?. Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Diss. — On grief as an affective response to an objective value.