Loss and Grief: Methods and Varying Beliefs

Abstract

This paper will look at methods of grief as well as how different cultures cope with grief. Methods will include the traditional and linear Kubler-Ross model (which has been used for decades to help chart the progression of grief) as well as contrasting methods for the process of grief. A recent research study in Europe attempts to explain and examines why grief can be more severe and longer-lasting than what is considered normal. In addition to the methods and severity associated with grief and loss, cultural stances are also important to examine. Research conducted in the multicultural state of Hawaii helps to illuminate the differences within several distinct cultures and their approaches to grief. A cultural comparison will help to highlight the discrepancies between Western and Non-Western cultures. Additional research will be examined to understand how age and cultures outside of Hawaii impact the process of dealing with grief. Because of the different methodologies and cultural influences, grief is indeed a multistep and greatly variable process.

Loss and Grief: Methods and Varying Beliefs

Grief is a complicated process. However, it is not just the process that makes grief complicated. Much of the complexity of grief comes from circumstances in which people experience it, as well as the methods and cultural influences involved in the process itself. Certain methods, such as the Kubler-Ross model, illustrate grief as a linear process where a person goes through each stage. According to the model, once a stage is completed, it is never revisited. Other methods take a much more non-linear approach and explain grief as an ongoing emotional rollercoaster where various stages can be experienced individually, at the same time and repeatedly throughout life. Contributing to this greatly is the degree of severity of the grief itself. Also, there is a noticeable relationship between age and culture with the process of grief. Finally, principle cultural differences among people help to explain how the grief process varies significantly from one instance to another. Like methods, cultures, and perspectives, grief is a unique progression for every individual.

In order to unravel the complexity of the grief process, it is important to explore the methods behind dealing with the process itself. One of the most well-known methods used to help people understand grief is the Kubler-Ross model which was created in 1969. “According to Kubler-Ross (1969) grief includes stages of shock and denial, anger, bargaining, depression and, finally, acceptance” (Baier & Buechsel, 2012, p. 28). Taking a hypothetical example, such as a woman losing her husband in a car accident, it is easy to see how shock and denial would occur due to the unexpectedness of the death and the incredibly traumatic sudden change. However, if, for example, that same woman lost her husband to a battle of cancer that took place over several years, the first reaction may not be shock and denial but anger, depression, and bargaining because the death was more expected and not as sudden. Therefore, “rather than the linear stages of grief espoused by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross (1969), recent researchers found that grief is an oscillating process of ups and downs with no pressure to reach closure” (Boss & Carnes, 2012, p. 462). Also, it has to be noted that these examples do not take into account the varying cultural norms for dealing with grief. The Kubler-Ross model was simply an attempt to draw a blueprint of what a person may expect when dealing with loss and grief in their life.

Given that research has shown how non-linear the grief process is, it is helpful to be able to visualize the process. Working off of the Kubler-Ross stages, Margaret Baier, assistant professor at Baylor University, constructed a “pinball” model to better explain how grief works for many people:

In this model the experience of grieving begins with the activating event, represented by the hand and plunger that releases the pinball. As the ball is set in motion it first encounters two banks at the top of the machine which bounce the ball back and forth. These banks represent shock and denial…the ball’s course then becomes unpredictable... (p. 29)

The critical phrase there is “becomes unpredictable” because grief is not a stage-by-stage process. Rather, a person is likely to experience stages multiple times and can often feel like they are “bouncing around” quickly. While the Kubler-Ross and Pinball machine methods are helpful in understanding and conceptualizing grief, it is also important to determine the degree of severity of grief and why some people experience more severe grief.

In 2013, a study published in the Omega: Journal of Death & Dying attempted to explain why degrees of severity occur in grief. This was a European study consisting of 321 individuals who had lost a romantic partner. The study used the Dual Process Model (DPM) which offers two prongs of concern in the journey of grief. Delespaux, Ryckebosch-Dayez, Heeren, & Zech wrote:

According to the DPM, effective coping with bereavement includes dealing with both loss-oriented (LO) and restoration-oriented (RO) stressors. LO stressors include coping with the loss of the person him/herself…RO stressors include coping with secondary stressors [such as] changing identity or role” (2013, pp. 272-273)

Additionally, the study tested how the DPM model corresponded with attachment theory which is thought to greatly affect a person’s ability to cope. The results of the study suggested a significant correlation between individuals with insecure attachment and severity of grief. Delespaux, Ryckebosch-Dayez, Heeren, & Zech go on to say:

In line with our prediction, the anxious dimension was significantly and positively correlated to elevated grief reactions. This is consistent with attachment theory and…DPM’s assumptions about the development of more pronounced grief reactions for anxiously attached individuals” (2013, p. 282)

Therefore, combining DPM, which consisted of RO and LO stressors, with attachment theory demonstrated that grief is significantly magnified for individuals who have a somewhat unhealthy attachment to their romantic partner who passed away. In addition to the severity of grief, the age and culture of a person impact their perception and progression through loss and grief.

In the current time, research is lacking in the field of examining how grief impacts young people, specifically adolescents. What is particularly interesting about this phenomenon is that adolescents are still learning the ways of their individual cultures. Therefore, in terms of cultural norms, adolescents may not be educated fully on the “right way to grieve” according to their respective cultures. However, there are still basic principles that help adolescents with respect to their developing cultural understanding. “In an examination of grief and loss across a lifespan, Walter and McCoyd (2009) highlight the importance of what they call cultural understandings and note that grief is also socially defined by one’s social context” (Lopez, 2011, p. 11). Since adolescents are not fully emotionally and mentally mature, it is very important to be sensitive to cultural norms in order to relate and help them because sometimes, their culture is the primary tool used to cope with loss. In terms of dealing with grief, culture helps to explain one of many factors that makes grief different for different people.

In 2011, a study published in the Hawaii Pacific Journal of Social Work Practice examined how different cultures dealt with loss and grief. The study took place in Hawaii because of the diversity of culture that is present in that region. “Hawai’i is a special gathering place with its own unique culture. It is a place where several diverse cultures emerged and intersected over history” (Pentaris, 2011, p. 46). A number of cultures are examined, each with different approaches to loss and grief. The first is Guamanian (Chamorro) culture. “Grief, as it is experienced and expressed by Guamanians, could be characterized as prolonged or abnormal from a clinical perspective. Chamorro people prefer to honor the deceased over the long run, and thus their grief never ends” (Pentaris, 2011, p. 57). While many European, and traditionally, Christian cultures, hold one ceremony or memorial, the Guamanian culture often partakes in yearly ceremonies and grief is accepted and practiced throughout life. For the Guamanian culture, it is not a process that ends but an ongoing part of life. This is vastly different from Euro-American culture where the generalized and ultimate goal is to “move on” or recover from grief (Rosenblatt, 2008, p. 11). It is reasonable to believe that the Guamanian culture would view the Euro-American culture as forgetful, whereas the Euro-American culture would view the Guamanian culture as stagnant. These differences speak to the variety and differing perceptions of loss and grief through the medium of culture.

The second culture to be examined is the Samoan culture. For people of the Samoan culture, grief is expressed commonly through a hierarchy with a chief presiding over the loss of a person within the family. “Additionally, chiefs are the ones who will make the significant decisions when someone is sick and/or is dying” (Pentaris, 2011, p. 57). Contrasted to Western culture, even though Hawaii is part of the United States, the next of kin is commonly in charge of near death and after death decision making. In terms of the dying person, they are “…believed to have special powers…right before the spirit leaves the body, and the spirit remains in the world for its protection. Even after the spirit’s withdrawal from the body, the latter still retains special powers” (Pentaris, 2011, p. 57). For this reason, any kind of tampering with the body, such as the conduction of an autopsy or removal of the organs for donation, is viewed as offensive. Finally, burial is common in the Samoan culture, again to preserve the body and the spirit, and it is also common that the deceased person is buried on the property of the family. This is mainly practiced to provide peace and comfort to the members of the family grieving.

In addition to the Native Hawaiian cultures of the Guamanians and the Samoan, the aboriginal cultures offer different viewpoints and traditions regarding grief. Through research, the aboriginal culture examined was the tribal community in Canada, specifically the Lakota. One of the most common rituals of this culture is called “the way of the pipe.” Essentially, the way of the pipe involves, “…listening to the ways of the grandmothers and grandfathers, ceremonial prayer for the good of all nations, and efforts to live in a good way…through ceremonies, the grieving process was facilitated…” (Baydala, Hampton, Kinunwa, Kinunwa, & Kinunwa, 2006, pp. 162-163). Therefore, grief is a collective process for this culture and involves, not only the family of the deceased but in a sense, collective grief of people from all nations. One member of the Lakota tribe stated, “Grief is very individual…grief lets you know that you’re still alive and that you still have an appreciation for the trail wherever it’s going to lead you” (Baydala, Hampton, Kinunwa, Kinunwa, & Kinunwa, 2006, p. 168). On an individual level, the Lakota tribe appears to echo the traditions of the Western culture in terms of individual trial, yet also has an arm of collectivism in terms of ceremonial practice. The diversity of cultures is striking and helps to explain why grief takes different forms for people around the world.

Loss and grief are concepts that are hard to pin down and generalize. While there are many methods and models that have been created to attempt to explain the process of grief, there is not a one-size-fits-all method that is applicable to everyone. The reason for this is the variability of the human race. Culture is possibly the most influential variable in the unpredictability of grief due to its different views, rituals, expectations, and beliefs. Another variable is the degree of severity of grief. Yet another is the age of a person grieving. All of these factors and more contribute to the fact that loss and grief are not uniform but shaped by highly individualized and specific circumstances.

References

Baier, M., & Buechsel, R. (2012). A model to help bereaved individuals understand the grief process. Mental Health Practice, 16(1), 28-32. Retrieved from http://www.nursing-standard.co.uk/

Baydala, A., Hampton, M., Kinunwa, L., Kinunwa, G., & Kinunwa, L., Sr. (2006). Death, dying, grieving and end of life care: Understanding personal meanings of aboriginal friends. Humanistic Psychologist, 34(2), 159-176. Retrieved from http://www.leaonline.com/loi/thp?cookieSet=1

Boss, P., & Carnes, D. (2012). The myth of closure. Family Process, 51(4), 456-469. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/

Delespaux, E., Ryckebosch-Dayez, A., Heeren, A., & Zech, E. (2013). Attachment and severity of grief: The mediating role of negative appraisal and inflexible coping. Omega: Journal of Death & Dying, 67(3), 269-289. Retrieved from http://www.baywood.com

Lopez, S. A. (2011). Culture as an influencing factor in adolescent grief and bereavement. The Prevention Researcher, 18(3), 10-13. Retrieved from http://oregonstate.edu/oei/sites/default/files/culture_as_an_influence_on_bereavement.pdf

Pentaris, P. (2011). Culture and death: A multicultural perspective. Hawaii Pacific Journal of Social Work Practice, 4(1), 45-84. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/2057242/Culture_and_Death_A_multicultural_perspective

Rosenblatt, P. C. (2008). Recovery following bereavement: Metaphor, phenomenology and culture. Death Studies, 32(1), 6-16. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/07481187.html