Cited by 252Grief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthDeath, Funerary Practices, and MourningPalliative and Oncologic Care

Cautioning Health-Care Professionals: Bereaved Persons Are Misguided Through the Stages of Grief

Open access
Stroebe, Margaret, Schut, Henk, Boerner, Kathrin·2017·OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying

Abstract

Science and practice seem deeply stuck in the so-called stage theory of grief. Health-care professionals continue to “prescribe” stages. Basically, this perspective endorses the idea that bereaved people go through a set pattern of specific reactions over time following the death of a loved one. It has frequently been interpreted prescriptively, as a progression that bereaved persons must follow in order to adapt to loss. It is of paramount importance to assess stage theory, not least in view of the current status of the maladaptive “persistent complex bereavement-related disorder” as a category for further research in DSM-5. We therefore review the status and value of this approach. It has remained hugely influential among researchers as well as practitioners across recent decades, but there has also been forceful opposition. Major concerns include the absence of sound empirical evidence, conceptual clarity, or explanatory potential. It lacks practical utility for the design or allocation of treatment services, and it does not help identification of those at risk or with complications in the grieving process. Most disturbingly, the expectation that bereaved persons will, even should, go through stages of grieving can be harmful to those who do not. Following such lines of reasoning, we argue that stage theory should be discarded by all concerned (including bereaved persons themselves); at best, it should be relegated to the realms of history. There are alternative models that better represent grieving processes. We develop guidelines to enhance such a move beyond the stage approach in both theory and practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0030222817691870

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The dual process model features two states that one can move between in everyday life: loss-orientation and restoration-orientation.

    “This model features two states that one can move between in everyday life: loss-orientation and restoration-orientation.”

    From Fathers’ experiences of perinatal death following miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonatal death: A meta-ethnography (2026) · cites this paper as Stroebe et al., 2017

    The Conclusions identify the Dual Process Model and say it focuses on both loss and change. Table 1 in “Criticisms and Assessment of Stage Theory” describes fluctuations in grieving and doing other things while coping with loss. Neither passage identifies loss-orientation and restoration-orientation as the model’s two states or explicitly describes moving between them in everyday life; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The dual process model supports the review's findings.

    “The dual process model supports the review's findings (Stroebe et al., 2017).”

    From Fathers’ experiences of perinatal death following miscarriage, stillbirth, and neonatal death: A meta-ethnography (2026) · cites this paper as Stroebe et al., 2017

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) describe the dual process model as a perspective on coping with bereavement, and Table 3 lists it among alternatives to stage theory. Neither passage identifies the citing review’s findings, so our copy cannot establish whether the model supports them. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Aneshensel C. S. Botticello A. L. Yamamoto-Mitani N. (2004) When caregiving ends: The course of depressive symptoms after bereavement. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 45(4): 422– 440. 15869114
  2. Archer J. (1999) The nature of grief: The evolution and psychology of reactions to loss, Florence, KY: Routledge.
  3. Balk D. (2011) Ruth Konigsberg’s demythologizing project. Death Studies 35(7): 673– 678.
  4. Barrett C. J. Schneweis K. M. (1981) An empirical search for stages of widowhood. Omega (Westport) 11(2): 97– 104.
  5. Boerner K. Stroebe M. Schut H. Wortman C. B. (2015) Theories of grief and bereavement. In: Pachana N. (eds) Encyclopedia of geropsychology, Singapore: Springer, pp. 1– 10.
  6. Bolden L. A. (2007) A review of on grief and grieving: Finding the meaning of grief through the five stages of loss. Counseling and Values 51(3): 235– 238.
  7. Bonanno G. A. Boerner K. (2007) The stage theory of grief. The Journal of the American Medical Association 297(24): 2692– 2694.
  8. Bonanno G. A. Wortman C. B. Lehman D. R. Tweed R. G. Haring M. Sonnega J. Nesse R. M. (2002) Resilience to loss and chronic grief: A prospective study from preloss to 18-months postloss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(5): 1150. 12416919
  9. Bonanno G. A. Wortman C. B. Nesse R. M. (2004) Prospective patterns of resilience and maladjustment during widowhood. Psychology Aging 19(2): 260. 15222819
  10. Bowlby J. (1980) Attachment and loss, London, England: Hogarth Press & Institute of Psychoanalysis.
  11. Bowlby J. Parkes C. M. (1970) Separation and loss within the family. In: Anthony E. (eds) The child and his family, New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 167– 216.
  12. Corr C. (1993) Coping with dying: Lessons that we should and should not learn from the work of Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. Omega (Westport) 17(1): 69– 83.
  13. Corr C. (2011) Strengths and limitations of the stage theory proposed by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. In: Doka K. Tucci A. (eds) New perspectives on dying, death, and grief, Washington, DC: Hospice Foundation of America, pp. 3– 16.
  14. Corr C. (2015) Let’s stop “staging” persons who are coping with loss. Illness, Crisis & Loss 23(3): 226– 241.
  15. Folkman S. (2001) Revised coping theory and the process of bereavement. In: Stroebe M. Hansson R. Stroebe W. Schut H. (eds) Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, pp. 563– 584.
  16. Hall C. (2014) Bereavement theory: Recent developments in our understanding of grief and bereavement. Bereavement Care 33(1): 7– 12.
  17. Holland J. M. Neimeyer R. (2010) An examination of stage theory of grief among individuals bereaved by natural and violent causes: A meaning-oriented contribution. Omega (Westport) 61(2): 103– 120. 20712139
  18. Jalland P. (2013) Bereavement in the English family 1850–1980: Exploring change over time. Family Science 4(1): 4– 11.
  19. Jurecic A. (2015) No protocol for grief. The Lancet 386(9996): 848– 849. 26335869
  20. Li L. W. (2005) From caregiving to bereavement: Trajectories of depressive symptoms among wife and daughter caregivers. The Journals of Gerontology B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 60(4): P190– P198. 15980286
  21. Lopata H. Z. (1975) On widowhood: Grief work and identity reconstruction. Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 8: 41– 55. 1194648
  22. Maciejewski P. K. Zhang B. Block S. D. Prigerson H. G. (2007) An empirical examination of the stage theory of grief. The Journal of the American Medical Association 297(7): 716– 723. 17312291
  23. Marris P. (1974) Loss and change, London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  24. McGorry P. D. (2007) Issues for DSM-V: Clinical staging: A heuristic pathway to valid nosology and safer, more effective treatment in psychiatry. The American Journal of Psychiatry 164(6): 859– 860. 17541042
  25. Neimeyer R. (2012) The (half) truth about grief. Illness, Crisis & Loss 20(4): 389– 395.
  26. Osterweis M. Solomon F. Green M. (1984) Bereavement: Reactions, consequences, and care, Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 25032459
  27. Parkes C. M. (1971) Psycho-social transitions: A field for study. Social Science & Medicine 5(2): 101– 115. 5088720
  28. Parkes C. M. (1996) Bereavement: Studies on grief in adult life, 1st/3rd ed New York, NY: International Universities Press. (Original work published 1972).
  29. Parkes C. M. (2006) Love and loss: The roots of grief and its complications, London, England: Routledge.
  30. Parkes C. M. (2013) Elisabeth Kűbler-Ross, on death and dying: A reappraisal. Mortality 18(1): 94– 97.
  31. Prigerson H. G. Maciejewski P. K. (2008) Grief and acceptance as opposite sides of the same coin: Setting a research agenda to study peaceful acceptance of loss. The British Journal of Psychiatry 193(6): 435– 437. 19043142
  32. Rosenbaum R. (1982) Turn on, tune in, drop dead. Harpers (N Y N Y) 265(1586): 32– 37. 11650553
  33. Rosenblatt P. (1983) Bitter, bitter tears: Nineteenth-century diarists and twentieth-century grief theories, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  34. Rosenblatt P. (2013) Family grief in cross-cultural perspective. Family Science 4(1): 12– 19.
  35. Rubin S. (1981) A two-track model of bereavement: Theory and application in research. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 51(1): 101. 7212022
  36. Sanders C. M. (1989) Grief: The mourning after: Dealing with adult bereavement, Chichester, England: Wiley.
  37. Schulz R. Mendelsohn A. B. Haley W. E. Mahoney D. Allen R. S. Zhang S. Belle S. H. (2003) End-of-life care and the effects of bereavement on family caregivers of persons with dementia. The New England Journal of Medicine 349(20): 1936– 1942. 14614169
  38. Shuchter S. R. Zisook S. (1993) The course of normal grief. In: Stroebe M. Stroebe W. Hansson R. (eds) Handbook of bereavement: Theory, research and intervention, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23– 43.
  39. Silver R. C. Wortman C. B. (1980) Coping with undesirable life events. In: Garber J. Seligman M. (eds) Human helplessness: Theory and applications, New York, NY: Academic Press, pp. 279– 375.
  40. Silver R. C. Wortman C. B. (2007) The stage theory of grief. The Journal of the American Medical Association 297: 2692– 2694.
  41. Stroebe M. Schut H. (2001) Models of coping with bereavement: A review. In: Stroebe M. Hansson R. Stroebe W. Schut H. (eds) Handbook of bereavement research: Consequences, coping, and care, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press, pp. 375– 403.
  42. Stroebe M. Schut H. (2015) Family matters in bereavement: Toward an integrative intra- interpersonal coping model. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(6): 873– 879. 26581741
  43. Thompson N. (2002) Loss and grief: A guide for human services practitioners, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
  44. Weiner J. S. (2007) The stage theory of grief. The Journal of the American Medical Association 297(24): 2692– 2694. 17595265
  45. Worden J. (1982) Grief counseling and grief therapy: A handbook for mental health practitioner, 1st ed New York, NY: Springer.
  46. Wortman C. B. Silver R. C. (1987) Coping with irrevocable loss. In: VandenBos G. Bryant K. (eds) Cataclysms, crises, and catastrophes: Psychology in action, Washington, DC: American Psychological Press, pp. 189– 235.
  47. Wortman C. B. Silver R. C. (1989) The myths of coping with loss. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 57(3): 349– 357. 2661609
  48. Wortman C. B. Silver R. C. (1992) Reconsidering assumptions about coping with loss: An overview of current research. In: Filipp S. Montada L. Lerner M. (eds) Life crises and experience of loss in adulthood, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 341– 365.
  49. Zhang B. Mitchell S. L. Bambauer K. Z. Jones R. Prigerson H. G. (2008) Depressive symptom trajectories and associated risks among bereaved Alzheimer disease caregivers. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 16(2): 145– 155. 18192497

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stroebe, M., Schut, H., & Boerner, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Groningen (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
Corresponding author
Stroebe, Margaret
Venue
OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying
Published
2017-02-13
Volume
74
Issue
4
Pages
455-473
ISSN
  • 0030-2228 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-3764
OpenAlex
W2588653784
Cited by
252
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1
FWCI
18.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
grief, bereavement, prolonged grief disorder, grief models, grief counseling, DSM-5
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Bereavement, Counseling, Humans, Models, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review