Talk:Five stages of grief

comments

I agree that the two articles should be merged. Though the theory is applicable to other traumatic events, it was originally outlined by Kubler-Ross in the book "On Death and Dying." Noting in two separate articles is redundant. Perhaps a single article on “The Five Stage Grief Process” could include not only the information about the original author and book, but also how the theory has evolved and is now interpreted in the social sciences. --User:nikehrlich@comcast.net 18:32, 07 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge recomendation on the premise that this article pertains to more than death/dying; it is applicable whenever a large (and traumatic) change occurs in one's life. --Astronouth7303 02:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the merge into one article called something like "The Five Stage Greif Process" since these two things are so closely associated.

I agree with the merge as well. I was searching for the stages of grief and wanted to know in what year they were introduced. That information is found only on the other page. The merge is a good idea

Merged. - Brian Kendig 18:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pop Culture

This page needs some work. removed opinion on Frasier episode - am questioning need for pop culture section at all... Nzbassist 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, one use I can think of for the pop culture section is to highlight the differences between the "five stages" as perceived in pop culture and Kubler-Ross' actual hypothesis. For example, many pop cultural references present the "five stages": as generally-accepted in the psychological field, as an ordered list, and as a list which must include all items. None of these three are true. Since the "Criticism" section is gone, the pop culture area is the only place this dichotomy is highlighted. --joeOnSunset 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably a lot longer than necessary, since it's a commonly used paradigm in fiction, but there's only really a need for a few examples. Seems like people have self-indulgently added references from their favourite tv shows. --Pipedreambomb (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm a certified school psychologist with over 20 years' experience, and in that professional capacity I'm questioning the so-called "accuracy" of Jess experiencing the five stages in Bridge to Terabithia. The kid lost his best friend out of nowhere and then blew through the five stages in a week! Ain't gonna happen like that! That's the one big flaw in what is otherwise an excellent children's novel and movie! Lyle F. Padilla lpadilla@voicenet.com207.103.47.150 (talk) 23:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to add a section on references to the in media? This was strongly mentioned and the basis of All_that_jazz. Lordandrei (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical of critcism

Sorry for being critical, but I am generally critical of the opinion that all Wikipedia pages must have a "Criticisms" section, especially if they only seem to be criticisms of contributors: While the model is now quite celebrated, it cannot be taken as normative. - Why? It needs more explanation and/or proper references. It almost sounds like original research, so it needs to be verified. Critics call the Kübler-Ross model too vague, simplistic, and non-prescriptive. - Uses Weasel Words, which should be avoided. Who calls the model too vague, simplistic, and non-prescriptive? People can react to grief in many different ways, and the model provides no method to move a person to the "acceptance" stage. And even once reaching this stage, the model provides no guidance to people who may then have to live in a significantly-changed situation. - It doesn't need to provide a method. It is not meant to provide guidance! It is a description of the stages, not a counseling assistant! I'm taking this out (and don't consider it censorship because, quite frankly, it doesn't help the article). If anyone wants to improve this opinion and verify it with a reputable source, by all means add it back in. Horncomposer 20:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There definitely needs to be a criticism section though yeah it could be a lot better than this. The model has significant problems. -- Nzbassist 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the two links in this section, because they seem completely lacking in authority. I am not a partisan of the Kubler-Ross model -- I think it's probably quite culturally specific, vague, and the rest of it -- but it seems inappropriate to have what I suspect are links inserted by the "critics" themselves, who point to "alternative" models that may or may not have any following or therapeutic validity. -- 206.174.88.167 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)dhn

The Kubler Ross stage model is really quite old and has been overtaken by newer theories of grief. Basically grief is really messy and there are a wide variety of responses to it, and it's just not true that there are a series of stages. Sure, Kubler-Ross hedged her bets when she said "any person will experience at least 2 stages but not necessarily in order." But that's just a get-out-of-jail clause that most people never hear, that was an attempt to protect the theory. Unfortunately it is embedded, rock-solid in public awareness. I'll throw in some references today or tomorrow when I get time. -- Callivert (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Criticisms from Wiki users. I personally have some criticisms of the Bargaining stage. For one, it emphasizes God, which wouldn't be valid for non-theistic persons. For two, it emphasizes death, which is not the only thing to cause someone to go through the five stages of grief. -- GAMEchief (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Kübler-Ross model" serves a useful purpose in recognizing and dealing with high stress events. And it's well described (redundantly so) that individual response is variable, without following the "stages" in strict linear or chronological order. This Wiki-article should primarily present the "Kübler-Ross model" as described by Kübler-Ross, with relatively minor references to key criticism limited within a "Criticism" section. A Wikipedia article is not the forum to argue the merits of a topic itself within the main article. That said, there are many redundant repeated statements that still need to be edited out. HalFonts (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

wifiky!

The description of the stages is very non-wikipedia-ish. "the f' you stage"?? And the example is "this isn't fucking happening to me"? I can't believe that the person who wrote that was being serious. I'd add the corresponding tag but I still don't learn how to do it... --164.77.106.168 18:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[user:guruclef]

I made a few more small changes to the language etc in order to wikify some more. I took out the short explanation of he anger stage - I was just going to change the reference to anger at god to something neutral of beliefs, but decided the stage was pretty self-explanatory anyway and just deleted it. --Pipedreambomb (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone make "Kübler-Ross grief cycle" and "Kubler-Ross grief cycle" redirect here? I have no idea how all this shit is moonspeak to me.

Done - see Wikipedia:Redirect for instructions

Length

Is it just me, or does the popular culture section seem longer than the rest of the article? Someone please shorten it!--Astroview120mm 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Research on the theory

The "research" section says a Yale study "obtained some findings that were consistent with the five-stage theory and others that were inconsistent with it" (but doesn't elaborate on what these are).

The link in question begins its Results section with "Counter to stage theory, disbelief was not the initial, dominant grief indicator."

Yet the description (in this article) above says "Kübler-Ross also claimed these steps do not necessarily come in the order noted above, nor are all steps experienced by all patients, though she stated a person will always experience at least two".

Is the Yale study testing some stricter version of the KR model? From what I see on this page, KR explicitly said the order doesn't matter, and yet the biggest "inconsistency" found seems to be with order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.71.164.107 (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

some random vandalism in the article, removed it from the grief section. 99.236.186.75 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

I checked the external reference to An Empirical Examination of the Stage Theory of Grief, Paul K. Maciejewski, PhD; Baohui Zhang, MS; Susan D. Block, MD; Holly G. Prigerson, PhD, JAMA. 2007;297:716-723. There it is stated that the grief model consistes of the five stages: disbelief, yearning, anger, depression, and acceptance. There needs to be a precise reference for the model described as it varies from that detailed in the empirical research.

Secondly the Research on the Theory states that the Yale University research "obtained some findings that were consistent with the five-stage theory and others that were inconsistent with it". This would appear incorrect. The abstract the reference cites states: "The 5 grief indicators achieved their respective maximum values in the sequence (disbelief, yearning, anger, depression, and acceptance) predicted by the stage theory of grief.".

LookingGlass (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What's good for the goose...

Friedman & James, in their scathing criticism of the DABDA model, make questionable use of semantics and pseudo-rational posturing as guardians of scientifically validated human experience. This posturing serves ultimately as a platform for glaring self-promotion of their patented approach to grief work.

The authors should be aware that:

1.Their use of phrases such as "an incalculable amount of emotional energy" mimics the vagueness in terminology that K-R is accused of. Equally, their literal interpretation of the term 'denial' is as absurd as their insinuation that 'stages' = time = abdication by patients of any active role in experience. The latter is an insult to patients’ capacity for self-determination, casting them as automata which respond predictably to the stimuli provided by operator-therapists.

2.Bad therapeutic practice is equated with a bad conceptual model, without providing a logical link between the two. Their anecdotal, and apparently one-sided , second-hand report of patients terminating therapy due to a therapist pushing an agenda, highlights the problem of professional inadequacy, not flaws in the model.

3.No evidence is provided for the insinuation that the model itself is harmful. Beyond reference to claims of expertise based on co-authoring books and working with over 100,000 grieving people, no further data or descriptions of methodology are provided to substantiate the claim that "the theory of the stages of grief has done more harm than good to grieving people." By the authors’ own reckoning, the reader is left to assume that "thousands" could mean up to 9,999 people, as the authors did not refer to 'tens of thousands', and therefore conclude that the KB model is potentially harmful to 9.99% of grieving patients, whilst the remaining population will experience some or no benefit, but no harm. Accepting this, is a model with a ten percent probability of causing harm, mediated by the therapist skill in application, counter-indicated in grief work, given its potential benefits?

It is disappointing, despite the allusions to professionalism on the trademarked website of the Grief Recovery Institute, that among the 7,524 articles associated with the search (grief) on the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the U.S. Institutes o Health databases, there is no record of peer reviewed work on grief associated with searches (grief friedman rp), (grief james jw), (Russell P. Friedman), or (John W. James). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.254.53 (talk) 07:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much terminal illness reference

This is applied to people who lose members of their family, or friends, etc. It's not just about terminal illness. Bear this in mind.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Small change under "Cultural Relevance"

Hey, just a heads up that I changed the line "A dying individual's approach to death has been linked to the amount of meaning and purpose a person has found throughout his lifetime."

I changed the "his" to "their" to reflect gender equality with greif dealings. If I've made this edit in error please reverse it. TGardine (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You did, so I did. The "gender neutral" may be acceptable or encouraged in PC colloquial speech, but its still the plural possessive in English grammar. I reverted the sentence to the grammatically correct use of his. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Other names

It is also called the 5 stages of shock. This is often used in cartoons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.126.83 (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Order of stages in substance abuse?

Is there any particular reason why in the section Grieving in substance abuse bargaining comes before anger? Alex.g (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Kübler-Ross model → Five Stages of Grief – Even the lead of the article notes that this is commonly known as the Five Stages of Grief. 173.66.111.59 (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Difficult. With the title "Five Stages of Grief", we would be passing it off as an official title, which it isn't. With "Five stages of grief", it would arguably be even worse since we'd be passing it off as an ontological reality (a notion to which there is substantial opposition) rather than a hypothesis and model by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross. I say let's keep it at the current title.
  Btw, I also somewhat oppose your edit here. Haven't reverted it, but I think "Kübler-Ross model" is much more matter-of-factly and neutral. We obviously can't promote the five stages of grief as a reality when there is substantial opposition to the Kübler-Ross model. --213.196.214.177 (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, Wikipedia is not in the business of truth, but verifiability. And it can be shown that the term Five Stages of Grief is much more common than Kübler-Ross model. Arguing over putting "official" titles on things is irrelevant, since there is also no such thing as a circle, the number 2, or a vacuum. 173.66.111.59 (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

All of your examples are mathematical ontologocial realities. The Kübler-Ross model's reality is as a model. That's why the current title is correct. I'm glad that you're such a fan of the model, but it's just that. A model. And we will accurately refer to it as simply that. (I'm the same guy from above btw.) --87.79.231.4 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)