Understanding Grief: Effective Frameworks for Healthy Coping

TL;DR

Grieving is a highly individual experience, but several evidence-based models offer meaningful guidance. The Dual Process Model, meaning attribution, ACT, and community-sensitive approaches all contribute to healthier adaptation by balancing emotional expression with restoration, enabling meaning-making, and offering accessible support.

Key Takeaways

• The Dual Process Model emphasizes alternating between loss-oriented and restoration-oriented activities.

• Meaning-making and acceptance are essential for integrating grief into one’s life.

• ACT helps reconnect individuals with values despite emotional pain.

• Digital and culturally-informed models improve accessibility and relevance.

Introduction

Grief is an inevitable part of life, and coping with it varies from person to person. Fortunately, psychology and grief counseling have developed several frameworks to guide healthy adaptation. These frameworks help us understand not just the pain of loss, but also the resilience that can emerge from it. This post explores the most effective grief models used by mental health professionals and highlights approaches that offer flexibility, meaning-making, and support.

Leading Grief Frameworks

Dual Process Model

This model, developed by Stroebe and Schut (1999), posits that healthy grieving involves oscillation between confronting the loss (loss-oriented) and adjusting to life without the deceased (restoration-oriented). This natural ebb and flow allows emotional processing while promoting continued engagement with life.

Meaning Attribution Framework

Smid (2020) introduced this model to focus on how individuals interpret their loss. Instead of “moving on,” this framework encourages people to integrate the loss into their identity and future. It also acknowledges the vital role of cultural, spiritual, and social systems in finding meaning.

Integrative Model

Bonanno and Kaltman (1999) proposed this holistic approach, recognizing the influence of personality, context, the nature of the relationship with the deceased, and the mourner’s emotion regulation skills. It supports flexibility and individualized coping.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)

ACT, as applied to grief, helps individuals allow space for painful emotions while pursuing meaningful goals (Willi et al., 2024). This framework is particularly helpful for those who feel stuck in their grief.

Wholistic Framework

Greene (2020) describes a broader framework that addresses intellectual, spiritual, and attitudinal responses to grief. This approach supports coping across all aspects of a person’s life.

Digital and Community-Based Approaches

Online grief interventions, often based on cognitive-behavioral principles, provide accessible support when in-person options are unavailable. Systematic reviews show their effectiveness in reducing depression, isolation, and grief severity (Wagner et al., 2020; Finucane et al., 2024).

Culturally responsive and communal frameworks (e.g., psycho-theological and social-ecological models) emphasize the power of ritual, spiritual care, and collective healing. These are especially valuable in diverse populations and crisis settings (Kgatle & Segalo, 2021; Fisk, 2022).

Conclusion

Grief is deeply personal, yet certain principles can help support healthier coping. The most effective frameworks promote flexibility, meaning-making, and a balance between honoring the loss and re-engaging with life. Whether through established psychological models, digital interventions, or culturally informed practices, these tools offer a path toward resilience.

References

Bonanno, G., & Kaltman, S. (1999). Toward an integrative perspective on bereavement. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 760-776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.760

Finucane, A., Canny, A., Mair, A., Harrop, E., Selman, L., Swash, B., Wakefield, D., & Gillanders, D. (2024). A rapid review of the evidence for online interventions for bereavement support. Palliative Medicine, 39, 31-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163241285101

Fisk, G. (2022). The complexity and embeddedness of grief at work: A social-ecological model. Human Resource Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100929

Greene, N. (2020). Misdiagnosing generational trauma and grief: I am not angry; I am triggered and grief-stricken. In ** (pp. 139-152). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42556-2_11

Kgatle, M., & Segalo, P. (2021). Grieving during a pandemic: A psycho-theological response. Verbum et Ecclesia. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v42i1.2260

Smid, G. (2020). A framework of meaning attribution following loss. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1776563

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

Stroebe, M., Stroebe, W., & Schut, H. (2001). Gender differences in adjustment to bereavement: An empirical and theoretical review. Review of General Psychology, 5, 62-83. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.1.62

Wagner, B., Rosenberg, N., Hofmann, L., & Maass, U. (2020). Web-based bereavement care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00525

Willi, N., Pancoast, A., Drikaki, I., Gu, X., Gillanders, D., & Finucane, A. (2024). Practitioner perspectives on the use of acceptance and commitment therapy for bereavement support: A qualitative study. BMC Palliative Care, 23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01390-x