Firstly apologies for the delay in replying. Thanks for the link to the Scientific American article about the lack of evidence for the grief cycle. The article doesn’t name the particular studies referred to by Neimeyer in the 3rd para, so if anyone knows which they are, let me know as I’d be interested to read them.

I looked on PsycARTICLES and PsycINFO and came across a recent empirical study by Maciejewski, Zhang, Block & Prigerson (2007). It found partial support for the stages of grief model: “Counter to stage theory, disbelief was not the initial dominant grief indicator.Acceptance was the most frequently endorsed item and yearning was the dominant negative grief indicator from 1 to 24 months postloss…. Acceptance increased throughout the study observation period. 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”. Several comments/criticisms of this paper were published by other researchers in the field (e.g. it wasn’t a longitudinal study – Bonanno & Boemer, 2007) but unfortunately I don’t have access to the full articles so cannot comment further.

Michael Shermer, the author of the article, claims that stage theories were only helpful when people lived predictable lives. I think we’re assuming a position of predictability from hindsight. It may be that to those people living through those times, life wasn’t predictable at all. I don’t know if stage theories impose guilt and pressure on people if they don’t ‘conform’. I would hope that psychotherapists who use them see their clients as individuals and treat them accordingly. Apparently Kubler-Ross said that not all people experience all stages of the grief cycle, and/or not necessarily in a linear fashion. I agree that if this is the only empirical study which supports the grief cycle then more needs to be done(although readers might be aware of other studies apart from the one mentioned above).

Shermer also likens stage theories to story-telling and suggests that all narrative/story-telling is bad, but this is not necessarily the case. I think the value of story-telling is in helping achieve ‘distance’ or a meta-perspective on the issue, for example using metaphor. In practice I’ve noticed that metaphor rather than simple logic has a more powerful effect on many people. I’m not sure if metaphor lends itself to empirical study, so I’ll have to do some more research on that front. Perhaps others can comment?

Bridget

• Maciejewski, P., Zhang, B., Block, S., & Prigerson, H. (2007). An empirical examination of the stage theory of grief. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 297(7), 716-723. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/297/7/716

• Bonanno, G., & Boerner, K. (2007). ‘The stage theory of grief’: Comment. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 297(24), 2693-2693.

Loved this discussion – so much worthwhile stuff here about social connections, introversion, how to maintain friendships in our ever-more hectic lives, how people change, whether you can change other people etc etc. I hardly know where to start!

One really big thing I’d like to mention is the importance/relevance of the internet and social networking using sites like Facebook in building human connections. Some research suggests that extraverts who use the internet extensively are less lonely than those who rarely use it, whilst introverts who use the internet extensively are more lonely that those who rarely use it. I think this is fascinating, it suggests that we need to be careful with ‘one size fits all’ solutions.

Additionally I’ve read research which suggests that even though your average Facebook user has say 100 ‘Friends’ (it might even be more than that), the majority of these friendships are characterised by ‘weak ties’ whereby useful information gets passed between people (eg about jobs), but the deep emotional bonds that you have with close friends don’t develop. This picks up the theme of High Quality Connections. It looks as if people keep really close to only a small number of friends, even if they have hundreds and hundreds on their profile page. So Social Network Sites seem to be enabling more human contact to take place, but not necessarily enabling people to develop close relationships (or rather, the way we currently use Social Network Sites is not enabling this to happen). But, there are exceptions to this, of course, I’m sure we all know someone who met their partner/spouse on the internet, so clearly some people are able to develop deep emotional connections with others that they haven’t met in person. I wonder what it is that they do differently, if anything.

I’m sure that technology is going to continue to have a huge impact on the way human connections develop and are sustained, and because technology is such a huge part of our lives, the more we find out about the (positive) psychology/technology overlap the better. I’m looking forward to reading next month’s postings on love/friendship and seeing others’ perpsectives on these subjects.

Best wishes
Bridget

A Big Thank You!
Bridget

Going right back to your first couple of comments here, on the 4 questions, I think they help develop a ‘meta’ perspective, which I think is essential when you’re grappling with a difficult decision. Because they’re kind of complex, you really have to think carefully about what they’re asking, and in doing this you become less ‘attached’ to the issue, and therefore moer likely to be able to see other perspectives.

As for the ‘Change Curve’ and the Scientific American article, that’s v interesting. I’ve seen criticisms of the Stages of Moral Development before but not of the Grief Cycle. I’ll come back to you on that one, it will need a bit of reflection first!

Bridget

$enia, when I think of you I see a very effective encyclopedia saleswoman. You get people pumped about stuff that without your insight would remain as exciting as an accountant’s logbook. I would never had read Publicani without your gentle prodding; it was a page turner.

KB, I’m proud to call you a high-quality connection. Ha. I really like your blog, too. The flood and your dad’s tale were fascinating to me and I don’t know exactly why. It drew me in. I’m also excited to see how your story-narrative interventions shape up.

Love,
Jeff

Thanks for the suggestion for a writing topic. I’ll let it rattle around in my head and perhaps something will emerge for my February article.

One thought that comes to mind is to think of high-quality connections in the terms that Jane Dutton proposes — “… a high-quality connection doesn’t necessarily mean a deep or intimate relationship. High-quality connections do not require personal knowledge or extensive interaction. Any point of contact with another person can potentially be a high-quality connection. One conversation, one e-mail exchange, one moment of connecting in a meeting can infuse both participants with a greater sense of vitality, giving them a bounce in their steps and a greater capacity to act.” (Energize your Workplace, p. 2)

So instead of thinking about ways to add more social interactions to your life, why not start by thinking about ways to improve the quality of the connections you are already experiencing. You pass somebody in the hallway — do you greet the person and if so, how? You answer an email — what is the tone of your response? You hear somebody arguing for something in a meeting. Do you respond in a spirit of inquiry?

Kathryn

Unfortunately, I think too many managers are, in fact, trying to “get the most” out of people in a selfish and ultimately counterproductive way. By providing resources, advice and support, a manager can help “people be their best” and thereby achieve the most for the organization, but many managers do not “see” that…
Similarly, in personal relationships, those who focus on “getting the most” fail, for they look to take rather than to give. Ironically, Happiness research shows that improved well being comes from the giving, and we all know that relationships where one or both parties focus only on “taking” are not loving, productive or health boosting….
It is so much easier to find ways to be useful/kind than it is to find ways to get someone else to be useful to me, especially given the absence of control and the liklihood of an adverse reaction
Almost like that St. Francis guy got it right those many moons ago……:)

That energy drains must be let go with compassion (and I would add that energy drains are different for different people – an alcoholic may need to leave a drinking buddy, but a non-alcoholic can continue to be friends with that same drinking buddy).

And that enjoying oneself is much easier than trying to “get the most” out of people. When Margaret and I write our book, we often discuss how some terms in the world are not so clear. Why do managers say they want to “get the most” out of people? They really want “people to be their best.” Strange.

Thanks!
Senia