Talk:Kübler-Ross model

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Pop Culture 2 Critical of critcism 3 wifiky! 4 Length 5 Research on the theory 6 Vandalism 7 Inconsistency

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Bold text

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Vandalism

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

[edit] 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)