Modalities / Integrative

Dual Process Model of Grief

Margaret Stroebe & Henk Schut · 1999
Key text: The Dual Process Model of Coping with Bereavement: Rationale and Description (Stroebe & Schut, 1999)
Integrative Focus: Grief + Adaptive Variable Individual, group

Core Mechanism

Healthy adaptation requires dynamic oscillation between loss-oriented coping (processing grief) and restoration-oriented coping (rebuilding life); rigid fixation in either mode produces complications

Ontology

Grief is not a state to move through but a dynamic oscillation between confronting loss and rebuilding life; pathology emerges from rigidity, not from the pain itself

Therapeutic Voice

"Some days you need to sit with the grief. Other days you need to do your taxes and clean the kitchen. Both are grief work. The back and forth isn't a sign you're doing it wrong — it's exactly how this works."

View of the Person

A coping agent who must oscillate between engaging with loss and rebuilding a changed world — rigidity in either direction is the pathology, not grief itself


Evidence

N/A — foundational grief framework widely referenced in clinical literature

Framework rather than manualized protocol; validated through longitudinal bereavement studies

N/A — theoretical framework with extensive empirical support for oscillation patterns

DPM corrected two assumptions: (1) that grief work is always necessary (some avoidance is adaptive), and (2) that grief follows a linear trajectory. The oscillation model explains why grieving people can laugh at lunch and sob at dinner — both are necessary. Clinically, it helps normalize the 'Am I doing this right?' anxiety many bereaved people feel. Also provides a framework for understanding gender differences in grief (men may default to restoration-orientation, which gets pathologized as avoidance).


Conditions

Epistemology

PragmatistEmpiricist

Blind Spots

Descriptive rather than prescriptive — tells clinicians what healthy grief looks like but less guidance on what to do when someone is stuck; cultural assumptions about individual coping may not map to collective grief practices

Contraindications

Active psychosis, complicated grief requiring clinical intervention beyond the model's descriptive framework, prescriptive application forcing oscillation rather than observing natural movement


Training

Theoretical framework, not protocol. Graduate coursework sufficient

No certification; theoretical model

Graduate coursework + reading

Minimal

Equity & Cultural Adaptations

Cross-cultural adaptationsMen's mental health adaptationsOlder adult-adapted

Philosophical Roots

Lazarus & Folkman (coping as process); Bowlby (attachment and loss); Worden (task model as precursor); regulatory flexibility research (Bonanno); gender role socialization and grief

Related Modalities

Test Yourself

How does DPM differ from Worden's Task Model?

Show answer

Worden frames mourning as four tasks to accomplish — implying forward progression. DPM proposes that healthy grieving involves oscillation between confronting the loss (loss-orientation: crying, yearning, ruminating on the deceased) and avoiding it to attend to life changes (restoration-orientation: new roles, identity, distractions). The oscillation itself is the mechanism. People who only do grief work burn out; people who only do restoration never process. Neither orientation alone is healthy.


Sources

Stroebe, M. & Schut, H. (1999). The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale and description. Death Studies, 23(3), 197-224.