Chapter 12 Personal Loss Questions Be Prepared To Discuss 2

Chapter 12 Personal Lossquestions Be Prepared To Discuss 2 Questio

Compare the Adaptive grieving model (Martin & Doka, 2000) and the Dual Process model (Stroebe & Schut, 2001). What are the similarities and differences? Which seems to fit best to your style of counseling? Why is that so?

The answer should be based on the knowledge obtained from reading the book, no just your opinion. If there are 2 questions in the discussion, you must answer both of them. Your grade will be an average of both questions.

Paper For Above instruction

The understanding of grief and mourning has been extensively studied through various models, among which the Adaptive Grieving Model by Martin and Doka (2000) and the Dual Process Model by Stroebe and Schut (2001) are prominent. Both provide valuable frameworks for understanding how individuals cope with loss, yet they differ in their approaches and implications for counseling. This paper compares these two models, highlighting their similarities and differences, and analyzes which model aligns best with different counseling styles.

The Adaptive Grieving Model emphasizes that grieving is a dynamic process involving oscillation between confronting the loss and avoiding or distracting oneself from it. According to Martin and Doka, healthy grieving involves adaptive behaviors that help the individual adjust over time. The model underscores the importance of flexibility, allowing mourners to move back and forth between dealing with emotional pain and engaging in restorative activities (Martin & Doka, 2000). This approach suggests that healthy grieving is not linear but adaptive, with individuals needing to balance awareness of the loss and temporary avoidance to prevent overwhelm.

In contrast, the Dual Process Model posits that grieving involves two main processes: loss-oriented and restoration-oriented activities. Loss-oriented processes involve facing the pain of the loss, mourning, and revisiting the grief, while restoration-oriented processes focus on adjusting to life without the deceased, such as taking on new roles or engaging in new activities (Stroebe & Schut, 2001). The model emphasizes oscillation between these two processes, proposing that healthy grieving requires flexibility and movement between confronting and avoiding the grief, which helps maintain emotional stability and resilience.

Both models agree that grieving is a dynamic and flexible process characterized by oscillation. They recognize the importance of balancing emotional confrontation with efforts to adapt to new realities. However, they differ in their conceptualizations: the Adaptive Model explicitly highlights behavioral and cognitive flexibility as central to adaptation, framing grief as a process of oscillation that naturally allows fluctuating engagement. The Dual Process Model conceptualizes oscillation primarily as a balancing act between confronting the pain and restoring normalcy, emphasizing the importance of toggling between these two states in a more structured manner.

In terms of applicability to counseling, the choice of model depends on the counselor's theoretical orientation and the needs of the client. The Adaptive Grieving Model would be particularly fitting for counselors who emphasize behavioral activation and cognitive flexibility, encouraging clients to consciously adapt their engagement with grief-related emotions and activities. Its focus on oscillation aligns well with cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which emphasizes flexibility and coping skills.

Conversely, the Dual Process Model offers a more structured approach that can be integrated into both individual and group counseling. Its emphasis on oscillation between confronting loss and engaging in restorative activities can help clients understand their grieving patterns, normalize fluctuations, and develop resilience. This model fits well with therapy approaches that emphasize acceptance and commitment, mindfulness, and normalization of emotional experiences.

Personally, the Dual Process Model resonates more with my counseling style, especially because of its emphasis on balanced oscillation and normalizing fluctuations in grief, which can reduce clients’ feelings of guilt or failure when they experience setbacks. Its clear framework for toggling between confronting and avoiding grief provides practical guidance for clients, fostering resilience and gradual adjustment (Stroebe & Schut, 2001). Additionally, the model’s recognition of the active role clients play in alternating between processes aligns with client-centered approaches, promoting autonomy and self-awareness.

In conclusion, both the Adaptive Grieving Model and the Dual Process Model offer valuable insights into the grieving process, emphasizing flexibility and oscillation as keys to healthy mourning. While the Adaptive Model emphasizes behavioral flexibility, the Dual Process Model provides a structured framework emphasizing balancing two types of activities. For my counseling practice, the Dual Process Model’s clarity and focus on normalization of fluctuations make it the more suitable framework, supporting clients in navigating the complex journey of grief with resilience and understanding.

References

  • Martin, F., & Doka, K. J. (2000). Living with Grief: Who We Are, How We Grieve. Brunner-Routledge.
  • Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (2001). The Dual Process Model of Coping with Bereavement: Rationale and Description. Death Studies, 25(3), 197-224.
  • Worden, J. W. (2009). Grief Counseling and Grief Therapy: A Handbook for the Mental Health Practitioner. Springer Publishing Company.
  • Parkes, C. M., & Prigerson, H. G. (2010). Mourning and Bereavement: An Introduction. In H. G. Prigerson (Ed.), Trauma and Bereavement: Mourning and Adjustment to Loss (pp. 1-30). Routledge.
  • Walter, T. (1999). On the Loss of the Pathos of Grief. Mortality, 4(1), 107-117.
  • Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, Trauma, and Human Resilience: Have We Underestimated the Human Capacity to Triumph over Adversity? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.
  • Neimeyer, R. A. (2012). Techniques of Grief Therapy: Creative Practices for Counseling the Bereaved. Routledge.
  • Shear, M. K. (2015). Grief and Mourning gone awry: Clinical features and implications for治疗. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 23(2), 94-102.
  • Gillies, J., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2006). Loss and Grief Questionnaire. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 11(2), 139-154.
  • Parkes, C. M. (1998). Bereavement as a psychosocial process. Psychiatric Clinics, 11(4), 725-736.

Related Assignments