Introduction to Normal Grief
Introduction to Normal Grief
“Normal grief can manifest in various ways and varies significantly from person to person.” Research consistently shows that normal grief is a highly adaptive psychological process rooted in attachment theory. Bowlby (1980) emphasised that grief reflects the disruption of an attachment bond, and contemporary studies confirm that most bereaved individuals naturally move toward integrating the loss over time (Bonanno, 2004; Nielsen et al., 2017). Longitudinal evidence demonstrates that emotional oscillation—moving between confronting and avoiding the pain of loss—is a hallmark of healthy adaptation (Stroebe & Schut, 1999).
Neurobiological studies also reveal that normal grief activates brain regions associated with both emotional pain and memory integration, suggesting that grief is not merely emotional but also a cognitive and neurological recalibration (O’Connor et al., 2008). Importantly, the majority of people do not develop clinical disorders following bereavement; instead, they show resilience, defined as the ability to maintain psychological stability while grieving (Bonanno et al., 2002).
The Emotional Waves of Grief
Empirical studies support the idea that grief unfolds in emotional waves rather than predictable stages. Daily‑diary research shows that emotions fluctuate dramatically, sometimes within hours, and that this variability is a normal part of adjustment (Bisconti et al., 2004). Mixed emotions—such as simultaneous sadness and gratitude—are also common and can even promote psychological growth (Folkman, 2008).
Studies on emotional regulation suggest that allowing these waves to arise without suppression is associated with better long‑term outcomes (Stroebe et al., 2007). Conversely, chronic emotional avoidance has been linked to prolonged distress (Eisma et al., 2013). The presence of positive emotions, even early in bereavement, is not a sign of denial but a natural component of resilience (Bonanno & Keltner, 1997).
The Non‑Linear Nature of Grief
“People may revisit earlier stages of grief, sometimes feeling as though they are moving backwards rather than forward, which is entirely normal.”
The non‑linear nature of grief is strongly supported by contemporary grief models. The Dual Process Model (Stroebe & Schut, 1999) describes how individuals oscillate between loss‑oriented and restoration‑oriented coping. This back‑and‑forth movement predicts healthier adjustment than rigidly focusing on one domain.
Longitudinal studies show that grief intensity often decreases over time but may temporarily resurge during anniversaries, life transitions, or unexpected reminders (Maccallum & Bryant, 2019). These temporary increases are not signs of regression but indicators of continuing bonds—a concept supported by research showing that maintaining symbolic connections with the deceased can be adaptive (Klass et al., 1996).
Adjusting to Life After Loss
“Sharing stories and memories with family and friends can further deepen this connection, reinforcing a sense of community during a time of sorrow.”
Studies highlight that meaning‑making is a central component of adjusting to life after loss. Individuals who can construct a coherent narrative about the loss tend to experience better psychological outcomes (Neimeyer, 2001). Rituals—whether private or communal—have been shown to reduce emotional distress and increase perceived control (Norton & Gino, 2014).
Self‑care practices such as sleep, nutrition, and physical activity are also empirically linked to improved emotional regulation during bereavement (Hardison et al., 2005). Mindfulness‑based interventions have demonstrated significant reductions in grief‑related rumination and emotional distress (O’Connor et al., 2014).
Cultural Perspectives on Grief
“Understanding these diverse perspectives on grief can help individuals navigate their own grief journey.”
Cross‑cultural research shows that cultural norms shape not only how grief is expressed but also how it is interpreted by others. For example, collectivist cultures often emphasize communal mourning, which has been associated with lower levels of loneliness and complicated grief (Rosenblatt, 2008).
Studies of Indigenous grief practices highlight the importance of ritual continuity, storytelling, and community witnessing in promoting healing (McCormick, 2009). African diasporic mourning traditions, which often include music and movement, have been shown to facilitate emotional expression and social cohesion (Holloway, 2002).
Understanding these cultural frameworks helps validate the wide range of grief expressions across the world.
The Importance of Personal Grief Journeys
“Each expression of grief is valid; be it through tears, remembrance, or even moments of joy recalling fond memories.”
Research consistently affirms that grief is highly individualized. Personality traits, attachment style, and prior mental health all influence how grief unfolds (Fraley & Bonanno, 2004). For example, individuals with secure attachment styles often show more adaptive coping, while those with anxious attachment may experience more intense yearning (Field & Sundin, 2001).
Studies also show that societal expectations can complicate grief when individuals feel pressured to “move on” prematurely (Doka, 2002). Validating one’s own emotional experience—rather than conforming to external expectations—supports healthier long‑term adjustment.
Support Systems in Grief
Support systems are essential in the grieving process. Social support is one of the strongest predictors of positive bereavement outcomes. Meta‑analyses show that emotional support reduces loneliness, depression, and grief‑related distress (Stroebe et al., 2005). Peer‑based grief groups provide unique benefits because shared experience fosters empathy and reduces stigma (Murphy et al., 2006).
Therapeutic interventions such as grief‑focused cognitive-behavioural therapy have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing intrusive thoughts and promoting meaning reconstruction (Boelen et al., 2006). Support is not merely comforting—it is a protective factor that shapes the entire trajectory of grief.
Common Misconceptions About Grief
“The timeline for grief varies significantly; some may experience intense sorrow for months or years, while others may find that their grief emerges intermittently. Research dispels the myth that grief follows a universal timeline. Bonanno et al. (2002) identified multiple trajectories of grief—including resilience, recovery, chronic grief, and delayed grief—each of which is considered normal.
Another misconception is that continuing bonds with the deceased are unhealthy. In fact, studies show that maintaining symbolic or emotional connections can promote meaning‑making and psychological stability (Field, 2006). The idea that grief must be “resolved” or “completed” is outdated; contemporary research emphasizes integration rather than closure.
Conclusion: Embracing the Grieving Process
The overarching message of contemporary grief research is that healing is not about erasing the past but integrating it. Meaning‑making, emotional expression, social support, and cultural rituals all contribute to this integration. Studies show that individuals who approach grief with self‑compassion experience lower levels of shame, guilt, and emotional suppression (Zhang et al., 2022).
Grief is not a problem to solve but a human experience to honour.
References List
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience. American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.
Bonanno, G. A., & Keltner, D. (1997). Facial expressions of emotion and the course of bereavement. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(1), 126–137.
Bonanno, G. A., Wortman, C. B., et al. (2002). Resilience to loss and chronic grief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1150–1164.
Boelen, P. A., van den Bout, J., & de Keijser, J. (2006). Traumatic grief as a disorder distinct from bereavement‑related depression and anxiety. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(7), 1239–1241.
Bisconti, T. L., Bergeman, C. S., & Boker, S. M. (2004). Emotional well‑being in recently bereaved widows. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59(4), P158–P167.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss. Basic Books.
Doka, K. J. (2002). Disenfranchised grief. Research Press.
Eisma, M. C., Stroebe, M., et al. (2013). Avoidance processes in grief. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(5), 699–710.
Field, N. P. (2006). Continuing bonds in bereavement. Death Studies, 30(8), 709–733.
Field, N. P., & Sundin, E. C. (2001). Attachment style in adjustment to bereavement. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(6), 747–766.
Folkman, S. (2008). The case for positive emotions in the stress process. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 21(1), 3–14.
Fraley, R. C., & Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Attachment and loss. Journal of Personality, 72(5), 1191–1218.
Hardison, H. G., Neimeyer, R. A., & Lichstein, K. L. (2005). Insomnia and complicated grief. Death Studies, 29(8), 775–792.
Holloway, K. (2002). Passed On: African American Mourning Stories. Duke University Press.
Klass, D., Silverman, P., & Nickman, S. (1996). Continuing bonds. Taylor & Francis.
Maccallum, F., & Bryant, R. A. (2019). Prolonged grief. World Psychiatry, 18(3), 334–345.
McCormick, R. (2009). Aboriginal approaches to healing grief. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 43(4), 283–298.
Murphy, S. A., Johnson, L. C., et al. (2006). Bereaved parents’ grief. Death Studies, 30(1), 1–22.
Neimeyer, R. A. (2001). Meaning reconstruction and the experience of loss. APA.
Nielsen, M. K., Neergaard, M. A., et al. (2017). Predictors of complicated grief. Palliative Medicine, 31(5), 484–495.
Norton, M. I., & Gino, F. (2014). Rituals alleviate grief. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 266–272.
O’Connor, M. F., Wellisch, D. K., et al. (2008). Brain activation in grief. NeuroImage, 42(2), 969–972.
O’Connor, M., Piet, J., & Hougaard, E. (2014). Mindfulness‑based therapy for grief. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(3), 451–464.
Rosenblatt, P. C. (2008). Grief across cultures. Handbook of Bereavement Research, 207–222.
Stroebe, M., & Schut, H. (1999). The dual process model. Death Studies, 23(3), 197–224.
Stroebe, M., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Health outcomes of bereavement. The Lancet, 370(9603), 1960–1973.
Stroebe, W., Zech, E., et al. (2005). Social support and adjustment to loss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(5), 884–894.
Zhang, J. W., Chen, S., & Tomlinson, E. (2022). Self‑compassion and grief. Journal of Positive Psychology, 17(3), 367–380.*