Grief Follows Predictable Stages
False Assumption: Grief universally progresses through denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance in sequence.
Written by FARAgent on February 09, 2026
Elisabeth Kübler-Ross unveiled her five stages in On Death and Dying (1969), a tidy model that captivated clinicians and captivated pop culture, from movies to therapy sessions, promising a roadmap through mourning's chaos.
Bereavement researchers battered it with criticisms for decades, yet nearly half of clinicians clung on; no empirical backbone, no predictive power, even harm to those not fitting the script, as a stinging review declared it useless for treatment or risk identification.
The current state remains contested, with stage theory teetering toward history's dustbin amid calls to discard it; the absurdity shines in how a speculative sketch became gospel, pathologizing normal variance while comforting no one.
Status: Experts are divided on whether this assumption was actually false
People Involved
- In the late 1960s, psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross sat with dying patients in Chicago hospitals. She noted patterns in their responses. In 1969, she published On Death and Dying, outlining five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. She presented them as a sequence. The book sold well. Critics now argue she popularized the model without solid evidence, though she acted in good faith. [1]
▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“first outlined in Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s On Death and Dying (1969)”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 1/3)
The Foundation
The model drew from bedside anecdotes in the era of limited psychological research.
Kübler-Ross observed terminally ill patients and mapped their emotions to stages. It seemed plausible at the time. Mounting evidence challenges this foundation, pointing to a lack of empirical studies and conceptual depth. Critics argue the assumption of linear progression ignores the messiness of real grief. Those who deviated from the sequence often faced stigma, seen as failing to grieve properly. The model's utility remains debated.
[1]▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Major concerns [with using the stages-of-grief theory] include the absence of sound empirical evidence, conceptual clarity, or explanatory potential.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 1/3)
How It Spread
The idea spread through popular culture starting in the 1970s. Movies depicted characters marching through the stages. Television episodes built plots around them. Books on self-help echoed the sequence. By the 2000s, surveys showed nearly half of clinicians still endorsed the model. Researchers critiqued it as oversimplified, yet it persisted. Media amplification drowned out the doubts. Social pressures kept it alive in therapy sessions and support groups.
[1]▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“nearly half of clinicians still regard the following statement as either definitely or probably true: “The process of grief can be expected to progress through a predictable series of stages”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 1/3)
Harm Caused
Grievers who did not follow the stages felt abnormal. Critics argue the model implied their emotions were out of order, adding shame to loss. It offered little help in actual treatment. Therapists struggled to apply it usefully. Growing questions surround its failure to spot those at real risk of prolonged distress. The assumption, some say, complicated recovery for many.
[1]▶ Supporting Quotes (1)
“Most disturbingly, the expectation that bereaved persons will, even should, go through stages of grieving can be harmful to those who do not.”— Psychology’s Greatest Misses (Part 1/3)