If you’ve ever felt confused about why your grief doesn’t look like anyone else’s, you’re not alone — and you’re not doing it wrong. Grief researchers themselves haven’t settled on a single universal definition, and the field has grown enormously in just the last few years. This guide walks through what grief actually is, how the foundational models of mourning came to be, and the many distinct forms grief can take — from the ordinary to the disenfranchised to the clinically significant.
What Is Grief, Really?
At its simplest, grief is the response to losing something or someone that mattered to us — most often connected to death but not limited to it. Grief touches every part of a person: emotional, physical, cognitive, behavioral, social, spiritual, and even political and philosophical dimensions of life. It’s worth separating three terms that get used interchangeably but mean different things:
- Bereavement is the state of having experienced a loss.
- Grief is the internal reaction to that loss — the thoughts, feelings, and physical sensations.
- Mourning is the outward, often cultural or ritual, expression of grief.
One of the more sobering findings in recent literature is that after decades of research, the field still has not settled on a single, universal definition of grief, or a clear line for where “normal” grief ends and something clinically significant begins. That ambiguity isn’t a failure of the field — it reflects how genuinely individual and culturally shaped grief is.
The Models That Shaped How We Talk About Grief
Before getting into the many types of grief, it helps to know the frameworks nearly every modern grief theory builds on or responds to.
Kübler-Ross’s Five Stages. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross introduced denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance in her 1969 book On Death and Dying. It’s important to know these stages were originally developed to describe the experience of dying, not the experience of the people left behind, and Kübler-Ross herself never intended them as a linear checklist. As David Kessler, who worked closely with her, has put it, they were never meant to be a map.
Kessler’s Sixth Stage — Meaning. David Kessler, often described as one of the world’s foremost grief experts, was granted permission by the Kübler-Ross family to add a sixth stage after his own son’s sudden death. In Finding Meaning: The Sixth Stage of Grief (2019), Kessler is careful to clarify that meaning is never found in the death itself — there is no meaning to be found there. Instead, meaning is found in the life of the person who died, in how knowing them shaped us, and sometimes in how their death moves us to act. He also emphasizes this isn’t a task with a deadline; it can’t be rushed or forced.
Worden’s Four Tasks of Mourning. In 1982, grief researcher J. William Worden offered an alternative to the “stages” framework: mourning as a set of active tasks rather than passive phases to move through. These generally include accepting the reality of the loss, processing the pain, adjusting to a world without the person, and finding a way to maintain a connection to them while moving forward with life.
Boss’s Ambiguous Loss Theory. Family therapist Pauline Boss coined the term “ambiguous loss” in the 1970s to describe losses that never resolve — more on this below.
The Many Types of Grief
Normal (Uncomplicated) Grief
For most people, the intense symptoms of acute grief gradually ease over time without derailing daily functioning. This is sometimes called “integrated grief” — not because the loss stops mattering, but because life reorganizes around it.
Anticipatory Grief
This is grief experienced before a death actually occurs — most commonly during a loved one’s terminal illness. It affects both the person who is dying and the family and caregivers around them, and healthcare professionals frequently experience it too as they accompany patients through end-of-life care.
Disenfranchised Grief
Coined by grief researcher Kenneth Doka in 1989, disenfranchised grief is grief that a person experiences after a loss that cannot be openly acknowledged, publicly mourned, or socially supported. Doka identified that certain factors tend to disenfranchise a person’s grief: the relationship isn’t socially recognized (an ex-partner, an affair partner, a friend rather than “family”), the loss itself isn’t socially recognized (miscarriage, pet loss, loss of a body part or ability), or the griever isn’t recognized as someone capable of grief (young children, people with cognitive disabilities). Losses connected to social stigma — suicide, overdose, addiction, or abortion — often fall into this category as well. Some writers also use the related term discounted grief to describe grief that others minimize or dismiss outright, telling the griever, in effect, that their pain doesn’t count. Whether it’s called disenfranchised or discounted, the effect is the same: shame and isolation stacked on top of the loss itself.
Ambiguous Loss / Ambiguous Grief
Pauline Boss defined ambiguous loss as loss that resists resolution — there’s no clear ending, so the usual rituals of closure don’t apply. She identified two types:
- Type One (physical absence, psychological presence): the person is physically gone but remains psychologically present — a missing person, a child lost to estrangement, a parent lost to incarceration or deportation.
- Type Two (psychological absence, physical presence): the person is physically present but psychologically gone — dementia, addiction, traumatic brain injury, or severe mental illness are common examples.
Boss’s more recent work, including The Myth of Closure, argues that for ambiguous loss, “closure” isn’t a realistic goal. Instead, the therapeutic aim shifts to building resilience to live with not-knowing and holding both absence and presence as simultaneously true.
Complicated Grief and Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD)
For years, researchers like Katherine Shear and Holly Prigerson studied what was variously called complicated grief, traumatic grief, or persistent complex bereavement disorder — grief that doesn’t follow its expected course and instead stays severe and disabling. That research converged into a single, formally recognized diagnosis: Prolonged Grief Disorder, added to the ICD-11 and, in 2022, to the DSM-5-TR.
The diagnostic criteria require the death to have occurred at least 12 months earlier for adults (6 months for children and adolescents under DSM-5-TR; ICD-11 uses a 6-month minimum for everyone), alongside a persistent grief response — most centrally, intense yearning for the deceased or preoccupation with thoughts of them — occurring most days, along with additional symptoms like identity disruption, emotional numbness, or a sense that life is meaningless, all significant enough to impair daily functioning.
Current estimates suggest roughly 5–10% of bereaved adults develop PGD, though rates run higher after sudden, violent, or traumatic deaths. Documented risk factors include losing a child or spouse. This death was sudden or unnatural (including homicide or suicide), a death in an ICU rather than at home, prior depression, an anxious attachment style, and limited social support.
Within complicated grief, researchers also describe a few recognizable patterns:
- Chronic grief — intense grief that persists for years without easing.
- Delayed grief — emotions are suppressed at the time of loss and resurface later, sometimes triggered by something that seems unrelated.
- Absent grief — the person appears stuck in denial and doesn’t outwardly process the loss at all (distinct from people who grieve privately or quickly).
- Masked grief — grief that shows up as physical symptoms or behavioral problems rather than being consciously recognized as grief.
Traumatic Grief
When a death happens suddenly, violently, or under shocking circumstances — an accident, homicide, suicide, or unexpected medical event — the grief that follows often carries features of trauma alongside mourning: intrusive images, hypervigilance, or a shattered sense of safety layered on top of the loss itself.
Collective Grief
Grief experienced by a group or community following a shared loss — a mass casualty event, a pandemic, a natural disaster, war, or the loss of a public figure. Collective grief can create real solidarity, but it can also be disorienting, since a person’s individual, particular loss can feel swallowed up by the scale of the shared one.
Cumulative Grief and Secondary Losses
Cumulative grief refers to the effect of multiple losses stacking up, sometimes without enough time to process one before the next arrives — common in professions like healthcare, hospice, and social work. Related to this is the idea of secondary losses: the losses that ripple out from a primary loss, such as loss of income, identity, role, home, or community, that often go unacknowledged even though they compound the grief.
A Note on Culture and Grief
Recent literature is increasingly clear that grief has no single universal timeline or expression, and that migration, displacement, and cultural context all shape how people grieve and how disenfranchised their grief may become. What looks like “complicated” grief through one cultural lens may be an entirely appropriate mourning practice through another. This is a reminder that any framework — including everything above — should be held loosely and applied with cultural humility, never as a rigid checklist for whether someone is “grieving correctly.”
Why This Matters
Having language for what you’re experiencing can be its own form of relief. Naming ambiguous loss, disenfranchised grief, or prolonged grief disorder doesn’t box someone in — it validates an experience that so often gets minimized, misunderstood, or left unspoken. If your grief doesn’t look like the five stages, if no one around you seems to recognize your loss as “real,” or if it’s been over a year and the weight hasn’t lifted at all, that doesn’t mean something is wrong with you. It may simply mean your grief needs a different kind of support than what you’ve been offered so far.
Author: Franceen Rea, MSW, BSW, GRMS
Sources: Doka, K. (1989, 2002); Boss, P., Ambiguous Loss (1999) and The Myth of Closure (2021); Kübler-Ross, E. On Death and Dying (1969); Kessler, D., Finding Meaning: The Sixth Stage of Grief (2019); Worden, J.W., Grief Counseling and Grief Therapy (1982); Shear, K. et al.; Prigerson, H.G. et al.; American Psychiatric Association, DSM-5-TR (2022); World Health Organization, ICD-11; StatPearls (NCBI Bookshelf, 2025); psychiatry.org; and current peer-reviewed research on prolonged grief disorder (2023–2025).
This article is for educational purposes and isn’t a substitute for individualized support from a licensed therapist or grief counselor. If your situation involves abuse or unsafe dynamics, please prioritize your safety first and consider connecting with a professional who specializes in trauma.
Disclaimer
The information and resources provided on HelpWithGriefAndLoss.com, including but not limited to educational products, worksheets, journals, eBooks, and PDFs, are intended for informational and educational purposes only. These materials are designed to support individuals dealing with grief, loss, and mental health challenges.
The content offered on this site is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician, mental health professional, or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or mental health issue.
If you are experiencing an emergency or crisis, or need immediate support, contact 9-1-1, 9-8-8, or a crisis hotline in your area. Your health and well-being are important, and professional guidance is always recommended for serious issues.
By using this site and its resources, you acknowledge and accept this disclaimer and understand that you are solely responsible for your own health and well-being.
Leave a Reply