The “five stages of grief” is one of the most widely recognised ideas in bereavement support. Many people encounter it at a time when they are trying to make sense of overwhelming loss, often assuming it offers a map for what grief will feel like.
Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance – the model is simple, memorable, and deeply embedded in public understanding.
But grief itself is rarely simple.
At The Loss Foundation, we often hear from people who feel uncertain about whether they are grieving “correctly” because their experience does not match the stages they have been told to expect. This raises an important question: what role should this model play in how we understand grief today?
Where the five stages model came from
The five stages were first introduced by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross as a way of describing emotional responses observed in people facing terminal illness. Importantly, they were not originally intended as a rigid framework for all grief experiences, nor as a sequence that everyone would pass through in order.
Over time, however, the model has become widely interpreted as a universal roadmap for bereavement.
This shift has had unintended consequences. While the model can offer language for some emotional experiences, it can also create expectations about how grief “should” unfold.
Why grief does not follow stages
One of the most consistent findings in grief research and clinical practice is that grief is not linear.
People do not move neatly from one emotional stage to the next. Instead, grief tends to fluctuate – sometimes daily, sometimes over longer periods – between different states of experience.
A person may feel deep sadness and acceptance at the same time. Anger may reappear long after someone believed it had passed. Moments of relative stability can be interrupted by intense waves of grief years after a loss.
Rather than progressing through stages, many people experience grief as something more dynamic and cyclical.
Moving beyond stages: contemporary models of grief
Modern grief theory has developed a number of alternative frameworks that better reflect lived experience.
One of the most well-known is the Dual Process Model, which describes grief as an ongoing movement between two types of coping:
- Loss-oriented experiences, such as yearning, remembering, and emotional pain
- Restoration-oriented experiences, such as adjusting to life changes, rebuilding routines, and developing new roles
Rather than replacing grief, these processes exist alongside one another. This oscillation reflects something many bereaved people already recognise: grief and life continue together, not in sequence.
Other contemporary approaches also emphasise continuing bonds, adaptation, and meaning-making rather than “completion” of grief.
You can explore these ideas further in our Grief Models Hub.
The impact of expecting stages
While the five stages model can provide a helpful starting point for understanding emotions after loss, it can also unintentionally create pressure.
People may feel they are:
- “stuck” in a particular stage
- grieving incorrectly
- or falling behind some imagined timeline
These interpretations can add confusion or self-criticism to an already difficult experience.
In reality, variation is not a sign of failure – it is part of how grief naturally works.
A more flexible way of understanding grief
Rather than thinking about grief as a series of stages to complete, it may be more helpful to think in terms of patterns and processes:
- Grief changes over time, but not in a predictable order
- Different emotional states can coexist
- Processing loss does not mean forgetting or “moving on”
- Adaptation may involve ongoing connection rather than separation
This perspective allows for a more compassionate understanding of grief — one that reflects the diversity of human experience.
Final reflections
The enduring popularity of the five stages of grief speaks to a very human need: to find structure in the face of loss. Frameworks can be helpful when they provide language and reassurance during difficult times.
However, when a model becomes an expectation, it can also limit how we understand ourselves and others.
Grief is not a process to be completed. It is an experience that evolves over time, shaped by relationships, context, and meaning.
At The Loss Foundation, we believe it is important to hold space for both ideas: that models can help us begin to understand grief, but they should never define or restrict it.
For more perspectives on how grief can be understood beyond the stages model, visit our Grief Models Hub.
