LINEAR AND NON-LINEAR MODELS OF GRIEF: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Abstract

This article presents a comparative analysis of linear and non-linear models of grief. The study examines the Dual Process Model (M. Stroebe and H. Schut), the Two-Track Model (S. Rubin), the Range of Response to Loss (L. Machin), the Resilience Trajectories (G. Bonanno).

The primary advantages of non-linear models lie in their empirical evidence, individualized focus, and the normalization of positive emotional states. These models emphasize the acceptance of loss as an ongoing process rather than a final result, permitting the bypass of specific "stages" while allowing for their natural recurrence. Furthermore, they define the bereaved individual as an active agent. In contrast, the strengths of linear models are their structure and clarity, providing the bereaved with a sense of order and hope for the eventual conclusion of the grieving process.

The disadvantages of non-linear models include blurred boundaries and complexity, which can be difficult to comprehend during acute grief. Conversely, the primary drawbacks of linear models include a disregard for the individual specificities and the positioning of the bereaved as a passive observer. Within linear frameworks, the reappearance of certain emotional states may be misinterpreted as a "relapse" or "stagnation." Moreover, most linear models fail to account for the specific context of death or the unique characteristics of the relationship with the deceased.

The evolution of psychological assistance reflects an epistemological shift from unified stage-based models toward non-linear approaches that recognize the uniqueness of experience. The contemporary paradigm reconceptualizes loss as a dynamic process of meaning reconstruction and identity integration, thereby legitimizing the variability of reactions and the maintenance of continuing bonds with the deceased.