Beyond Instumental or Intuitive;

A New Look at GRIEFtype!

Lisa Prosser-Dodds, PhD Journeys, Santa Cruz CA

lisa@journeysgroup.org lisaprosserdodds.com 816-726-2332

Acknowledgments

• Dr. Terry Martin and Dr. Kenneth Doka

• Dr. Bob Neimeyer

• Dr. Holly Prigerson

• Dr. Nancy Hogan

• Dr. Louis Kavar, Dissertation Chair

Elisabeth Kubler-Ross wrote in her last book before she passed, or graduated, …. I got this wrong,

we’re more than stages, I am more than stages,

you are more than stages.

I agree.

Does our

personality type

influence the way we react

to the death of a loved one?

One Lens to view grief response . . .

Influential Factors in Grief Response

• Gender• Culture• Relationship to deceased• Nature of the death• Prior Losses• Emotional Maturity / Regulation

Worden (2009), Rando 1984, Sanders 1993, Martin and Doka (2010)

Grief Styles – Martin and Doka

• Instrumental: • Focus on cognition • Desire to master feelings • Problem solving orientation

• Intuitive:• Experience losses deeply - expressive• Gain strength from sharing with others• Less solving, more going with feelings

Ritual in Nature . . .

Personality Psychology of Carl Jung

Energy• Information

DecisionsApproach

Later Katherine and Isabel added

Personality as described by Jung

Extroversion

Introversion

Intuitiv

e

Sensor

Thinker

Feeler

Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator

ENFP

Type Dynamics

• Four Preferences ENFP–Attitude E –Mental Functions N and F

• Functional Pair–Approach P–Dominant NE

HOW does personality influence grief reaction?

What might EXTROVERTED SENSING FEELING

GRIEF look like?

What about Introverted Feeling Grief?

What do Intuitive Thinkers prefer in grief?

INTUITIVE FEELERS?

Introverted Feeling Sensors?

T-Shirt Reads:

LOOK at me still talking, when there is science to do!

4 volunteers Table covered with symbols

or metaphors for life.

Find three elements to create a symbolic

Grief CENTERPIECE

Be ready to share with group

Test the Theory . . .

Empirical Evidence

• Which part of personality will most impact grief response / reaction?

• Attitude E / I

• Functional Pair (ST, NT, SF, NF)

• Dominant Function

Se, Ne, Te, Fe, Si, Ni, Ti, Fi

Expected Outcomes

Grief responses will be significantly different between groups with

differing MBTI personality types.

AnalysisThe Study . . .

1. Large Metropolitan Memorial Chapel in Midwest, bereavement clients.

2. Faith Community in Northeast United States.

3. Researcher’s attendees at seminars across the country on EQ.

Participating Sites

Assessments

• Myers Briggs Personality Type IndicatorConsulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 1998

• Hogan Grief Reaction ChecklistHogan, Greenfield, and Schmidt (2001)

• Grief Pattern InventoryMartin & Doka, 2010

• Prolonged Grief 13– Prigerson & Maciejewski (2008)

• Integration of Stressful Life Events Scale (ISLES)Holland, Currier, Coleman and Neimeyer. First edition 2009

Recruitment and Retention

• 856 Letters mailed• 435 emails sent

• 532 persons logged on to website• 407 completed qualifying questions

• 317 qualified• 271 completed the survey• 32 did not complete MBTI

• 239 completed HOGAN and ISLES• 234 completed PG13 and GPI

Results

• Sample demographicsGender n %Females 191 70

Males 80 30

Age Range    

24-30 24 9

31-40 41 15

41-50 54 20

51-60 95 35

61-70 46 17

71 and over 11 4

Ethnicity    

White 254 94

Hispanic 4 1

Black 9 3

Hawaiian 1 <1

Other 3 1

N = 271    

Myers Briggs Population

Attitude n % in sample % in population

Extraversion 124 51.9 45-53

Introversion 115 48.1 47-55

Total 239 100

n %

ST 60 25.1

SF 61 25.5

NT 41 17.2

NF 77 32.2

Total 239 100.0

Dominant n %Ne 40 16.7Se 28 11.7Te 23 9.6Fe 33 13.8Ni 25 10.5Si 41 17.1Ti 17 7.2Fi 32 13.4 239 100

Outcomes

Extraverted vs Introverted – very few significant differences.

Dominant Preferences – no significant differences.

Functional Pairs – significant, robust differences on all measures and subscales.

Significant Outcomes

Hogan outcomes by Functional Pair Despair Personal Growth Detachment Disorganization

ST 16.00 35.02 12.12 12.07

SF 16.50 39.67 12.64 12.34

NT 14.37 39.98 10.37 10.51

NF 17.72 39.61 13.61 13.33

Significant outcomesISLES subscales

ISLES Footing in the World

ISLES Comprehensibility

ST 20.17 9.45

SF 22.38 10.92

NT 17.37 7.58

NF 22.03 10.94

Significant outcomesGPI*

IntuitiveST 25.00SF 29.32NT 25.88NF 29.84

* Working with Terry Martin on continued validity of the instrument.

Surprising News . . . Only one participant out of 234 scored

as qualifying for prolonged grief. This is a result that bears further scrutiny, and suggests a considerable examination of the instrument and the use as a diagnostic tool. Perhaps more study on normed populations for prolonged grief is indicated. Surprising outcome: PG13 (>.5%)

Questions or Comments. . .

Full dissertation will be available on Sunday at lisaprosserdodds.com

Next step. . .

September 18, 2012ADEC Webinar Beyond Intuitive and Instrumental

Book:

My Grief, My Way A guide for clinicians to understand

individual grief type differences.