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?
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
Personality Psychology of Carl Jung
Energy
• Information
Decisions
Approach
Later Katherine and Isabel added
Personality as described by Jung
Sensor
Extroversion
Thinker
Introversion
Feeler
Myers Briggs Personality
Type Indicator
Type Dynamics
• Four Preferences
–Attitude
–Mental Functions
ENFP
E
N and F
• Functional Pair
–Approach
–Dominant
P
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!
Test the Theory . . .
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
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.
Analysis
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.
Assessments
• Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator
Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc. 1998
• Hogan Grief Reaction Checklist
Hogan, Greenfield, and Schmidt (2001)
• Grief Pattern Inventory
Martin & 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 demographics
Gender
Females
n
191
%
70
Males
80
30
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
White
254
94
Hispanic
4
1
Black
9
3
Hawaiian
1
<1
Other
3
1
Age Range
Ethnicity
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
Ne
Se
Te
Fe
Ni
Si
Ti
Fi
n
40
28
23
33
25
41
17
32
239
%
16.7
11.7
9.6
13.8
10.5
17.1
7.2
13.4
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 outcomes
ISLES 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 outcomes
GPI*
Intuitive
ST
25.00
SF
29.32
NT
25.88
NF
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, 2012
ADEC Webinar
Beyond Intuitive and Instrumental
Book:
My Grief, My Way
A guide for clinicians to understand
individual grief type differences.