1. Beyond Instumental or Intuitive; A New Look at GRIEFtype!
Lisa Prosser-Dodds, PhD
Journeys, Santa Cruz CA
lisaprosserdodds.com

2. Acknowledgments Dr. Terry Martin and Dr. Kenneth Doka Dr. Bob Neimeyer
Dr. Holly Prigerson
Dr. Nancy Hogan
Dr. Louis Kavar, Dissertation Chair

3. 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.

4. One Lens to view grief response . . .
Does our personality type influence the way we react to the death of a loved one?
One Lens to view grief response . . .

5. 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)

6. 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

13. Ritual in Nature . . .

15. Personality Psychology of Carl Jung
Energy
Information
Decisions
Approach
Later Katherine and Isabel added

16. Personality as described by Jung
Sensor
Extroversion
Intuitive
Thinker
Introversion
Feeler

17. Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator
ENFP

18. Type Dynamics Four Preferences ENFP Attitude E
Mental Functions N and F
Functional Pair
Approach P
Dominant NE

19. HOW does personality influence grief reaction?
What might EXTROVERTED SENSING FEELING GRIEF look like?

20. What about Introverted Feeling Grief?

21. What do Intuitive Thinkers prefer in grief?

22. INTUITIVE FEELERS?

23. Introverted Feeling Sensors?

24. T-Shirt Reads:
LOOK at me still talking,
when there is science to do!

25. Beyond Intuitive and Instrumental - Lisa Prosser-Dodds
Test the Theory . . .
Beyond Intuitive and Instrumental - Lisa Prosser-Dodds
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

26. 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

27. Expected Outcomes
Grief responses will be significantly different between groups with differing MBTI personality types.

28. Analysis
The Study . . .

29. Participating Sites
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.

30. 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

31. Recruitment and Retention
856 Letters mailed
435 s 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

32. Results Sample demographics Gender 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 1
Black 3
Hawaiian
<1
Other
N = 271

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

34. Outcomes
Extraverted vs Introverted – very few significant differences. Dominant Preferences – no significant differences. Functional Pairs – significant, robust differences on all measures and subscales.

35. Hogan outcomes by Functional Pair
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

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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%)

39. Questions or Comments. . .
Full dissertation will be available on Sunday at lisaprosserdodds.com

40. 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.