Beyond Instumental or Intuitive A New Look at

Beyond Instumental or Intuitive; A New Look at GRIEFtype! Lisa Prosser-Dodds, Ph. D 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 e v i t i Intu Thinker Introversion Feeler

Myers Briggs Personality Type Indicator ENFP

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 PG 13 and GPI

Results • Sample demographics Gender Females n 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 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. 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: PG 13 (>. 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.