Resilience Through Loss: Transforming Grief into Growth—A Narrative Review

Khadija Kamene
Mount Kenya University, Mombasa, Kenya
Correspondence to: Khadija Kamene, hadijashah@yahoo.com

DOI:  https://doi.org/10.70389/PJP.100010

Additional information

• Ethical approval: N/a
• Consent: N/a
• Funding: No industry funding
• Conflicts of interest: N/a
• Author contribution: Khadija Kamene – Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, review and editing
• Guarantor: Khadija Kamene
• Provenance and peer-review: Unsolicited and externally peer-reviewed
• Data availability statement: N/a

Keywords: Post-traumatic growth, Meaning reconstruction, Dual process model of bereavement, Continuing bonds theory, Prolonged grief disorder.

Peer Review
Received: 25 July 2025
Last revised: 2 September 2025
Accepted: 4 September 2025
Version accepted: 5
Published: 25 September 2025

Plain Language Summary Infographic

Introduction

Grief is a universal but diverse response to loss, encompassing emotional, cognitive, physical, behavioral, social, cultural, spiritual, and philosophical dimensions.¹ While it is often framed primarily as an emotional experience, grief represents a complex process that challenges identity, disrupts meaning, and alters daily functioning.² In most cases, grief is adaptive and gradually integrates into a person’s life, but for some, it becomes prolonged and disabling. Prolonged grief disorder (PGD), now formally recognized in the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11, captures this clinical trajectory, characterized by persistent yearning, difficulty accepting the death, identity disturbance, and functional impairment lasting beyond 6 months.³ Over time, research on grief has shifted from a focus on pathology and symptom reduction toward an emphasis on adaptation, resilience, and the potential for growth. Resilience, defined as the capacity to adapt and regain stability after loss, involves both internal resources (e.g., emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility) and external supports.² Importantly, resilience does not negate grief but enables individuals to endure its pain while reconstructing stability and meaning.

Alongside resilience, scholars have increasingly recognized that grief can lead to positive psychological transformation, conceptualized as posttraumatic growth (PTG). PTG refers to enduring positive change that arises from the struggle with profoundly stressful life events. Common domains include deepened appreciation for life, strengthened relationships, expanded personal strengths, recognition of new possibilities, and spiritual growth.⁴ While once considered largely subjective, recent critiques argue for a more rigorous conceptualization of PTG as genuine personality change, rather than solely cognitive reframing.⁵ Understanding how individuals move from loss to resilience and, for some, to growth is central to counseling and psychotherapy. Grief counseling must not only support the alleviation of distress but also facilitate meaning-making and resilience processes that can transform grief into a foundation for growth. This narrative review therefore examines the psychological and contextual mechanisms that shape this transformation, integrating classical and contemporary models to propose an integrative framework for practice.

Methodology

This study adopted a narrative review approach to synthesize psychological, social, cultural, and spiritual perspectives on grief and growth. A narrative methodology was selected because it permits integration of diverse theoretical and empirical sources beyond the narrower scope of systematic reviews. In line with TITAN (2025) ethical guidelines, AI tools were used in a limited and supervised capacity for citation management and keyword mapping.⁶ All screening, thematic coding, and synthesis were performed manually by the researcher to ensure validity and accountability.

Searches were conducted between March 1 and 25, 2025, across PsycINFO, PubMed, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, using Boolean search strings such as (“grief” OR “bereavement” OR “mourning”) AND (“posttraumatic growth” OR “meaning reconstruction”); (“cultural grieving practices” OR “mourning rituals”) AND (“spirituality” OR “religiosity”); and (“resilience” OR “adaptation”) AND (“loss” OR “bereavement”). Searches were limited to English-language publications from 2000 to 2025, and reference lists of key papers were also hand-searched for additional sources. The initial search identified 412 records; after removing 93 duplicates, 319 records remained for title and abstract screening. Of these, 174 were excluded for lack of relevance to grief or growth, leaving 145 full texts for review. A final set of 46 studies was retained for synthesis. Exclusion criteria included limited conceptual depth, a purely physiological focus, or the absence of growth-related content (Figure 1).

Inclusion criteria: Peer-reviewed works in English (2000–2025) addressing emotional, cognitive, spiritual, or cultural aspects of grief and growth. Exclusion criteria: Purely physiological focus, insufficient conceptual depth, or lack of relevance to adaptation, resilience, or meaning-making. Gray literature (e.g., theses and community reports) was selectively included when offering unique cultural insights, documented separately, critically appraised, and weighted cautiously to mitigate bias. Although no formal appraisal tool (e.g., CASP and MMAT) was applied, all sources were assessed for scholarly rigor, conceptual clarity, and methodological transparency. This approach aligns with the review’s aim of synthesizing conceptual breadth rather than conducting a quantitative quality assessment. Data were synthesized through inductive thematic analysis. Two independent reviewers coded studies, resolving discrepancies through discussion and consensus, with an audit trail maintained. Four themes were identified: (a) grief models, (b) cultural mourning practices, (c) spirituality and meaning-making, and (d) resilience and transformation. A reflexivity statement was also maintained to acknowledge researcher positionalities in psychology and counseling.

Models and Theories of Grief

Several foundational theories have shaped the understanding of grief. Bowlby’s attachment theory and Parkes’ phase model describe grief as a natural response to disrupted bonds, unfolding through stages of shock, yearning, disorganization, and reorganization.^7,8 Kübler-Ross’s five stages—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—remain widely cited, offering a common language for grief reactions.⁹ Worden reframed grief as active work through four tasks: accepting the loss, processing pain, adjusting to a changed life, and maintaining enduring bonds.⁷ Building on this, Stroebe and Schut’s dual process model emphasizes oscillation between loss-oriented and restoration-oriented coping, capturing the dynamic balance between confronting and adapting.¹⁰ Continuing bonds theory further challenges earlier notions of detachment, highlighting the value of maintaining symbolic, spiritual, or relational ties to the deceased.^11,12 Finally, Neimeyer’s meaning reconstruction model positions grief as a disruption of one’s assumptive world, with healing dependent on sense-making, benefit-finding, and identity reorientation.¹³

Integrative Implications

The evolution from early attachment-based and stage models toward more dynamic, constructivist, and relational frameworks reflects a growing appreciation of the complexity and individuality of grief. While the Parkes/Bowlby and Kübler-Ross models laid critical groundwork, contemporary models such as the dual process model, meaning reconstruction, and continuing bonds theory offer greater flexibility and cultural responsiveness. Moreover, stylistic typologies such as the intuitive, instrumental framework enhance the personalization of grief care, which is particularly salient in clinical, multicultural, and trauma-informed contexts. Together, these models collectively contribute to a multidimensional understanding of grief, one that transcends pathology to recognize the potential for resilience, adaptation, and transformation in the aftermath of profound loss (see Table 1, summarizing major grief models across theoretical origins, structural features, and clinical applications). It reflects a trajectory from early stage-based models to dynamic, culturally inclusive frameworks.

Table 1: Summary of key grief models and theories.
Model/Theory	Key Contributors	Core Concept	Structure	Clinical Implication
Attachment theory/phases of grief	Bowlby and Parkes	Grief as disruption of attachment; adaptive mourning unfolds in phases	Four phases: shock, yearning/searching, disorganization, and recovery	Grief seen as a biologically rooted emotional regulation process
Five stages of grief	Kübler-Ross	Universal emotional responses to impending or actual loss	Five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance	Intuitively useful; risk of misapplying as linear or prescriptive
Tasks of mourning	Worden	Grief involves active tasks of adjustment and meaning-making	Four tasks: accept the loss, process the pain, adjust to life without the deceased, and find an enduring connection	Emphasizes personal agency and nonlinear adaptation
Dual process model	Stroebe and Schut	Coping involves oscillating between grief-related and restorative activities	Dual orientation + oscillation	Encourages emotional flexibility and adaptive balance
Continuing bonds theory	Klass et al.; Walter	Ongoing inner connection to deceased is normal and healthy	Nonlinear, relational	Supports rituals, spiritual practice, and culturally diverse mourning
Meaning reconstruction	Neimeyer	Grief challenges assumptive world; healing through narrative and identity work	Three processes: sense-making, benefit-finding, and identity reconstruction	Promotes narrative therapy and existential exploration
Intuitive–instrumental styles	Martin and Doka	Individual grief expression varies by style (emotional vs. cognitive/active)	Continuum (not stages)	Validates diverse grieving styles; avoids gender/pathology bias

Cultural Variations in Grief

Grief is universal, but its expression, meaning, and trajectory are profoundly shaped by cultural frameworks. While emotions such as sadness and yearning occur across societies, their manifestation is mediated by sociocultural, religious, and historical contexts that define appropriate responses and pathways to healing. Stroebe and Schut¹⁴ note that dominant Western grief models rooted in individualistic, psychodynamic traditions often emphasize emotional catharsis, psychological autonomy, and linear detachment. Theories such as Kübler-Ross’s stages or Worden’s tasks may not align with collectivist or non-Western values, which prioritize communal mourning, relational continuity, and ritualized remembrance. In many cultures, ongoing bonds with the deceased through offerings, ancestor worship, dreams, or annual ceremonies are adaptive, not pathological.

Rosenblatt^15,16 critiques the ethnocentric assumptions in mainstream grief theory, highlighting how cultural scripts shape both the content and timing of emotional expression. Some societies encourage overt sorrow, for instance, ritual wailing in parts of Africa and the Middle East, while others valorize restraint as a mark of dignity. Cultural idioms of distress, such as somatic symptoms in Asian, African, and Latin American contexts, challenge Western psychiatric taxonomies and may be misdiagnosed if assessed without cultural context. This is especially relevant to PGD in the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11. Hilberdink et al.¹⁷ caution that these criteria may pathologize normative long-term mourning and continuing bonds. Practices like speaking to the dead or seeking their guidance, common in many communities, can serve adaptive, integrative functions. Diagnostic tools require greater ethnocultural validity, particularly in the Global South, where grief is intertwined with collective trauma and spiritual cosmologies.

Structural inequalities and historical trauma further complicate bereavement in marginalized groups, blurring lines between normative and pathological grief. Western-only interventions risk epistemic harm if they invalidate indigenous mourning practices. While the dual process model allows cultural flexibility, it may require adaptation for contexts that do not conceptualize grief in binary terms. Clinically, this underscores the need for cultural humility, ongoing self-reflection, openness to other epistemologies, and recognition of one’s own cultural limits.¹³ Grief care should be contextually grounded, responsive to indigenous knowledge, and inclusive of diverse ontologies of personhood, death, and relational continuity. Table 2 shows comparative dimensions of Western and non-Western grief frameworks, illustrating differences in orientation, temporality, expression, and approaches to meaning-making and pathology.

Table 2: Western and non-western grief frameworks across key dimensions.
Dimension	Western Frameworks (e.g., Kübler-Ross and DSM categories)	Non-Western Frameworks (e.g., Confucian, Indigenous, African, and Buddhist)
Orientation	Individual-centered (focus on personal stages/emotions)	Communal/relational (focus on family, ancestors, community balance)
Temporality	Linear progression through “stages” or “tasks”	Cyclical, ongoing connection with the deceased; grief not always “resolved”
Goal of Grief	Acceptance, closure, return to “normalcy”	Integration of loss into life, sustaining bonds with ancestors/spirits
Expression	Verbal expression, therapy, ritual minimized	Ritualized mourning practices, symbolic acts, collective ceremonies
Authority/Validation	Professional expertise (psychologists, psychiatrists)	Communal elders, spiritual leaders, cultural traditions
Pathology	Risk of medicalization (e.g., prolonged grief disorder)	Grief not easily pathologized; prolonged mourning may be normative
Meaning-Making	Individual meaning reconstruction	Spiritual, ancestral, or cosmological meaning frameworks

Understanding Resilience in the Context of Loss

Resilience has become central in bereavement research as an alternative to deficit-based models equating grief with prolonged impairment. It is now viewed as a multidimensional construct encompassing both dispositional traits and dynamic processes that enable adaptation after loss.^18,19 Mancini and Bonanno’s⁷ individual differences model identifies distinct postloss trajectories of resilient, recovery, chronic grief, and delayed distress, emphasizing that resilience is more common than traditionally assumed. Protective factors include positive affect, emotion regulation, secure attachment, self-efficacy, low neuroticism, and a stable sense of meaning. Trait-based perspectives frame resilience as enduring personality characteristics such as optimism and hardiness, which predict lower reactivity to stress.²⁰ Process-oriented models see resilience as evolving through coping, meaning-making, and supportive relationships, even without strong preexisting traits.¹⁹

Kuldas and Foody’s²¹ transactional model integrates both views, situating resilience within reciprocal exchanges between individuals and sociocultural environments. In bereavement, adaptive capacity may be reconstructed through communal rituals, spiritual practices, and cultural narratives.²² Lyons and Schatzberg²³ add a psychobiological dimension, linking resilience to stress regulation, neuroplasticity, and the buffering effects of spiritual belief systems. Recent reviews²² advocate for pluralistic frameworks recognizing resilience as both a stable capacity and a fluctuating process shaped by individual, social, and cultural resources. This integrative perspective supports interventions that are strengths-based, contextually sensitive, and tailored to diverse grieving pathways.

Factors Influencing Resilience: An Integrative and Contextual Perspective

Resilience, the capacity to adapt positively to adversity, is best understood as a dynamic, context-dependent process shaped by personality, coping, social resources, spirituality, and structural conditions.^24–26 Rather than a fixed trait, it evolves through ongoing interaction between internal dispositions and external environments.

1. Personality Traits. Protective characteristics such as emotional stability, self-efficacy, conscientiousness, optimism, and an internal locus of control foster adaptive coping by reducing dysregulation and supporting proactive engagement.^24,25
2. Coping and Flexibility. Problem-solving, cognitive restructuring, and task-oriented strategies predict resilient outcomes, whereas suppression or avoidance undermines them. Flexibility, the ability to adjust, coping to situational demands, is particularly protective. Among displaced populations, reappraisal, social support seeking, and spiritual reliance enhance adjustment, while substance use or suppression worsen outcomes.^25–27
3. Social Support. Close relationships and community ties consistently buffer grief and trauma, with perceived quality of support often more influential than its quantity.^24,27
4. Spirituality. Spiritual and existential beliefs provide coherence, continuity, and hope. Rituals such as prayer, meditation, and communal remembrance reinforce resilience, especially in displaced or marginalized communities.^26,27
5. Structural Factors. Access to education, healthcare, housing, and sociopolitical stability strongly shape resilience trajectories. Age, gender, and exposure to violence further influence outcomes. Integrative models suggest that personality affects coping strategies, while social and cultural resources exert both direct and moderating effects, echoing biopsychosocial perspectives.²⁵

Mechanisms of Growth After Grief: An Integrative Framework

Although grief often entails emotional pain and existential rupture, it can also catalyze transformation. Research in psychotherapy, qualitative studies, and spiritual psychology identifies several mechanisms through which PTG emerges.

1. Meaning-Making. Bereavement disrupts core assumptions, prompting efforts to restore coherence.^28,29 Pathways include narrative reauthoring, symbolic rituals, spiritual reframing, and collective remembrance.^30–32
2. Narrative Identity. Loss destabilizes autobiographical continuity. “Innovative moments” in therapy or reflection, where individuals reframe loss or reclaim agency, support identity reconstruction. Continuing bonds with the deceased foster coherence and purpose.^28,33
3. Cognitive Flexibility and Mindfulness. Nonavoidant awareness, decentering, and positive reappraisal reduce rumination and support adaptive meaning-making. Embodied practices such as meditation, yoga, or breathwork enhance emotional regulation.³⁴
4. Adaptive Coping. Flexible strategies balancing expression and problem-solving predict resilience, while active engagement through journaling, therapy, or reflection reduces isolation.²
5. Spirituality. Spiritual intelligence encompassing transcendence, self-compassion, and faith-based meaning reframes suffering as insight, provides ritual closure, and fosters enduring bonds with the deceased.^35,36
6. Social Support. Safe, supportive relationships enable shared meaning-making. Rituals, storytelling, and collective remembrance reinforce belonging, with perceived quality of support often more predictive than frequency.^2,29,32
7. Therapy. CBT, meaning reconstruction therapy, and narrative or emotion-focused approaches help revise maladaptive stories, reclaim agency, and integrate loss, with therapists acting as coauthors in identity transformation.³⁵
8. Purpose Reformation. Many bereaved individuals reevaluate priorities, deepen compassion, and pursue advocacy, caregiving, or spiritual engagement, illustrating grief’s capacity to foster resilience and values-based living.

When Grief Does Not Lead to Growth

While PTG following bereavement has gained increasing attention, grief does not universally yield transformation. Under certain conditions, it can become complicated, prolonged, or disruptive, undermining the cognitive and relational mechanisms necessary for adaptation. Historically, societies have long recognized the dangers of unresolved grief. Verma³⁷ notes that as early as the seventeenth century, physicians documented cases in which grief contributed to chronic illness and even death. In many traditional cultures, mourning that exceeded prescribed ritual periods was regarded as maladaptive, jeopardizing both individual well-being and communal stability. Without culturally sanctioned rituals or social support, persistent grief was associated with melancholia, hysteria, and what later came to be described as “broken heart syndrome.”

Contemporary research frames patterns such as complicated grief (CG) as a chronic, intense, and debilitating form of bereavement that significantly disrupts meaning-making and identity reorganization.¹³ Marked by persistent yearning, disbelief, intrusive thoughts, and emotional numbness, CG blocks acceptance of the loss, fragments identity, and drains emotional resources. Currier et al.³⁸ describe this condition as an “existential paralysis,” in which integration of the loss remains inaccessible. Multiple social, cultural, and psychological barriers can contribute to this disruption. Stigmatized losses, such as suicide, overdose, or AIDS, often lead to disenfranchised grief, in which mourners feel judged or excluded from communal mourning.³⁷ Similarly, the absence of meaningful rituals—exacerbated during public health crises—deprives individuals of symbolic closure. Cumulative or traumatic losses may overwhelm integration capacity, producing emotional shutdown, while environments that dismiss or minimize grief reinforce suppression and elevate risks of depression, psychosomatic symptoms, and identity disturbance. Preexisting vulnerabilities, such as insecure attachment or unresolved trauma, further heighten susceptibility, particularly in ambiguous loss where the fate of the deceased remains unknown.³²

Emotional dysregulation compounds these challenges. Cycles of emotional flooding and numbing impair regulation, reduce cognitive flexibility, and inhibit engagement with support systems. Traumatic loss can also shatter fundamental beliefs about fairness, safety, and the predictability of life.¹³ When families or communities respond with rigidity or emotional withdrawal, opportunities for collaborative meaning-making diminish, further reinforcing isolation.³⁹ Finally, grief may fracture spiritual frameworks that otherwise serve as sources of resilience. While spirituality often provides coherence and hope, certain losses can provoke spiritual despair or alienation, particularly when death contradicts core theological assumptions. In such cases, faith may intensify suffering rather than alleviate it, underscoring the need for nuanced, culturally sensitive, and adaptive spiritual care.

Conceptual Framework

The grief-to-growth framework illustrates how bereavement can lead to divergent outcomes depending on the interplay of psychological, social, cultural, and spiritual factors. The model begins with loss as a destabilizing event that disrupts identity, meaning structures, and relational bonds. From this disruption, individuals may follow two broad pathways: stalled integration, in which grief becomes complicated, prolonged, or disenfranchised, resulting in emotional paralysis, social withdrawal, or spiritual despair; or transformative adaptation, in which meaning is gradually reconstructed, identity is reformulated, and personal, relational, and cultural resources are mobilized to foster resilience and growth.

Growth is facilitated through several mechanisms, including meaning-making that reframes loss through narrative, ritual, or spirituality; narrative identity repair that integrates loss into one’s life story while maintaining continuing bonds; emotional regulation and coping flexibility that balance expression with containment;³⁸ relational support and collective rituals that provide validation and symbolic closure; and spiritual or existential transcendence that transforms suffering into deeper insight, connection, or purpose. The framework emphasizes cultural mediation, noting that Western grief paradigms often prioritize individual emotional processing, while non-Western traditions foreground communal rituals, ancestral continuity, and collective meaning-making. Ultimately, growth is conceptualized not as the denial of suffering but as the capacity to integrate loss into a reconfigured sense of self and purpose, highlighting that resilience is socially and culturally scaffolded, and that growth emerges through iterative cycles of disruption, meaning reconstruction, and renewed engagement with life (Figure 2).⁴⁰

Therapeutic and Public Health Implications

Trauma-informed, culturally attuned interventions such as narrative therapy, meaning-centered grief work, CBT, and family systems approaches can help restore agency and collective coping.⁴¹ Public health efforts must address collective trauma and integrate culturally grounded mourning practices. PTG should be seen as possible but not inevitable; grief trajectories vary according to personal, relational, and structural conditions.^42,43

Challenges and Critiques

While PTG and resilience are often valorized, research cautions against promoting positivity as a universal path to healing. In certain contexts, cultural and institutional pressures foster toxic positivity—the invalidation of authentic grief through prescriptive demands for optimism, strength, and rapid recovery.⁴⁴ This dynamic is especially evident in workplaces, where bereaved individuals may feel compelled to perform composure and productivity, masking their pain and internalizing shame for not “bouncing back” quickly.⁴⁵ Framing loss solely as an opportunity for growth can marginalize authentic mourning, particularly in professional or public settings. Such reframing risks romanticizing growth, discouraging vulnerability, and disregarding the nonlinear nature of healing. In mental healthcare, enforced optimism may silence expressions of despair, undermine therapeutic alliance, and foster self-blame when recovery does not follow a steady trajectory.⁴⁶

Public narratives of resilience often valorize visible strength while stigmatizing ongoing grief or anxiety, leaving those with cyclical recovery patterns feeling alienated and less likely to seek support.⁴⁷ In caregiving professions, positivity can even become institutionalized, discouraging open discussion of burnout or vicarious trauma.⁴⁴ Emotional distress is too often reframed as personal weakness, masking structural contributors to suffering and placing the burden of recovery on the individual alone. Compassion-centered and trauma-informed approaches offer an essential alternative. By normalizing fluctuation, validating diverse grief responses, and resisting simplistic binaries that equate strength with suppression, such models foster environments of safety and authenticity. Here, resilience is reframed not as the absence of suffering but as the capacity to remain connected, supported, and engaged in the ongoing work of healing.

Methodological and Theoretical Debates

Research on grief, resilience, and PTG is shaped by persistent methodological and theoretical tensions. A key critique is that dominant frameworks, such as Tedeschi and Calhoun’s, are rooted in Western, individualistic assumptions that privilege personal agency, cognitive reframing, and linear recovery, while downplaying relational, communal, and spiritual dimensions of loss. This limits their cultural applicability.⁴² Empirically, much of the literature relies on cross-sectional designs, retrospective self-reports, and structured questionnaires that risk oversimplifying grief’s nonlinear, cyclical, and often ambiguous nature. Such methods tend to foreground narratives of growth and coherence, while underrepresenting prolonged distress, regression, or narrative fragmentation.48 Even interpretive phenomenological analysis, as Wilson demonstrates, may favor participants able to construct coherent accounts—excluding those whose trauma disrupts memory, language, or temporal continuity.

Institutional and cultural pressures to “show resilience,” particularly in academic or workplace contexts, can also shape how participants present their experiences, introducing response bias and skewing findings toward socially desirable, optimistic outcomes.⁴⁹ This reinforces concerns that the grief literature may overstate transformation while underreporting complexity. Finally, theories that valorize growth risk pathologize other coping modes, such as withdrawal, emotional containment, or acceptance of fragmentation. A more reflexive, culturally attuned approach is needed, one that validates diverse grief trajectories, accepts nonlinear recovery, and critically examines the sociopolitical and institutional forces shaping emotional life.

Limitations

This review adopted a narrative rather than a systematic approach, which, while allowing for breadth and conceptual integration across psychological, cultural, and spiritual perspectives, also introduces certain limitations. The absence of a formal systematic protocol means that some relevant studies may have been inadvertently excluded, raising the possibility of selection bias. Furthermore, reliance on the authors’ interpretive synthesis may reflect subjective framing influenced by disciplinary background. Consequently, while the themes identified provide valuable insights into grief and growth, the findings should be interpreted as exploratory and illustrative rather than exhaustive or definitive.

Conclusion

Grief, while often marked by profound sorrow and disorientation, is increasingly recognized as a process that can foster resilience, personal transformation, and posttraumatic growth. This review has synthesized key theoretical and empirical perspectives on grief, from attachment-based and stage models to constructivist and culturally embedded frameworks, revealing a shift from linear, pathology-driven interpretations toward multidimensional, meaning-centered understandings. Central to this transformation is the role of resilience, both as an internal capacity and as shaped by social, cultural, and spiritual resources. Furthermore, the literature affirms that grief is not a singular trajectory but a fluid, heterogeneous experience, with continuing bonds and narrative reconstruction offering avenues for healing and integration.

Despite these advances, notable gaps remain in the grief literature. First, cross-cultural studies are still limited in scope and often framed through Western-centric paradigms that risk marginalizing non-Western mourning practices. The nuanced roles of collectivism, ancestral relationships, and spiritual cosmologies demand deeper ethnographic and interdisciplinary inquiry. Second, gendered experiences of grief, particularly how men and women may differently express or suppress mourning due to cultural and social norms, require greater attention, especially in relation to instrumental and intuitive grieving styles. Third, lifespan perspectives are underexplored; the ways in which children, adolescents, middle-aged adults, and the elderly experience and make meaning of grief may differ substantially, yet research often generalizes across age groups without adequate developmental sensitivity.

Future research should prioritize culturally grounded, intersectional, and lifespan-oriented methodologies that capture the diversity of grief experiences. Longitudinal studies that investigate the stability and evolution of posttraumatic growth, including its distinction from perceived growth, would further clarify the transformative potential of loss. Clinically, grief-informed care must move beyond symptom management to embrace approaches that support narrative healing, ritual expression, and culturally congruent meaning-making. By honoring the complexity and humanity of grieving, clinicians and researchers alike can contribute to a more compassionate, inclusive, and growth-oriented understanding of loss.

References

1. Ren S. Love, grief, and resilience. Philosophies. 2023;8(4):74. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies8040074
2. Zalli E. Grief and resilience: finding strength and growth through the grieving process. Nor J Dev Int Sci. 2024;128:48–55. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203487907-10
3. Margoob M, Firdosi M, Katshu MZUH. Prolonged grief disorder: vulnerability and resilience. Front Psychiatry. 2024;15:1387937. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1387937
4. Henson C, Truchot D, Canevello A. What promotes post-traumatic growth? A systematic review. Eur J Trauma Dis. 2021;5(4):100195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2020.100195
5. Jayawickreme E, Infurna FJ, Alajak K, Blackie LE, Chopik WJ, Chung JM, et al. Post-traumatic growth as positive personality change: challenges, opportunities, and recommendations. J Personal. 2021;89(1):145–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12591
6. Agha RA, Mathew G, Rashid R, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, Sohrabi C, et al. Transparency in the reporting of artificial intelligence – the TITAN guideline. Prem J Sci. 2025;10:100082. https://doi.org/10.70389/pjs.100083
7. Parkes CM. Traditional models and theories of grief. Bereave Care. 1998;17(2):21–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/02682629808657433
8. Page T. Attachment theory and social work treatment. In: Turner FJ, editor. Social work treatment: interlocking theoretical approaches. Vol. 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18084/1084-7219.22.1.159
9. Avis KA, Stroebe M, Schut H. Stages of grief portrayed on the internet: a systematic analysis and critical appraisal. Front Psychol. 2021;12:772696. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.772696
10. Schut MSH. The dual process model of coping with bereavement: rationale and description. Death Studies. 1999;23(3):197–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/074811899201046
11. Walter T. Mourners and mediums. Theology. 2007;110(854):92–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040571×0711000203
12. Stroebe M, Schut H, Boerner K. Continuing bonds in adaptation to bereavement: toward theoretical integration. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30(2):259–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.007
13. Neimeyer RA, Bottomley JS, Bellet BW. Growing through grief: when loss is complicated. In: Doka KJ, Tucci AS, editors. Transforming loss: finding potential for growth. Hospice Foundation of America; 2018. p. 95–111.
14. Stroebe M, Schut H. Culture and grief. Bereave Care. 1998;17(1):7–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/02682629808657425
15. Rosenblatt PC. Cross-cultural variation in the experience, expression, and understanding of grief. In: Irish DP, Lundquist KF, Nelsen VJ, editors. Ethnic variations in dying, death and grief. Taylor & Francis; 2014. p. 13–9. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315798547
16. Rosenblatt PC. Family grief in cross-cultural perspective. Fam Sci. 2013;4(1):12–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/19424620.2013.819226
17. Hilberdink CE, Ghainder K, Dubanchet A, Hinton D, Djelantik AMJ, Hall BJ, et al. Bereavement issues and prolonged grief disorder: a global perspective. Camb Prisms Glob Ment Health. 2023;10:e32. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2023.28
18. Jacelon CS. The trait and process of resilience. J Adv Nurs. 1997;25(1):123–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025123.x
19. Leys C, Arnal C, Wollast R, Rolin H, Kotsou I, Fossion P. Perspectives on resilience: personality trait or skill? Eur J Trauma Diss. 2020;4(2):100074. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2018.07.002
20. Blanke ES, Schmiedek F, Siebert S, Richter D, Brose A. Perspectives on resilience: trait resilience, correlates of resilience in daily life, and longer-term change in affective distress. StressHealth. 2023;39(1):59–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.3164
21. Kuldas S, Foody M. Neither resiliency-trait nor resilience-state: transactional resiliency/e. Youth Soc. 2022;54(8):1352–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118×211029309
22. Grygorenko Z, Naydonova G. The concept of “resilience”: history of formation and approaches to definition. Pub Admin Law Rev. 2023;2:76–88. https://doi.org/10.36690/2674-5216-2023-2-76-88
23. Lyons DM, Schatzberg AF. Resilience as a process instead of a trait. In: Chen A, editor. Stress resilience. London: Academic Press; 2020. p. 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-813983-7.00003-3
24. Alonso-Tapia J, Rodríguez-Rey R, Garrido-Hernansaiz H, Ruiz M, Nieto C. Coping, personality and resilience: prediction of subjective resilience from coping strategies and protective personality factors. Behav Psychol Psicol Conduct. 2019;27(3):375–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/t77991-000
25. Villasana M, Alonso-Tapia J, Ruiz M. Coping processes and personality factors as predictors of resilience in adolescent students: validation of a structural model. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English ed.). 2017;22(2):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psicoe.2017.05.002
26. Pahwa S, Khan N. Factors affecting emotional resilience in adults. Manag Lab Stud. 2022;47(2):216–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0258042×211072935
27. Rizzi D, Ciuffo G, Landoni M, Mangiagalli M, Ionio C. Psychological and environmental factors influencing resilience among Ukrainian refugees and internally displaced persons: a systematic review of coping strategies and risk and protective factors. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1266125. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1266125
28. Neimeyer RA. Re-storying loss: fostering growth in the posttraumatic narrative. In: Calhoun LG, Tedeschi RG, editors. Handbook of posttraumatic growth. New York: Routledge; 2014. p. 68–80.
29. Tan J, Andriessen K. The experiences of grief and personal growth in university students: a qualitative study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):1899. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041899
30. Valentine C. Meaning-making in bereavement and grief. Bereave Care. 2019;38(1):42–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02682621.2019.1587850
31. Delgado H, Goergen J, Tyler J, Windham H. A loss by suicide: the relationship between meaning-making, post-traumatic growth, and complicated grief. Omega (Westport). 2023:302228231193184. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228231193184
32. Michael C, Cooper M. Post-traumatic growth following bereavement: a systematic review of the literature. Counsel Psychol Rev. 2013;28(4):18–33. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpscpr.2013.28.4.18
33. Alves D, Fernández-Navarro P, Baptista J, Ribeiro E, Sousa I, Gonçalves MM. Innovative moments in grief therapy: the meaning reconstruction approach and the processes of self-narrative transformation. Psychother Res. 2014;24(1):25–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503307.2013.814927
34. Williams H, Skalisky J, Erickson TM, Thoburn J. Posttraumatic growth in the context of grief: testing the mindfulness-to-meaning theory. J Loss Trauma. 2021;26(7):611–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2020.1855048
35. Bray P. Bereavement and transformation: a psycho-spiritual and post-traumatic growth perspective. J Relig Health. 2013;52(3):890–903. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-011-9539-8
36. Prapunoto S, Soetjiningsih CH. Grief due to loss of significant others: the role of social support, spiritual intelligence and wellbeing-life satisfaction. Bull Counsel Psych. 2024;6(2). https://doi.org/10.51214/00202406898000
37. Verma N, Neimeyer RA. Grief and growth: an appreciative journey. Practitioner. 2020;22(2):36–41. https://doi.org/10.12781/978-1-907549-43-4-1
38. Bonanno GA. Loss, trauma, and human resilience: have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events?. Am Psychol. 2004;59(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.59.1.20
39. Shapiro ER. Whose recovery, of what? Relationships and environments promoting grief and growth. Death Stud. 2008;32(1):40–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481180701741277
40. Doka KJ. Disenfranchised grief in historical and cultural perspective. In Stroebe M, Hansson RO, Schut H, Stroebe W, editors. Handbook of bereavement research and practice: advances in theory and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2008. p. 223–40. https://doi.org/10.1037/14498-011
41. Currier JM, Holland JM, Neimeyer RA. Prolonged grief symptoms and growth in the first 2 years of bereavement: evidence for a nonlinear association. Traumatology. 2012;18(4):65–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534765612438948
42. Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. The posttraumatic growth inventory: measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J Trauma Stress. 1996;9(3):455–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02103658
43. Dasilva S. Toxic positivity in children’s mental health: young people’s reflections of critical hope for advancing anti-oppressive practice in working. In: Christensen A, editor. Anti-oppressive child and youth care: critical conversations. Canadian Scholars; 2025. p. 229.
44. Hawsawi T, Sinclair P, Wilson A. “I need you to help me, why you break me”: factors hindering recovering from mental disorders: a qualitative descriptive study among people with lived experience, caregivers and nurses. Issues Mental Health Nurs. 2025:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2025.2530022
45. Jain A, Tamarana R, Santosh U, Singh R. Relationship between dominating personalities and toxic positivity: mediating roles of intrapersonal and interpersonal control. J Indian Acad Appl Psychol. 2024;50(1):186–95. https://doi.org/10.25215/0403.090
46. Shipp HG, Hall KC. Analyzing the concept of toxic positivity for nursing: a dimensional analysis approach. J Adv Nurs. 2024;80(8):3146–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.16057
47. Ewert A, Tessneer S. Psychological resilience and posttraumatic growth: an exploratory analysis. J Exp Educ. 2019;42(3):280–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053825919859027
48. Anderson KM. Post-traumatic growth and resilience despite experiencing trauma and oppression. J Fam Soc Work. 2018;21(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2017.1402540
49. Coudert AP. 8 ‘toxic positivity.’ In: Piraino F, Pasi M, Asprem E, editor. Religious dimensions of conspiracy theories: comparing and connecting old and new trends. Routledge; 2022. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003120940

Cite this article as:
Kamene K. Resilience Through Loss: Transforming Grief Into Growth–A Narrative Review. Premier Journal of Psychology 2025;5:100010

Export to EndNote Export to Mendeley