The conclusion is that the traditional way of dealing with grief may only be suitable for a small number of people, with these people being the ones who are highly distressed by grief. These points are emphasized again as Bonanno describe various studies where people who have undergone grief treatment are either not helped by the treatment or are worse off because of the treatment.

             The next section of the article focuses on trauma interventions and critical incident debriefing. Bonanno notes that there has been confusion about how to categorize grief, especially with how to decide when grief is a sign of weakness of dysfunction. The most important point made is that people experiencing grief are not subcategorized and that no distinction is made between recovery and resilience. This results in the problem of researchers assuming that resilient individuals need to engage in the same coping processes as those individuals who do not have resilience. This leads to Bonanno noting that practitioners assume that all individuals exposed to a traumatic or violent situation require intervention. The major problem noted is that for the majority of individuals who have resilience, this briefing may do more damage by undermining normal coping processes. .

             In the next section, Bonanno argues that resilience is commonly seen in people dealing with loss. Bonanno starts by noting that individuals who display positive emotions after loss are often considered as having a pathological or dysfunctional form of grief, including noting that this is often considered as showing signs of denial. This is followed by the statement that the majority of individuals do display positive emotions after loss, with this occurring because of resilience. Bonanno also describes several studies that suggest that resilience is common, represents a healthy way of dealing with loss, and does not lead to delayed grief reactions.