1. group therapy: ancestors & cousins
1905 – Joseph Pratt developed group therapy for tuberculosis patients; group approaches evolved in the 1920’s & 30’s e.g. Adler, Lazell, Moreno, etc
2nd WW – increased need accelerated group therapy development
1946 – Kurt Lewin & T (training) groups with a focus more on organizational development & education
1960’s & 1970’s the heyday of “encounter groups” and cross fertilisation with traditional group therapy – note earlier fuller chapter on encounter groups from 1995 edition of Yalom’s book is freely viewable on the internet – go to click on “The theory and practice of group psychotherapy” and then, in the left column, click on “encounter groups”
classic encounter groups have largely come & gone but they have had a considerable influence on how group therapy has developed – both in the huge multi-headed self-help movement and in the more traditional psychiatric/psychological environment
Yalom I.D & Leszcz M. The theory and practice of
group psychotherapy (5th ed). New York: Basic Books, 2005

2. screening, selection, & orientation
it’s a reasonable position to say that most people could benefit from involvement in some kind of group – screening & selection involve asking whether this person would benefit & be able to tackle the therapeutic ‘tasks’ of this particular group
structured stress management groups and interpersonal process groups are two major basic forms of group with different tasks and relevance for different populations
understanding the challenges and likely beneficial facilitation styles for these two basic types of group can act as a good jumping off point for adaptations that suit other group forms
whatever the group type, helping the client understand the group’s relevance to their problems and orientating them to what success-ful participation is likely to involve, is usually time very well spent

3. therapeutic factors in groups (yalom)
Typically interpersonal factors, catharsis and group cohesiveness are rated very highly. There is considerable variation though – with the type of group studied, with how long the group has been meeting for, and with the participant’s level of functioning and personality style.
group cohesiveness
universality
catharsis
interpersonal learning (output)
family re-enactment
guidance
altruism
interpersonal learning (input)
instillation of hope
identification
self-understanding
existential factors

4. major experiential group research
“the most extensive controlled research inquiry into the effectiveness of groups”
210 stanford university students were randomized to groups and compared with 69 matched controls
18 different groups for 30 hours over 12 weeks
expert facilitators from 10 different schools
encounter/personal growth; gestalt; TA; sensory awareness; NTL group process training; psychodrama; Synanon; psychoanalytic; marathon; encounter-tape
assessment by participants, observers, group leaders, significant others – during and at the end of the group, and also at six month follow-up

5. leader assessment: methods
all meetings were observed (and tape recorded) – trained raters analyzed and coded all leader behaviours/statements; participants also completed questionnaires about the leaders
the therapeutic school that the leader represented (e.g. gestalt, psychodrama, transactional analysis, etc) had very little bearing on their behaviours/statements in the group
factor analysis of what the leaders said and did highlighted four important leadership functions which had clear and striking relationships to outcome – these are emotional activation, caring, meaning attribution & executive function

6. leader assessment: cluster analysis
emotional activation
challenging, confronting activity; intrusive modelling by personal risk taking and high self-disclosure
caring
offering support, affection, praise, protection, warmth, acceptance, genuineness, concern
meaning attribution
explaining, clarifying, interpreting, providing a cognitive framework for change; translating feelings and experiences into ideas
executive function
setting limits, rules, norms, goals; managing time; pacing, stopping, interceding, suggesting procedures

7. leader assessment: best outcomes
emotional activation
challenging, confronting activity; intrusive modelling by personal risk taking and high self-disclosure
caring
offering support, affection, praise, protection, warmth, acceptance, genuineness, concern
meaning attribution
explaining, clarifying, interpreting, providing a cognitive framework for change; translating feelings and experiences into ideas
executive function
setting limits, rules, norms, goals; managing time; pacing, stopping, interceding, suggesting procedures
moderate
high
high
moderate

8. the cycle of engagement & reflection
reflect and learn from experiences
immerse in experiences (emotions & body)

9. importance of meaning attribution
to benefit most, it seems crucially important to both engage emotionally & also to reflect
at the end of each group meeting, participants were asked to report the most significant event of the session and the reason for its significance
participants who gained most from the groups were far more likely to report incidents involving cognitive integration
this finding was particularly impressive and unexpected when one considers the pervasive anti-intellectual ethos of encounter group culture

10. major experiential group research
key finding:
“In some groups, almost every member underwent some positive change with no one suffering injury; in other groups, not a single member benefited, and one was fortunate to remain unchanged.”

11. the learning circle of experience
Kurt Lewin’s model
of experiential learning
genuine, personal experience
testing implications
in new situations
observation and reflection time
forming ideas
& generalizations
note particular importance of here-&-now concrete experience in generating & testing out ideas, & also the importance of the feedback loop in checking whether one is really on track; ineffectiveness is often due to an imbalance between active experience & reflective observation