University of Richmond

UR Scholarship Repository
Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book
Jepson School of Leadership Studies
chapters and other publications

2010

Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy: Social

Psychological Foundations of Change in
Therapeutic Groups
Donelson R. Forsyth
University of Richmond, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/jepson-faculty-publications

Part of the Clinical Psychology Commons, Other Psychology Commons, and the Personality and
Social Contexts Commons

Recommended Citation
Forsyth, Donelson R. Social Psychological Foundations of Clinical Psychology. Edited by James E. Maddux and June Price. Tangney. New
York: Guilford Press, 2010. 497-513.

This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Jepson School of Leadership Studies articles, book chapters and other publications by an authorized administrator of UR
Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].
27 Group Processes and
Group Psychotherapy
Social Psychological Foundations
of Change in Therapeutic Groups

Donelson R. Forsyth

Social psychology and clinical psychology share an interest in change. Rather than
assuming that people are static and that psychological systems are immutable, social psy-
chologists track the shifts in social attitudes, actions, values, and beliefs that result from indi-
viduals' everyday interactions in their social worlds. Similarly, clinical psychologists examine
changes in adjustment, well-being, and dysfunction that are evidenced as people develop
psychologically and physically, confront new life circumstances, or react effectively or less
adaptively to daily life events.
Social and clinical psychologists also recognize that such changes often result from
group-level processes. Cooley, an early social psychologist, noted in 1909 that groups play a
primary role in forming the "social nature and ideals of the individual" (p. 29). Subsequent
studies of beliefs, values, actions, and attitudes returned again and again to the group as the
agent of change, eventually leading Lewin to conclude that "it is usually easier to change
individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately" (1951, p. 228).
Clinical psychologists, too, recognized, if somewhat grudgingly, the influence of groups on
members. Freud (1922, p. 1), for example, wrote that individuals cannot be understood if
separated from the groups to which they belong: "Individual Psychology is concerned with
the individual man and explores the paths by which he seeks to find satisfaction for his
instincts; but only rarely and under certain exceptional conditions is Individual Psychology
in a position to disregard the relations of this individual to others." Maslow (1937) opined
that "every human adult living is a member of a particular cultural group and has the social
497
498 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND CLINICAL INTERACTIONS

norms characteristic of this group" (p. 487). Similarly Laing (1969, pp. 81-82) concluded
that "we cannot give an undistorted account of 'a person' without giving an account of his
relation with others. Even an account of one person cannot afford to forget that each person
is always acting upon others and acted upon by others. The others are there also."
Social psychology and clinical psychology also seek ways to promote change in others.
Both fields recognize that change often occur spontaneous.ly a a res ult of om.e life experi-
ence, but that in other cases change can be achieved through explicit, intentionally des igned
interventions. Social psychologists, for example, have long been interested in how people's
attitudes are changed by other people. Some of the ea die t wor k .in th e field concerned exp licit
attempts to change the beliefs of others, including interventions aimed at making bigoted
people less prejudiced, increasing citizens' civic engagement in military efforts, or convinc-
ing consumers to purchase one brand over another. In like fashion, clinical psychologists'
interest in change reflects a practical concern; far from passive spectators of change, clinical
psychologists seek to develop and refine the methods that will promote adaptive, healthy, and
desirable change in their clients.
This chapter examines the obvious implication of these three intersecting similarities:
the use of groups to achieve therapeutic change. It begins with a brief survey of group-level
interventions before asking, What social psychological processes are at work in these groups
that provide them with their transformative power? The chapter then concludes by consider-
ing the effectiveness of group interventions and ways to further enhance the curative efficacy
of groups.

THE USES OF GROUPS TO PROMOTE CHANGE

Most general texts on psychotherapeutic treatments sequester group approaches near the
end of the book, sandwiched between sections with titles such as "Alternative Approaches,"
"Sociocultural Perspectives," "Family Therapy," or "Couples Counseling." Group therapists
are sometimes portrayed as innovators, rebels, or even radicals who are willing to take risks
in their work. Yet, group therapists are in most respects similar to other mental health prac-
titioners. Rarely do they endorse some unique, unusual, and unproven set of assumptions in
their work, but instead they base their approach to change on such traditional psychothera-
peutic perspectives as psychodynamic, cognitive-behavioral, and interpersonal/existential
orientations (Delucia-Waack & Kalodner, 2005).

Psychodynamic Group Therapy

Psychoanalysis is, by tradition, conducted in the smallest of all groups: the dyad comprising
client and therapist. This method can, however, guide therapeutic practices carried out with
larger assemblages. Freud (1922) himself, in his Group Psychology and the Analysis of Ego,
recognized that groups provide a buffer against psychological threat, and as a result, mem-
bership in a cohesive group may promote adjustment: "Where a powerful impetus has been
given to group formation neuroses may diminish and at all events temporarily disappear"
(p. 124). In Civilization and Its Discontents he suggests that although one who is suffering
psychologically may be tempted to seek isolation, "there is, indeed, another and better path:
that of becoming a member of the human community, and, with the help of a technique
 Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy 499

guided by science, going over to the attack against nature and subjecting her to the human
will. Then one is working with all for the good of all" (1961, pp. 24-25).
Psychoanalytic group therapy is usually a leader-centered method, for the psychoanalyst
actively and obviously organizes, directs, coordinates, supports, and motivates the members'
efforts. Rather than encouraging group discussion, traditional group psychoanalysts focus
the group's attention on specific members, with this attention shifting from person to person
throughout the course of the session. This procedure allows members to act in the role of the
client for a time, but also to take on the role of observer of others' attempts to gain insight
into the causes of their life difficulties. Groups also stimulate the transference processes that
occur, in any case, in therapy. As Freud's (1922) replacement hypothesis suggests, the group
can become a surrogate family for members, and the emotions linking members are like the
ties that bind siblings together, with the group therapist taking on the role of the primal
authority figure. As transference unfolds, the group provides the therapist with the means of
exploring the childhood roots of current adult anxieties.
Just as free association provides the therapist with the means of gaining insight into the
hidden motivations and conflicts of the ego, so the exchanges among group members pro-
vide data for the therapist's exploration of the workings and contents of the conscious and
unconscious mind (Langs, 1973 ). The conversation among the members may, at a superficial
level, appear to focus on banalities and pleasantries, but the subliteral text of the conversa-
tion carries with it information about unstated and often unrecognized motives and fears.
The verbal exchanges among members offer many opportunities to ask "What did you mean
by that?" and "Why did you say that?" According to psychoanalytic theory, the answers to
these questions reveal the way each person's unconscious motivations and preconceptions
influence their perceptions, emotions, and actions (Haskell, 1999). Therapists working one
on one with a client tend to rely on dreams and free associations to chart the unconscious
mind, whereas group psychodynamic theorists consider the ordinary dialogue of interacting
group members to be an alternate route to the unconscious (Weiss, 2006).

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Groups

Therapists who question the value of Freudian theories and methods often base their inter-
ventions on principles of learning and cognition. Such approaches assume that problem-
atic thoughts and behaviors are acquired. through experience, so interventions are based on
principles derived from learning theories and the expansion of these theories into cognitive
realms. Behavioral and cognitive-behavioral therapies eschew a search into clients' pasts
for the ultimate cause of their problems, and instead focus pragmatically on encouraging
healthy, desirable cognitions and behaviors (e.g., expressing positive emotions) and discour-
aging undesirable, harmful cognitions and behaviors (e.g., drinking alcohol).
The earliest group psychotherapies used methods that were simplified versions of
cognitive-behavioral interventions. Joseph Hersey Pratt's groundbreaking work with group
approaches, for example, stressed teaching and learning rather than interpretation and
analysis. He initially used the group format for its efficiency- "! originally brought the
patients together as a group simply with the idea that it would save my time" (Pratt, 1922,
p. 403 )-but he was impressed by the group-level processes that increased patient compli-
ance. Pratt gradually enlarged his focus from physical illness to psychological disorders and
took to calling his sessions "Thought Control Classes" (Pratt, 1922). He used psychoeduca-
500 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND CLINICAL INTERACTIONS

tional methods, including short lectures and demonstrations, to help clients recognize self-
defeating, unhealthy ways of dealing with their illnesses and called on more successful group
members to model the ways they were achieving their successes.
Modern behavioral and cognitive-behavioral group therapists focus, as Pratt did, on
explicit, observable behaviors, such as social or ·relationship skills, and the cognitions that
sustain these behaviors. Behavioral approaches include systematic desensitization train-
ing, behavior modification, and skills training. Cognitive-behavioral approaches, such as
rational-emotive therapy, cognitive-behavioral modification, and cognitive therapy, focus on
changing cognitive processes (Emmelkamp, 2004; Hollon & Beck, 2004). These therapies
were initially developed as one-on-one therapies, but they have been used with great success
in groups. McDermut, Miller, and Brown's (2001) meta-analysis of group approaches to
the treatment of depression, for example, found that nearly all of the experimental studies
that examined group methods included at least one ·treatment condition that made use of
cognitive-behavioral therapy.

Interpersonal (Existential) Therapy Groups

Psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioral methods consider and make use of group pro-
cesses, but some group therapists focus more squarely on the group and relations among
group members as the means for achieving change. This third cluster of group therapies is a
very heterogeneous one, containing approaches that differ in many ways from one another
but are usually based on principles derived from clinical and personality theories that stress
the interpersonal and existential roots of adjustment and disorder (Elliott, Greenberg, &
Lietaer, 2004). Humanistic, third-force theories such as Rogers's (1940) person-centered the-
ory, Moreno's (1934) psychodrama, Gestalt methods (Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman, 1951),
human potential movement methods such as growth and encounter groups (Lakin, 1972),
and Yalom's (1995) interpersonal, or interactive, group psychotherapy assume that individu-
als are, at core, searching for ways to improve their current functioning and maximize their
potentialities. Such approaches are often phenomenological and experiential and underscore
the importance of a strong, positive, empathic therapeutic environment for facilitating per-
sonal and collective growth.
The humanistic therapist Carl Rogers (1970), for example, traced most dysfunction to
a loss of self-worth due to the conditional nature of acceptance by others. Rogers treated
people by providing them with unconditional positive regard in an accepting therapeutic
group encounter. Rogers thought that groups help members experience their emotions more
fully and learn to deal with other people in authentic, open ways (Page, Weiss, & Lietaer,
2002). Similarly Gestaltist Fritz Perls frequently conducted his therapeutic sessions in groups
rather than with single individuals. In some cases, Gestalt group therapy is one-to-one Gestalt
therapy conducted in a group setting, with members observing one another's "work" but not
interacting with each other. More frequently, however, interaction takes place among group
members, with the therapist actively orchestrating the events. Many group therapists make
use of unstructured interpersonal activities to stimulate members' emotional understanding,
but Gestalt therapists generally resist offering interpretations to their patients (Goulding &
Goulding, 1979; Greve, 1993 ).
Psychodrama, developed by Jacob Moreno, also makes use of exercises to stimulate
emotional experiences in group members. Moreno (1932) conducted therapeutic groups per-
 Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy 501

haps as early as 1910, and he used the term group therapy in print in 1932. Moreno believed
that the interpersonal relations that developed in groups provide the therapist with unique
insights into members' personalities and proclivities and that by taking on roles the members
become more flexible in their behavioral orientations. He made his sessions more experi-
entially powerful by developing psychodrama techniques. When role playing, for example,
members take on the identity of someone else and act as he or she would in a simulated
social situation. Moreno believed that psychodrama's emphasis on physical action was more
involving than passive discussion and that the drama itself helped members overcome their
reluctance to discuss critical issues (Kipper & Ritchie, 2003; Rawlinson, 2000) .
Yalom's (1995) interpersonal group psychotherapy is perhaps the most influential of
the interpersonal approaches to groups. Yalom views the group as a social microcosm where
individuals gain a profound awareness of how they are coming across to others interperson-
ally and the disruptive impact of their mistaken assumptions about other people on their
relationships (parataxic distortions). Because they respond to one another in ways that are
characteristic of their interpersonal tendencies outside of the group, Yalom encourages mem-
bers to focus on the here and now of their group experience, rather than on problems they
may be facing at home or at work. When, for example, one member of a group displays
self-contempt and is challenged by another member, or when one member responds actively
only to questions asked by the leader rather than other group members, the group can review
these tendencies and explore their adaptiveness. As the group grapples with personal con-
flicts, problems of organization, goal setting, and communication failures, the members
reveal their preferred interaction styles to others and to themselves. They also learn to dis-
close their feelings honestly, gain conflict reduction skills, and find enjoyment from working
in collaborative relationships.
Yalom (1995) believes that a number of curative factors underlie change in a variety of
group settings: the installation of hope, universality, imparting of information, altruism, the
corrective recapitulation of the primary family group, development of socializing techniques,
imitative behavior, interpersonal learning, group cohesiveness, catharsis, and existential fac-
tors. Some of the factors on Yalom's list are mechanisms that facilitate change, whereas oth-
ers describe the general group conditions that should be present within effective therapeutic
groups. Yalom's list, as the section that follows suggests, is consistent with social psychologi-
cal analyses of the influential processes that occur in groups.

THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL BASES

OF CHANGE IN THERAPEUTIC GROUPS

What is the best restorative method to help people regain and maintain their mental well-
being? A group-level approach offers an answer that is, in some ways, at variance with
psychology's traditional emphasis on psychogenic solutions. Asked why an individual is
depressed, addicted, or engaged in aberrant actions and how that individual can be helped,
psychologists tend to focus their attention on intrapsychic, individualistic processes, such as
personality traits, past events, and biological processes. In contrast, a group-level, sociogenic
approach complements and enriches the psychogenic perspective. Such an analysis assumes
that each person is nested in a hierarchy of increasingly complex and inclusive social aggre-
gates, such as groups, organizations, and communities. The unique qualities of each individ-
502 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND CLINICAL INTERACTIONS

ual cannot be ignored, but neither can the processes operating within the groups that enfold
the individual members. Here we look again at the personal and interpersonal processes
examined earlier in this book-self and identity, self-esteem, self-regulation, self-efficacy, self-
awareness, social cognition, and interpersonal relations-and the role therapeutic groups
play in shaping these socially and clinically significant processes.

Personal Process in Groups

A group-level analysis of change does not ignore individual-level processes but instead seeks
to integrate these processes into a multilevel analysis. This perspective recognizes the recip-
rocal nature of the individual-to-group connection: Individuals' thoughts, actions, and emo-
tions are shaped by group-level processes, but each member also influences every other mem-
ber as well as the group as a whole. Social psychologists realize that if one is to understand
processes that unfold between people in groups, then one must also understand the processes
that occur within the individuals who are members of the groups.

Self and Identity

Sages throughout history have championed the adaptive value of self-knowledge, and con-
temporary clinical wisdom similarly urges those who are seeking to strengthen their resilience
to stressful life events or enhance their psychological well-being to know themselves thor-
oughly. But even though people often believe that they can best learn who they are through
self-reflection (Sedikides & Skowronski, 1995), a group-level analysis suggests that the self is
as much a social creation as an intrapsychic one. To answer questions such as, "What is my
personal worth?'', "Do people like me?'', and "Am I an introvert or an extravert?", one must
rely on information provided through interaction with other people.
Psychotherapeutic groups, as groups, thus provide members with information that
allows them to construct an answer to the question "Who am I?" In some cases, the
group may provide explicit information about one's personal qualities, but it also provides
indirect feedback by responding in certain ways. When a person is treated in a certain
way by others-if, for example, other people respond as if one is intelligent, friendly,
confused, or clumsy-then in time these qualities will be incorporated into the self. When
members see themselves acting in a particular way consistently-say, by dominating the
group interaction, constantly criticizing others, displaying strong emotions, or express-
ing concern for others' well-being-then they will, in time, come to realize that they are
dominant, critical, emotional, or caring, respectively. Because in most cases members of
therapeutic groups are known to one another as individuals rather than as the occupants
of a particular social role (e.g., parent, child, boss, or employee), members can no longer
attribute their actions to the requirements placed on them by the roles in which they find
themselves. Ed may typically blame his gruffness on the demands made by his role as
boss and Edwina may think her moodiness is caused by her family, but if Ed is gruff and
Edwina is moody in group, then they must consider the possibilities that these qualities
are part of who they are.
Members also provide one another with explicit verbal and nonverbal feedback about
how they are coming across in the group. John may, in time, realize that he lacks social skills
when he finally notices that no one in the group will look him in the eye or sit near him, but
 Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy 503

he might also get this message when members criticize him for speaking too harshly and for
failing to show concern for others' feelings. Individuals are, in fact, somewhat leery of join-
ing therapeutic groups because they recognize that the group may see them for what they
are-and that this accurate appraisal may not match their own sense of self (Ringer, 2002).
They may find, however, that as they act in ways that are inconsistent with their original self-
conception, their self becomes increasingly complex and, in consequence, stabler (Vickery,
Gontkovsky, Wallace, & Caroselli, 2006). A simple view of the self may be just as valid as
a complex one, but the advantage of a complex view is this: When people who are high in
self-complexity experience a negative event in their life, they can cope by focusing on the
more positive aspects of their life. Also, because individuals who are high in self-complexity
differentiate between their various self-views, a catastrophe in one arena is less likely to spill
over and contaminate their other self-views (Dixon & Baumeister, 1991).
Research does not clearly confirm the mental health benefits of accurate, detailed self-
knowledge (Sedikides & Strube, 1997), but members of therapy groups nonetheless believe
that groups provide them with self-diagnostic data that are, in themselves, therapeutic. When
Kivlighan and his colleagues asked participants in therapeutic groups to identify events that
took place in their groups that helped them the most, members most frequently mentioned
the feeling that their problems were shared with others (universality), the opportunities to
learn interpersonal skills, the group's acceptance of them, and the insight into themselves
that they gained from the group experience (Kivlighan & Mullison, 1988; Kivlighan, Mul-
ton, & Brossart, 1996). When researchers ask members to rank or rate the importance of
various curative factors in the group, usually using the list developed by Yalom (1995), they
generally find that group members emphasize self-understanding, interpersonal learning, and
catharsis, and that clients rate self-understanding as increasingly important as their therapy
progresses. In general, individuals who stress the value of self-understanding tend to benefit
the most from participation in a therapeutic group (Butler & Fuhriman, 1983a, 1983b;
MacNair-Semands & Lese, 2000; Ruge! & Meyer, 1984).

Self-Esteem
Knowing the self may promote better adjustment, but valuing the self may be equally essen-
tial to psychological well-being (Swann, Chang-Schneider, & Larsen McClarty, 2007). A
number of psychological problems, including depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse, masochism,
and eating disorders such as bulimia, are rooted in a devalued self. (See Dijkstra, Gibbons, &
Buunk, Chapter 11, this volume; Leary & Tate, Chapter 2, this volume.) Individuals suffer-
ing from depression, for example, report confusion about identity and purpose in life, a sense
of emptiness when they turn their attention toward the self, and strong, unrelenting feelings
of worthlessness and inadequacy. They often talk of feeling little self-confidence and how this
uncertainty leaves them dependent on, and easily influenced by, other people.
Group therapy offers members a means to regain a sense of self-worth. Self-esteem
is linked, at a basic psychological level, to inclusion in stable, clearly defined groups. As
Baumeister and Leary's belongingness hypothesis argues, "Human beings have a pervasive
drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and impactful
interpersonal relationships" (1995, p. 497). Just as exclusion from a group can trigger a loss
in self-esteem, so can inclusion in a group contribute to more positive feelings of self-worth.
Leary and Baumeister's (2000) sociometer model goes so far as to suggest that inclusion in a
504 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND CLINICAL INTERACTIONS

group raises self-esteem, since self-esteem is not an index of self-appraisal but a monitor of
inclusion in social groups (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995).
Groups also raise members' sense of worth by ritualizing the exchange of praise and
positive feedback among the members. Group members often exchange corrective, and in
some cases negative, feedback, but such exchanges are usually counterbalanced by substan-
tial doses of congratulatory, positive evaluations. The group format also provides members
with (1) information about other people's failings and faults, setting the stage for the realiza-
tion that their problems are not unique but instead universal; (2) the chance to help others,
thereby establishing their value to the group and its members; and (3) a range of individuals
who can be used as targets of social comparison.
Therapeutic groups also enhance self-esteem by providing members with a positive
group-level, or social, identity. Although a psychogenic viewpoint typically stresses the
importance of the personal, individualistic aspects of the self, the self includes a social side.
This collective identity is based on connections to other people and groups, including roles,
memberships, and interpersonal relations. Social psychological researchers have repeat-
edly found that even though individuals may have qualities that are stigmatized by society
(e.g., psychological problems; see Corrigan, Larson, & Kuwahara, Chapter 4, this volume),
when these individuals identify strongly with their group, their self-esteem increases rather
than decreases (Twenge & Crocker, 2002). Marmarosh and Corazzini (1997) examined the
impact of membership in a therapy group on social identity by asking the members of some
groups to carry a symbol of their group with them (a group card) at all times. The card was
to serve as a reminder that they were valued members of their therapy group and that they
should know that their group was with them all the time. Those group members given a
group identity card reported greater collective self-esteem and displayed more positive treat-
ment gains than members in a no-card control condition.

Self-Regulation
The capacity to control oneself is considered an essential element of mental health, but self-
regulation, for some people, is a difficult, complex, and daunting task (see Doerr & Baumeis-
ter, Chapter 5, this volume). Depressed individuals may want to regain a sense of purpose and
energy. Obsessive-compulsive individuals may wish to limit their repetitive tendencies. People
who abuse alcohol may want to control how much they drink. Socially phobic individuals
may hope that they can socialize easily with others. Yet, when these individuals try to control
their thoughts, emotions, and actions, they are disappointed in the results and in themselves.
It might seem paradoxical to suggest that individuals can enhance their self-regulation
by relying on a group, for self-regulation implies control of the self by the self rather than by
others (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000, p. 247). Indeed, most theories of self-regulation draw
a distinction between goals individuals set for themselves and those that are pressed upon
them by outside agents. Therapeutic groups, however, blur the distinction between self and
other. For example, Kelman (1963), in his analysis of psychotherapy groups, concluded that
group members initially merely comply with the demands of the group and its leader. They
may act as the group requires, but when the group'. restraint is relaxed they often revert to
their original ways. In time, however, they o~cn begin to identify with the group and their
self-image changes as they take on the behaviors, characteristics, and roles of influential
group members. They regulate their actions to reduce the di 'crepancy between their per on al
 Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy 505

state and the state required by the group. As members become more firmly embedded in the
group, they eventually internalize the group's values, so that their personal beliefs, opinions,
and goals become one with the group's standards. Over time, group control is transformed
into self-control (Kelman, 2006). Similarly, self-determination theory (SOT; Ryan & Oeci,
2000) proposes that goals cannot always be clearly divided into those set by the self for
personal reasons and goals that originate outside the self. SOT identifies four types of goals
that vary in the degree to which regulation is external to the person or integrated internally:
external regulation, introjection (complying, often unknowingly, with the external demand
but not fully accepting it as one's own), identification, and integration (integrating require-
ments that were once externally imposed within the self-system).

Self-Efficacy
Groups are not only the source of the individual's goals, but they also play a major role in
generating a sense of efficacy about the behaviors one needs to perform to be successful in
reaching those goals. As Maddux and Lewis (1995, p. 37) note, self-efficacy and competence
are not sufficient conditions for psychological well-being, but "adjustment is difficult, if not
impossible, without such beliefs." Individuals who are high in self-efficacy are likely to view
their setbacks as challenges rather than as threats. Instead of focusing on their problems and
shortcomings, they focus their efforts on identifying ways to achieve their goals and solve
their problems. Those who are low in self-efficacy, in contrast, lose their confidence when
facing a challenge and become self-focused rather than task-focused.
Groups contribute to members' sense of self-efficacy by helping them learn the specific
skills they are seeking. In therapy groups members can observe the actions of others and
learn from those who model healthy ways of dealing with interpersonal situations. Members
can also practice and receive feedback about their success in performing specific behaviors,
so that in time they should feel that they are capable of performing the actions that they (and
their therapist) feel they need to develop. Yalom (1995) refers to this increase in self-efficacy
as the "installation of hope," and research confirms that group-derived self-efficacy contrib-
utes to well-being, as assessed by measures of life satisfaction, depression, and group-derived
hope for the self (Cameron, 1999; Marmarosh, Holtz, & Schottenbauer, 2005). Cheavens,
Feldman, Gum, Michael, and Snyder (2006), for example, discovered that members of a
short-term therapeutic group that focused directly on members' sense of hope reported more
optimism about reaching their goals, as well as reduced anxiety and depression, than did
members of a waiting-list control group.
Groups are also a source of collective efficacy for members. Unlike esprit de corps or
liking for other group members, collective efficacy is the belief that group members can work
together effectively to reach the group's goals. Members of a psychotherapy group with col-
lective efficacy are optimistic about their group's specific skills and competencies, and these
beliefs should help members maintain a higher level of motivation as they seek to attain their
goals (Forsyth, 2010).

Self-Awareness
Most analyses of the self-regulation process suggest that individuals monitor the match
between their current state and their desired state and, based on that assessment, then initi-
506 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND CLINICAL INTERACTIONS

ate changes in their current state or revise their conception of the desired state to minimize
the discrepancy (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1981). Because increased self-awareness tends to be
associated with increased self-regulation and goal attainment, the effectiveness of groups can
be traced, in part, to their impact on members' discrepancy-monitoring process. Groups cre-
ate an audience for individual members and thereby generate increases in self-focus; when
people join with others, their self-awareness tends to increase. Group activities also trigger
increases in self-awareness; if members engage in role playing, structured awareness activi-
ties, or physical activities, they are likely to feel more self-aware. The tendency for groups to
trigger increased self-awareness also accounts for some of the negative side effects of thera-
peutic groups. Since self-focus can exacerbate negative psychological states such as depres-
sion, the relationship between positive change and self-focused attention may be curvilinear:
To be effective, group members must become self-aware, but this awareness should not be
so strong that it engenders social anxiety (Leary & Kowalski, 1995; Leary & Tate, Chapter
2, this volume).

Interpersonal Processes in Groups

Interpersonal theorists suggest that psychological disturbances such as depression, anxiety,
and personality disorders can be traced back to relational sources-particularly interactions
with peers, coworkers, friends, relatives, and acquaintances (e.g., Sullivan, 1953). Because
people's problems stem from their "failure to attend to and correct the self-defeating, inter-
personally unsuccessful aspects" of their interpersonal acts (Kiesler, 1991, pp. 443), thera-
pies that focus specifically on groups and social relationships are particularly potent since
they highlight the origin of the dysfunction. As noted above, psychotherapeutic groups are
thought to profoundly affect the selves of the group members: their self-knowledge, self-
esteem, self-efficacy, and self-awareness. But these groups are also interpersonal microcosms,
and a skilled therapist can harness the social processes in these groups to help individuals
achieve the therapeutic goals they have set for themselves. This assumption is summarized in
the mantra of group psychotherapists who take an interpersonal approach to treatment: by
the group they have been broken, and by the group they will be healed (Marsh, 1931).

Social Learning in Therapeutic Groups

When clients meet one on one with their therapist, they can discuss problems, identify solu-
tions, and receive support and encouragement. But even in the best of circumstances, this
exchange is limited, because only one other person acts as listener, mentor, helper, critic, and
advisor. In a group, in contrast, individuals can learn not only from the therapist but also
from the other group members. When, for example, a group member who has been strug-
gling to express a feeling or painful thought to the group discloses, at last, this mes age, other
members may learn how they too can put thei_r feelings into words. When the lead er of rh e
group gradually helps a member understand hi r her angry reaction to anoth -•r member
those watching this process unfold learn how th y can help other · resolve interpersona l on-
flicts. When members treat one another in positive, respectful ways and are rewm·dcd by rbe
group leader for doing so, their actions serve as a model for others (Dies, 1994 ).
Falloon, Lindley, McDonald, and Marks (1977) confirmed the value of modeling in
their study of individuals with marked social skills deficits. Those assigned to a simple group
 Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy 507

discussion treatment showed some improvement over time, but not as much as clients who
observed their group leaders demonstrate skillful social interaction before role-playing these
actions themselves. Groups that used explicit modeling methods showed greater improve-
ment than others, and these changes were stable for all but the clients diagnosed with schizo-
phrenia. These findings, and others, prompted Lambert and Ogles (2004) to identify model-
ing and the social learning it facilitates as key factors common to effective therapies.

Guidance and Leadership

Unlike support or self-help groups, psychotherapy groups have a designated leader: the ther-
apist who is charged with guiding the others in their pursuit of improved mental health.
Group psychotherapists, as the recognized leaders in their groups, can make use of the power
of that role to increase their impact on the individual members, and on their groups as a
whole. Given individuals' tendency to recognize the authority of leaders, clients who are
unmoved by a therapist who meets with them one on one may, in contrast, comply with
therapeutic directives when they are offered by someone who is not just a therapist but also
a group leader. Therapists, as group leaders, may also enhance their impact by harnessing
group pressure to serve therapeutic purposes.
Even though most would agree that the therapist-leader strives to stimulate a change in
the client's behavior, there is little consensus concerning the methods the leader should use
to achieve this goal. As in individual therapy (Strupp, 1986), no one technique has emerged
as clearly superior to other techniques. Many group therapists, for example, advocate the
leader-centered approaches typical of psychoanalytic, Gestalt, and behavioral groups. In
such groups, the leader controls the course of the interaction, assigns various tasks to the
group members, occupies the center of a centralized communication network, and offers
interpretations of the causes of clients' problems. In some instances, group members may
communicate with only the group leader and not each other. In contrast, other therapists
advocate a nondirective style of leadership in which all group members communicate with
one another. These group-oriented approaches encourage the analysis of the group's pro-
cesses, with the therapist-leader sometimes facilitating process but at other times providing
no direction whatsoever. In general, so long as leaders are perceived to be caring, to help
members interpret the cause of their problems, to keep the group on course, and to meet the
members' relationship needs, the group will prosper (Lieberman & Golant, 2002; Lieber-
man, Yalom, & Miles, 1973).

Cohesive Groups and Social Support

Psychotherapeutic groups offer members something that groups, in general, offer their
members: social support. When people find themselves facing difficult life experiences, they
often suffer psychological and physical illness. But members of supportive groups are pro-
tected against these negative consequences in some ways (Herbert & Cohen, 1993; Uchino,
Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996; Wills & Cleary, 1996; Lakey, Chapter 10, this volume).
Most people turn to familiar groups such as friendship cliques and family for their social
support, but members of therapeutic groups frequently turn to one another and offer help
by providing advice, guidance, direction, and emotional support (e.g., LaBarge, Von Dras, &
Wingbermuehle, 1998).
508 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND CLINICAL INTERACTIONS

Studies of the capacity of therapeutic groups to provide support to members suggest

that the more cohesive the group, the more likely its members will feel as though the group
serves as a buffer against stress and anxiety (Burlingame, Fuhriman, & Johnson, 2001).
Hence, therapists who help the group move through periods of uncertainty and conflict to a
stage of cohesion and performance may find that their members gain more from membership
(Kivlighan & Mullison, 1988; MacNair-Semands, 2002). A cohesive therapy group func-
tions like a team: The members are engaged in the group and its change-promoting processes.
They rarely miss meetings, they take part in the planning of the group's topics and activities,
and they may even explicitly mention the group's esprit de corps and sense of camaraderie
(Kivlighan & Tarrant, 2001; Ogrodniczuk & Piper, 2003).

Self-Disclosure
Studies of reactions to stressful events suggest that self-disclosure about these events promotes
adjustment for a variety of psychological reasons. Disclosing troubling, worrisome thoughts
also reduces the discloser's level of tension and stress. Individuals who keep their problems
secret but continually ruminate about them display signs of physiological and psychological
distress, whereas individuals who have the opportunity to disclose these troubling thoughts
are healthier and happier (Pennebaker, 1997; Sloan, Chapter 12, this volume). Speculating,
since self-disclosure to a single person (or to an unknown audience) is healthy, then disclo-
sure to a group should be particularly beneficial. When groups first convene, members usu-
ally focus on superficial topics and avoid saying anything too personal or provocative; but as
cohesion increases, members begin to feel that they can share very personal information with
other members. As a result, self-disclosure and cohesion are reciprocally related. Each new
self-disclosure deepens the group's intimacy, and this increased closeness then makes further
self-disclosures possible (Agazarian, 2001). By sharing information about themselves, mem-
bers are expressing their trust in the group and signaling their commitment to the therapeutic
process. Members can also vent strong emotions in groups, although the value of such emo-
tional venting continues to be debated by researchers, since "blowing off steam" heightens
members' psychological distress and degree of upset (Ormont, 1984).

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GROUP TREATMENTS

Therapeutic groups capitalize on a range of interpersonal processes common to groups, in

general, to promote the functioning and adjustment of members. Yet when earlier adopters
of this format suggested treating people's psychological problems by having them gather
together in a group, this idea was considered radical and risky. History, however, proved the
skeptics wrong. Group psychotherapy is currently used to treat all types of psychiatric prob-
lems, including addictions, thought disorders, depression, eating disorders, posttraumatic
stress disorde1; and personality disorders (Barlow, Burlingame, & Fuhriman, 2000; Forsyth
& Corazzini, 2000).
But how effective is group psychotherapy? Meta -analytic reviews, including those that
code studies for methodological rigor, generally suggest that group approaches are as effec-
tive as individual methods. Earlier reviews (e.g., Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994; Smith &
Glass, 1977) found that individual and group treatments were roughly equivalent in terms of
 Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy 509

effectiveness, and more recent reviews have confirmed those conclusions (e.g., Burlingame,
Fuhriman, & Mosier, 2003; Burlingame & Krogel, 2005; Kosters, Burlingame, Nachtigall,
& Strauss, 2006). Burlingame and his colleagues (McRoberts, Burlingame, & Hoag, 1998),
in a particularly careful analysis, tracked a number of treatment and procedural variables
that past researchers identified as key determinants of therapeutic success, but the only fac-
tors that covaried significantly with outcome were client diagnosis, number of treatment
sessions, and the year in which the study was conducted. Group therapies were more effec-
tive with clients who were not diagnosed clinically, and the more sessions, the better. Studies
conducted prior to 1980 were more likely to favor group over individual approaches.
Burlingame, MacKenzie, and Strauss (2004, p. 652), in summarizing the outcome litera-
ture on group therapy, conclude that "group psychotherapy is potent enough to be the sole or
primary treatment for patients suffering from a psychiatric disorder," but they temper their
positive conclusion by noting that group approaches work better for some disorders than
for others. In particular, in both outpatient (Burlingame et al., 2003) and inpatient (Kosters
et al., 2006) settings, individuals experiencing mood disorders (anxiety, depression) respond
better to group psychotherapies than individuals experiencing other types of disorders (e.g.,
thought and dissociative disorders).
Burlingame and his colleagues (2004) reiterate a conclusion reached by Bednar and
Kaul (1979): too little is known about the psychological and social processes that sustain
the changes that are produced by group therapy. Do group-level processes such as social
influence (informational, normative, and interpersonal), group cohesion, group norms, and
social networking operate to shape the structure and function of therapeutic groups? If so,
how do these group-level processes combine to influence outcome? Which group-level pro-
cesses are most responsible for attitudinal and behavioral change, and which are less critical?
Researchers have only begun to answer questions pertaining to the factors that mediate the
treatment-outcome relationship.
Second, much of the evidence that is available is tainted by methodologically limited
procedures. Groups are difficult to study, and so studies of their effectiveness often suffer
from fatal flaws in design and execution. Treatment fidelity is difficult to verify, as each
treatment session is influenced not only by the therapist but also by the clients themselves. In
many cases, too, no attempt is made to measure group-level processes, such as cohesiveness
or emerging networks of influence within the group, as researchers' rely only on each individ-
ual members' perceptions of these qualities. Researchers, too, often study so few groups that
they have problems separating out the effects of the treatment from the unique effects of a
particular group or group member on members. It is common, for example, for a researcher
to assign one therapy group to the treatment condition and a second therapy group to a con-
trol condition. Since this design confounds treatment and group, the relative effectiveness of
the treatment cannot be ascertained.
These two significant limitations aside, the available evidence prompts a guardedly opti-
mistic conclusion about the therapeutic use of groups. Groups often exert an unrelenting
influence on their members. Nearly all human societies are organized around small groups,
and these groups shape their members' psychological adjustment and dysfunction. Given
their ubiquity, people generally respond positively when presented with the opportunity to
work in a group to achieve mental health goals. Far more research is needed to analyze the
nature of the therapeutic group and its impact on members, but given the powerful self-
processes and interpersonal processes that such groups instigate and the positive findings
510 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND CLINICAL INTERACTIONS

already reported by researchers, groups should be considered a treatment of choice rather

than a radical alternative.

REFERENCES

Agazarian, Y. M . (2001). A systems-centered approach to inpatient group psychotherapy. Philadelphia:

Jessica Kingsley.
Barlow, S. H., Burlingame, G. M., & Fuhriman, A. (2000). Therapeutic applications of groups: From
Pratt's "thought control classes" to modern group psychotherapy. Group Dynamics, 4, 115-
134.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as
a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497- 529.
Bednar, R. L., & Kaul, T. J. (1979) . Experiential group research: What never happened! Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 15, 311-319.
Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Johnson, J.E. (2001). Cohesion in group psychotherapy. Psycho-
therapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38, 373-379.
Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Mosie1; J. (2003). The differential effectiveness of group psycho-
therapy: A meta-analytic perspective. Group Dynamics, 7, 3-12.
Burlingame, G. M., & Krogel, J. (2005) . Relative efficacy of individual versus group psychotherapy.
International journal of Group Psychotherapy, 55, 607-611.
Burlingame, G. M., MacKenzie, K. R., & Strauss, B. (2004). Small group treatment: Evidence for effec-
tiveness and mechanisms of change. In M . ]. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's handbook of
psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 647-696) . New York: Wiley.
Butler, T., & Fuhriman, A. (1983a). Curative factors in group therapy: A review of the recent literature.
Small Group Research, .14, 131-142.
Butler, T., & Fuhriman, A. (1983b). Level of functioning and length of time in treatment variables influ-
encing patients' therapeutic experience in group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy, 33, 489- 505.
Cameron, J. E. (1999). Social identity and the pursuit of possible selves: Implications for the psycho-
logical well-being of university students. Group Dynamics, 3, 179- 189.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to
human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cheavens, J. S., Feldman, D. B., Gum, A., Michael, S. T., & Snyder, C. R. (2006). Hope therapy in a
community sample: A pilot investigation. Social Indicators Research, 77, 61-78.
Cooley, C.H. (1909). Social organization: A study of the larger mind. New York: Scribner's.
Delucia-Waack, J. L., & Kalodner, C. R. (2005). Contemporary issues in group practice. In S. A.
Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook of group research and practice (pp. 65-84) . Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Dies, R. R. (1994). The therapist's role in group treatments. In H. S. Bernard & K. R. MacKenzie
(Eds.), Basics of group psychotherapy (pp. 60-99) . New York: Guilford Press.
Dixon, T. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1991). Escaping the self: The moderating effect of self complexity.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 363-368.
Elliott, R., Greenberg, L. S., & Lietaer, G. (2004). Research on experiential psychotherapies. In M. J.
Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed.,
pp. 493-540). New York: Wiley.
Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2004). Behavior therapy with adults. In M. ]. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and
Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 393-446). New York:
Wiley.
Falloon, I. R.H., Lindley, P., McDonald, R., & Marks, I. M. (1977) . Social skills training of outpa-
tient groups: A controlled study of rehearsal and homework. British Journal of Psychiatry, 131,
599-609.
 Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy 511

Forsyth, D.R. (2010). Group dynamics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson.
Forsyth, D. R., & Corazzini, J. G. (2000). Groups as change agents. In C. R. Snyder & R. E. Ingram
(Eds.), Handbook of psychological change: Psychotherapy processes and practices for the 21st
century (pp. 309-336). New York: Wiley.
Freud, S. (1922). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego [Massenpsychologie und ich-analyse.].
LondonNienna: International Psychoanalytical Press.
Freud, S. (1961). Civilization and its discontents(]. Strachey, Trans. & Ed.). New York: Norton.
Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. M. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical
and clinical synthesis. New York: Wiley.
Goulding, R. L., & Goulding, M. M. (1979). Changing lives through redecision therapy. New York:
Brunner/Maze!.
Greve, D. W. (1993). Gestalt group psychotherapy. In H. I. Kaplan & B.]. Sadock (Eds.), Comprehen-
sive group psychotherapy (3rd ed., pp. 228-235). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Haskell, R. E. (1999). Between the lines: Unconscious meaning in everyday conversation. New York:
Plenum Press.
Herbert, T. B., & Cohen S. (1993). Stress and immunity in humans: A meta-analytic review. Psychoso-
matic Medicine, 55, 364-379.
Hollon, S. D., & Beck, A. T. (2004). Cognitive and cognitive behavioral therapies. In M.]. Lambert
(Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp. 447-
492). New York: Wiley.
Kelman, H. C. (1963 ). The role of the group in the induction of therapeutic change. International Jour-
nal of Group Psychotherapy, 13, 399-432.
Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and groups
in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 1-26.
Kiesler, D. J. (1991). Interpersonal methods of assessment and diagnosis. In C.R. Snyder & D.R. For-
syth (Eds.), Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective (pp. 438-468).
New York: Pergamon Press.
Kipper, D. A., & Ritchie, T. D. (2003). The effectiveness of psychodramatic techniques: A meta-analy-
sis. Group Dynamics, 7, 13-25.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Mullison, D. (1988). Participants' perception of therapeutic factors in group
counseling: The role of interpersonal style and stage of group development. Small Group Research,
19, 452-468.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., Multon, K. D., & Brossart, D. F. (1996). Helpful impacts in group counsel-
ing: Development of a multidimensional rating system. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43,
347-355.
Kivlighan, D. M., Jr., & Tarrant, J.M. (2001). Does group climate mediate the group leadership-group
member outcome relationship? A test of Yalom's hypotheses about leadership priorities. Group
Dynamics, 5, 220-234.
Kosters, M., Burlingame, G. M., Nachtigall, C., & Strauss, B. (2006). A meta-analytic review of the
effectiveness of inpatient group psychotherapy. Group Dynamics, 10, 146-163.
LaBarge, E., Von Dras, D., & Wingbermuehle, C. (1998). An analysis of themes and feelings from a
support group for people with Alzheimer's disease. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice,
Training, 35, 537-544.
Laing, R. D. (1969). Self and others. London: Penguin Books.
Lakin, M. (1972). Experiential groups: The uses of interpersonal encounter, psychotherapy groups, and
sensitivity training. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Lambert, M. J., & Ogles, B. M. (2004). The efficacy and effectiveness of psychotherapy. In M.]. Lam-
bert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield's handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (5th ed., pp.
139-193). New York: Wiley.
Langs, R.]. (1973). The technique of psychoanalytic psychotherapy. New York: Aronson.
Leary, M. R., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1-62.
512 BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND CLINICAL INTERACTIONS

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1995). So cial anxiety. New York: ui lfo rd Press.
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & owns, D . L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal
monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Sod a/ Psychology, 68, 518-530.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper.
Lieberman, M. A., & Golant, M. (2002). Leader behaviors as perceived by cancer patients in profes-
sionally directed support groups and outcomes. Group Dynamics, 6, 267-276.
Lieberman, M.A., Yalom, I. D., & Miles, M. B. (1973) . Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic
Books.
MacNair-Semands, R. R. (2002). Predicting attendance and expectations for group therapy. Group
Dynamics, 6, 219-228.
MacNair-Semands, R.R., & Lese, K. P. (2000). Interpersonal problems and the perception of therapeu-
tic factors in group therapy. Small Group Research, 31, 158-174.
Maddux, ]. E., & Lewis, J. (1995) . Self-efficacy and adjustment: Basic principles and issues. In J. E.
Maddux (Ed .), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp.
37-68). New York: Plenum Press.
Marmarosh, C. L., & Corazzini,]. G. (1997). Putting the group in your pocket: Using collective iden-
tity to enhance personal and collective self-esteem. Group Dynamics, 1, 65-74.
Marmarosh, C. L., Holtz, A., & Schottenbauer, M. (2005). Group cohesiveness, group-derived col-
lective self-esteem, group-derived hope, and the well-being of group therapy members. Group
Dynamics, 9, 32-44.
Marsh, L. C. (1931). Group treatment for the psychoses by the psychological equivalent of revival.
Mental Hygiene, 15, 328-349.
Maslow, A.H. (1937). The comparative approach to social behavior. Social Forces, 15, 487-490.
McDermut, W., Miller, I. W., & Brown, R. A. (2001). The efficacy of group psychotherapy for depres-
sion: A meta-analysis and review of the empirical research. Clinical Psychology: Science and Prac-
tice, 8, 98-116.
McRoberts, C., Burlingame, G. M., & Hoag, M.]. (1998) . Comparative efficacy of individual and
group psychotherapy: A meta-analytic perspective. Group Dynamics, 2, 101-117.
Moreno,]. L. (1932). Group m ethod and group psychotherapy (Sociometry Monograph No. 5). New
York: Beacon House.
Moreno,]. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations.
Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-
control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259.
Ogrodniczuk,]. S., & Piper, W. E. (2003). The effect of group climate on outcome in two forms of
short-term group therapy. Group Dynamics, 7, 64-76.
Ormont, L. R. (1984). The leader's role in dealing with aggression in groups. International Journal of
Group Psychotherapy, 34, 553-572.
Page, R. C., Weiss, J. F., & Lietaer, G. (2002). Humanistic group psychotherapy. In D. ]. Cain & ].
Seeman (Eds.), Humanistic psychotherapies: Handbook of research and practice (pp. 339-368).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pennebaker,]. W. (1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions (rev. ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Peels, F., Hefferline, R., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt therapy: Excitement and growth in the human
personality. New York: Julian Press.
Pratt,]. H. (1922). The principles of class treatment and their application to various chronic diseases.
Hospital Social Services, 6, 401-417.
Rawlinson, J. W. (2000). Does psychodrama work? A review of the literature. British Journal of Psy-
chodrama and Sociodrama, 15, 66-101.
Ringer, T. M. (2002). Group action: The dynamics of groups in therap eutic, educational, and corporate
settings. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.
Rogers, C.R. (1940). The processes of therapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 4, 161-164.
 Group Processes and Group Psychotherapy 513

Rogers, C.R. (1970). Carl Rogers on encounter groups. New York: Harper & Row.
Ruge!, R. P., & Meyer, D. J. (1984). The Tavistock group: Empirical findings and implications for
group therapy. Small Group Research, 15, 361-374.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Sedikides, C., & Skowronski, J. J. (1995). On the sources of self-knowledge: The perceived primacy of
self-reflection. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 244-270.
Sedikides, C., & Strube, M. ]. (1997). Self evaluation: To thine own self be good, to thine own self be
sure, to thine own self be true, and to thine own self be better. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 29, 209-269.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psy-
chologist, 32, 752-760.
Strupp, H. H. (1986). The nonspecific hypothesis of therapeutic effectiveness: A current assessment.
American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 56, 513-520.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Swann, W. B.]., Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & Larsen McClarty, K. (2007). Do people's self-views mat-
ter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. American Psychologist, 62, 84-94.
Twenge, J. M., & Crocker, J. (2002). Race and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing whites, blacks,
Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians and comment on Gray-Little and Hafdahl (2000). Psy-
chological Bulletin, 128, 371- 408.
Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between social support
and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications
for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488-531.
Vickery, C. D., Gontkovsky, S. T., Wallace, J.]., & Caroselli, J. S. (2006). Group psychotherapy focus-
ing on self-concept change following acquired brain injury: A pilot investigation. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 51, 30-35.
Weiss, D. S. (2006). Psychodynamic group treatment. In L. A. Schein, H. I. Spitz, G. M. Burlingame,
& P. R. Muskin (Eds.), Psychological effects of catastrophic disasters: Group approaches to treat-
ment (pp. 787-839). New York: Haworth Press.
Wills, T. A., & Cleary, S. D. (1996). How are social support effects mediated? A test with parental sup-
port and adolescent substance use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 937-952.
Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York: Basic
Books.