Psychology Support Group Assignment

Group Dynamics

Donelson Forsyth

Chapter 15 & 16

Forsyth, D. (2018).  Group Dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage Learning US.  https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9798214344799

Chapter 15. Groups in Context

Just as individuals are embedded in groups, so groups are embedded in physical and social environments. Groups can be found in all kinds for places—from the comfortable and quiet to the noisy and unsafe—and these contexts matter. Interpersonal distances, territories, and work spaces influence efficiency, performance, and satisfaction, for few groups can function effectively in a space that doesn’t suit its purpose. As Lewin’s law of interactionism,

𝐵

=

𝑓

(

𝑃

,

𝐸

)

, states, group members’ reactions (B) are a function of member’s personal qualities (P) and the social and physical environment (E) where the group is located. Groups alter their environments substantially, but in many cases, it’s the place that shapes the group.

What is the ecology of a group?

What are the determinants of spatial relations in a group?

What are the causes and consequences of a group’s tendency to establish territories?

How can group places, spaces, and locations be improved?

Chapter Outline

15-1

Places

15-1a

A Sense of Place

15-1b

Stressful Places

15-1c

Dangerous Places

15-2

Spaces

15-2a

Personal Space

15-2b

Reactions to Spatial Invasion

15-2c

Seating Arrangements

15-3

Locations

15-3a

Types of Territoriality

15-3b

Group Territories

15-3c

Territoriality in Groups

15-4

Workspaces

15-4a

The Person–Place Fit

15-4b

Fitting Form to Function

Chapter Review

Resources

Apollo 13: The Group That Lost the Moon

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy set the goal: to send Americans to the surface of the moon by the end of the decade. His plan initiated the largest engineering project in modern history with as many as 400,000 individuals eventually working together to solve the endless technical, psychological, and medical problems posed by such an unprecedented undertaking. On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong made history when he stepped on the moon’s surface.

One year later, the crew of Apollo 13—James Lovell, John Swigert, and Fred Haise—also made history, but in their case by not stepping on the moon. On April 11, 1970, they piloted the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Apollo 13 into space without any sign of a problem. Lovell, Swigert, and Haise were to spend four days crowded together in their command module, named the Odyssey, before reaching the moon. The team members had trained for years for the mission, and throughout the trip they would remain in constant communication with ground control teams in Houston, Texas. Once in orbit around the moon, Lovell and Haise would descend to the surface of the moon in the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), the Aquarius.

But 56 hours into the mission, Swigert initiated a procedure designed to stir the cryogenic oxygen tanks. One of the tanks exploded. With oxygen escaping from their ship and battery power dwindling, Lovell coolly radioed NASA his famous understatement, “Houston, we have a problem.” (Actually, it was Jack Swigert who first told mission control, “we’ve had a problem here.”) To conserve power in the command module for the reentry phase of the mission, the crew moved to the lunar excursion module—a tight space for two people, but crowded with three. For three days, the crew and the experts at NASA worked to solve one problem after another, including near-freezing temperatures and a buildup of carbon dioxide in the cabin. But all ended well: The group circled the Moon, returned to Earth, and splashed down safely in the Pacific Ocean on April 17, 1970.

Groups exist in any number of distinct locations, ranging from classrooms, museums, factories, and boardrooms to copper mines, battlefields, and even space capsules. The mountain climbers of the Adventure Consultants Guided Expedition camped and hiked on the cliffs of Mount Everest. The 1980 U.S. Olympic Hockey Team trained and played for hours and hours on hockey rinks across the world. The Bay of Pigs planners met in an elegantly appointed conference room, speaking to each other in subdued voices across an imposing mahogany table. The Rattlers and the Eagles met, fought, and befriended each other on the fields of the Robbers Cave State Park. The crew of Apollo 13 lived in a “high-tech tin can” filled with multiple controls and few comforts (see Figure 15.1). The members of each one of these groups slept, worked, played, argued, and fought in specific places, and these places substantially influenced their dynamics.

Many disciplines, including anthropology, architecture, demography, environmental psychology, ethology, human geography, interior design, and sociology, affirm the important impact of the environment on human behavior. Just as a group-level orientation assumes that individuals’ actions are shaped by the groups to which they belong, an environmental orientation assumes that groups are shaped by their environments. As Figure 15.2 suggests, a multilevel analysis of human behavior recognizes that individuals are nested in a hierarchy of increasingly inclusive social aggregates, such as groups, organizations, and communities. But individuals and their groups also exist in a physical setting located in a particular geographic locality in a specific region of the world, and that place will eventually influence the group’s dynamics and outcomes. After all, did not Kurt Lewin (1951) remind us that

𝐵

=

𝑓

(

𝑃

,

𝐸

)

: each group member’s reactions, including their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (B), are a function of members’ personal qualities (P), but also the social and physical environment (E) where the group is located?

This chapter, in reviewing theory and research dealing with the group–environment interface, focuses on group places, spaces, locations, and workspaces. It begins by examining the features of the physical place that influence the group (e.g., temperature and noise) before turning to the way group members act within the space (personal distance and seating choices). The analysis then considers how individuals and groups come to develop a proprietary orientation to a given location—territoriality—before closing with a more practical question: Given what we know about group places, spaces, and locations, what features should be built into the group’s habitat to ensure the members are contented and the group is productive? (For reviews, see Augustin, 2009; Gieryn, 2000; Gifford, Steg, & Reser, 2011).

15-1. Places

Ecology is the study of organisms and their habitats: How they interact with and adapt to other organisms in their environment and to the environment itself. Similarly, group ecology is the study of individuals and groups interacting with and adapting to the group’s habitat. In some cases, groups and the setting fit comfortably together. The place suits the group, leaving members free to focus on interpersonal and task dynamics. The materials they require are available, distractions are minimal, the temperature is comfortable, and the only sounds are those that the group members themselves create. But other environments are less hospitable. Humans have been remarkably successful in changing their environment to suit their preferences, but sometimes the place shapes the group rather than the group shaping the place.

15-1a. A Sense of Place

Physical settings are often said to have ambience, or atmosphere, for they can create a distinctive cognitive and emotional reaction in people who occupy these spaces (Schroeder, 2007).

We have strong feelings in and about places. Some places make us feel good: glad to be there, relaxed, excited, warm all over. We are drawn to these places and return to them as often as we can. Other places make us feel bad: uncomfortable, insignificant, unhappy, out of place. We avoid these places and suffer if we have to be in them. (Farbstein & Kantrowitz, 1978, p. 14)

The crew of the Apollo 13, for example, lived for six days in a space the size of a closet filled with control panels, gauges, sensors, warning lights, and all sorts of buttons and switches. The space had been designed with meticulous care, but only an engineer or an astronaut would likely call it comfortable or beautiful.

Perceptions of Places

A group’s response to its environment is a subjective one, for the manifest physical features of the place are filtered through each member’s personal preferences, expectations, values, and attitudes. Their response is based more on their psychological representation of the physical location as much as it is based on the place’s physical features (Graham, Gosling, & Travis, 2015). Preferences and aesthetics all vary from one person to the next, so a setting that is considered pleasant or comfortable by one person may evoke the opposite reaction for another. The very same aspects of a setting, such as the color of the walls or the way the table and chairs are arranged, are embraced if the person chose these features, but not if they were imposed by someone else (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010). One’s goals matter, as well. A person who wishes, for example, to study for an examination will respond very differently to a room with music, dancing, and party streamers than will a person whose goal is to have a good time (Herzog et al., 2011a). The beauty of a place is often in the eye of the beholder.

Psychologist James A. Russell and his colleagues, however, have found that people’s perceptions of places are substantially influenced by their answers to two basic questions: How pleasant is the place (positive versus negative), and how arousing is the place (activating versus relaxing)? First, a group environment that is orderly, tastefully decorated, clean, and spacious usually prompts a more favorable reaction than one that is poorly designed, shabby, unkempt, and odorous (see Figure 15.3). Second, whereas some places are restful, others stimulate their occupants rather than relax them. The astronauts and engineers working in the control room at Houston all responded positively to their highly arousing habitat, and so they considered it an exhilarating place. Visitors to the control room, in contrast, often reacted negatively to its harsh lights, countless monitors, and a cacophony of voices issuing orders, relaying information, and asking questions. Few considered it boring or tranquil (Russell, 1980, 2003; Russell & Snodgrass, 1987; Yik, Russell, & Steiger, 2011).

Groups generally respond best, in terms of performance and satisfaction, in affectively pleasant situations. Manufacturing teams in factories, students in classrooms, and workers in offices, for example, perform better when working in attractive spaces that are visually interesting rather than drab (Cabanac, 2006). Physical features that stimulate or provoke positive emotions—including music, furnishings, art, decor, decorations, color, and lighting—are associated with a range of positive group dynamics, including increased cohesion, improved communication, productivity, and reduced absenteeism (Augustin, 2009). An attractive environment is not, however, a requirement for group effectiveness. Many successful groups work without problems in relatively shabby settings. A too pleasant environment may distract the group from the task at hand, providing counterproductive levels of comfort. Highly effective groups may also be so focused on the task that they can work anywhere, since what matters is the quality of their tools and their personnel rather than the setting (Bennis & Biederman, 1997).

Groups also thrive in stimulating spaces. Studies of groups living in harsh circumstances, such as teams stationed in Antarctica and explorers living for months on end in a confined space, complain more about the monotony of the environment than about the danger, discomfort, or isolation (Stuster, 1996). During the International Geophysical Year (1957–1958), for example, several countries sent small groups of military and civilian personnel to outposts in Antarctica. These groups were responsible for collecting various data concerning that largely unknown continent, but the violent weather forced the staff to remain indoors most of the time. As months went by with little change in their situation, morale declined and group members found themselves arguing over trivial issues. The members summarized their group malaise with the term antarcticitis—lethargy, low morale, grouchiness, and boredom brought on by their unstimulating living conditions (Gunderson, 1973; see also Loukidou, Loan-Clarke, & Daniels, 2009).

Cognitive Overload

Excessively stimulating settings can also be problematic. Groups experience cognitive overload if they are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information in the environment (Kirsh, 2000). People generally prefer to be located at the center of their group’s communication network rather than on the periphery, but not if the flow of information is so great they cannot keep up with it. College students who rated their environment as overly stimulating—they agreed with such items as “I was bothered by stimuli that were interesting but irrelevant” and “I couldn’t think about something because there was too much going on around me”—also evidenced signs of mental fatigue, including an inability to concentrate and difficulty following directions (Herzog et al., 2011b). Novice automobile drivers (ages 16–18) traveling with other young passengers create a group situation that is overly complex, resulting in increases in fatal accidents. In consequence, many states in the United States have banned these groups from the highway (Chen et al., 2000; Ehsani et al., 2015).

Even a highly effective team with a well-developed mental model (see Chapter 11) will display a significant loss in functioning if the members experience cognitive overload. Researchers examined this process by bombarding expert teams of naval personnel with substantial amounts of information. The teams worked on a task that simulated a critically important naval decision—deciding on the basis of radar and database information whether an unidentified contact was a threat to the ship or nonhostile. The participants worked in teams of three, but in the coaction condition, members made their decisions independently of one another. In the interdependent condition, the members had to work together to gather information about the possible target. The researchers manipulated cognitive load by exposing some of the groups to distracting sound and noise while they worked and by increasing the number of contacts presented on the radar screens. They also pressured these groups by telling members to “work harder” and to “hurry up.”

The study’s results confirmed the researchers’ initial suspicions: Interdependent groups working in a stressful situation lost their group perspective. They were more likely to report feeling like three individuals rather than like a team, and they were not focused on the task. They were also less likely to use plural pronouns such as we, us, our, ours, and ourselves when describing their response to the simulation. Moreover, groups that lost their team perspective tended to perform more poorly—they were more likely to identify a harmless contact on their radar screens as hostile and less likely to correctly identify contacts that were dangerous. These findings suggest that a well-trained team may handle routine problems effectively, but that the advantages of extensive training may be lost when groups work in challenging environments (Driskell, Salas, & Johnston, 1999).

Coping with Complexity

In everyday situations, people cope with overload by reducing their contact with others, limiting the amount of information they notice and process, ignoring aspects of the situation, and engaging in restorative practices: spending time in an environment that does not demand high levels of directed attention. According to psychologist Stephen Kaplan’s attention restoration theory (ART), directed attention is mentally draining, for it requires group members to monitor their attention, direct it to focus on a particular stimulus, and ignore other aspects of the environment. The crew monitoring their radar screens, students in their classrooms, and groups making complicated decisions may all be impressively productive, but they are also becoming cognitively depleted as these activities rely on finite and exhaustible psychological resources (Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan & Berman, 2010).

Other situations, in contrast, make far fewer cognitive demands on group members. People often report feeling rejuvenated and energized by such places (Collado et al., 2017). The ART model suggests these places have four key qualities: they are interesting (fascination), set apart from their surroundings (being away), free of distractions (extent), and compatible with the members’ purposes and intents (compatibility). Kaplan and his colleagues find that natural environments, in particular, are deeply restorative ones. Individuals who spend time walking in a park, sitting on a bench in a garden, or viewing photographs of nature scenes are better able to concentrate, control their thinking, tolerate frustration, and perform more successfully on a wide array of tests of mental acuity. Sleep and meditation may also serve to rejuvenate attention. Watching television, by the way, does not (Kaplan & Berman, 2010).

Do You Have a Restorative Place?

Your group has just finished a day-long goal setting retreat. You have just turned in a 20-page paper for your group dynamics class. Or you have just finished crunching the numbers for your annual tax return. You are tired, your performance has started to decline, and you need to take a break. Attention restoration theory recommends spending time in a supportive, refreshing environment (Kaplan & Berman, 2010).

Instructions

Think of the place where you or your group goes when seeking to think things through, replenish your energy, and regain a sense of perspective and cognitive control. Once you have a place in mind, put a check in each box if the place provides each type of restorative benefit.

Fascination

This place engages my interest in an easy, relaxed way.

This place doesn’t demand my attention, but it has many interesting features.

Being Away

I can get away from everyday concerns and demands here.

I am free of distractions here.

Extent

I can get completely involved here in what I’m doing and not think about anything else.

I feel like I’m in a world of my own when I’m here.

Compatibility

I can get done what I need to here.

I’m comfortable and at ease when I’m here.

Scoring

Is your place restorative? If you checked at least half of the items listed above, then your place may qualify as one where you can gain a renewed sense of purpose and self-regulation. Researchers find most restorative places exhibit all four types of qualities, but if your place did not earn checks in any one category, consider ways to improve the place so that it more fully meets your restorative needs. (See Felsten, 2009; Meagher, 2016 for more psychometrically precise measures of the restorative properties of places).

15-1b. Stressful Places

Some settings sustain and restore, but others strain and stress. Groups do not exist in neutral, passive voids, but in fluctuating environments that are sometimes too hot, too cold, too impersonal, too intimate, too big, too little, too noisy, too quiet, too restrictive, or too open—but rarely just right. These settings are sources of stress—strain caused by environmental circumstances that threaten one’s sense of well-being and safety (Gatersleben & Griffin, 2017).

Temperature

Temperature is a property of the environment, but this physical characteristic of a place influences its interpersonal properties. People often describe other people, groups, and relationships as warm and cold. Warm people are thought to be intelligent, skillful, industrious, determined, practical, and cautious. Cold ones: ungenerous, unhappy, irritable, unsociable, unpopular, and humorless (Asch, 1946).

People so closely associate ambient warmth with interpersonal warmth that they rate other people more positively when they themselves are feeling warm (Williams & Bargh, 2008). And, just as warm temperatures create increases in social warmth, social warmth causes people to misjudge ambient temperature. When individuals felt interpersonally closer to others in their group, they judged the room to be slightly warmer than did individuals who did not feel as close to others (IJzerman & Semin, 2010). Social neuroscience findings even suggest that areas of the brain that are responsible for processing information about ambient temperature also handle the processing of information about social warmth and trust, suggesting that social connections actually are “heartwarming” (Inagaki, 2014; Kang et al., 2011).

One of the minor miseries of life, however, occurs when people must work in a room that is either too hot or too cold. Although people generally rate temperatures from the mid-60s to the mid-80s Fahrenheit as “comfortable,” temperatures that fall outside this range cause discomfort, irritability, and reduced productivity (Bell, 1992). When groups were assigned to work either in a room at normal temperature (

72.4

F

°

) or in a hot room (

93.5

F

°

), the overheated group members reported feelings of fatigue, sadness, and discomfort, whereas participants in the normal temperature room reported feeling more elated, vigorous, and comfortable (Griffitt & Veitch, 1971). People also tend to sweat more when working in high temperatures, and exposure to others’ body odors is a sensation that most people find objectionable (Stevenson & Repacholi, 2005). Fortunately, people find the smell of group members to be less repugnant than the smell of a stranger (Peng, Chang, & Zhou, 2013).

Groups tend to be more aggressive when they are hot; tempers can “flare” and discussions get “heated.” Heat and aggression are so closely linked, psychologically, that just thinking about hot temperatures can also trigger thoughts about aggression (DeWall & Bushman, 2009). Collective violence tends to be seasonal, for people are more likely to riot in the warm days of the summer than they are in the colder winter months (Rotton & Cohn, 2002). Groups, too, tend to be more hostile when temperatures are high, but not extremely high. In one study, researchers created groups that worked on individual tasks in a comfortable room versus a hot room. The heat-stressed participants were angry, but they were so uncomfortable that their primary concern was to escape. They finished the experiment as quickly as possible and then left (Baron & Bell, 1975; Bell, 1992).

Extreme temperatures are also physically harmful (Folk, 1974). When temperatures are high, people are more likely to suffer from exhaustion, stroke, and heart attacks. Extreme cold can lead to hypothermia and death. The Apollo 13 astronauts, for example, struggled to maintain their body heat at healthy levels when the loss of power forced them to turn off the cabin heaters. It was, as Lovell characteristically understated, “very uncomfortable. Basically, the cold made it uncomfortable” (quoted in Godwin, 2000, p. 109). Accounts of groups struggling in extremely cold natural environments, such as teams wintering over in Antarctica or mountain climbers, document the lethal effects of exposure to extremely cold temperatures.

Is It Cold or Hot Where You Live?

They say that there is no place like home, but where is home for the human species? People live in every part of the world, from the frozen Antarctic to its most arid deserts. But do these different climates change the groups within them? Do groups in cold places, such as Iceland or upstate New York, act differently than groups in warm places, such as Saudi Arabia and Mexico?

Social psychologist Evert Van de Vliert (2013), in his climato-economic theory, argues that climate makes different demands on the people who live in a place. Physically, humans are most comfortable in climates with temperatures of about

72

F

°

, so groups who live in habitats where the temperature hovers near this mark experience less climate-related stress. Colder and hotter climates, in contrast, are more challenging, and so groups develop cultural practices to survive in such places.

These cultural practices, however, will be different depending on the society’s economic prosperity. If the groups who live in a particular geographic area are economically prosperous, then the culture will likely develop production and trade systems to make or acquire the resources needed to deal with environmental challenges. Cultures that lack economic resources, including wealth or natural resources, cannot generate the food, clothing, shelter, and medical facilities they need by developing strong economies, so they instead shift toward self-sufficiency, localized trade, and a more communal orientation. In essence, less affluent cultures cope with living in a difficult environment by building social capital, whereas wealthier cultures rely on their economic capital.

Van de Vliert (2006, 2011) offers a number of compelling pieces of evidence in support of their theory. He discovered, for example, that he could predict a cultures’ acceptance of an autocratic leader by taking into account the country’s baseline level of wealth and the harshness of the climate where it is located. He also found that the residents of relatively poorer countries tended to evidence higher levels of intergroup bias—but only if they were also located in a climate that was too hot or too cold; only then were these countries’ residents more negative about other groups, more supportive of nepotistic hiring practices, and more family-focused. Countries where the climate was more temperate exhibited varying levels of support for authoritarian leaders and they also ranged from individualism to collectivism, but these variables were not related to the country’s level of economic prosperity.

Some of Van de Vliert’s other findings provide only partial support for his climato-economic theory. When, for example, he studied the sources of role stress in work groups in organizations, he discovered that conflict was associated with higher temperatures and so was not moderated either by wealth or harshness of the climate (Van de Vliert, 1996). And other investigators have suggested that factors that vary with temperature—such as susceptibility to infectious diseases—may be more causally influential factors (see, Fincher & Thornhill, 2012; Van de Vliert & Postmes, 2012). Researchers continue to test hypotheses derived from the theory, but it may be that global climate changes will provide the ultimate test. If the worldwide increase in temperatures continues for much longer, people living in colder climates may find that their climate is less of a challenge, whereas others may discover that their once temperate climate has become too hot to sustain their way of life. These countries, according to Van de Vliert, will undergo changes in their cultural traditions to deal with these climate changes, depending as well on their overall level of wealth. Time, then, and temperature, will tell (Van de Vliert, 2016).

Noise

The crew of Apollo 13 lived with constant noise during their five days in space. The Saturn V rockets were deafening, burning 3,400 gallons of fuel per second. Once in orbit, the cabin was filled with the humming of computers, the whirring of fans and pumps circulating air and liquids, and the crackling of transmissions between the crew and COMCON, the flight controller back in Houston. There was also the one sound that signaled to the crew that something was wrong; Lovell described the explosion as a “bang-whump-shudder” that was felt more than heard (Lovell & Kluger, 1994, p. 94).

Noise is any sound that is unwanted. Sounds in the range of 0–50 decibels (dB) are very soft and generally produce little irritation for the listener. Sounds of more than 80 dB, in contrast, may be bothersome enough to be called noise. In general, the louder the noise, the more likely it will produce distraction, irritation, and psychological stress (Cohen & Weinstein, 1981). Group communication becomes impossible in such environments, so members have problems coordinating their efforts. Coping with chronic noise also exacts a psychological toll. Groups in noisy places—people who work in noisy offices, families living in homes near airports, and children on playgrounds located near major highways—behave differently than groups in quieter contexts. People are less likely to interact with other people in noisy places, and they also tend to be less helpful (Jones, Chapman, & Auburn, 1981). Over time, exposure to loud noise is associated with substantial threats to health, including physical illnesses (headaches, heart disease, allergies, and digestive disorders), infant and adult mortality rates, mental illness, interpersonal conflict, and even impotence (Basner, 2014).

Not all noisy places are bad places, however. A moderate level of ambient noise, for example, may actually help people concentrate on their work. When attempting to perform a task that calls for creativity and divergent thinking, high levels and low levels of noise are deleterious, but a moderate level of background noise improves performance (Mehta, Zhu, & Cheema, 2012). If, however, the group is attempting a task that requires the accurate communication of information across members, then the less noise the better. Groups are particularly sensitive to noise because much of the unwanted sound in a group setting originates within the group itself. Depending on the qualities of the room, 15 people talking informally with one another will create so much noise that conversation between adjoining pairs is inhibited. When a conversing group passes by an individual who is attempting to perform a difficult task, the noise of the group can be distracting. People can often ignore ambient sounds, but overheard speech is another matter. Neurological evidence indicates that even when people strive to deliberately ignore speech by refocusing attention on the task at hand, some of their cognitive resources are being used to monitor the nearby conversations (Campbell, 2005).

People can cope with noise for short periods of time. When researchers bombarded people working on both simple and complex tasks with taperecorded noise, the participants became so inured to the stimulus that it had no effect on their performance (Glass, Singer, & Pennebaker, 1977). Groups cannot, however, cope with noise for long periods of time. As “individuals expend ‘psychic energy’ in the course of the adaptive process,” they become “less able to cope with subsequent environmental demands and frustrations” (Glass et al., 1977, p. 134). One investigation found that exposure to low levels of ambient noise in an office setting was not stressful, but people had trouble coping with other stressful events—an irritating boss or coworker, role ambiguities, or time pressures—when they worked in a noisy place (Leather, Beale, & Sullivan, 2003).

15-1c. Dangerous Places

The astronauts sat atop millions of pounds of rocket fuel at launch, traveled through space in a thin-shelled spacecraft at speeds of nearly 25,000 miles an hour, and during reentry relied on a heat shield to deflect the heat away from the command module and parachutes that would slow the craft’s descent. All the dangers were minimized through planning, design, and training, but one danger that all crews faced but could not protect themselves against was always present—a collision with a meteor.

EUEs: Extreme and Unusual Environments

The Apollo 13 astronauts were not the first group to face difficult environmental circumstances. For centuries, explorers have hiked, sailed, flown, and ridden from their homes to distant lands and places, and many of these groups have endured long periods of isolation in extreme and unusual environments (EUEs) (Bell et al., 2017). In some cases, a natural calamity, such as a flood, earthquake, or blizzard, may overtake a group, which must then struggle to survive. For example, Sir Ernest Shackleton and the crew of Endurance survived the destruction of their ship on an ice floe in the Antarctic. More recently, 33 miners in Chile survived the collapse of the mine where they worked, but all survived the cave-in and were reunited with their families after 69 days. Some groups, too, work at jobs that are riskier than most: Ship crews, police officers, and military units often live and work in circumstances that can be life threatening. Teams of divers have lived for weeks on end in SEALAB, 200 feet beneath the ocean’s surface. NASA’s crews have endured months in space, and plans are being made for a three-year voyage to Mars (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000).

Surviving Environmental Challenges

Although technological innovations make survival in even the most hostile environments possible, groups living in these space-age settings must learn to cope with age-old problems of interpersonal adjustment. Whereas harsh environments and circumstances overwhelm lone individuals, groups generally cope with danger by taking precautions that make the situation safer. Astronauts, military combat squads, and explorers all minimize the danger by training, stressing cooperation among members, and monitoring each individual’s connection to the group (Driskell, Salas, & Driskell, 2017). But many groups not only persevere in these adverse circumstances; they find the experience to be exhilarating. Groups like Apollo 13 and the Shackleton explorers have faced disaster, death, and ruin at each turn, yet their autobiographical accounts of their experiences speak eloquently about their adventures—which they do not regret—describing them as “a cherished and important part of their life, perceived as an impetus to growing, strengthening, and deepening, to be remembered with pride and enjoyment” (Suedfeld & Steel, 2000, p. 229).

Why Is Mount Everest so Dangerous?

On May 10, 1996, two groups set off to scale Mt. Everest, the highest peak in the world. Both teams met with disaster, caused in part by the environmental challenges they encountered. Everest is subject to high winds, bitter temperatures, and icy conditions. As Chapter 1 explained, climbers must reach the peak and return to camp in a single day, because the chances of surviving a night on the summit of Everest are slim. But the teams in 1996 were overtaken by an unexpectedly powerful storm as they descended and they could not reach the shelter of their camp. Several members of the team also suffered from a lack of oxygen, for the air is thin at that altitude. Everest climbers usually carry tanks of oxygen, but even these supplements cannot counteract the negative effects of climbing treacherous terrain 29,000 feet above sea level.

Neither team responded effectively to these negative environmental events. Jon Krakauer (1997), a member of one of the groups, suggested that an inattention to teamwork may have contributed to the failure. Even though the climb is extremely dangerous and many who attempt it are killed, the groups did not practice together, did not establish routines for dealing with supplies (including oxygen), and did not set up contingency plans. A hierarchy of authority was not established, despite the possibility that one of the leaders could be injured. The leaders did not share their plans for the summit with the group, and they did not remain in contact with the other guides during the climb. They also made errors in judgment, possibly due to inexperience, the ill effects of too little oxygen (hypoxia), and the desire to outdo the other team. As a result, several climbers managed to reach the summit, but they were overtaken by the snowstorm during the descent and perished.

As Krakauer later described, a sense of isolation pervaded the camp on the night before the summit attempt:

The roar of the wind made it impossible to communicate from one tent to the next. In this godforsaken place, I felt disconnected from the climbers around me—emotionally, spiritually, physically—to a degree I hadn’t experienced on any previous expedition. We were a team in name only, I’d sadly come to realize. Although in a few hours we would leave camp as a group, we would ascend as individuals, linked to one another by neither rope nor any deep sense of loyalty. (Krakauer, 1997, p. 163)

Krakauer’s foreboding proved prophetic. Everest claimed the lives of eight members of the two teams, including both team leaders (Burnette, Pollack, & Forsyth, 2011).

Spaces

Groups exist in any number of distinct locations, and the physical qualities of these places—temperature, noise, and stress—substantially influence a group’s dynamics. But the group’s environment also includes the other people present in the physical space. Lovell was not alone in the Apollo 13 capsule but with Swigert and Haise; his fellow crewmen influenced his actions and outcomes as much as the physical features of the spacecraft did. This section examines two key aspects of group ecology: the distances members maintain between each other—personal space—and the way they position themselves relative to one another—seating arrangements (Fuller & Löw, 2017; Hayduk, 1983).

Personal Space

Anthropologist Edward T. Hall (1966) argued that much of our behavior is shaped by a “hidden dimension.” In Apollo 13, this dimension determined where each astronaut sat as he carried out his scheduled tasks; how crew members moved through the tunnel between the command module and the service module; where they positioned themselves when they looked out the windows of their ship as it passed over the surface of the moon. What is this hidden dimension? Space.

People prefer to keep some space between themselves and others. This personal space provides a boundary that limits the amount of physical contact between people. This boundary extends farther in front of a person than behind, but the individual is always near the center of this invisible buffer zone. Personal space is portable, but it is actively maintained and defended. When someone violates our personal space, we tend to take steps to correct this problem. The term personal space is something of a misnomer, as the process actually refers to distances that people maintain between one another. Hence, it is an interpersonal space (Patterson, 1975).

Interpersonal Zones

Different group activities require different amounts of personal space. Hall, in describing these variations, proposed four types of interpersonal zones (see Table 15.1). The intimate zone is appropriate only for the most involving and personal behaviors, such as arm wrestling and whispering. The personal zone, in contrast, is reserved for a wide range of small group experiences, such as discussions with friends, interaction with acquaintances, and conversation. More routine transactions are conducted in the social zone. Meetings held over large desks, formal dining, and professional presentations to small groups generally take place in this zone. The public zone is reserved for even more formal meetings, such as stage presentations, lectures, or addresses. The interactions between the crews of Apollo 13 occurred almost exclusively in the personal zone, except when Lovell hugged the shivering Haise, who had become increasingly ill during the mission.

Table 15.1 Types of Social Activities That Occur in Each Interpersonal Zone

Zone Distance Characteristics Typical Activities

Intimate Touching to 18 inches Sensory information concerning the other is detailed and diverse; stimulus person dominates the perceptual field. Sex, hugging, massage, comforting, jostling, handshakes, and slow dancing

Personal 18 inches to 4 feet Other person can be touched if desired; gaze can be directed away from the other person with ease. Conversations, discussion, car travel, viewing performances, and watching television.

Social 4 to 12 feet Visual inputs begin to dominate other senses; voice levels are normal; appropriate distance for many informal social gatherings. Dining, meeting with business colleagues, interacting with a receptionist

Public 12 feet or more All sensory inputs are beginning to become less effective; voices may require amplification; facial expressions unclear. Lectures, addresses, plays, and dance recitals

Remote Different locations Primarily verbal inputs; facial and other behavioral and nonverbal cues limited if audio and video feed is unavailable. Electronic discussions, conference calls, telephone voice mail, email, and online gaming communities

SOURCE: Adapted from E. T. Hall, 1966.

Table 15.1 adds a fifth zone to those described by Hall. In the years since Hall proposed his taxonomy of interpersonal zones, groups have begun to meet more frequently in the remote zone. Instead of interacting face-to-face or even via voice communication, online groups use computer-based tools such as email, chat rooms, social networking sites, and other multiuser support interfaces. The members of these groups are not physically present with each other, making online groups considerably different—at least spatially—than face-to-face groups. The astronauts, for example, communicated with COMCON from a distance—a great distance, in fact. They used voice messages, in some cases, but they were also in touch using communication technologies that allowed them to send and receive information via computers.

Closer, smaller spaces are generally reserved for friendlier, more intimate interpersonal activities. As a result, cohesive groups tend to occupy smaller spaces than noncohesive gatherings (Evans & Howard, 1973); extraverted people maintain smaller distances from others than do introverted ones (Patterson & Sechrest, 1970); people who wish to create a friendly, positive impression usually choose smaller distances than do less friendly people (Evans & Howard, 1973); groups of friends tend to stand closer to one another than do groups of strangers (Edney & Grundmann, 1979); and people who have experienced significant trauma have larger personal spaces than those who have not (Bogovic et al., 2014). Physical distance has less impact on remote groups, but even individuals who interact online tend to be located closer to one another geographically (Spiro, Almquist, & Butts, 2016). In general, individuals communicating via computer respond differently when their interface becomes informationally richer by including voice and video information (Thurlow, Lengel, & Tomic, 2004).

Men, Women, and Distance

Would the amount of personal space maintained by the astronauts in Apollo 13 have differed if they had been women? Probably, for studies suggest that women’s personal spaces tend to be smaller than men’s (Hayduk, 1978, 1983). Relative to men, women allow others to get closer to them, they approach people they know more closely, and they take up less space by sitting with their arms close to their sides and by crossing their legs (Henley, 1995). They also prefer greater distance between themselves and strangers (Sorokowska et al., 2017).

Status

People tend to “keep their distance” when interacting with higher status group members. Researchers documented this tendency by watching conversations between U.S. naval personnel that took place in nonwork settings, such as the cafeteria or a recreation center. The floors in these spaces were tiled, so observers measured distance by counting how many tiles separated the two individuals. As anticipated, rank determined distance: officers approached subordinates more closely than did individuals of a lower rank who were initiating a conversation with an officer (Dean, Willis, & Hewitt, 1975; see Hall, Coats, & LeBeau, 2005).

Culture

Hall (1966) argued that cultures differ in their use of space. People socialized in the contact cultures of the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and Latin America prefer strong sensory involvement with others, and so they seek direct social contact whenever possible. In contrast, residents in such noncontact cultures as the United States, England, and Germany try to limit their spatial openness with others. Given that the crew of Apollo 13 included only Americans, they shared similar norms about how much distance should be maintained. Crews on space stations, such as Mir or Salyut, are more culturally diverse, so misunderstandings caused by spatial confusions are more common. Culture also influences how people interact in the remote zone, for people with different cultural backgrounds vary in how much emotion, personal information, and responsiveness to others they express when communicating via the Internet (Reeder et al., 2004).

These cultural differences, however, vary across Hall’s interpersonal zones. When investigators measured the personal space needs of nearly 9,000 individuals living in 42 countries they discovered people living in some countries (e.g., Romania, Turkey, Uganda, and Pakistan) had relatively large personal spaces needs, but only when interacting in the social zone. Their spatial needs were relatively small when in the personal or intimate zone. This study also identified differences between countries with warmer and colder climates: in warmer places people needed less space in the social zones, but more space in the intimate zone. Colder climates reversed that tendency, with people seeking closeness with intimates but more distance between strangers (Sorokowska et al., 2017).

Maintaining Equilibrium

Why does distance influence so many group processes? Most theories of nonverbal communication recognize that distance, like body orientation, eye contact, and physical touch, function to define the nature of the relationship between people. The equilibrium model of communication, for example, suggests that these nonverbal cues interact to influence perceptions of intimacy. If group members feel that a low level of intimacy is appropriate, they may sit far apart, make little eye contact, and assume a relatively formal posture. If, in contrast, the members are relaxing and discussing personal topics, they may move close together, make more eye contact, and adopt more relaxed postures. By continually adjusting their nonverbal and verbal behavior, group members can keep the intimacy of their interactions at the level they desire (Argyle & Dean, 1965).

Communication researcher Judee Burgoon’s (1978, 1983) expectancy violations theory extends this analysis by identifying the types of messages that distance—taken in combination with other nonverbal cues—can signal. Sitting close to another person may indicate warmth and acceptance, but it may also be an indication of similarity, trust, composure (absence of nervousness), formality, dominance, equality, or task orientation. In one study, for example, she found that closer proximity signaled dominance, similarity, and composure, but that this meaning changed when one person in the group leaned forward, smiled, and briefly touched the other person. The interaction was transformed from one involving status and dominance to one suggesting informality and intimacy (Burgoon & Dillman, 1995; Burgoon & Hale, 1987).

Reactions to Spatial Invasion

Individuals cannot always protect their personal space from intrusion by others. A group may find itself in a place where the available space is so limited that people cannot maintain appropriate distances between one another. In other instances, the group may have sufficient space, but for some reason, a member approaches so closely that he or she seems “too close for comfort.”

A high density situation is not always a problematic situation. Density is a characteristic of the group context—the number of people per unit of space. Crowding, in contrast, is the psychological reaction people experience when they feel that they do not have enough space (Stokols, 1972, 1978). Although the density of a given situation, such as a party, a rock concert, or Apollo 13, may be very high, the group’s members may not feel crowded at all. Yet two people sitting in a large room may feel crowded if the other person is sitting too close to them, they expected to be alone, or dislike each other intensely. Passengers on a train where density was low—there were plenty of empty seats in the car—displayed the negative effects of crowding (e.g., more negative mood, evidence of stress, and loss of motivation) if others were seated near them in their row (Evans & Wener, 2007).

Arousal and Stress

Unexpected and unwarranted violations of one’s personal space needs are, in most cases, aversive experiences. When confederates approached too closely people studying in libraries, sitting outdoors, standing on escalators, or walking down the street, the targets displayed a number of negative reactions, including reduced eye contact, shifts in body posture, verbal rebukes, and withdrawal from the situation (Sundstrom et al., 1996). People report the experience to be stressful, and measures of their physiological reactions confirm this description: Personal space violations cause increases in heart rate and blood pressure, more rapid breathing, and perspiration (Evans, 1979).

One of the more creative—if ethically controversial (see Koocher, 1977)—investigations of the arousal properties of personal space invasion was conducted in a men’s restroom (Middlemist, Knowles, & Matter, 1976). Reasoning that arousal would lead to a general muscular contraction that would delay urination onset and reduce its duration, the researchers set up a situation in which men using wall-mounted urinals were joined by a confederate who used either the next receptacle (near condition) or one located farther down the wall (far condition). When onset times and duration for men in the near and far condition were compared with those same times for men in a no-confederate control condition, the researchers found that personal space invasion significantly increased general arousal.

One team of researchers identified the brain areas that govern how people respond to violations of their personal space by studying the neural functioning of a 42-year-old woman who showed no discomfort when others approached too closely. When asked to walk toward another person and stop when she reached a comfortable distance, she approached so closely she touched the other person and rated the experience as “completely comfortable.” Upon analysis, the researchers found she had complete bilateral damage to her amygdala, which is the area of the brain that regulates strong emotions, including fear. The investigators also studied, using fMRI, healthy individuals’ brain patterns when the experimenter stood close to the scanner and when he maintained a greater distance. These subjects evidenced increased activation of the amygdala, providing further corroboration of the source of the strong negative emotion most people experience when others approach too closely (Kennedy et al., 2009).

How Crowded Was Your Last Outdoor Adventure?

When people head out into the natural environment seeking recreation, entertainment, and leisure, but they encounter far more people than they expected during their getaway, they often express considerable disappointment. They feel crowded.

Instructions

Given that crowding is a psychological experience, rather than an objective evaluation of density, rank the following group activities from 1 to 5, giving a 1 to the activity you feel most often felt crowded, a 2 to the next most crowded, and so on.

____ Camping

____ Biking

____ Fishing

____ Boating

____ Hiking

When researchers compiled the results of 181 reports of people’s reactions to over 600 different recreational locations they discovered people felt the most crowded when they were fishing. The rankings were fishing

(1)

, boating

(2)

, camping

(3)

, biking

(4)

, and hiking

(5)

, although bikers hikers felt much less crowded compared to the others.

The least crowding was reported by people who were floating down a river on a raft or inflated inner tube (Vaske & Shelby, 2008).

Causal Attributions

Every close encounter with another person is not necessarily a negative experience. If the intruder is our close friend, a relative, or an extremely attractive stranger, closeness can be a plus (Willis, 1966). Similarly, if we believe that the other person needs help or is attempting to initiate a friendly relationship, we tend to react positively rather than negatively (Murphy-Berman & Berman, 1978). These findings suggest that the label that individuals use to interpret their arousal determines the consequences of crowding. If people attribute the arousal to others’ standing too close, they will conclude, “I feel crowded.” If, in contrast, they explain the arousal in some other way—“I drank too much coffee,” “I’m in love,” “I’m afraid our ship will burn up in the atmosphere,” and so on—they will not feel crowded.

Researchers tested this attributional model of crowding by seating five-person groups in chairs placed either 20 inches apart or touching at the legs. These researchers told the groups that an inaudible noise would be played in the room as they worked on several tasks. They told some groups that the noise was detectable at the unconscious level and would lead to stressful, discomforting effects. They told other groups that the noise would have relaxing and calming effects, or they gave no explanation for the noise at all. The groups were not actually exposed to any noise, but crowded groups who thought that the noise would arouse them felt less crowded. Why? Because they attributed the arousal caused by crowding to the supposed noise rather than to the proximity of other people (Worchel & Yohai, 1979; see also Worchel & Teddlie, 1976).

Intensity

Crowding does not always vitiate an experience, but instead only intensifies it. According to the density–intensity hypothesis, if the group interaction is an unpleasant one, high density will make the situation seem even more unpleasant (Freedman, 1975, 1979). But if the situation is a pleasant one, high density will make the good situation even better. In one study of the intensifying effects of crowding groups of 6–10 high school students sat on the floor of either a large room or a small room. Each delivered a speech and then received feedback from the other group members. By design, in some cases the feedback was quite positive, whereas in other groups, the feedback was always negative. Participants later rated the room and their group more positively when they received positive feedback under high-density conditions, and they liked their group the least when they got negative feedback when crowded. These effects were clearest for all-female groups as opposed to all-male or mixed-sex groups (Freedman, 1979).

Controllability

Crowded situations are unsettling because they undermine group members’ control over their experiences. Crowded situations bring people into contact with others they would prefer to avoid, and if working groups cannot cope with the constraints of their environment, they may fail at their tasks. Group members can therefore cope with crowding by increasing their sense of control over the situation. Just as a sense of high personal control helps people cope with a range of negative life events, including failure, divorce, illness, and accidents, people are less stressed by environmental threats when they feel they can control their circumstances (Evans & Lepore, 1992; Schmidt & Keating, 1979).

Researchers tested the benefits of controllability by asking groups of six men to work on tasks in either a small room or a large one. One task required participating in a 15-minute discussion of censorship, and the second involved blindfolding a member and letting him wander about within a circle formed by the rest of the group. To manipulate control, one of the participants was designated the coordinator; he was responsible for organizing the group, dealing with questions concerning procedures, and blindfolding members for the second task. A second participant, the terminator, was given control over ending the discussion and regulating each member’s turn in the center of the circle. Significantly, the two group members who could control the group tasks through coordination or termination were not as bothered by the high-density situation as the four group members who were given no control (Rodin, Solomon, & Metcalf, 1978).

Interference

Crowding is particularly troublesome when it interferes with the group’s work. The Apollo 13 crew, for example, did not react negatively to their high-density living conditions so long as the crowding did not undermine their group’s effectiveness. Difficulties only occurred when they needed to fix a problem—such as a hatch that would not secure properly when there was only enough room for one person to reach it. Similarly, studies that find no ill effects of crowding generally study groups working on coaction problems that require little interaction. Studies that require the participants to complete interactive tasks in rooms with restrictive furnishings, in contrast, tend to find negative effects of crowding (see, Meagher & Marsh, 2015).

Researchers demonstrated the importance of interference by deliberately manipulating both density and interaction. All-male groups worked either in a small laboratory room or in a large one collating eight-page booklets. The order of the pages was not constant, however, but was determined by first selecting a card that had the order of the pages listed in a random sequence. In the low-interaction condition, each person had all eight stacks of pages and a set of sequence cards. In the high-interaction condition, the stacks were located at points around the room, so participants had to walk around the room in unpredictable patterns. In fact, the participants often bumped into one another while trying to move from one stack to another. The interference created in the high-interaction condition led to decrements in task performance—provided that density was high (Heller, Groff, & Solomon, 1977).

Seating Arrangements

At launch and during most key maneuvers, the three Apollo 13 astronauts were seated side by side in front of the control panel, and the seat on the left was reserved for the mission commander or the officer who was piloting the ship. Each seat defined the role requirements of the person who occupied it, but the seat also defined his status in the group. Although often unrecognized, or simply taken for granted, seating patterns influence interaction, communication, and leadership in groups.

Seating Patterns and Social Interaction

Social psychologist Robert Sommer (1969), after studying the ecology of small groups located in a variety of settings, drew a distinction between sociopetal and sociofugal spaces. Sociopetal spaces promote interaction among group members by heightening eye contact, encouraging verbal communication, and facilitating the development of intimacy. Sociofugal spaces, in contrast, discourage interaction among group members and can even drive participants out of the situation altogether. A secluded booth in a quiet restaurant, a park bench, or five chairs placed in a tight circle are sociopetal environments, whereas classrooms organized in rows, movie theaters, waiting rooms, and airport waiting areas are sociofugal. Sommer concluded that airport seating was deliberately designed to disrupt interaction. He noted that even people seated side by side on airport chairs cannot converse comfortably:

The chairs are either bolted together and arranged in rows theater-style facing the ticket counters, or arranged back-to-back, and even if they face one another they are at such distances that comfortable conversation is impossible. The motive for the sociofugal arrangement appears the same as that in hotels and other commercial places—to drive people out of the waiting areas into cafés, bars, and shops where they will spend money. (Sommer, 1969, pp. 121–122)

Group members generally prefer sociopetal arrangements. This preference, however, depends in part on the type of task undertaken in the situation (Augustin, 2009). As Figure 15.4 shows, Sommer found that corner-to-corner and face-to-face arrangements were preferred for conversation, and side-by-side seating was selected for cooperation. Competing dyads either took a direct, face-to-face orientation (apparently to stimulate competition) or tried to increase interpersonal distance, whereas coacting dyads preferred arrangements that reduced eye contact. As one student stated, such an arrangement “allows staring into space and not into my neighbor’s face” (Sommer, 1969, p. 63). Similar choices were found with round tables.

Groups in sociopetal environments act differently than groups in sociofugal spaces. In one study, dyads whose members sat facing each other seemed more relaxed, but dyads whose members sat at a 90-degree angle to each other were more affiliative (Mehrabian & Diamond, 1971). When researchers compared circle seating with L-shaped seating, the circle was associated with feelings of confinement but fostered greater interpersonal attraction (Patterson et al., 1979). People seated in the L-shaped groups, on the other hand, engaged in more self-manipulative behaviors and fidgeting, and they paused more during group discussions. Overall, the positive effects of the circle arrangement relative to the L-shaped arrangement were stronger in female groups than in male groups.

Men, Women, and Seating Preferences

Women and men diverge, to a degree, in their preferences for seating arrangements. Men prefer to position themselves across from those they like, and women prefer adjacent seating positions (Sommer, 1959). Conversely, men prefer that strangers sit by their side, whereas women feel that strangers should sit across from them. Researchers studied the confusion that this difference can cause by sending confederates to sit at the same table as solitary women and men working in a library. After a brief and uneventful period, the confederate left. When a second researcher then asked the participant some questions about the confederate and the library, the researchers discovered that men were the least favorably disposed toward the stranger who sat across from them but that women reacted more negatively to the stranger who sat next to them (Fisher & Byrne, 1975). Clearly, group members should be sensitive to the possibility that their spatial behaviors will be misinterpreted by others, and they should be willing to make certain that any possible misunderstandings will be short-lived.

Communication Patterns

Psychotherapist Bernard Steinzor’s early studies of face-to-face discussion groups indicated that spatial patterns also influence communication rates in groups. Although at first he could find few significant relationships between seat location and participation in the discussion, one day, while watching a group, he noticed a participant change his seat to sit opposite someone he had argued with during the previous meeting. Inspired by this chance observation, Steinzor (1950) reanalyzed his findings and discovered that individuals tended to speak after the person seated opposite them spoke. He reasoned that people have an easier time observing and listening to statements made by those who are seated in the center of the visual field, so that their remarks serve as stronger stimuli for listeners’ ideas and statements. The tendency for members of a group to comment immediately after the person sitting opposite them is now termed the Steinzor effect. The phenomenon appears to occur primarily in leaderless discussion groups, for later research has suggested that when a leader is present group members direct more comments to their closest neighbor (Hearne, 1957).

Seating Locations

Where should the leader sit? At the head of the table or in one of the side chairs? With great consistency, leaders seek out the head of the table. Sommer (1969), found that people appointed to lead small discussion groups tended to select seats at the head of the table. Those who move to this position of authority also tend to possess more dominant personalities (Hare & Bales, 1963), talk more frequently, and exercise greater interpersonal influence (Strodtbeck & Hook, 1961). When people are shown pictures of groups with members seated around a rectangular table and are asked to identify the likely leader, they tend to settle on the person sitting at the head of the table (Jackson, Engstrom, & Emmers-Sommer, 2007).

Sommer suggested two basic explanations for this intriguing head-of-the-table effect—perceptual prominence and the social meaning associated with sitting at the head of the table. Looking first at prominence, Sommer suggested that in many groups, the chair at the end of the table is the most salient position in the group and that the occupant of this space can therefore easily maintain greater amounts of eye contact with more of the group members, can move to the center of the communication network, and (as the Steinzor effect suggests) can comment more frequently. Moreover, in Western cultures where most studies of leadership have been conducted, the chair at the head of the table is implicitly defined to be the most appropriate place for the leader to sit. Sommer noted that this norm may not hold in other societies, but in most Western cultures, leadership and the head of the table go together.

Both factors influence the head-of-the-table effect. Investigators manipulated salience by having two persons sit on one side of the table and three on the other side. Although no one sat in the end seat, those seated on the two-person side of the table could maintain eye contact with three of the group members, but those on the three-person side could focus their attention on only two members. Therefore, group members on the two-person side should be able to influence others more and hence be the more likely leaders. As predicted, 70% of the leaders came from the two-person side (Howells & Becker, 1962).

In another study, the tendency for people to automatically associate the head of the table with leadership was examined by arranging for confederates to voluntarily choose or be assigned to the end position or to some other position around a table (Nemeth & Wachtler, 1974). These confederates then went about systematically disagreeing with the majority of the group members on the topic under discussion, and the extent to which the participants altered their opinions to agree with the deviant was assessed. Interestingly, the deviants succeeded in influencing the others only when they had freely chosen to sit in the head chair. Apparently, disagreeing group members sitting at the “side” locations around the table were viewed as “deviants,” whereas those who had the confidence to select the end chair were viewed more as “leaders” (Riess, 1982; Riess & Rosenfeld, 1980).

Locations

Like so many animals—birds, wolves, lions, seals, geese, and even seahorses—human beings develop proprietary orientations toward certain geographical locations and defend these areas against intrusion by others. A person’s home, a preferred seat in a classroom, a clubhouse, a football field, and a space capsule are all territories—specific areas that an individual or group claims, marks, and defends against intrusion by others. Since groups and group members develop attachment to places, this tendency influences both intragroup and intergroup functioning.

Types of Territoriality

When Lovell, Swigert, and Haise entered the Apollo 13 spaceship for their mission, they entered a cylinder filled with computers, controls, equipment, and supplies. But within days, this physical space was transformed into the group’s territory. The men stowed personal gear in their lockers. The controls over which they had primary responsibility became “their controls,” and they were wary when any of the other crew members would carry out procedures in their area. Haise, more so than either Lovell or Swigert, became attached to Aquarius, the lunar excursion module. When the time came to jettison the module prior to their descent, Haise collected small objects as mementos, and mission control remarked, “Farewell, Aquarius, and we thank you” (Lovell & Kluger, 1994, p. 329).

When people establish a territory, they generally try to control who is permitted access. As environmental psychologist Irwin Altman noted, however, the degree of control depends on the type of territory (see Table 15.2). Control is highest for primary territories—areas that are maintained and “used exclusively by individuals or groups … on a relatively permanent basis” (Altman, 1975, p. 112). People develop strong place attachments to these areas, for they feel safe, secure, and comfortable when in them (Hernández et al., 2007). Individuals maintain only a moderate amount of control over their secondary territories. These areas are not owned by the group members, but because the members use such an area regularly, they come to consider it “theirs.” College students, for example, often become very territorial about their seats in a class (Haber, 1980, 1982). Control over public territories is even more limited. Occupants can prevent intrusion while they are physically present, but they relinquish all claims when they leave. A bathroom stall or a spot on the beach can be claimed when occupied, but when the occupant leaves, another person can step in and claim the space. (Brown, 1987, thoroughly reviewed much of the work on human territoriality.)

Table 15.2 Three Types of Territories Established and Protected by Individuals and Groups

Type Degree of Control Duration of Claim Examples

Primary High: occupants control access and are very likely to actively defend this space. Long term: individuals maintain control over the space on a relatively permanent basis; ownership is often involved. A family’s house, a bedroom, a clubhouse, a dorm room, a study

Secondary Moderate: individuals who habitually use a space come to consider it “theirs”; reaction to intrusions is milder. Temporary but recurrent: others may use the space, but must vacate the area if the usual occupant requests. A table in a bar, a seat in a classroom, a regularly used parking space, the sidewalk in front of your home

Public Low: although the occupant may prevent intrusion while present, no expectation of future use exists. None: the individual or group uses the space only on the most temporary basis and leaves behind no markers. Elevator, beach, public telephone, playground, park, bathroom stall, restaurant counter

SOURCE: The Environment and Social Behavior by Irving Altman, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1976.

Have You Ever Frequented a Third Place?

Third places, identified by urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1999), are semipublic areas where people go to meet their friends, socialize, or just “hang out.” They are usually located near people’s homes (first places) and where they work (second places). As described by urban sociologist Ray Oldenburg (1999), they are typically businesses, but they welcome individuals who may not be customers. A third place might be a coffee shop, where people can spend time reading a book (about group dynamics) and talking to friends who stop by for a cup and a conversation. It might be the barbershop on the corner where people often stop to read the newspaper and talk sports and politics. But the prototypical third place is the neighborhood tavern, where people drink, socialize, and entertain each other. The most famous third place is the bar depicted in the television program Cheers. At a third place, “everybody knows your name.”

Not just any restaurant or bookstore qualifies as a third place (Mehta & Bosson, 2010). As Oldenburg (1999) explains, third places are uniquely hospitable, socially entertaining, and informal. They are places where people can come and go, unfettered by obligations or the entanglements of roles and responsibilities. They are also diverse, in that people from all walks of life are welcome—there are no dues, no membership requirements, nor much respect for wealth, professionalism, or breeding. But most of all, third places are a home away from home. Those who are regulars make newcomers feel welcome, and the norms of the setting stress connecting with others in a positive, playful way. Writes Oldenburg (1999, p. 29): “The atmosphere, both physical and social, is the trickiest and most essential part of creating a warm and welcoming third place. Both need constant attention and periodic tweaking. Both show signs of neglect and fatigue immediately” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 29).

Not all third places, however, are located in physical locations (Yuen & Johnson, 2017). In the not too distant past, people could only congregate in the confines of a friendly business place. Now, however, people can achieve this connection to other people through online interactions in social networking sites, multiuser domains, and multiplayer games. As these sites have increased in popularity, they have evolved from places where people post messages or acquire information into places that have many of the same characteristics Oldenburg attributes to high-quality third places. As with real-world third places, people can come and go as they please in online third places. In avatar-based games, in particular, people create identities that they use to interact with others, and others come to recognize them through their repeated use of these personas. Some online games have even developed places within the game for socializing. World of Warcraft, BlueSky, Second Life®, Lineage, and Asheron’s Call, for example, all have locations within them where players go to converse, tease, relax, dance, and joke with other players. In sites with graphics, these locations are often designed to resemble real-world third places; they are virtual pubs, bars, inns, coffee houses, and the like. At online third places “everyone knows your (screen) name” (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).

The relations that individuals establish in third places, whether online or offline, are not close ones. These are public places, and even though the people who join them support and entertain each other, they remain acquaintances rather than close friends. But in an evolving world where traditional forms of community, such as bridge clubs, civic associations, and sports leagues have dwindled, virtual third places “stand ready to serve people’s needs for sociability and relaxation in the intervals before, between, and after their mandatory appearances elsewhere” (Oldenburg, 1999, p. 32).

Group Territories

Territoriality is, in many cases, a group-level process. Instead of an individual claiming an area and defending it against other individuals, a group will lay claim to its turf and prevent other groups from using it. South American howler monkeys, for example, live together in bands of up to 20 individuals, and these groups forage within a fairly well-defined region. The bands themselves are cohesive and free of internal strife, but when another group of howlers is encountered during the day’s wandering, a fight begins. Among howlers, this territorial defense takes the form of a “shouting match,” in which the members of the two bands howl at the opposing group until one band—usually the invading band—retreats. Boundaries are rarely violated, because each morning and night, the monkeys raise their voices in a communal and far-carrying howling session (Carpenter, 1958).

Human groups also establish territories. Sociological analyses of gangs, for example, highlight the tendency for young men to join forces in defense of a few city blocks that they considered to be theirs (Thrasher, 1927; Whyte, 1943; Yablonsky, 1962). Many gangs take their names from a street or park located at the very core of their claimed sphere of influence and control areas around this base. Contemporary gangs, despite changes in size, violence, and involvement in crime, continue to be rooted to specific locations. Gangs in San Diego, California, for example, can be traced to specific geographical origins: the Red Steps and the Crips to Logan Heights and the Sidros to San Ysidro (Sanders, 1994).

Gangs identify their territories through the placement of graffiti, or “tags.” Philadelphia researchers found that the number of graffiti mentioning the local gang’s name increased as one moved closer and closer to the gang’s home base, suggesting that the graffiti served as territorial markers, warning intruders of the dangers of encroachment. This marking, however, was not entirely successful, for neighboring gangs would occasionally invade a rival’s territory to spray paint their own names over the territorial markers of the home gang or, at least, to append a choice obscenity. The frequency of graffiti attributable to outside groups provided an index of a gang’s prestige, for the more graffiti written by opposing gangs in one’s territory, the weaker was the home gang (Ley & Cybriwsky, 1974).

Group Spaces

Human groups also maintain secondary and public territories. Groups at the beach, for example, generally stake out their claim by using beach towels, coolers, chairs, and other personal objects (Edney & Jordan-Edney, 1974). These temporary territories tend to be circular, and larger groups command bigger territories than smaller groups. Groups also create territories when they interact in public places, for, in most cases, nonmembers are reluctant to break through group boundaries. Just as individuals are protected from unwanted social contact by their invisible bubble of personal space, so groups seem to be surrounded by a sort of “shell” or “membrane” that forms an invisible boundary for group interaction. Various labels have been used to describe this public territory, including group space (Edney & Grundmann, 1979; Minami & Tanaka, 1995), interactional territory (Lyman & Scott, 1967), temporary group territory (Edney & Jordan-Edney, 1974), jurisdiction (Roos, 1968), and group personal space (Altman, 1975). No matter what this boundary is called, the evidence indicates that it often effectively serves to repel intruders. Most people will avoid walking through the group and, when approaching a group, will shift their path to increase the distance between themselves and the group (Knowles, 1973; Knowles et al., 1976). Mixed-sex groups whose members are conversing with one another seem to have stronger boundaries (Cheyne & Efran, 1972), as do groups whose members are exhibiting strong emotions (Lindskold et al., 1976). People begin invading a group’s public territory only if the distance between interactants becomes large (Cheyne & Efran, 1972) or if the group is perceived as a crowd rather than as a single entity (Knowles & Bassett, 1976).

Benefits of Territories

Studies of territoriality in prisons (Glaser, 1964), naval ships (Heffron, 1972; Roos, 1968), neighborhoods (Newman, 1972), and dormitories (Baum & Valins, 1977) have suggested that people feel far more comfortable when their groups can territorialize their living areas. For example, environmental psychologists Andrew Baum, Stuart Valins, and their associates confirmed the benefits of territories in their studies of college students who were randomly assigned to one of two types of dormitories. Some students lived in a traditionally designed, corridor-style dorm, which featured 17 double-occupancy rooms per floor. These residents could only claim the bedrooms they shared with their roommates as their territories. In contrast, students who lived in suite-style dorms controlled a fairly well-defined territory that included a private space shared with a roommate as well as a bathroom and lounge shared with several suitemates.

Even though nearly equal numbers of individuals lived on any floor in the two types of designs, students in the corridor-style dormitories reported feeling more crowded, complained of their inability to control their social interactions with others, and emphasized their unfulfilled needs for privacy. Suite-style dorm residents, on the other hand, developed deeper friendships with their suitemates, worked with one another more effectively, and even seemed more sociable when interacting with people outside the dormitory. Baum and Valins concluded that these differences stemmed from the corridor-style dorm residents’ inability to territorialize areas that they had to use repeatedly (Baum & Davis, 1980; Baum, Davis, & Valins, 1979; Baum, Harpin, & Valins, 1975).

Territories and Intergroup Conflict

Territories tend to reduce conflict between groups since they organize and regulate intergroup contact by isolating one group from another. Even in the absence of open conflict between groups, members tend to remain within their group’s territories, and they avoid trespassing into other areas. Consider, for example, the distribution of people in a cafeteria of a public university in the United Kingdom. Over the course of two weeks when researchers studied where students sat for their meals, they discovered that White students tended to sit in one area of the cafeteria, but that Asian students tended to sit in a different area. Some members of one racial group moved across territorial lines, but for the most part students in this desegregated school tended to resegregate themselves by forming territories based on their race (Clack, Dixon, & Tredoux, 2005).

Group members often feel more comfortable when they can establish a territory for their group, but territoriality can cause conflict if the groups do not agree on their borders. All kinds of intergroup conflicts—from disputes between neighbors to drive-by gang shootings, to civil wars, to wars between nations—are rooted in disputes over territories (Ardry, 1970). Such conflicts may be based on ancient group traditions. Because most human cultures harvest the animals and plants from the land around them, they establish control over certain geographical areas (Altman & Chemers, 1980). Nations patrol their borders to make certain that people from neighboring countries cannot enter the country easily. Neighborhood associations erect fences and gates to keep others out. When families move into a new home or apartment, they often install locks and elaborate burglar alarms to prevent intrusions by nonmembers. Students who find someone sitting in their usual chair will ask the intruder to leave (Haber, 1980).

The Home Advantage

A group’s power is often defined by the quality and size of the space it controls, so groups protect their turf as a means of protecting their reputations. Disputes over territories are often one-sided, however, for groups that are defending their territory usually triumph over groups that are invading territories—the home advantage. Case studies of street gangs, for example, find that defending groups usually succeed in repelling invading groups, apparently because they are more familiar with the physical layout of the area and have access to necessary resources (Whyte, 1943). One member of the Nortons, a street gang discussed in Chapter 2, explained that his group never lost a fight (“rally”) so long as it took place on the group’s turf: “We never went looking for trouble. We only rallied on our own street, but we always won there” (Whyte, 1943, p. 51).

Individuals, too, are often more assertive when they are within their own territorial confines rather than encroaching on others’ turf. College students working with another student on a cooperative task spent more time talking, felt more “resistant to control,” and were more likely to express their own opinions when they were in their own room rather than in their partner’s room (Conroy & Sundstrom, 1977; Edney, 1975; Taylor & Lanni, 1981). Individuals and groups seem to gain strength and resolve when the dispute takes place on their home territory, even if they are encountering an opponent who is physically stronger or more socially dominant.

This home advantage, becomes the home field advantage at sporting events, for the home team is more frequently the victor than the loser (Schlenker et al., 1995a). When a basketball team must travel to the rival team’s home court to play, they often make more errors, score fewer points, and end up the losers rather than the winners of the contest (Schwartz & Barsky, 1977). This advantage becomes even greater when the visiting team must travel longer distances and when the fans watching the game support the home team and jeer the opponent (Courneya & Carron, 1991; Greer, 1983). Playing at home, however, can become something of a disadvantage in rare circumstances. When athletes play must-win games on their home field and they fear they will fail, the pressure to win may become too great. And when a team is playing a series of games and it loses an early game at home, it may lose its home advantage to the emboldened adversary. Overall, however, groups tend to win at home (for more details, see Baumeister, 1984, 1985, 1995; Baumeister & Showers, 1986; Schlenker et al., 1995a, 1995b).

Territoriality in Groups

Territoriality also operates at the level of each individual in the group. Although members develop attachment to the group’s space, they also develop spatial attachments to specific areas within the group space (Moser & Uzzell, 2003). Such individual territories—a bedroom, a cubicle at work, a park bench no one else frequents, or one’s car—can help group members maintain their privacy by providing them with a means of reducing contact with others (Fraine et al., 2007).

Territoriality and Privacy

As Altman (1975) noted, depending on the situation, people prefer a certain amount of contact with others, and interaction in excess of this level produces feelings of crowding and privacy invasion. The student in the classroom who is distracted by a jabbering neighbor, employees who are unable to concentrate on their jobs because of their noisy officemates’ antics, and the wife who cannot enjoy reading a novel because her husband is playing his music too loudly are all receiving excessive inputs from another group member. If they moderated their accessibility by successfully establishing and regulating a territorial boundary, they could achieve a more satisfying balance between contact with others and solitude.

Territories also work as organizers of group members’ relationships (Edney, 1976). Once we know the location of others’ territories, we can find or avoid them with greater success. Furthermore, because we often grow to like people we interact with on a regular basis, people with contiguous territories are more likely to form interpersonal, performance-enhancing relations with each other (Pentland, 2014). Studies of workplace design repeatedly return to one key point: frequent interaction between people—and informal, spontaneous interactions in particular, such as encounters in the hall, stopping by a person’s desk, or popping into their office with a quick question—are more influential than routinized group interactions such as meetings. Members’ whose offices and workspaces—their territories—are located near one another are more likely to work together with better results, as are those whose territories are not tightly defined by walls and doors (see Davis, Leach, & Clegg, 2011).

Territories also regulate certain group processes, structures, and activities. In a classroom, for example, the instructor’s space is usually differentiated from the students’ space. And the students tend to return to the same seat over and over again, and over time these short-term territories regularize interaction patterns and influence achievement (Marshall & Losonczy-Marshall, 2010). Similarly, in organizational settings, functions are closely aligned with specific locations, for employees are located—sometimes for reasons that are not altogether rational—in various places throughout the space the organization maintains for its enterprise (Ayoko & Härtel, 2003).

Territories also help individual group members define and express a sense of personal identity. Office walls often display posters, diplomas, crude drawings produced by small children, pictures of loved ones, or little signs with trite slogans, even when company regulations specifically forbid such personalizing markings. Although such decorations may seem insignificant to the chance visitor, to the occupant of the space, they have personal meaning and help turn a drab, barren environment into home (Wells, 2000). Territories also define what belongs to whom; without a sense of territory, the concept of stealing would be difficult to define, because one could not be certain that the objects carried off actually belonged to someone else.

What Do Your Places and Spaces Say about You?

Members of groups often develop a proprietary orientation toward specific areas; for example, family members have their own rooms, faculty their offices, and students their apartments and dorm rooms.

Instructions

After securing permission, study the territory of a professor at a university, a colleague where you work, or your own territory (your dorm room, the living room of your home). Spend some time in the territory you are studying, taking notes and sketching its layout, and then note the following markings (adapted from Vinsel et al., 1980):

Entertainment or equipment: Bicycles, skis, radios, tennis rackets, climbing gear, soccer balls.

Technology: Computers, tablets, phones, monitors, screens.

Personal relations: Framed photographs of friends, pets, and family, letters, vacation photos, drawings by siblings.

Values: Religious symbols, political posters, bumper stickers, flags, sorority signs, placards.

Art: Paintings, prints, cartoons, statues.

Reference items: Calendars, bulletin board with notes, schedules, to-do lists.

Music/theater: Posters and memorabilia of musical groups, shows, performances.

Sports: Posters, Items related to athletes, sports-related magazines.

Idiosyncratic: Awards, knickknacks, coffee mugs, crafts, wall hangings, plants.

Interpretation

A discerning cataloger of spatial adornments can learn much from the analysis of the things people leave on display in their homes, dorm rooms, and offices. Conscientious people, for example, tend to have more reference items posted in their spaces, and they keep their spaces relatively tidy. Outgoing, extraverted people’s spaces, in contrast, are often more extensively decorated, usually to good effect (Gosling, 2008). The overall diversity of the markers may also be an indicator of commitment to the group and its values. When researchers studied college students’ dorm rooms, they found that students who eventually left the school marked their walls extensively but with less diversity. A dropout’s wall would feature, for example, dozens of skiing posters or high school memorabilia, whereas the stay-in’s decorations might include syllabi, posters, wall hangings, plants, and family photos. The researchers concluded that the wall decorations of dropouts “reflected less imagination or diversity of interests and an absence of commitment to the new university environment” (Hansen & Altman, 1976; Vinsel et al., 1980, p. 1114).

Territory and Status

The size and quality of individuals’ territories within a group often indicates their social status within the group. In undifferentiated societies, people rarely divide up space into “yours,” “mine,” and “ours.” The Basarwa of Africa, for example, do not make distinctions between people on the basis of age, sex, or prestige. Nor do they establish primary territories or build permanent structures (Kent, 1991). But stratified societies with leaders, status hierarchies, and classes are territorial. Moreover, the size and quality of the territories held by individuals tend to correspond to their status within society. The political and social elite in the community live in large, fine homes rather than small, run-down shacks (Fuller & Löw, 2017). Executives with large offices hold a higher, more prestigious position in the company than executives with small offices (Durand, 1977). Prison inmates who control the most desirable portions of the exercise yard enjoy higher status than individuals who cannot establish a territory (Esser, 1973). As one informal observer has noted, in many large corporations, the entire top floor of a company’s headquarters is reserved for the offices of the upper-echelon executives and can only be reached by a private elevator (Korda, 1975). Furthermore, within this executive area, offices swell in size and become more lavishly decorated as the occupant’s position in the company increases. Substantiating these informal observations, a study of a large chemical company headquarters, a university, and a government agency found a clear link between office size and status (Durand, 1977). The correlation between the size of the territory and the position in each group’s organization chart was .81 for the company, .79 for the government agency, and .29 for the university.

The link between territory and dominance in small groups tends to be more variable. Several studies have suggested that territory size increases as status increases (Sundstrom & Altman, 1974). Other studies, however, indicated that territory size seems to decrease as status in the group increases (Esser, 1968; Esser et al., 1965). Psychologists Eric Sundstrom and Irwin Altman (1974) suggested that these contradictory results occur because territorial boundaries are more fluid in small groups. In one study conducted at a boys’ rehabilitation center, they asked each participant to rank the other boys in terms of ability to influence others. Also, an observer regularly passed through the residence bedrooms, lounge, TV area, and bathrooms and recorded territorial behaviors. The boys evaluated each area to determine which territories were more desirable than others.

Sundstrom and Altman found evidence of the territory–dominance relation, but the strength of this relation varied over time. During the first phase of the project, the high-status boys maintained clear control over more desirable areas, but when two of the most dominant boys were removed from the group, the remaining boys competed with one another for both status and space. In time the group had quieted back down, although certain highly dominant members continued to be disruptive. When formal observations ended, the group’s territorial structures were once more beginning to stabilize with higher-status members controlling the more desirable areas.

Reactions to Territorial Intrusions

Just as groups defend their territories, so do individuals within groups protect their individual spaces (Ayoko & Härtel, 2003). Management researcher Graham Brown and his colleagues, for example, in their studies of territories in work settings, found that territorial intrusions are relatively common but that they are also quite irritating (Brown, 2009; Brown & Robinson, 2011). When they asked a sample of 180 adults who worked in business settings in the United States if they had ever experienced a territorial intrusion at work, 73.8% reported they had, and most of them were still angry about it. By far, the most frequent type of territorial intrusion was the use of one’s tools, supplies, or equipment by others without the individual’s explicit permission. A second category of territorial intrusions was spatial: people taking over another person’s primary or secondary territory or intruding into that territory without permission. Other intrusions included people trying to take over duties or projects and plagiarism of their ideas and innovations. These infringements triggered all kinds of negative reactions, including complaints to supervisors, verbal rebukes, plots to seek revenge, and even physical confrontations. Most of these responses were mediated by one key psychological factor: anger. Some reported they felt “annoyed” or “irritated,” but others were “upset” and “bitter.” Still a third group reported feeling “irate” and “furious.” Individuals in this third group rarely suffered the territorial intrusion in silence (Brown & Robinson, 2011).

Territory and Stress in Extreme and Unusual Environments

The crew of the Apollo 13, like many other groups that must function in EUEs, were careful to monitor their territorial reactions, for attention to spatial concerns is critical for long-term success in such groups (Harrison, Clearwater, & McKay, 1991; Harrison & Connors, 1984; Leon, 1991; Palinkas, 1991).

Altman and his colleagues at the Naval Medical Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, studied territoriality in EUEs by confining pairs of volunteers to a 12-by-12-foot room equipped with beds, a toilet cabinet, and a table and chairs (see Altman, 1973, 1977). The groups worked for several hours each day at various tasks, but were left to amuse themselves with card games and reading the rest of the time. The men in the isolation condition never left their room during the 10 days of the experiment; matched pairs in a control condition were permitted to eat their meals at the base mess and sleep in their regular barracks.

The members of isolated groups quickly claimed particular bunks as theirs. Furthermore, this territorial behavior increased as the experiment progressed, with the isolated pairs extending their territories to include specific chairs and certain positions around the table. Not all of the groups, however, benefited by establishing territories. In some of the groups, territories structured the group dynamics and eased the stress of the situation, but in other dyads, these territories worked as barricades to social interaction and exacerbated the strain of isolation. Overall, withdrawal and time spent sleeping increased across the 10 days of the study, whereas time spent in social interaction decreased. Other measures revealed worsened task performance and heightened interpersonal conflicts, anxiety, and emotionality for isolates who drew a “psychological and spatial ‘cocoon’ around themselves, gradually doing more things alone and in their own part of the room” (Altman & Haythorn, 1967, p. 174).

Altman and his colleagues followed up these provocative findings in a second experiment by manipulating three aspects of the group environment:

(1)

availability of privacy (half of the groups lived and worked in a single room; the remaining groups had small adjoining rooms for sleeping, napping, reading, etc.);

(2)

expected duration of the isolation (pairs expected the study to last either 4 days or 20 days); and

(3)

amount of communication with the outside world.

Although the study was to last for eight days for all the pairs, more than half terminated their participation early. Altman explained this high attrition rate by suggesting that the aborting groups tended to “misread the demands of the situation and did not undertake effective group formation processes necessary to cope with the situation” (1973, p. 249). On the first day of the study, these men tended to keep to themselves, never bothering to work out any plans for coping with what would become a stressful situation. Then, as the study wore on, they reacted to increased stress by significantly strengthening their territorial behavior, claiming particular areas of the room. They also began spending more time in their beds, but they seemed simultaneously to be increasingly restless. Access to a private room and an expectation of prolonged isolation only added to the stress of the situation and created additional withdrawal, dysfunction, and eventual termination (Altman, Taylor, & Wheeler, 1971).

Groups that lasted the entire eight days used territoriality to structure their isolation. On the first day, they defined their territories, set up schedules of activities, and agreed on their plan of action for getting through the study. Furthermore, the successful groups relaxed territorial restraints in the later stages of the project, thereby displaying a greater degree of positive interaction. As Altman (1977) described,

The epitome of a successful group was one in which the members, on the first or second day, laid out an eating, exercise, and recreation schedule; constructed a deck of playing cards, a chess set, and a Monopoly game out of paper. (p. 310)

The men who adapted “decided how they would structure their lives over the expected lengthy period of isolation” (Altman, 1977, p. 310). Although territorial behavior worked to the benefit of some of the groups, the last-minute attempts of some of the faltering groups to organize their spatial relations failed to improve their inadequate adaptation to the isolation.

Workspaces

Every square inch of the Odyssey, the Apollo 13 command module, and its landing craft, the Aquarius, was designed by considering how the group of astronauts would function within the confines of the spacecraft. Unfortunately, not all physical settings are designed so carefully as the Apollo 13: Many groups inhabit places that inhibit, rather than facilitate, their functioning.

The Person–Place Fit

Roger Barker, an ecological psychologist, studied the relationship between people and the places where they live and work: offices, homes, schools, neighborhoods, communities, and entire towns. He discovered that in most of these settings, people adapted to fit the requirements of the place. For example, when people enter a fast-food restaurant, they join a line, place their order, pay for their food, and then find a table where they eat their meal. A group in a conference room sits in chairs, exchanges information, and eventually decides to adjourn. The astronauts, once they entered the Apollo 13, acted in ways that the situation required.

Behavior Settings

Barker called physical locations where people’s actions are prescribed by the features and functions of the situation behavior settings. They tend to be specific spatial areas—actual places where group members interact with one another—with boundaries that identify the edge of one behavior setting and the beginning of the next. Some boundaries can also be temporal, as when a group is present only during a certain time (e.g., a group may occupy a classroom only on Mondays and Wednesdays from 9 to 10:30). Most settings also include both people (group members) and things (equipment, chairs, etc.); Barker called them both components of the setting. Barker noted that individuals and settings are often inseparable, for the meaning of actions often depends on the physical features of the situation, just as a situation takes its meaning from the individuals in the setting. Barker believed that people routinely follow a program that sequences their actions and reactions in behavior settings. They may, for example, make use of the settings’ objects in very predictable, routine ways, as when people who enter a room with chairs in it tend to sit on them (Barker, 1968, 1987, 1990; Barker et al., 1978).

Not every physical setting is a behavior setting. Some situations are novel ones that group members have never before encountered, so they have no expectations about how they should act. Some individuals, too, may enter a behavior setting but they are not aware of the norms of the situation, or they simply do not accept them as guides for their own actions. But in most cases, group members act in predictable, routine ways in such situations. Libraries, for example, are behavior settings because they create a readiness for certain types of action: One should be subdued, quiet, and calm when in a library. These normative expectations guide behavior directly, and, in many cases, group members are not even aware of how the situation automatically channels their actions. To demonstrate this automatic, unconscious impact of place on people, researchers first showed people a picture of either a library or a railroad station. Later, their reaction times to various words, including words relevant to libraries (e.g., quiet, still, and whisper), were measured. As expected, people recognized library-related words more quickly after seeing the picture of a library, suggesting that the picture activated norms pertaining to the situation (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2003).

Synomorphy

Barker and his colleagues noted that in some behavior settings, people are embedded in the place itself. The cockpit of the Apollo 13, for example, was designed so that the astronauts could monitor all their instruments and reach all their controls. A fast-food restaurant may use a system of guide chains and multiple cash registers to handle large numbers of customers efficiently. A classroom may contain areas where students can work on individual projects, a reading circle where the teacher can lead small groups, and an art area where students can easily access the supplies they need. In other behavior settings, however, the people do not fit the place. A classroom may have chairs bolted to the floor in rows, so the teacher can never have students work in small groups. An office may have windows that provide workers with a view of the city, but the light from the windows prevents them from reading their computer screens. A concert hall may have so few doors that concertgoers clog the exits. Barker used the word synomorphy to describe the degree of fit between the setting and its human occupants. When settings are high in synomorphy, the people fit into the physical setting and use its objects appropriately. The people and the place are unified. Settings that are low in synomorphy lack this unity, for the people do not mesh well with the physical features and objects in the place.

Staffing Theory

Ecological psychologist Allan Wicker’s staffing theory draws on the concept of synomorphy to explain group performance (Wicker, 1979, 1987, 2002). Consider office workers in a small business, university, or government agency who are responsible for typing papers and reports, answering the telephone, duplicating materials, and preparing paperwork on budgets, schedules, appointments, and so on. If the number of people working in the office is sufficient to handle all these activities, then the setting is optimally staffed. But if, for example, telephones are ringing unanswered, reports are days late, and the photocopier is broken and no one knows how to fix it, then the office lacks “enough people to carry out smoothly the essential program and maintenance tasks” and is understaffed (Wicker, 1979, p. 71). On the other hand, if the number of group members exceeds that needed in the situation, the group is overstaffed (Sundstrom, 1987).

Table 15.3 summarizes staffing theory’s predictions about the relationship between staffing and performance. Overstaffed groups may perform adequately—after all, so many extra people are available to carry out the basic functions—but overstaffing can lead to dissatisfaction with task-related activities and heightened rejection among group members. Understaffed groups, in contrast, often respond positively to the challenging workload. Instead of complaining about the situation, understaffed groups sometimes display increased involvement in their work and contribute more to the group’s goals (Arnold & Greenberg, 1980; Wicker & August, 1995). Four-man groups, for example, when placed in an overstaffed situation (too few tasks to keep all members active), reported feeling less important, less involved in their work, less concerned with performance, and less needed. These effects were reversed in understaffed groups (Wicker et al., 1976). In another study, the increased workload brought on by understaffing increased professionals’ and long-term employees’ involvement in their work, but understaffing also led to decreased commitment among new employees and blue-collar workers. Understaffing was also associated with more negative attitudes toward the group (Wicker & August, 1995). Staffing theory also explains why individuals who are part of smaller groups and organizations get more involved in their groups; for example, even though a large school offers more opportunities for involvement in small-group activities, the proportion of students who join school-based groups is higher in smaller schools (Gump, 1990).

Table 15.3 Group Members’ Reactions to Understaffed and Overstaffed Work Settings

Reaction Understaffed Groups Overstaffed Groups

Task performance Members engage in diligent, consistent, goal-related actions Members are perfunctory, inconsistent, and sloppy

Performance monitoring Members provide one another with corrective, critical feedback as needed Members exhibit little concern for the quality of the group’s performance

Perceptions Members are viewed in terms of the jobs they do rather than their individual qualities Members focus on the personalities and uniqueness of members rather than on the group

Self-perceptions Members feel important, responsible, and capable Members feel lowered self-esteem with little sense of competence

Attitude toward the group Members express concern over the continuation of the group Members are cynical about the group and its functions

Supportiveness Members are reluctant to reject those who are performing poorly Members are less willing to help other members of the group

SOURCE: Adapted from Barker, 1968; Wicker, 1979.

How do groups cope with staffing problems? When researchers asked leaders of student groups this question, nearly 75% recommended recruiting more members or reorganizing the group as the best ways to deal with understaffing. Other solutions included working with other groups and adopting more modest group goals (see Figure 15.5). These leaders offered a wider range of solutions for overstaffing, including encouraging members to remain active in the group (often by assigning them specific duties), enforcing rules about participation, dividing the group, taking in fewer members, changing the group’s structure to include more positions, and adopting more ambitious goals (Cini, Moreland, & Levine, 1993).

Fitting Form to Function

When we work in a group in a natural setting, we can exert little control over our workplace. We can dress more warmly when it is cold, carry lights to illuminate the darkness, and adjust our schedules to deal with inclement weather, but in many cases we must work in whatever conditions we find. When we work in indoor spaces, in contrast, we can modify our workplace so that it both comfortable and functional. Yet, studies of all types of behavior settings—classrooms, factories, offices, playgrounds, highways, theaters, and so on—frequently find that these areas need to be redesigned to maximize the fit between the people and the place (Clements-Croome, 2015; Vischer & Wifi, 2017).

Hives, Cells, Dens, and Clubs

What kind of spaces do we need to be maximally productive? Architect Francis Duffy (1992), after examining a number of groups working in large corporations, concluded that the answer depends on the degree of interaction and level of individual autonomy the group’s tasks require. Interaction is determined by the task’s interdependency demands. If the group is working on a project that requires very little interaction among members, the setting must provide for areas where the group members can work independently. But groups that work on more collaborative tasks require an office that facilitates productive interdependence. Autonomy refers to the group and its members’ control over the work itself: what tasks must be completed as well as when and how. Autonomy is important because “the more autonomy office workers enjoy, the more they are likely to want to control their own working environments, singly and collectively, and the more discretion they are likely to want to exercise over the kind and quality of their surroundings in their places of work” (Duffy, 1992, p. 60).

Duffy uses these two dimensions to identify four basic types of configurations of work and their ideal spatial arrangements: hives, cells, dens, and clubs.

Hives: Members who function as “worker bees”—they perform individualized, routine tasks—require little interaction with other group members. Such groups function well in open, cubicle-type offices where each individual has a defined, relatively small work space (low interaction/low autonomy).

Cells: Members working on complex, long-term, relatively individualized projects need private spaces to carry out their work. They may also be able to work by telecommuting from a home office (low interaction/high autonomy).

Dens: When members who are similar in terms of skills and responsibilities work together on collective tasks and projects, they need an open space that all members share. Members may have individual areas within the collective space that they claim as their own, but boundaries do not separate these spaces from one another. These groups work on specific, relatively short-term projects where success depends on maintaining very high levels of information exchange (high interaction/low autonomy).

Clubs: Members who are talented, well-trained, or possess very specialized skills often work on diverse tasks and projects that vary greatly in their collaborative demands. Their work space must be flexible, permitting them to collaborate as needed but also to secure privacy (high interaction/high autonomy).

Duffy found that club offices tend to be the most productive, but he added that nearly all group spaces must be flexible. As the group and its tasks change, even the most carefully designed and implemented setting may fail to meet members’ needs and would require modification.

Group Spaces in the Future

More of the world’s work is now being completed by teams, and as Duffy’s work suggests, these groups require a different type of office than individuals require. Architects and designers, recognizing the need for innovative solutions, have begun to experiment with new types of spaces that promote group productivity rather than just individual productivity. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), for example, redesigned its facility at Broadcast Center, being careful to make certain each work area corresponded to the interactional demands of the particular project group. The result was a highly effective and flexible space that includes spaces for meetings, seclusion, and for creative work (Harrison & Morgan, 2006). Another project, at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), relied on technological innovations to create close connections among collaborators: data visualization programs, shared spreadsheets, interactive graphic displays for modeling, and tools for building simulations. The team members, who were primarily engineers and computer scientists, had personal work stations within a larger room, as well as private offices elsewhere. They gathered at the main team room, however, for collaborative sessions that lasted for several hours. The room, and the group within in it, performed far more efficiently than similar types of teams, completing tasks in days that before took weeks or even months (Heerwagen et al., 2006).

These innovations are good news for one group that will need an improved habitat in the future: the crew that NASA will be sending to Mars. The team that takes on that mission will remain intact and functioning in a collocated setting longer than any other team or group ever has before. It will face extraordinary and unanticipated performance challenges that will likely require solutions and interventions unrelated to both training and experience. The group will be so small in size that it cannot fractionate into subgroups to deal with interpersonal conflict, and its habitat will be so restrictive that contact with other members is continual and unavoidable. The Mars mission team will live and work in conditions that no other group has ever experienced. That group is going to need a very nice habitat to survive the challenges of its extreme and unusual environment.

Resources

Chapter Case: Apollo 13

Apollo 13: The NASA Mission Reports, edited by Robert Godwin (2000), provides complete documentation of the mission, including press releases, transcripts of the crew debriefing, the text of the committee investigations of the cause of the accident, and recordings of the crew transmissions during the flight.

Lost Moon: The Perilous Journey of Apollo 13 by Jim Lovell and Jeffrey Kluger (1994) is a forthright summary of the Apollo 13 mission with details about the group’s dynamics and relations with ground control teams and family members.

Groups in Context

“Environmental Psychology Matters” by Robert Gifford (2014) provides a broad review of topics in the field of environmental psychology, and includes reviews of recent studies examining place attachment, habitat design, reactions to noise and spatial interference, and environmental perception and evaluation.

Handbook of Environmental Psychology and Quality of Life Research, edited by Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi, Enric Pol, and Oscar Navarro (2017), examines the relationship between well-being and the natural, social, and built environment, with chapters devoted to place attachment, environmental stress, workplace design, and comfort at work.

Group Ecology and Territoriality

Snoop: What Your Stuff Says About You by Sam Gosling (2008) reviews a series of investigations into the way people adorn their spaces—especially their homes and their offices—and what environmental cues say about the inhabitants’ personality traits, their interests and motivations, and even their identities.

The Environment and Social Behavior by Irwin Altman (1975) remains the definitive analysis of privacy, personal space, territoriality, and crowding in groups.

The Great Good Place by Ray Oldenburg (1999) is an inspiring analysis of third places where groups often congregate in comfortable, public establishments that provide the setting for socialization and support.

Designing Group Spaces

Creating the Productive Workplace, edited by Derek Clements-Croome (2006), is a compendium of chapters written by engineers, architects, and design experts who explore, in detail, the physical, psychological, and social demands of the twenty-first-century workplace.

Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture by Sally Augustin (2009) mines the research literature for insights and ideas about how to best configure places where groups live, work, and relax, with special attention to homes, workplaces, learning environments, and health care facilities.

Groups in Extreme and Unusual Environments

Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Polar and Space Exploration by Jack Stuster (1996) draws on interviews, historical documentation, and empirical research to develop a comprehensive, detailed analysis of the dynamics of groups that live and work in atypical environments, such as bases in Antarctica and space stations.

On Orbit and Beyond: Psychological Perspectives on Human Spaceflight, edited by Douglas A. Vakoch (2013), summarizes much of the scientific work examining how people react when working and living under conditions of prolonged confinement, with a focus on group-level factors that will influence the success of long-term space flight.

Chapter 16 Growth and Change

The value of groups is nowhere more apparent than when they are used to help their members change for the better. In therapeutic groups, interpersonal learning groups, and self-help groups, people find the support, information, motivation, and guidance they need to grow and change. As Lewin’s law of group change suggests, changing people one by one is difficult; changing them when they are part of a group is easier.

What are some of the ways that groups are used to help members change?

How do groups promote change?

How effective are groups in bringing about change?

Chapter Outline

16-1

Growth and Change in Groups

16-1a

Therapeutic Groups

16-1b

Interpersonal Learning Groups

16-1c

Support Groups

16-2

Sources of Support and Change

16-2a

Universality and Hope

16-2b

Social Learning

16-2c

Group Cohesion

16-2d

Disclosure and Catharsis

16-2e

Altruism

16-2f

Insight

16-3

The Effectiveness of Groups

16-3a

Empirical Support for Group Treatments

16-3b

Using Groups to Cure: Cautions

16-3c

The Value of Groups

Chapter Review

Resources

The Bus Group: Groups as Interpersonal Resources

The group was returning from a visit to the Taj Mahal when the accident happened. They were teachers and students taking part in Semester at Sea: An educational program that combined classes on a floating university with tours to historic sites in countries throughout the world. Their bus fishtailed, flipped twice, and came to rest in a ravine by the roadside. Of the 25 students on the bus, 4 were killed. Three staff members also died in the crash.

The physicians in local clinics and on the Semester at Sea ship dealt with the survivors’ physical injuries, and counselors and therapists sought to help them with their psychological problems. In the days immediately after the accident, the members of the “bus group,” as they came to call themselves, met to deal with their emotions, pain, and uncertainties. The ship continued on its way, and the group met regularly in therapy sessions designed to help members cope with their grief and attempt to stave off the long-term negative consequences of such a horrific experience. With great sensitivity, the therapists helped each survivor deal with the painful memories of that night, the recurrent nightmares most reported, and the inability to concentrate on normal activities. The group also examined ways to remain connected to the other students on the ship who were not involved in the accident, and explored existential issues related to their survival and the loss of the lives of their friends and classmates. Some had more difficulty than others in dealing with the tragedy; they worked with therapists individually as well as in the bus group. The group met for a dozen times on the ship, in sessions lasting approximately 90 minutes.

When the ship docked at Seattle, Washington, the members went their separate ways. They left behind the bus group, but it had served its purpose. A year after the tragedy, most “appeared to be coping well and getting on with their lives” (Turner, 2000, p. 147).

The idea that a group can be used for therapeutic purposes is not a new one. For centuries, people suffering from both physical and psychological problems have sought help from groups in religious services, community ceremonies, and tribal rites. These palliative and therapeutic effects of groups were rediscovered early in the twentieth century when health care providers began to use groups to help their patients better manage their illnesses (Pratt, 1922). At first, practitioners used groups to avoid meeting with each patient separately, but they soon realized that their patients were benefiting from the groups themselves. Members supported each other, shared nontechnical information about their illnesses and treatment, and seemed to appreciate the opportunity to express themselves to attentive and sympathetic listeners. The wisdom of Kurt Lewin’s law of group change could not be disputed: “It is usually easier to change individuals formed into a group than to change any one of them separately” (Lewin, 1951, p. 228).

This chapter asks three questions about groups as agents of treatment and change. First, what are some of the ways that groups are used to achieve change in their members? Second, how do groups and group processes promote change? Third, are groups an effective means of bringing about change? For example, did the bus group actually help the members, or did it do more harm than good?

16-1. Growth and Change in Groups

People join groups to solve many different kinds of problems. Some want to get rid of something—weight, sadness, irrational thoughts, or overwhelming feelings of worthlessness and despair. Others are seeking something—new skills and outlooks, insight into their own characteristics, or a new repertoire of behaviors they can use to improve their relationships with others. Still others seek the strength they need to cope with some challenge they face in their life—a serious illness, the loss of a loved one, or an addiction they have been unable to conquer on their own.

The variety of change-promoting groups reflects the variety of individuals’ goals. The group formats devised by early psychologists and physicians have evolved into today’s jogging and fitness clubs; consciousness-raising groups; support groups for parents, children, grandparents, and ex-spouses; workshops and leadership seminars; marriage and family counseling groups; religious retreats; mutual-support, self-help groups; psychotherapy groups; and so on. These groups, despite their many varieties, all help individuals to achieve goals that they cannot reach on their own. Therapeutic groups help their members overcome such psychological problems as depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and trauma-induced stress. Interpersonal learning groups help members gain self-understanding and improve their relationships with others. Support groups help members cope with or overcome a problem all the members have in common. But not all change-promoting groups fall neatly into one and only one of the three categories shown in Table 16.1. Therapeutic groups, for example, provide members with the support they need when they encounter difficult, stressful circumstances, and, in many cases, interpersonal learning groups are quite therapeutic (Corey & Corey, 2016).

Table 16.1 Varieties of Change-Promoting Groups

Type Basic Goal Leader Examples

Therapeutic Help members improve their psychological functioning and adjustment Mental health professionals (e.g., psychologist, social worker, and psychiatrist)

Group psychotherapy

Humanistic approaches

Cognitive-behavioral group therapy

Interpersonal learning Help members gain self-understanding and improve their interpersonal skills Varies from trained and licensed professionals to untrained laypersons

T-groups

Psychoeducational groups

Trauma/disaster response groups

Support Help members cope with and identify solutions to specific problems or life crises Usually a volunteer; some groups do not include a leadership position

Support groups

Anti-addiction groups (e.g., AA)

Advocacy groups

16-1a. Therapeutic Groups

The therapists who worked with the bus group from Semester at Sea were trained to help people overcome psychological and personal problems. They worked with the students and the staff in one-to-one psychotherapy sessions, but they also treated the students “in groups, with the group itself constituting an important element in the therapeutic process” (Slavson, 1950, p. 42). When such groups were initially proposed, skeptics questioned the wisdom of putting people who were suffering from psychological problems together in one group. How, they asked, could troubled individuals be expected to cope in a group when they had failed individually? How could the therapist guide the therapeutic process in a group?

History, however, has proved the skeptics wrong. Many mental health practitioners, including psychologists, psychiatrists, and clinical social workers, use group methods to treat a wide variety of psychological problems, including addictions, thought disorders, depression, eating disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and personality disorders (Burlingame & Jensen, 2017).

Group therapists vary widely in theoretical orientation. Some, for example, are primarily psychoanalytic, for their basic approach is based on Sigmund Freud’s (1926/1955) therapeutic principles. Others, in contrast, adopt a more interpersonal perspective that stresses the exploration of the social processes that unfold in the group. Other approaches are more behavioral; they teach group members specific behaviors they can use to cope with the problems they are facing. Most therapists, however, are eclectic: They base their work on a melding of many theoretical perspectives (Ettin, 1992). This section reviews these approaches, but the review must be selective given the many techniques that are currently in use (Barlow, 2014).

But just to clear up one possible misunderstanding: Group therapy is a treatment for individuals rather than a way of treating dysfunctional groups. Group therapists are mindful of and make use of the group’s interpersonal processes. As treatment progresses, the group as a whole generally becomes more adept in dealing with issues, providing support for its members, and acting in ways that help members’ reach their personal goals for growth, adjustment, and well-being. The goal of treatment, however, is not the creation of a well-functioning group, but the promotion of the adjustment of the individuals in the group.

Is It Easier to Change People When They Are in Groups?

Making a change—in one’s habits, attitudes, behaviors, or lifestyle—is easier said than done. Progress often comes slowly, and the early excitement that provides the motivation to make a start flags with each setback. Without support, too many times people slip back to their old ways rather than continuing to pursue their goals.

Kurt Lewin (1943), many years ago, offered a solution to the problem of achieving change: rather than changing individuals, change their groups, instead. He even tested his recommendation in a series of classic studies of food habits (Lewin, 1943). During a period of beef shortages caused by the Second World War, the Food Habits Committee of the National Research Council asked Lewin to find ways to convince homemakers to serve readily available but less desirable meat products (beef hearts, brains, and kidneys) to their families. Lewin developed two approaches and tested them experimentally. Women in the lecture condition listened to a well-informed nutrition expert who stressed the patriotic importance of serving these meats, ways to prepare the foods, and the nutritional value of these foods. The homemakers in the group decision condition discussed the same information used in the lecture, but they were also urged to reach a group consensus on the issue. Thus, the first approach sought to change the individual’s opinion, whereas the second approach focused on changing the group’s opinion.

This study lent support to Lewin’s law of group change (Lewin, 1951). Follow-up interviews revealed striking differences between the two approaches. Only 4 of the women who heard the lecture served the unique meats (10%), but 23 of the women who discussed the meats in their group served at least one dish containing the less desirable foods (52%). Of the 14 women in the group condition who had never before served these foods, 29% tried them within the next week. In contrast, none of the 11 women in the lecture conditions who had never served the food tried the foods the following week. As Lewin explained, “the group setting gives the incentive for the decision, and facilitates and reinforces it” (1943, p. 63). These processes caused many of them to not just comply with the group’s decision during the meeting, but to actually change their behavior even after the group adjourned.

Group Psychoanalysis

For many, the psychoanalytic interview, derived from Sigmund Freud’s (1926/1955) early therapeutic procedures, is the prototypical psychotherapy experience. The client talks in detail about early life experiences, current problems and difficulties, dreams, worries, and hopes, and the therapist provides interpretations and directions that help the client extract meaning from these materials. As the relationship between the therapist and client becomes stronger, the client unconsciously transfers feelings for and thoughts about others to the therapist, who uses this transference to help the client understand his or her relations with others. With time, the client develops healthy insights into unresolved conflicts that have been repressed in the unconscious mind (Barber & Solomonov, 2016).

Psychoanalysis, by tradition, was used with the smallest of groups—one patient and one therapist. But Freud (1922) discussed the psychodynamic processes that occur in larger groups, and later psychoanalysts adapted his basic methods to groups with multiple clients. In group psychoanalysis, the therapist is very much the leader, for he or she directs the group’s discussion during the session, offers interpretations, and summarizes the group’s efforts. Just as the goal of individual therapy is the gradual unfolding of repressed conflicts, in group therapy, as members talk about their memories, fantasies, dreams, and fears, they gain insight into their unconscious motivations. Some have suggested that Freud himself practiced group psychoanalysis when he and his students met to discuss his theories and cases (Roth, 1993).

As in one-to-one therapy, group psychoanalysis capitalizes on transference, for the group format provides the means for transferring external relationships onto the group itself. As Freud’s (1922) replacement hypothesis suggests, the group becomes a surrogate family with members serving as symbolic siblings and the group therapist acting as the primal authority figure. As transference develops, the group provides the therapist with the means of exploring the childhood roots of current adult anxieties. Members may find themselves reacting to one another inappropriately, but their actions, when examined more closely, may parallel the way they respond to people they know in their everyday lives. Hostilities, needs, and wants that are repressed in relationships with others outside of the group often surface within the group, and the therapist can use these experiences to help clients gain insight into their unconscious conflicts. Some therapists are more fully Freudian in their orientation than others, but rare is the therapist who does not deal with transference processes, the interpretation of fantasies or dreams, familial tensions, and other latent conflicts (Kauff, 2017).

Humanistic Groups

Humanistic group psychotherapists use a range of methods to promote therapeutic change, but most are united by a positive, aspirational view of human potential. They do not consider people to be irrational, selfish, or deeply troubled, but instead sane seekers of meaning and self-development. Adopting an existential orientation, humanistic therapists help members explore the meaning of their life choices, and also gain deeper understanding of themselves and their relationships with other people: to “more clearly sort out what they believe and who they experience themselves to be” (Wagner & Ingersoll, 2013, p. 4). Humanistic approaches include the historically significant encounter and sensitivity groups of the 1960s and 1970s, experiential groups, Gestalt groups, and psychodrama groups (Watson & Schneider, 2016).

Carl Rogers’s (1970) client-centered approach to treatment exemplifies the assumptions and procedures of a humanistic approach. Rogers believed that most people come to experience a loss of self-regard because their needs for approval and love are rarely satisfied. Humanistic groups address this lack by helping people trust in their own feelings, accept themselves, and act more openly with others. Rogerian therapists focus on emotions and encourage members to “open up” to one another by displaying their inner feelings, thoughts, and worries. Recognizing that the group members probably feel insecure about their social competencies, therapists are sources of unconditional positive regard—meaning that they avoid criticizing group members if possible. Rogers believed that group members, in the security of the group, would drop their defenses and encounter each other “authentically” (Page, Weiss, & Lietaer, 2002).

Gestalt Groups

Influential psychiatrist Fritz Perls (1969) combined elements of both psychodynamic and humanistic techniques in his unique approach to group therapy. Perls drew his theoretical principles from Gestalt psychologists who argued that perception requires the active integration of perceptual information. The word Gestalt, which means both “whole” and “shape,” suggests that people perceive the world as unified, continuous, and organized. Like Freud, Perls assumed that individuals often repress their emotions to the point that unresolved interpersonal conflicts turn into “unfinished business.” Perls, however, believed that people are capable of self-regulation and great emotional awareness, and he used therapy to help patients reach their potential.

In some cases, Gestalt group therapy is individual-level therapy conducted in a group setting: Group members observe one another’s “work,” but they do not interact 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, such as the “hot seat” or the “empty chair,” to stimulate members’ emotional understanding. When using the hot seat, one person in the group sits in the center of the room and publicly works through his or her emotional experiences. The empty chair method involves imagining that another person or a part of oneself is sitting in an empty chair and then carrying on a dialogue with that person. These techniques, when properly applied, often elicit strong emotional reactions among members, but Gestalt therapists resist offering interpretations to their patients (Gaffney, 2012).

Psychodrama

Jacob Moreno (1934), one of the first therapists to treat his patients in groups, used special exercises to stimulate emotional experiences in group members. Moreno conducted therapeutic groups perhaps 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 provided 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 experientially powerful by developing psychodrama techniques. When role playing, for example, members take on the identity of someone else and then act as that person would in a simulated social situation. Role reversal involves playing a role for a period of time before changing roles with another group member. Doubling is the assignment of two group members to a single role, often with one member of the pair playing him or herself. Moreno believed that the physical action of psychodrama helped members overcome their reluctance to discuss critical issues (Nicholas, 2017).

Interpersonal Group Psychotherapy

Many therapeutic methods, including psychoanalysis and Gestalt therapy, trace difficulties in achieving well-being and adjustment back to psychological causes: inner conflicts, unmet needs, and functional but potentially unhealthy defense mechanisms. An interpersonal approach, in contrast, assumes that psychological problems are the result of social problems—difficulties relating to others, rejection by loved ones, abrasive interpersonal styles, and so on (Lipsitz & Markowtiz, 2016). Because people’s problems stem from their “failure to attend to and correct the self-defeating, interpersonally unsuccessful aspects” of their interpersonal acts (Kiesler, 1991, pp. 443), therapies that focus specifically on groups and social relationships are particularly potent since they highlight the origin of the dysfunction (Mahon & Leszcz, 2017). Conversely, just as interpersonal processes are the source of individuals’ problems, so submersion in a rich, interpersonally dynamic group provides the cure: by the group they have been broken, and by the group they will be healed (Marsh, 1931).

Psychiatrist Irvin Yalom’s interpersonal group psychotherapy is perhaps the most influential of the interpersonal approaches (also called interactive group psychotherapy or process groups). Yalom uses the group as a “social microcosm” where members respond to one another in ways that are characteristic of their interpersonal tendencies outside of the group. Therapy groups, as groups, display a full array of group features and dynamics, including social influence, structure, conflict, and development. Yalom takes advantage of the group’s dynamics to help members learn about how they influence others and how others influence them. Uniquely, members do not spend very much time discussing problems they are facing at home or at work—a then and there focus. Instead, the group members focus on each other and the processes that sustain or detract from their relationships with one another: the here and now focus. Yalom’s process approach assumes that, during the course of the group sessions, each member’s interpersonal inclinations will express themselves, providing an opportunity to identify and possibly ameliorate those that are disadvantageous. As the group grapples with personal conflicts, problems of organization, goals, and communication failures, the members reveal their preferred interaction styles to others and to themselves. When, for example, two members begin criticizing each other, someone uses powerful or bizarre influence tactics, or another refuses to get involved in the group’s process, the group members can discuss this shared experience and gain an understanding of both themselves and others (Yalom with Leszcz, 2005).

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Groups

Some therapists, rather than searching for the cause of the problematic behavior in unseen, unconscious conflicts or interpersonal transactions, take a behavioral approach to mental health. This approach assumes that problematic thoughts and behaviors are acquired through experience, so behavior therapists encourage the development of healthy cognitions and behaviors and the avoidance of undesirable cognitions and behaviors. Cognitive-behavioral therapy groups use these principles with two or more individuals. A cognitive-behavioral approach to the Semester at Sea bus group, for example, may ask members to identify the thoughts that are triggered by their memory of their experiences and then provide them with the cognitive and behavioral skills they need to control those reactions. The therapist may ask the group members to focus their attention on the accident and then to share their reaction with the others in the group. When members report experiencing dysfunctional ideation—such as “I wonder why I survived and others didn’t?” or “I wonder if I deserve to live”—then the leader guides the group through the disputation of such thoughts. The leader might also model, with the group members assisting, methods of emotional and cognitive self-regulation such as mood monitoring, relaxation, and thought-stopping (DiGiuseppe, David, & Venezia, 2016).

A group format interfaces seamlessly with the process-structuring methods used in behavioral treatments. In many cases, therapists follow a series of standard procedures before, during, and after the group intervention. Prior to treatment, they can observe the reactions of each member to the group to index the degree of functioning prior to any intervention. Pretherapy reviews, in which the therapist reviews the theories and procedures that sustain the intervention, can be carried out in a psychoeducational group setting, and, through discussion, the members can clarify their expectations and goals. Therapists can also use public commitment to these goals to enhance the binding strengths of a behavioral contract that describes in objective terms the goals the group members are trying to achieve. During the therapeutic sessions themselves, the cognitive-behavioral group therapist can capitalize on the presence of multiple actors to magnify the effects of modeling, rehearsal, and feedback. Members of the group can practice interpersonal exchanges with other members, and other members can act as observers. These practice sessions can be recorded and played back to the group so that the participants can see precisely what they are doing correctly and what aspects of their behavior need improvement. During this feedback phase, the leader offers reassurance and praise, and members add their support and encouragement (Bieling, McGabe, & Antony, 2006).

16-1b. Interpersonal Learning Groups

Many psychologists are united in their belief that the human race too frequently fails to reach its full potential. Although human relationships should be rich and satisfying, they are more often than not superficial and limiting. People are capable of profound self-understanding and acceptance, yet most people are strangers to themselves. These limitations are not so severe that the help of a psychotherapist is needed, but people’s lives would be richer if they could overcome these restraints.

Kurt Lewin was one of the first to suggest using small groups to teach people interpersonal skills and self-insight. Lewin believed that groups and organizations struggle because their members are not trained in human relations. He therefore recommended close examination of group experiences to give people a deeper understanding of themselves and their groups’ dynamics. Other theorists expanded on this basic idea, which forms the basis of a number of approaches to maximize human potential. Although some of these methods, such as T-groups, are primarily of historical interest, they nonetheless provide the basis for contemporary interpersonal learning groups (Gazda & Brooks, 1985; Lakin, 1972).

Training Groups (T-Groups)

How can people learn about group dynamics? Members could learn the facts about effective interpersonal relations by attending lectures or by reading books about group dynamics (as you are doing now), but Lewin argued that good group skills are most easily acquired by directly experiencing human relations. Hence, he developed specialized training groups, or T-groups. Lewin discovered the utility of such groups when running educational classes dealing with leadership and group dynamics. At the end of each day, he arranged for observers to discuss the dynamics of the groups with the group leaders who conducted the training sessions. The group members themselves did not usually take part in the sessions, but that changed when several asked if they could listen to the observers’ and leaders’ interpretations. Lewin agreed to their request, but they took issue with the observers’ and the leaders’ interpretations of the events that transpired in the group. However, the animated discussion that followed proved to be highly educational, and Lewin realized that everyone in the group was benefiting enormously from the analysis of the group’s processes and dynamics (Highhouse, 2002).

One of the most noteworthy aspects of T-groups was their lack of structure. Although, from time to time, the trainees would meet in large groups for lectures or presentations, most of the learning took place in small groups. Even though the group included a designated leader, often called a facilitator or trainer, this individual acted primarily as a catalyst for discussion rather than as a director of the group. Indeed, during the first few days of a T-group’s existence, group members usually complain about the lack of structure and the ambiguity, blaming the trainer for their discomfort. This ambiguity was intentional, however, and was designed to shift responsibility for structuring, understanding, and controlling the group’s activities to the members themselves. As the group grappled with problems of organization, agenda, goals, and structure, each member’s preferred interaction style became apparent to others in the group. The members also learned to disclose their feelings honestly, gained conflict reduction skills, and found enjoyment from working in collaborative relationships (Lieberman, 1994).

Although T-groups and training groups are antiquated terms, the principles on which they were based continue to influence methods for training individuals to work more effectively in groups (Burke & Day, 1986). For example, T-groups provided the basic educational model for the National Training Laboratory (NTL). This facility, which was founded by Lewin’s colleagues after his death, was jointly sponsored by the National Education Association, the Research Center for Group Dynamics, and the Office of Naval Research. Researchers and teachers at the center refined their training methods in special workshops, which they termed laboratories. Their approach stressed the importance of learning about groups by experiencing them and yielded Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats (1948) well-known functional theory of roles discussed in Chapter 6. T-groups were the precursor to such humanistic group therapies as encounter groups but also psychoeducational groups. (Moreno, 1953, provides a very different historical perspective on the development of interpersonal skill training.)

Psychoeducational Groups

Many learning groups are open-ended, unstructured approaches to interpersonal learning. Members of such groups follow no agenda; they examine events that unfold spontaneously within the confines of the group itself, and give one another feedback about their interpersonal effectiveness when appropriate. Psychoeducational groups, in contrast, are planned interventions that focus on a specific interpersonal problem or skill. Integrating a traditional classroom format with a therapeutic group, the leaders identify specific learning outcomes before the sessions. They then develop short lectures, exercises, media, simulations, and discussion questions that will help members practice these targeted skills. In a session on nonverbal communication, for instance, group members may be assigned a partner and then be asked to communicate a series of feelings without using spoken language. During assertiveness training, members might practice saying no to one another’s requests. In a leadership training seminar, group members may be asked to role-play various leadership styles in a small group. These exercises are similar in that they actively involve the group members in the learning process (Brown, 2011).

Thousands of local and national institutes use structured learning groups in their seminars and workshops. Although the formats of these structured experiences differ substantially, most include directly experiencing the targeted skill or process and then examining the experience through discussion, guided analysis, personal reflection, and so on. Figure 16.1 summarizes this process. The session generally begins with a brief orientation that reviews the critical issues and focuses members on the exercise’s goals. Next, the group members experience the event or situation by carrying out a structured group exercise. When they have completed the exercise, the members engage in a general discussion of their experiences within the group. This phase can be open-ended, focusing on feelings and subjective interpretations, or it, too, can be structured through the use of questioning, information exchange procedures, or video recording. This discussion phase should blend into a period of analysis, during which the consultant helps group members to identify consistencies in their behavior and the behaviors of others. In many cases, the consultant guides the group’s analysis of underlying group dynamics and offers a conceptual analysis that gives meaning to the event. The interpersonal learning cycle ends with application, as the group members use their new-found knowledge to enhance their relationships external to the group context. The model may also include a reflection component, in which participants examine the implications of their experience.

Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model

Educator and social psychologist David Kolb (1984) has applied principles of experiential learning in organizational, educational, and governmental settings. His experiential learning theory identifies two sets of polarities in the way people learn. The first polarity contrasts concrete, direct experiences with conceptual analysis. Through direct experiences people gain a firsthand understanding of the phenomenon they are examining, but by reflecting on the meaning of the experience, they transform these concrete data into abstract knowledge. The second polarity contrasts doing and observing. Like most analyses of experiential learning, Kolb stresses the importance of learning through action, engagement, and active experimentation, but he also suggests that considerable learning occurs through detached, objective observation—particularly because few individuals can act and accurately observe the effects of their action simultaneously. Kolb suggests that learning is deepest when individuals experience all four modes of learning: direct experience, observation, analysis, and action (Kayes, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005).

What Style of Learning Do You Prefer?

As educator and social psychologist David A. Kolb (1984) explains in his theory of learning styles, not everyone likes to learn new things in the same way. Some prefer learning in situations that provide them with immediate, direct experiences, but others feel they learn best by studying abstract, theoretical concepts. People also differ in their preference for active versus reflective learning.

Instructions

Four different “styles” of learning are listed below. Take a moment and think about how you most prefer to learn new things. Then rank the four alternatives, giving 1 to your most preferred route to learning, a 2 to the next most preferred, and so on.

___ Abstract: I like to think about ideas and concepts, rely on reason, and examine ideas carefully. I tend to be evaluative.

___ Experiential: I like to make my learning personal, as I experience things deeply and respond at an emotional level. I am intuitive.

___ Reflective: I like to watch and listen; I look at all sides of an issue, and often take my time before I respond. I am reserved.

___ Active: I like to learn by doing things; I try things out, and enjoy seeking results; I am hands on.

Interpretation

Differences in learning styles influence people’s reactions to group-learning experiences. Those who prefer to learn through active, concrete experiences are more positive when evaluating group learning, particularly in comparison to those who like to learn through abstract, reflective experiences. They are more likely to agree with such items as “Group work helps me learn better” and “Group work engages my interest,” whereas students’ whose learning style emphasized reflection and observation were more likely to say “I learn best when I am working alone.” Reflective and abstract students rated listening to lectures as more educationally beneficial than most other students (Gardner & Korth, 1998, p. 31; for a more extensive analysis of individual differences in learning style see Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

Process Debriefing Groups

Because psychoeducational groups are both structured and problem-focused, they are often used to lessen the likelihood of negative aftereffects following trauma. Although homo sapiens is a resilient species that can withstand great hardship, traumatic events—disasters, accidents, the loss of loved ones, physical assaults, victimization, and so on—can take a psychological toll. The students who survived the horrific night of the bus crash likely suffered from anxiety, sleeplessness, and fearfulness as they struggled to regain their psychological equilibrium. Given the severity of the trauma, had they not received treatment they would have likely exhibited symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): a serious psychological reaction to stressful events characterized by high levels of anxiety, depression, fearfulness, and physical symptoms, such as migraines, sleep problems, and gastrointestinal distress (Silver & Garfin, 2016).

These negative mental health consequences can be reduced through stress management crisis interventions. Variously termed process debriefing groups, critical incident stress debriefing groups, or trauma/disaster groups, these interventions were first used to help combat veterans deal with the psychological turmoil produced by the experience of combat. As the positive effects of these groups became evident, they came to be used to help individuals deal with traumatic community-level events, such as natural disasters, accidents, and school shootings (Foy, Drescher, & Watson, 2010).

These interventions—usually designed and implemented by community health professionals—often make use of group-level therapeutic coping processes, including social comparison, social support, and social learning (Pender & Anderton, 2016). The members of the bus group, for example, met with therapists when they returned to the ship and collectively processed the experience, clarified the events leading up to the accident and after it, and began to prepare for the weeks of recover that lay before them. The ship’s counselors also worked with the entire Semester at Sea community, providing information about the incident, initiating grief counseling, organizing the community response, and providing training for staff. This process debriefing phase was relatively brief, ending when the students transitioned to group therapy sessions (Turner, 2000).

The effectiveness of such interventions depends, in part, on timing, procedures, and the characteristics of the individuals involved. Ideally, the intervention occurs immediately following the event, and provides continuing treatment as group members progress through the cumulative stages of the coping process. Interventions should also be planned carefully in advance, and in some cases, methods used in traditional therapeutic circumstances must be replaced by methods that will work in the chaos and confusion of a disaster or community trauma. Interventions must also take into account the characteristics of the individuals involved. Children and elderly people, for example, require a different set of group experiences than do adults, family members, and emergency personnel. Interventions must also be sensitive to each individual’s reaction to the event. Some may appreciate the opportunity to interact with others who are coping with a disaster, but others may not respond well to the evocative demands of the group. Not everyone can share their grief with others, and the continued discussion of the event may only exacerbate their anxieties and emotional reprocessing. A group approach to treatment works for many people, but some will require individual assistance rather than group help (Pack, 2013).

16-1c. Support Groups

In times of trouble, such as illness, divorce, loss, or crisis, people tend to join with others rather than cope alone. Families, friends, and professional caregivers such as physicians and therapists are excellent sources of help and information in stressful, difficult circumstances, but some individuals’ social networks may be too worn, too fragile, or too inexperienced to provide them with the solace they require. Sometimes, too, individuals may not wish to reveal their problems and their needs to their intimates and would prefer to unburden themselves with others who are knowledgeable but more objective and hence will be less likely to judge them harshly. In such circumstances, people join with others in support groups: voluntary groups whose members share a common problem and meet for the purpose of exchanging social support (Scogin & DiNapoli, 2016).

Types of Support Groups

Support groups go by a variety of names, including mutual aid groups and mutual help groups. They are frequently called self-help groups, even though members of such groups are deliberately encouraged to rely on other group members for help and to provide those others with assistance in return. These groups meet at a wide variety of locations in the community, including churches, schools, universities, and private homes. They also meet, in some cases, using the Internet. Internet support groups provide individuals with advice, support, and information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

These groups generally began when individuals facing similar problems decided to share information with and support for one another. Because they are problem-focused, there are as many different support groups as there are specific problems that people encounter. However, most support groups fall into one of the four categories summarized in Table 16.2: mental and physical health, family and life transitions, advocacy, and addiction (Silverman, 2010).

Table 16.2 Varieties of Support (Mutual Help) Groups

Type of Group Examples

Mental and physical health: members dealing with psychological disorders, physical illness, and recovery from injury

CARE (Cancer Aftercare and Rehabilitation Society)

Bell’s Palsy Network

Recovery, Inc. (a mental health group)

Family and life transitions: individuals facing stressful life experiences, such as divorce, bereavement, and ill family members

Mommies of Miracles (mothers of children with disabilities)

Parents without Partners

Alzheimer’s Disease Support and Information Group

Advocacy: individuals advocating support for a personal and/or social issue

Campaign for Homosexual Equality

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)

Gay Activists’ Alliance

Addictions: members seeking to control intemperate behaviors and maladaptive dependencies

AA (Alcoholics Anonymous)

NA (Narcotics Anonymous)

Weight Watchers

Defining Features of Support Groups

How do support groups help their members, given that they usually have no formally designated leaders, no professionally trained staff, and no facility or budget? No two support groups adopt identical procedures and structures, but most focus on a specific problem, encourage members to form personal relations with one another, and stress mutuality in helping. These often-seen features of support groups are as follows:

Problem-focused: Support groups are communities of similar sufferers. Members may differ from one another in terms of age, sex, race, and wealth, but they share one important similarity: They are all coping with the same kind of problem. The members face a common predicament, so they are “psychologically bonded by the compelling similarity of member concerns” (Jacobs & Goodman, 1989, p. 537).

Relationship-oriented: Support groups tend to be personally and interpersonally involving. Even though individuals’ identities are often masked within such groups (e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous), members nonetheless establish personal relationships with one another that might continue outside of the confines of the group (unlike in psychotherapy groups). Members are expected to be honest and open, so that they learn to trust and rely on one another. Members are also expected to be respectful of one another and one another’s needs and to treat people fairly.

Communal: Most support groups develop a strong sense of community and sharing within the group. Members of the group draw support and encouragement from the group, but they are also expected to provide support and encouragement to others within the group. Each person, then, is both a provider and a recipient of help and support. The primary determinant of status in such groups is experience with the problem. Most support groups include veteran individuals who have more knowledge and experience with both the problem and with the means of dealing with the problem; these individuals serve as role models for others.

Autonomous: Some support groups are created by health care practitioners, who use them to provide additional services to their patients. However, the traditional support group is a grassroots organization, initiated by members rather than an external coordinating professional. In fact, they often stand in contrast to more traditional forms of treatment, for they arise spontaneously because their members’ needs are not being satisfied by existing educational, social, or health agencies. Local groups may be aligned to national organizations that mandate specific procedures for all their chapters, but even this standardization does not eliminate the emphasis on the local group’s control of its methods.

Perspective-based: Support groups’ independence from more traditional approaches is also manifested in their adoption of a novel perspective with regard to their problem domain. A grief group may adopt fervently a particular model of the stages of grieving and base its interventions and recommendations on that perspective. A support group for alcoholics may maintain that recovery is never permanent, and so one must abstain from all forms of alcohol to overcome the addiction. These perspectives may not be complex nor are they always explicitly recognized by members, but, in many cases, the group’s perspective on its affliction may become the centerpiece of the group’s discussions with new members urged to adopt the group’s worldview as a means of coping effectively with the problem.

Alcoholics Anonymous

Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an example of a support group. AA was founded by Bill Wilson in 1935. Wilson had tried to quit drinking for years, but no matter what he tried, he always returned to his addiction. After a fourth hospital stay for acute alcoholism, Wilson became convinced that he could overcome his drinking problem and sought help from a small spiritual group, the Oxford Group Movement. With his physician and friend William D. Silkworth, he developed a support system that included self-examination, admitting past wrongs, rebuilding relationships and making amends, and reliance on and helping others.

Wilson’s program formed the basis of AA, which grew to be an international organization with millions of members. Despite AA’s size, change is still achieved through local chapters of alcoholics who meet regularly to review their success in maintaining their sobriety. AA meetings emphasize testimonials, mutual help, and adherence to the 12-stage program (the “12 steps”) described by the AA doctrine. These steps recommend admitting one’s powerlessness over alcohol; surrendering one’s fate to a greater power; taking an inventory of personal strengths, weaknesses, and moral failings; and helping others fight their addiction (Flores, 1997).

AA is a multipronged approach to addiction. It stresses the goal of total abstinence and the need to remain ever vigilant against the pressure to resume drinking. It asks members to take specific actions to prevent relapse and assigns veteran members to newcomers to help strengthen their resilience. Its effectiveness in helping people control their drinking depends substantially on regular attendance. Individuals who regularly attend AA meetings—they are core members of the group who rarely miss meetings—are much more likely to maintain abstinence, relative to individuals who miss meetings or attend meetings for one year or less. A second key predictor of AA success is level of engagement in the group—indicated by willingness to speak at sessions and to accept help from a member who acts as a “sponsor” (Parkman, Lloyd, & Splisbury, 2015).

AA is also more effective when it changes members’ social networks, limiting their ties to heavy drinkers, and increasing their relationships with individuals who support them in their efforts to control their drinking. By participating actively in AA, members associate with people who are pro-abstinence, and the longer this positive association continues the more they can resist the negative effects of pro-drinkers in their social network. Pro-drinking network ties in one’s social network increased the likelihood of drinking by 35.9%, whereas pro-abstinent social network ties lowered the likelihood of drinking by 9.9% (Kelly et al., 2011).

Can People Find Support Online?

Just as the Internet offers new ways for groups to solve problems, collaborate on projects, and make decisions, so too has it opened up new possibilities for those seeking help and support for the problems they face. Members, instead of leaving their homes and traveling to a meeting, can now take part in a range of group activities using a computer and a connection to the Internet. No matter what problem an individual faces—a serious physical illness, stress caused by providing care for an ill family member, a negative life event such as divorce or the death of a loved one, addiction and drug dependency, social rejection, prejudice, or problems of adjustment and mental health—an online group likely exists somewhere on the Internet that can provide self-care information, support, and referral services. Some of these sites are primarily repositories of information about the problem or issue and may be sponsored by professionals who treat these problems. Others, however, are unmoderated, self-sustaining mutual help groups, for they were created by individuals who all face the same difficulty and wish to connect to and support each other (Wright, 2015).

Most support groups create asynchronous communication among members who post their comments and questions on forums and discussion areas. Other sites set up meeting times when people can communicate synchronously, using video, audio, or text-only communication tools. Both synchronous and asynchronous groups can be moderated by a group leader who facilitates the discussion (and intervenes to remove content as necessary).

How helpful can these online support groups be, given that they meet in a relatively sterile online world? Studies of online groups for problems ranging from cancer to sexual abuse to psychological disorders suggest that these groups are surprisingly effective and may even rival face-to-face groups in terms of functionality. When researchers examined the posted messages in a wide range of online support groups they affirmed their effectiveness—for these sites provided individuals with emotional and informational support, as well as encouragement, approval, and acceptance. The type of support provided was also related to the severity of the problem and the needs of the individual. Nurturing forms of support—emotional sharing, approval, and acceptance—were more common when people were dealing with turmoil in their interpersonal relationships or facing a health crisis that could result in a loss of life. Action-focused support was offered by experienced members to those who were dealing with chronic conditions that could be remediated to a degree (Rains, Peterson, & Wright, 2015). Participants report that they felt supported and valued by their group and, after taking part in an online session, felt more hopeful about their situation. Two issues that could cause problems—people posting inaccurate information or leaving comments that could be emotionally harmful—occur very rarely in such groups, and probably no more frequently than in offline groups (van Uden-Kraan et al., 2008).

Some aspects of the online format may even enhance aspects of a mutual help approach to coping with negative events (Tanis, 2008). Because members need not disclose their identity, they report being able to reveal more intimate information about their experiences and to respond more emotionally to others than they would if interacting face to face. Members of online sessions also tend to exchange more practical advice and factual information than they do in face-to-face sessions, and members value this aspect of online groups as well. They report that the information is useful to them in understanding their condition and in dealing more effectively with their health care providers (Wright, 2015). Internet support groups are also particularly valuable for individuals whose illness restricts their mobility and for those who are suffering from a stigmatized illness, such as prostate cancer or AIDS. Individuals may feel self-conscious about their condition, but the comfort they experience by joining with others who are “in the same boat” overwhelms this concern about embarrassment (see Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2016).

16-2. Sources of Support and Change

Group approaches to change, despite their variations in goals and methods, have certain key elements in common. Some of these common therapeutic factors are equivalent to the change-promoting forces that operate in individual-level therapies, but others are unique to group-level approaches. All therapies, for example, help clients gain self-insight, but only group approaches stimulate interpersonal comparisons and provide members with a forum for practicing their interpersonal skills. All therapies provide clients with support and help, but in groups, members don’t just get help—they also give help to other group members (Kivlighan & Kivlighan, 2014).

Although no one list of therapeutic factors has been verified by researchers and accepted by practitioners, Table 16.3 lists the most frequently cited and empirically confirmed change-promoting factors. Some of these factors, such as giving hope to group members, are more influential during the early stages of the group’s history, whereas others become more potent with time. Some focus on cognitive processes, whereas others promote changes in behavior directly. Some pertain more to task aspects of the group setting, such as guidance and gaining skills. Others originate from the positive social relations that unify the group. But all these processes combine to transform ordinary groups into therapeutic ones (Solomonov et al., 2016).

Table 16.3 Factors That Promote Change in Groups

Factor Definition

Universality Recognizing one is not the only one suffering; identification with others

Hope Increasing optimism from seeing others improve

Observational learning Developing social skills through observation and imitation

Interpersonal learning Developing social skills by interacting with others

Guidance Offering and accepting direction to and from the group

Cohesion and support Building strong, supportive relationships with others; acceptance

Self-disclosure Revealing personal information to others

Catharsis Releasing pent-up emotions

Altruism Increasing sense of efficacy from helping others

Insight Gaining a deeper understanding of oneself

16-2a. Universality and Hope

In the aftermath of the bus accident, the survivors coped with their physical injuries, their fears, and their grief. In unguarded moments, they may have flashed back to the accident and psychologically relived it. As they found that they could not concentrate on their work even months after the accident, they may have started to feel that they would never get over the anguish. They may also have found that their moods would take unexpected turns—they may have become angry for little reason or were disinterested in things that once fascinated them. If they never discussed these reactions with others, how would they know that these changes in mood, thinking, and memory are common occurrences for those who survive a traumatic experience?

In It Together: Universality

When suffering alone, individuals may not realize that their feelings and experiences are relatively common ones. But when surrounded by other people who are suffering similarly, members recognize the universality of the problems they face. Most people are careful to keep their negative emotions hidden from others, but they do not realize that others are doing this as well. In consequence, people tend to assume that their situation is a relatively bleak one, and this misperception can lead to self-blame, depressive rumination, and declines in overall well-being (Jordan et al., 2011). Research confirms that when people are with others who face similar problems or troubling events, they feel better, in terms of self-esteem and mood, than when they are with dissimilar people. People often enjoy feeling distinctive, unusual, and different from others, but few people wish to feel uniquely singled out for misfortune (Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998).

The AA “hello” ritual illustrates this collective sharing. Members, when addressing the group, state their first name, followed by the announcement “I am an alcoholic.” This public declaration reassures all the other participants that their problem is shared by others, but also accentuates the members’ identification with the group. Just as individuals who strongly identify with their racial and ethnic group show elevated levels of self-esteem, so do individuals who identify with their therapeutic group show greater well-being (Marmarosh, Holtz, & Schottenbauer, 2005).

Why Not Carry Your Group with You in Case You Need It?

At the end of the day’s session, the group’s leader thanked the members for their active engagement in the group’s work and reminded them to “Put the group into your pockets and carry us with you: Rely on us when you need support, guidance, and feel alone” (Marmarosh & Corazzini, 1997, p. 65).

Therapeutic groups, as groups, provide their members with support and encouragement, but also a group-level identity that supplements their individualistic, personal identity. As social identity theory would predict, when group membership is salient and valued, then the qualities of that group—including resilience, mastery, and social assurance—become their characteristics. The group, when incorporated in their social identity, provides members with social and psychological resources that they can draw on when facing stress and adversity.

Psychologists Cheri Marmarosh and John Corazzini (1997) tested this benefit of membership in a therapeutic group by giving the members of some therapeutic groups a card to carry with them, as a symbol of their group membership. They were reminded that they were valued members of their therapy group and that they should know that their group was with them all the time. Those in a no treatment control condition received the same therapeutic experiences—but they did not get a card or the reminder to keep the group in their pocket.

People who received the card considered the group to be of greater value to them, personally. And, one week later, they also reported higher self-esteem, supporting the predicted relationship between social identity and self-worth. This gain, however, was not experienced by those who had just joined the group, or by those who already had relatively high self-esteem before the intervention. The results, however, affirm the value of groups, for they yield benefits for their members even when they are separated from them.

Social Comparison and Hope

Groups do more than just reassure members that they are not facing challenging life circumstances alone. Through the installation of hope, they transform members’ perceptions of the intractability of their problems. By joining with others, members gain a renewed sense of confidence about their problems and their resolution: they become hopeful, optimistic, and goal focused rather than helpless, pessimistic, and directionless.

Research confirms that group-derived hope contributes to well-being, life satisfaction, and inspiration. 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 control group (Cheavens et al., 2006). Groups that are designed so that they elevate members’ sense of hope tend to be more powerful agents of change than groups that use other procedures (see Ripley, Worthington, & Maclin, 2011).

These therapeutic gains may be due, in part, to group members’ tendencies to compare themselves to other members—the process of social comparison, as described in Chapter 4. Therapeutic and growth-oriented groups bring together a mix of people who have reached different stages in the change process. Some may be making great progress toward their goals, but others may be struggling. Those members who are experiencing particularly negative outcomes may trigger downward social comparison, for they remind members that their own situation is not as bad as they initially thought. The group may also include individuals who are coping well with many difficulties, and these upward social comparison targets symbolize the possibility of progress. Although successful group members—the fellow cancer survivor who is in complete remission, the AA member who has stayed sober for three years, or the caregiver who is managing to care for her elderly mother and still attend college—may make some group members feel like failures, these successful outliers provide a standard for defining one’s own goals (Arigo, Suls, & Smyth, 2014).

16-2b. Social Learning

When people who are striving to change meet with one other person—whether a trained therapist, counselor, friend, or relative—they can discuss problems, identify solutions, and receive support and encouragement. But even in the most therapeutic of dyads, the individual shares perspectives, feedback, guidance, acceptance, and comfort with only one other person. A larger group, with its multiple members, is richer in terms of its interpersonal and therapeutic resources. Within the social microcosm of the group, individuals experience a fuller range of interpersonal processes, including feedback about their strengths and weaknesses, pressure to change originating from multiple sources, role models whose actions they can emulate, and opportunities to practice the very behaviors they are seeking to refine. Of the 10 therapeutic factors in Table 16.3, observational learning, interpersonal learning, and guidance all involve learning from other people: social learning (Day, 2014).

Observational Learning

Albert Bandura (1986), like all learning theorists, assumes that people acquire new attitudes and behaviors through experience. His social learning theory, however, suggests that people also learn by observing and imitating other people. This theory explains how infants learn their native language, why adolescents adopt the unhealthy habits of their peers, and how individuals acquire new, health-promoting skills in therapeutic groups. Social learning is more than imitation, however. If members are not motivated to learn from their peers or if they are distracted and so do not watch others closely, social learning is unlikely. Such learning also requires members be able to remember and reenact the behavior they observed. In general, people are more likely to learn through observation if they recognize that the actions they watch lead to positive consequences for the person who performs them (Shebilske et al., 1998).

Groups provide members with multiple models to emulate, including fellow group members and the group leaders. When, for example, members who are skilled in expressing their feelings deftly describe their emotional reactions, the less verbally skilled members may learn how they, too, can put their feelings into words. When two members who regularly disagree with each other reach an accord, others, who watch this reconciliation unfold, learn how they can resolve interpersonal conflicts. Leaders can also model desirable behaviors by treating the group members in positive ways and avoiding behaviors that are undesirable (Dies, 1994). Researchers facilitated social learning in one study by arranging for the coleaders of therapy groups to model social interactions that the members considered difficult or anxiety-provoking. The leaders then helped the group members perform these same behaviors through role playing. Groups that used explicit modeling methods showed greater improvement than groups that only discussed the problematic behaviors (Falloon et al., 1977).

Interpersonal Learning

Most people believe that they can come to know themselves—their strengths, their weaknesses, their tendencies, and their satisfactions—through self-reflection. But much self-knowledge is gained socially; people implicitly monitor their impact on other people and draw conclusions about their own qualities from others’ reactions to them. In therapeutic groups, the other members become, metaphorically, mirrors that members use to understand themselves (Cooley, 1902). A group member may begin to think that she has good social skills if the group always responds positively each time she contributes to the group discussion. Another member may realize that he is irritating if his comments are always met with anger and hostility. This interpersonal feedback helps members perceive themselves more accurately. Individuals who are socially withdrawn, for example, tend to evaluate their social skills negatively even though the other group members view them positively (Christensen & Kashy, 1998). Individuals also tend to rate themselves as more anxious than others perceive them to be. Extended contact with others in a group setting helps repair these negative, inaccurate perceptions (Christensen & Feeney, 2016)

Groups are also very willing to give direct, unambiguous feedback to members when they engage in objectionable or praiseworthy actions (Kivlighan, 1985). Kurt Lewin was one of the first theorists to borrow the term feedback from engineering and use it to describe how others’ responses to group members served as corrective guides for subsequent actions (Claiborn, Goodyear, & Horner, 2001). The individual who is lonely because he alienates everyone by acting rudely may be told, “You should try to be more sensitive” or “You are always so judgmental, it makes me sick.” Some groups exchange so much evaluative information that members withdraw from the group rather than face the barrage of negative feedback (Scheuble et al., 1987). Skilled group leaders, however, are careful to monitor the exchange of information between members so that individuals receive the information they need in positive, supportive ways (Morran et al., 1998).

Guidance

When group members discuss issues, concerns, problems, and crises, other group members frequently help by providing advice, guidance, and direction. Members of support groups, for example, exchange considerable factual and personal information about their disorder or concern as well as suggestions for problem management. Group leaders, in addition to guiding the flow of the session through questioning, summarizing, and rephrasing members’ statements, also provide information, suggest solutions, confront the members’ interpretations of problems, and offer their own interpretations. This guidance ranges from explicit suggestions and directions to more existentially challenging insights (Solomonov et al., 2016).

Some therapists are more directive than others. Those who adopt a leader-centered approach—typical of psychoanalytic, Gestalt, and behavioral groups—guide the course of the interaction, assign various tasks to the group members, and occupy the hub of the centralized communication network. In some instances, the group members may not even communicate with one another, but only with the group leader. Other leaders, however, adopt a directive, democratic style of leadership. This more group-centered approach, which is more typical in interpersonal therapy groups, requires members to engage with one another rather than only with the leader. Such therapists function as facilitators and agenda setters; they help the members examine problems and generate alternatives, but their influence does not necessarily exceed that of any other member (Luke, 2014)

Both directive and nondirective approaches are effective, so long as the leaders are perceived to be caring, helpful in identifying the cause of members’ problems, and skilled in keeping the group on task (Lieberman & Golant, 2002; Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973). Moreover, just as leaders in organizational settings sometimes vary their interventions to fit the situation, so effective leaders in therapeutic settings shift their methods over time. During the early stages of treatment, members may respond better to a more directive leader, whereas in the later stages, a less directive approach may yield more positive results (Kivlighan, 1997).

As in other groups, therapeutic ones often benefit from coleadership: having two rather than one leader (Miles & Kivlighan, 2010). The two leaders can lend support to each other, and they can also offer the group members their combined knowledge, insight, and experience. Male–female leadership teams are particularly beneficial, as they offer a fuller perspective on gender issues and serve as models of positive, nonromantic heterosexual relationships. In general, two cooks tend to improve, rather than spoil, the therapeutic broth, but the advantages of coleadership are lost if the leaders are unequal in status or engage in power struggles during group sessions (Arnardottir, 2002).

16-2c. Group Cohesion

Just as cohesion is a key ingredient for effective military squads, production groups, and management teams, so cohesion contributes to the effectiveness of change-promoting groups. Groups are more effective as change agents if they are unified and members feel tightly bonded to the group and its members (Cartwright, 1951). Without cohesion, feedback is not accepted, norms do not develop, and members do not attend with enough regularity to create a stable atmosphere for influence. Members are also more accepting of each other in cohesive groups. Cohesion creates the climate for acceptance that is so critical for therapeutic success.

Sources of Cohesion

The concept of cohesion has generated considerable definitional and measurement debate among those who study therapeutic groups. To some, cohesion is the group-level equivalent of the working alliance that links therapist and client in one-to-one therapy. Others suggest that cohesiveness is what creates the psychological safety needed for members to feel comfortable revealing their weaknesses to other members. Still others suggest that the essence of cohesion is a sense of belonging to the group (see Marmarosh & Van Horn, 2010). However, as Chapter 5 noted, a group’s cohesion is influenced by a number of factors, and no single factor can be named which is the critical ingredient that must be added to the group so that it can become a cohesive one. A therapeutic group, like any group, may exhibit both social and task cohesion: Social cohesion, in a therapeutic group, is defined by the strength of positive relational bonds among members but also the absence of negative relationships (Thayer & Burlingame, 2014). Task cohesion is determined by a commitment to the group and its therapeutic processes (or positive working relationships). However, cohesion may also be based on identity and belonging (collective cohesion), shared feelings (emotional cohesion), and the integrity of the group’s structural features—including the bond between the members and the leaders (structural cohesion).

Cohesion and Group Development

Just as studies of all types of groups suggest that a group’s cohesiveness depends on its longevity and stage of development, so studies of therapeutic groups suggest cohesion ebbs and flows across the life course of the group. Even when the group’s task is a therapeutic one, time is needed to achieve cohesiveness. Through continuous, guided, and increasingly skillful communication, group members come to identify and better understand previously unrecognized motives and emotions, they become more rational in dealing with life’s problems, and they acquire valuable interpersonal skills, but these gains will occur at a pace set by the group’s gradual development. In one study, investigators observed and coded the behaviors displayed by adolescents in a program of behavioral change. These groups did not immediately start to work on self-development issues nor did the members try to help one another. Rather, groups first moved through orientation, conflict, and cohesion-building stages before they began to make therapeutic progress (Forsyth & Diederich, 2014).

These changes in cohesiveness that occur over time in therapeutic groups are largely consistent with Bruce Tuckman’s (1965) five-stage theory of group development (see Chapters 1 and 5). During the forming stage, individual members are seeking to understand their relationship to the newly formed group and strive to establish clear intermember relations. During the storming stage, group members often find themselves in conflict over status and group goals; consequently, hostility, disruption, and uncertainty dominate group discussions. During the norming phase, the group strives to develop a group structure that increases cohesiveness and harmony. The performing stage is typified by a focus on group productivity and decision making. Finally, when the group fulfills its goals, it reaches its last stage of development—adjourning. If a group does not move through these stages, its members will not be able to benefit from the experience (MacKenzie, 1994, 1997; Yalom with Leszcz, 2005).

Counseling psychologist Dennis Kivlighan and his colleagues (1984) illustrated the important impact of group development on therapeutic outcomes by matching interventions to the developmental stage of the group. Groups were given structured help in expressing either anger or intimacy before either the fourth or the ninth group session of their therapy. The information dealing with anger clarified the value of anger as a natural part of group participation and provided suggestions for communicating it. The information dealing with intimacy clarified the value of intimacy in groups and provided suggestions for its appropriate expression toward others. As anticipated, when the interventions matched the groups’ developmental stage—for example, when group members received the information on anger during the storming phase (session 4) and the information on intimacy during the norming phase (session 9)—the participants displayed more comfort in dealing with intimacy, more appropriate expressions of intimacy and anger, fewer inappropriate expressions of intimacy, and more congruence between self-ratings and other ratings of interpersonal style (Kivlighan, McGovern, & Corazzini, 1984).

Consequences of Cohesion

Cohesion, as noted in Chapter 5, can lead to negative consequences, particularly if social pressures become too powerful, if the group’s norms are not productive ones, and if less-involved members feel as though they are outsiders in their own group. However, in groups with a therapeutic purpose, the positive consequences of cohesion far outnumber the negative. Cohesive groups tend to retain their members—attendance rates are higher and dropout rates are lower. Members of cohesive therapy groups are more satisfied with their membership, and they describe the experience as more comfortable and less stressful. Communication rates depend upon cohesiveness. The quantity of communication is greater in cohesive groups, participation is more equally distributed among all members, and members disclose more personal information. Cohesive groups are also superior sources of emotional and social support for their members. When a group is cohesive, the members are more engaged in the group and its change-promoting processes, they take part in the planning of the group’s topics and activities, and they express a sense of closeness (rather than conflict) with the other members. Cohesive groups also exert a stronger influence on their members than noncohesive groups; members are more likely to internalize the group’s norms and avoid dysfunctional behavior for fear of letting the group down. Of all the curative factors that work to promote change in groups, cohesion may be the only necessary condition for an effective change-promoting group: A therapeutic group that lacks cohesion may not be therapeutic (Higgenbotham, West, & Forsyth, 1988).

16-2d. Disclosure and Catharsis

Change-promoting groups provide members with the opportunity to disclose privately held information—about themselves and other people—with others in the group. As Yalom explains: “It is the affective sharing of one’s inner world and then the acceptance by others that seem of paramount importance” in group therapy (Yalom with Leszcz, 2005, p. 56). This process of self-disclosure is one of the primary benefits of both support and therapeutic groups, for each new self-disclosure deepens the group’s intimacy, and this increased closeness then makes further self-disclosures possible (Agazarian, 2001). In sharing information about themselves, members are expressing their trust in the group and signaling their commitment to the therapeutic process (Shechtman & Dvir, 2006). 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).

Self-Disclosure Over Time

Group members generally need time to move from relatively superficial disclosures to more personal ones. When groups first convene, members usually focus on mundane topics and avoid saying anything too personal or provocative. In this orientation stage, members try to form a general impression of each other and also strive to make a good impression themselves. In the exploratory affective stage, members discuss their personal attitudes and opinions, but they avoid intimate topics. This stage is often followed by the affective stage when a few topics still remain taboo. When the group reaches the final stage, stable exchange, all personal feelings are shared (Altman & Taylor, 1973).

Self-disclosure can be something of a challenge for some individuals. People experiencing personality or psychological disturbances, for example, often disclose the wrong sorts of information at the wrong time (McGuire & Leak, 1980). Men and boys, too, are generally more reserved in their self-disclosures (Kilmartin, 1994). Thus, therapists must sometimes take special steps to induce males to share personal information about themselves and must model disclosure and incorporate disclosure rituals in the group (Horne, Jolliff, & Roth, 1996). Men’s reluctance to disclose can even undermine the quality of the group experience for all participants: The more men in the therapeutic group, the fewer benefits are reported by participants (Hurley, 1997).

Expressing Strong Emotions

Members do not only express insights, uncertainties, or worries that they usually keep to themselves. Sometimes, instead, they also disclose emotions that they usually keep hidden: anger, hostility, sadness, grief, and even sexual tensions. Some experts, accepting the psychoanalytic view that the buildup of such emotions is unhealthy, value this emotional release, which is called catharsis. Others, however, have suggested that “blowing off steam” is rarely helpful, for in the extreme, venting heightens members’ psychological distress and upset (Ormont, 1984). Groups that accept members’ outbursts, however, provide a supportive setting that will help members better understand their emotions and how they can regulate them.

16-2e. Altruism

The group’s leader is not the only source of help available to group members, for members can help each other. This mutual assistance benefits both parties. Even though the group’s leader is the official expert in the group, people are often more willing to accept help from people who are similar to themselves (Wills & DePaulo, 1991). The helper, too, “feels a sense of being needed and helpful; can forget self in favor of another group member; and recognizes the desire to do something for another group member” (Crouch, Bloch, & Wanlass, 1994, p. 285). Mutual assistance teaches group members the social skills that are essential to psychological well-being and elevates their sense of self-worth by affirming their value to others (Pagano, Post, & Johnson, 2011). Helping others also reduces the psychological threat of having to ask for, and rely on, help from others (Alvarez & Leeuwen, 2015).

Mutual assistance is particularly important in support groups. Mended Hearts—a support group that deals with the psychological consequences of open-heart surgery—tells its members that “you are not completely mended until you help mend others” (Lieberman, 1993, p. 297). AA groups formalize and structure helping in their 12-step procedures. Collective helping is also an essential component of group-level approaches to dealing with traumatic events.

16-2f. Insight

All groups, provide members with information that will allow them to construct an answer to the question, Who am I? Groups not only provide explicit information about members’ personal qualities, but they also provide indirect feedback by responding in certain ways. If, for example, other people routinely treat Malcolm as if he was hostile and Jolene as if she was sagacious, then in time Malcom and Jolene may realize they have these qualities. When members see themselves acting in a particular way consistently—say, by dominating the group interaction, criticizing others, displaying strong emotions, or expressing concern for others’ well-being—then they will, in time, come to realize that they are dominant, critical, emotional, or caring, respectively. Also, because groups start from scratch, with no background expectations, members realize that others’ perceptions are relatively pristine. Malcolm may typically blame his gruffness on the demands made by his role as boss and Rachel may think her moodiness is caused by her family; but if Malcolm is gruff and Rachel is moody in group, then they must consider the possibility that these qualities are part of who they are.

Individuals are somewhat leery of joining therapeutic groups because they recognize that the group may see them for what they are—and that this appraisal may not match their own self-definition (Ringer, 2002). They also tend to resist information that is discrepant from their self-views, dismissing the source of the feedback as biased. Groups, however, offset these tendencies, for when multiple individuals agree in their appraisals, the member is more likely to accept the accuracy of these evaluations (Jacobs, 1974). Also, when the feedback is given in the context of a long-term, reciprocal relationship, it cannot be so easily dismissed as biased or subjective. Group leaders, too, often reward members for accepting rather than rejecting feedback, and the setting itself works to intensify self-awareness.

Even qualities that are unknown to others and to the individual can emerge and be recognized during group interactions (Luft, 1984). As self-perception theory suggests, people often “come to ‘know’ their own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own overt behavior and/or the circumstances in which this behavior occurs” (Bem, 1972, p. 2). If individuals observe themselves acting in ways that suggest that they are socially skilled—for example, disclosing information about themselves appropriately and maintaining a conversation—then they may infer that they are socially skilled (Robak, 2001). Members may find that, as they act in ways that are inconsistent with their original self-conception, their self becomes increasingly complex and, in consequence, more stable (Vickery et al., 2006).

Studies of group members’ evaluations of the therapeutic experience attest to the importance of gaining these self-insights. When participants in therapeutic groups were asked to identify the events that took place in their groups that helped them the most, they stressed incidents related to universality, interpersonal learning, cohesion (belonging), and insight (see Figure 16.2; Kivlighan & Mullison, 1988). But time and type of group also matter. For example, during later sessions, members value interpersonal learning more but universality less. Also, self-understanding is less important in support groups, but more important in affect-focused and interpersonal therapy groups (Kivlighan & Holmes, 2004). Also, some individuals are more concerned with gaining self-understanding than are others: Those who stress the value of self-understanding tend to benefit the most from participation in a therapeutic group (Butler & Fuhriman, 1983; MacNair-Semands & Lese, 2000).

What Makes a Group a Therapeutic One?

Researchers, in their studies of change-promoting groups, have identified a relatively short list of processes that combine to help the group members overcome personal challenges, hone their interpersonal skills, and achieve a healthier sense of self and well-being.

Instructions

To review the many factors that sustain change in groups, identify a group that provides support and guidance for its members. The group may be a fictional one (e.g., a close-knit group or family portrayed in film and television), or one to which you belong: families, friendship circles, associates at work, student study groups, scientific labs, sports teams, and so on can be “therapeutic.” Put a check in each box if the item describes the group you have in mind.

Universality

We are all in the same boat, dealing with problems that are more common that we first thought.

Our discussions are a reminder that our issues are ones many of us are facing.

Hope

When someone in the group makes progress, it inspires the rest of us.

The group is a source of hope and reassurance that the future will be brighter.

Observational Learning

We all learn a lot by listening to others talk about their problems.

We all watch and learn from each other in this group.

Interpersonal Learning

The group is teaching me how to get along better with other people.

We let each other know when the things we do cause problems and misunderstandings.

Guidance

People in the group give each other good suggestions.

The advice we share in this group is very helpful.

Cohesion and Support

We accept, understand, and support each other.

We have developed strong bonds of trust in this group.

Self-disclosure

We all open up in this group, sharing thoughts and feelings.

We disclose our true selves, as best we can, in this group.

Catharsis

Sometimes people let off a little steam in the group, but the group is OK with that.

The group is the place where people can let out their emotions, if they need to.

Altruism

The members of this group are there for each other.

We help each other, often putting others’ needs before our own.

Insight

We learn a lot about who we are, as individuals, in this group.

This group helps us gaining self-insight.

Interpretation

Researchers have developed a number of scientifically tested measures of the therapeutic factors, but the items listed here are intended only to provide a review of the most frequently identified sources of change in groups. If you checked more than half of the boxes, then the group you rated is potentially one that can help members move toward the personal and interpersonal goals they have set for themselves (For more information about measuring therapeutic factors see MacNair-Semands, Ogrodniczuk, & Joyce, 2010 ).

16-3. The Effectiveness of Groups

What would you do if you were bothered by some personal problem? Perhaps you have trouble making friends. Maybe you are having difficulties adjusting to a new job or wish that you could be more productive when you are at work. Perhaps you have finally resolved to stop smoking or drinking, or you just cannot seem to get over the depression that has enveloped you since your mother passed away last year. Whatever the problem, you have not succeeded in changing on your own. So you decide to join a change-promoting group. Would this group really help you?

16-3a. Empirical Support for Group Treatments

Researchers and therapists have been debating the effectiveness of both individual and group treatment methods for years. As clinical studies of therapeutic outcomes have become increasingly sophisticated scientifically, treatment professionals have sought to identify evidence-based treatments (EBTs): those that have been shown to be effective for specific problems and disorders using objective measures and evaluations (Kazdin, 2011). Do group methods deserve to be on the list of recognized EBTs?

Meta-Analytic Reviews

Initial efforts to determine if group approaches qualify as EBTs were hampered by the methodological shortcomings of early studies of group effectiveness. Reviewers, after sifting through hundreds of studies evaluating the effectiveness of group interventions, rejected most as so methodologically flawed that they yielded no information whatsoever (Bednar & Kaul, 1978, 1979, 1994). But as researchers gathered more data using more precise scientific controls, including clinical trials, the results generally weighed in favor of group-level interventions. Although they rarely supported Lewin’s law of change by finding group approaches were superior to individual-level methods, they indicated group-level and individual-level treatments were equal in effectiveness (Barlow, 2010).

Many of these reviews rely on meta-analysis to summarize the findings from multiple studies. Counseling psychologist Gary Burlingame and his colleagues, for example, in a series of rigorous meta-analyses of hundreds of experimental, quasi-experimental, and correlational studies, repeatedly conclude that group methods are effective for helping people deal with depression, bipolar disorders, social phobia, panic disorder, obsessive compulsive tendencies, bulimia nervosa, binge-eating, substance-related problems, trauma, and the psychological complexities of physical illnesses. These analyses indicated that group methods are better for some problems than others—particularly social phobia and substance abuse (Burlingame, MacKenzie, & Strauss, 2004). The effectiveness of group treatment also depends on the nature of the group’s structure and dynamics. Groups that generate higher levels of member-to-member interpersonal feedback and stronger working relationships among members are more effective than other groups. The use of pregroup preparation and providing a higher level of structure during early group sessions also improves outcomes. Overall, the data are clear: Group methods work. As Burlingame and his colleagues explain: “when identical treatments, patients, and doses are compared, individual and group formats produce statistically indistinguishable outcomes” (Burlingame et al., 2016, p. 457; see, too, Burlingame, Fuhriman, & Mosier, 2003; Burlingame & Krogel, 2005; Fuhriman & Burlingame, 1994; Kösters et al., 2006; McRoberts, Burlingame, & Hoag, 1998).

Types of Groups and Effectiveness

Change-promoting groups conform to no single set of procedures: Some groups are leader-centered, others group focused; a group’s activities can range from the highly structured (interpersonal learning groups) to the wholly unstructured (encounter groups); in some groups, members themselves are responsible for running the meeting, whereas in other situations, the facilitator runs the session (structured groups). Group practitioners also vary greatly in their orientations and techniques: Some focus on emotions with Gestalt exercises, others concentrate on the here and now of the group’s interpersonal processes, and still others train members to perform certain behaviors through videotaped feedback, behavioral rehearsal, and systematic reinforcement.

Given this diversity of purposes and procedures, one might expect some types of groups to emerge as more effective than others. Yet differences in treatment effectiveness are relatively rare. Group psychotherapists Morton Lieberman, Irvin Yalom, and Matthew Miles (1973), for example, investigated the overall impact of a 12-week experiential group on members’ adjustment. They began by assigning 206 Stanford University students to 1 of 18 therapy groups representing 10 different theoretical orientations. Trained observers coded the groups’ interactions, with particular attention given to leadership style. Before, during, immediately after, and six months following the participation, Lieberman and his colleagues gathered information about each group members’ self-esteem, attitudes, self-satisfaction, and adjustment from the group leaders, the group members’ acquaintances, and the group members themselves.

Somewhat unexpectedly, researchers discovered that no one theoretical approach had a monopoly on effectiveness. For example, two separate Gestalt groups with different leaders were included in the design, but the members of these two groups evidenced widely discrepant gains. One of the Gestalt groups ranked among the most successful in stimulating participant growth, but the other Gestalt group yielded fewer benefits than all of the other groups.

A number of factors could account for this apparent equivalence of therapies (Stiles, Shapiro, & Elliott, 1986). First, the various group therapies may be differentially effective, but researchers’ measures may not be sensitive enough to detect these variations. Second, a group’s effectiveness may depend as much on who is in the group and who leads the group as on the methods used. The question is not “Is Therapy X more effective than Therapy Y?” but, “What type of group run by which therapist is effective for this individual with this type of problem?” (Paul, 1967). Third, although group interventions are based on widely divergent theoretical assumptions, these assumptions may not lead to differences in practice. The leader of a Gestalt group and the leader of a psychodynamic group, for example, may explain their goals and methods in very different theoretical terms, but they may nonetheless rely on identical methods in their groups. Fourth, as the concept of therapeutic factors suggests, despite their heterogeneity in purposes and procedures, therapeutic groups have certain characteristics in common, and these common aspects of groups and their dynamics may account for their therapeutic effects.

Participants’ Appraisals

Most people, when asked if they would prefer to receive treatment in a private session with a therapist or in group sessions, express a clear preference for the one-to-one approach (Shechtman & Kiezel, 2016). Even therapists themselves tend to favor individual methods over collective ones (Piper, 2008). This tendency depends, in part, on cultural factors. The idea of joining with other people who are initially strangers to discuss highly personal matters is viewed with more suspicion in some social groups and cultures than in others. However, those who have actually participated in group therapy—the consumers of group-based treatments—generally give group approaches high marks. One study, conducted by Consumer Reports, asked respondents to rate a variety of treatments. All psychological methods, including group interventions, were rated positively. AA received particularly positive evaluations in this study (Seligman, 1995, 1996; see also Christensen & Jacobson, 1994).

The effects of group approaches are also more evident when members themselves appraise the gains they have achieved through participation. One review, for instance, identified 26 controlled studies of personal growth groups that

(1)

used both pretest and posttest measures,

(2)

met for at least 10 hours, and

(3)

had a long-term follow-up (at least one month after termination).

Summarizing these methodologically superior studies, the reviewers concluded that group treatments did result in enduring positive changes, but primarily on self-report questionnaire data and not on behavioral measures (Berman & Zimpfer, 1980). These and other findings suggest that groups are most useful in promoting changes in “sensitivity, feeling management, directionality of motivation, attitudes towards the self, attitudes towards others, and interdependence,” but that behavior is more resistant to change (Gibb, 1971, p. 855).

16-3b. Using Groups to Cure: Cautions

Empirical evidence suggests that group approaches are generally effective—at least as effective as individual treatments and definitely better than no treatment at all. However, this positive appraisal is a qualified one. Although group approaches are often effective, they do not work for everyone or for all types of psychological difficulties.

Premature Terminations

Not everyone who joined the group following the bus accident remained in the group. Four individuals, after the first session, did not return to the group. Several members attended the sessions during the return trip only sporadically. One person, when later asked about the experience, said it did not help at all (Turner, 2000).

Any treatment will be ineffective if the treatment regimen is not followed—if people stop taking their medications, fail to comply with their physician’s self-care instructions, or do not attend their group treatment sessions—and the results will likely be disappointing. However, because therapeutic groups are often voluntary associations—individuals can choose to attend or not attend meetings—those who lack commitment to treatment goals tend to attend meetings only sporadically or drop out altogether. Such premature terminations are problematic for any therapeutic intervention, but changes in membership are particularly disruptive for therapeutic groups because they create instability in the group’s composition and dynamics (MacNair-Semands, 2002). Most premature terminations result from failed expectations about the purposes of the group or from an inadequate match between the group member’s goals and the leader’s methods. Dropout rates can be minimized by prescreening potential members, providing an initial briefing that describes the group’s requirements, limiting conflict during sessions, and making certain that the group atmosphere is supportive, nonevaluative, and nonthreatening (Burlingame et al., 2011; Mitchell & Mitchell, 1984).

Casualties

A participant who decides to leave the group before he or she has benefited in any way is a premature termination, or dropout, but a casualty is a member who is significantly harmed by the group experience. A casualty might, for example, attempt suicide as a result of the group experience, require individual therapy to correct harm caused by the group, or report continued deteriorations in adjustment over the course of the group experience. Casualties can most often be traced to a particularly negative event in the group. In one study, for example, an individual sought psychiatric treatment immediately after the group attacked her for being overweight:

She stated that the group was an extremely destructive one for her. The group operated by everybody “ganging up on one another, thirteen to one, and bulldozing them until they were left on the ground panting.” She was bitterly attacked by the group and finally dropped out after an attack on her in which she was labeled “a fat Italian mama with a big shiny nose.” She was also told that she probably had “a hell of a time getting any man to look at her.” (Lieberman et al., 1973, p. 189)

The number of casualties reported in studies has ranged from a low of none among 94 participants in a human relations training lab followed up after five months (Smith, 1975, 1980) to a high of 8% of the participants in a study of 17 encounter groups (Lieberman et al., 1973). A relatively high casualty rate (18%) was obtained in one study of 50 married couples who participated in marathon encounter groups, but this rate was inflated by the problems the couples were experiencing before entering the group (Doherty, Lester, & Leigh, 1986). No evidence is available concerning the rate of casualties in support groups, but statistics maintained by the NTL indicate that 25 individuals who participated in the program prior to 1974 experienced a severe psychological reaction (Back, 1974). This number represented less than 0.2% of the participants.

Overhelping

Joining in a therapeutic group generally yields positive outcomes for participants, but in some cases less is more. If individuals attribute their success in dealing with a problem to the group, and not to themselves, then they become dependent on the group—even if they themselves were the source of the successful coping outcomes. In such cases the group is engaged in overhelping—it appears to be rendering aid to the individual, but it is taking credit for success it did not earn (Gilbert & Silvera, 1996). This criticism has been raised in evaluations of the effectiveness of process debriefings, which were discussed earlier in this chapter (Devilly, Gist, & Cotton, 2006).

Multicultural and Cross-Cultural Complexities

Group approaches have proven to be effective means of helping individuals achieve personal growth, development, and change, but the tried-and-true techniques that work in one cultural context may not be culturally appropriate when applied in another society or subgroup. Psychodynamic methods originated in Western Europe, interpersonal learning groups have their roots in England’s Tavistock traditions, and support groups are primarily an American invention. These therapeutic procedures—talking with a professional about one’s psychological concerns, meeting with others in a group context to develop interpersonal and self-regulatory skills, and dealing with symptoms through medication—are all consistent with Western approaches to health and medicine, but these methods may seem foreign if applied in a different culture.

Researchers and group practitioners must consider the cultural context when studying groups and using group methods for therapeutic purposes (Cheung, van de Vijver, & Leong, 2011). The culturally competent researcher and group practitioner “must have a good understanding of the diversity of cultural worldviews and their potential impact on the relationships, behaviors, and willingness to participate in therapeutic group work” (DeLucia-Waack, 2010, p. 97). People the world over share a common desire to maximize their well-being, but how they achieve that goal will depend on where they are in the world. For example, when a tsunami caused widespread devastation and loss of life in coastal areas of Asia, school psychologists developed a group-level intervention program designed to help grade-school children better understand and express their feelings, identify sources of stress, and develop effective coping strategies. The program was based on methods used successfully in the United States, but it was modified after extensive analysis of the cultural practices and values of the people of Sri Lanka (Nastasi et al., 2011). Similarly, therapists in Israel working with both Jewish and Arab students in experiential learning groups had to substantially modify some of their methods. Fortunately, the groups were conducted by experts with experience working in multicultural groups, and techniques were adapted to minimize the negative impact of a set of cultural practices that warned against revealing vulnerabilities to nonfamily members (Shechtman, Goldberg, & Cariani, 2008).

16-3c. The Value of Groups

Groups are not all benefit with no cost. Groups can demand great investments of time and energy from their members. Although groups provide social support, they are also a source of considerable stress for their members. Groups, too, can socialize members in ways that are not healthy and set processes in motion that increase dysfunction (Forsyth & Elliott, 2000).

The checkered impact of groups, however, in no way detracts from their significance in shaping mental health. Groups help their members define and confirm their values, beliefs, and identities. When individuals are beset by problems and uncertainties, groups offer reassurance, security, support, and assistance. Groups are places where people can learn new social skills and discover things about themselves and others. Groups, too, can produce changes in members when other approaches have failed. Both researchers and mental health professionals who understand groups recognize their healing power, for groups help their members change for the better.

Resources

Chapter Case: The Bus Group

“Group Treatment of Trauma Survivors Following a Fatal Bus Accident: Integrating Theory and Practice” by Andrew L. Turner (2000) details the methods used to help college students recover from a tragic bus accident that occurred during a semester-abroad program.

Group Approaches to Change

“Group Psychotherapy” by Gerald Corey and Marianne Schneider Corey (2016) is a concise analysis of the principles that are common to nearly all group-level approaches to change, including pregroup screening, establishing trust, encouraging disclosure, and consolidation of learning.

Handbook of Group Counseling and Psychotherapy, edited by Janice L. DeLucia-Waack, Cynthia R. Kalodner, and Maria T. Riva (2014), is an advanced sourcebook useful for anyone doing a serious analysis of group psychotherapy, with entire sections devoted to best practice, diversity, and treatment groups in specific contexts with special populations.

Psychological Effects of Catastrophic Disasters: Group Approaches to Treatment, edited by Leon A. Schein, Henry I. Spitz, Gary M. Burlingame, and Philip R. Muskin, with Shannon Vargo (2006), is a comprehensive compendium of group-based methods of dealing with traumatic events.

Therapeutic Factors in Groups

The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (5th ed.) by Irvin D. Yalom with Molyn Leszcz (2005) describes cases, theories, and available research on Yalom’s basic principles of interpersonal group therapy that stress the therapeutic factors common to all group approaches to change.

Group Development in Practice: Guidance for Clinicians and Researchers on Stages and Dynamics of Change by Virginia Brabender and April Fallon (2009) reviews in detail previous theories pertaining to group development and identifies ways that therapists can both orchestrate, and adjust to, the inevitable changes that occur in groups over time.

Group Effectiveness

Specialty Competencies in Group Psychology by Sally H. Barlow (2013) is packed with details about the field of group psychotherapy—the historical background, theoretical issues, and continuing controversies—but also an expert’s careful analysis of the interpersonal processes that determine the course and outcome of group psychotherapy.

“Small Group Process and Outcome Research Highlights: A 25-year Perspective” by Gary M. Burlingame and Jennifer L. Jensen (2017) reviews key empirical studies of group psychotherapy, with special attention to member characteristics, leadership, and cohesion, before marshaling the evidence that confirms the effectiveness of group methods for a wide variety of psychiatric disorders. This article is one of many excellent articles in the Special Issue for the 75th Anniversary of the American Group Psychotherapy Association.