186This article presents a rationale for and the implementation of a factor analytic study of a revised curative factor instrument. Valuing of the three factors of catharsis, cohesion, and insight by 161 group members in four settings (community mental health [CMH], Veterans Administration [VA], university counseling center [UCC], and group behavior class [GBC] are reported. Results show CMH group members valuing these factors more than group members from VA, UCC, and GBC. Across all settings, cohesion and catharsis are consistently valued higher than insight. Possible explanations of the findings are given.Nested within individual and group research on the therapeutic process is a cluster of studies focusing on the concept of curativeness. Regarding group therapy, the curative concept is most often associated with Irvin Yalom (1970, 1975), who described a 12-factor construct derived from research and clinical experience. His 12 curative factors are defined as catharsis, cohesiveness, self-understanding, universality, altruism, interpersonal learning (input), interpersonal learning (output), installation of hope, identification, recapitulation of the primary family, guidance, and existential factor.

Scientific inquiry into small group processes requires a pantheoretical organization of the facts discovered. A multidimensional system is proposed, based on commonly used measurement parameters in group research. Four dimensions describing the who, what, how, and when, ofprocess measurement are combined and crossed as a first step toward an orderly classification system. Implications for multidimensional process measurement are discussed.

This article is the prelude to a four-article sequence that will define, illustrate, and critique a multidimensional approach for measuring and understanding small group process. Problems associated with process analysis are presented with a specific focus on definitional and methodological concerns. The need for a comprehensive system that will help researchers to separate and comprehend the individual parts of a group and their relationship to the whole group is articulated. (The second in the series also appears in this issue of SGB).We dance round in a ring and suppose, But the secret sits in the middle and knows. Robert Frost, 1964 As children, we smiled when insight dawned upon us in our recognition of the problem facing the blind men in their discoveries and subsequent definitions of the elephant. Years later, as clinicians and researchers of the system called &dquo;group,&dquo; we find ourselves in an awkwardly similar situation-only our eyes are open and the elephant is human.The analogy may well end here (the elephant being one, the group being one and many), but the concept of seeing the whole while understanding the individual parts and their relationships to one another and to the whole may well illustrate the difficulty in defining group process. We are reminded by Friedlander (1982) that human systems develop a SMALL GROUP BEHAVIOR

This article is third in a series of four describing and integrating a multidimensional approach for measunng and understanding small group process. The construct of cohesion is reviewed and the multidimensional approach is applied to evidence, both conceptual and empirical, resulting from studies of cohesion. Observations and conclusions are discussed regarding cohesion and its current state.

This article is third in a series of four describing and integrating a multidimensional approach for measunng and understanding small group process. The construct of cohesion is reviewed and the multidimensional approach is applied to evidence, both conceptual and empirical, resulting from studies of cohesion. Observations and conclusions are discussed regarding cohesion and its current state.