An Analysis of Co-Therapist Interaction in Group Psychotherapy

Solomon, Adrian; Loeffler, F.J.; Frank, George

doi:10.1080/00207284.1953.11507925

Cited by 28 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Supervisory experience (McGee & Schuman, 1970) suggests that a supportive milieu plays a major role in spawning effective cotherapy relations. Other writers, largely from observation of supervision, have suggested other important contributory factors to the success of the cotherapy relationship: compatibility of therapy styles (Corder et al, 1984;Davis & Lohr, 1971;Solomon et al, 1953) and degrees of liking and disliking between the therapists, which often contain strong transference aspects as well (Anderson et al, 1972;Demarest & Teicher, 1954;Mintz, 1965;Rosenbaum, 1983). Research by Bernard et al (1987) supported the importance of therapy styles.…”

Section: The Quality Of the Coleadership Relationship And Its Learninmentioning

confidence: 99%

The junior-junior team

Rice

1995

Group

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Quality Of the Coleadership Relationship And Its Learninmentioning

confidence: 99%

The junior-junior team

Rice

1995

Group

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therapists can successfully pair largely on the basis that they each have a different skill to bring to the patient, despite the findings of Paulson et al (1976) and Solomon et al (1953). Dublin gave us a beautiful example of this kind of coupling.…”

Section: Leadership Satisfactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discussion

Lonergan

1995

Group

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this discussion, I will be putting the presenters' ideas and findings together with my own. I will first summarize the most interesting points of each paper and then respond to them from my experience as coordinator of the group therapy program at Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute. Two issues that need further clarification are the definition of junior-junior and junior-senior pairings, and the factors that contribute to coleader satisfaction. The latter leads to aspects of the cotherapy relationship that most intrigue me: those that have to do with systems interaction and the emotional experience of the cotherapist. SUMMARIESRice writes about how positively his students received cotherapy in a training program. It is interesting to note that the sequential method of coleadership was not as popular, since the stability of the group was affected. Even though his coleaders are a year apart in their training, he refers to them as juniorjunior pairs. There is synchronicity between positive coleadership experience, similar theoretical orientation, and positive supervision.Dublin effectively illustrates how there is no such thing as a junior-senior pair, since so many factors have to be considered in assessing power and status between two people. His example of the trained group leader and the untrained Russian immigrant group leader brings to life his thesis. We also learn at the end of the paper how successful this team was, despite the fact that they were put together for practical purposes and had little in common except their concern for the patients. He mentions that in agency settings, people with different theoretical orientations do and must work together, and they do so effectively. This postulation challenges Paulson et al.'s (1976) and Solomon et al.'s (1953) assumption that similarity of orientation is one of the main ingredients of a successful therapeutic team.The complexity of the senior-senior pair is portrayed by Concannon. She mentions that some group therapy mentors do not approve of cotherapy, but I would agree with her that it is here to stay. Because senior coleaders are experienced and choose to work together, they can handle the ramifications of the cotherapy relationship in the group. We get a glimpse into the "stickiness" of such a relationship, as well as the rewards. She describes the connection between the emotional leader of the group and the cotherapy team. Thinking about the team as a strong subgroup that can exclude the group members is

show abstract

“…The supervisor who seeks to maximize the cotherapy experience should be prepared to spend initial class time in acquainting class members with each other, providing extensive information on cotherapy dynamics, and introducing role-playing and team-building techniques as a means of encouraging purposeful choice of a partner. More specific guidelines for matching cotherapists can be implemented, depending on the structure of the training situation (Davis & Lohr, 1971;McGee & Schuman, 1970;Solomon, Loeffler, & Frank, 1953).…”

Section: Suggestions For Supervision Incorporating the Trainee's Persmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cotherapy from the Trainee's Standpoint: Suggestions for Supervision

Reynolds

McWhirter

1984

Couns Edu & Supervision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cotherapy continues to be used as a treatment modality and as a counselor training procedure. Considerable research and writing have highlighted the value of cotherapy as a treatment modality, but there has been little discussion of the training aspects of cotherapy. This article presents an educational rationale for cotherapy and addresses some of the advantages and problems with the approach. Suggestions are also provided for implementing and supervising a cotherapy model.

show abstract

An Analysis of Co-Therapist Interaction in Group Psychotherapy

Cited by 28 publications

References 0 publications

The junior-junior team

The junior-junior team

Discussion

Cotherapy from the Trainee's Standpoint: Suggestions for Supervision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About