Client improvement on higher and lower intensity problems as a function of group cohesiveness.

Abstract

Subjects (Ss) met in two separate therapy groups for 10 weeks. Subject-selected outside raters evaluated the Ss' improvement or deterioration in problem resolution. Ratings were performed on both disclosed problems and on nondisclosedcontrol problems that the Ss had indicated as of higher or lower intensity. It was determined that the order of problem improvement was: 1) disclosed higher intensity problems; 2) disclosed lower intensity problems; 3) nondisclosed lower intensity problems; and 4) nondisclosed higher intensity problems, with all differences being significant. Employing attending-to-the-speaker as an indicator of group session cohesion, it was also demonstrated that more problems were disclosed in higher cohesive sessions; and that external raters' S improvement on problems disclosed in higher cohesive sessions as significantly greater than on those disclosed in lower cohesive sessions. The cohesion measure of attending-to-the-speaker was also correlated to the number of members trusted and ratings of satisfaction each session to validate this criterion measure. All correlations were significant. These results are discussed in relation to group therapy.

Group Process in the Single-Gender Women's Recovery Group Compared With Mixed-Gender Group Drug Counseling

“…Early work typically focused on cohesion as interpersonal attraction. At that time, researchers attempted to measure cohesion by attendance (Piper, 1984) or eye contact with other speakers (Flowers, Booraem, & Hartman, 1981). …”

Factors Related To Group Cohesiveness

“…Friedlander, in an empirical study, found that a climate of trust is related to group effectiveness and perceived closeness among group members. Flower, Booraem, and Hartman (1981) found a significant correlation among three measures of cohesion, member trust, and member satisfaction with the group.…”

Cohesion

“…Second, when a construct is poorly defined or operationalized, it is difficult to select an appropriate measurement strategy. Most cohesion studies describe the cohesion measure without mentioning how it operation- A laudable exception to this tendency is the study by Flowers et al, (1981). They found a significant correlation among their three measures of cohesion: number of members trusted, member satisfaction with group, and attention to the speaker with eye contact.…”

“…Dies and Hess (1971) tape-recorded group sessions and trained judges to rate the group's cohesion during randomly chosen five-minute segments along a unidimensional scale. Flowers, Booraem, and Hartman (1981) rated the collective frequency with which group members visually attended to the speaker as an indice of cohesion. Kirshner, Dies, and Brown (1978) used the duration of a group hug at the conclusion of the group as a behavioral measure of cohesion.…”