Group as a social microcosm: The reciprocal relationship between intersession intimate behaviors and in-session intimate behaviors.

Abstract

The social microcosm is defined as group members replicating their everyday (intersession) interpersonal behaviors in group sessions and new behaviors, learned in the group (in-session), replicating in the members' everyday life. We examined intersession and in-session intimate behaviors, at the withinmember (differences in intimate behaviors between weeks/sessions), between-member (average differences in intimate behaviors between group members) and between-groups (group-level differences in intimate behaviors). Participants were 178 graduate students (86% identifying as women and 14% as men) participating in 10 5-session growth groups led by experienced group therapists. Before group sessions, group members completed the Interpersonal Relations Scale Checklist (IRScl;Shadish, 1984) indicating their number of intersession intimate behaviors for the previous week and, at the end of group sessions, they filled in the IRScl to indicate their in-session intimate behaviors. A 3-level HLM analysis (sessions, members, groups) predicting in-session intimate behaviors from previous week intersession intimate behaviors showed significant within-member, between-member, and between-groups effects. A second 3-level HLM analysis (sessions, members, groups), predicting following week intersession intimate behaviors from in-session intimate behaviors, showed significant between-member and between-groups effects. Between-member and within-member in-session intimate behaviors interacted to predict intersession intimate behaviors. Group members who generally had a low number of in-session intimate behaviors engaged in more intersession intimate behaviors in weeks following sessions with higher than average in-session intimate behaviors. These results provide support for the social microcosm proposition that members' trait-like everyday behaviors are replayed in the group. However state-like and other-member everyday behaviors also contribute to members' social microcosm. Public Significance StatementOur research shows that clinicians can use in-session interpersonal behaviors as indicators of clients' problems in living. In addition, we showed that learning new interpersonal behaviors in the group could transfer to extra group relationships.

Group counseling change process: An adaptive spiral among positive emotions, positive relations, and emotional cultivation/regulation.

“…Research (D. M. Jr. Kivlighan, et al, 2020) provides support for the social microcosm theory where clients bring their psychosocial qualities (e.g., gratitude, psychological need satisfaction, positive affect, good relationships with others, or perceived social support) to interactions with others in a group counseling session and skills learned in the group are taken to relationships outside of the group (e.g., Yalom & Leszcz, 2005). Having positive emotions (e.g., gratitude) and positive relations (e.g., a teacher-student relationship or perceived social support) could allow children and adolescents to expand their vision and broaden their thoughts and actions to have more ideas for different interpretations in a given situation and more strategies to solve problems (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005), which could be helpful to cultivate emotion regulation.…”

“…Research (D. M. Jr. Kivlighan, et al, 2020) provides support for the social microcosm theory where clients bring their psychosocial qualities (e.g., gratitude, psychological need satisfaction, positive affect, good relationships with others, or perceived social support) to interactions with others in a group counseling session and skills learned in the group are taken to relationships outside of the group (e.g., Yalom & Leszcz, 2005).…”

From where is the group? To what is the group?: Contributions of actor−partner interdependence modeling.

“…Finally, intimate behaviors can vary across groups (between-group intimate behaviors), with some groups, as a whole, having fewer and other groups having a greater number of intimate behaviors. Kivlighan et al (2021) found a moderate between-group effect, such that members in groups with more intimate behaviors, on average, compared to groups with less intimate behaviors, had a greater number of intersession intimate behaviors the following week. This finding provided support for Yalom and Leszcz (2005) theory about the social microcosm.…”

“…In longitudinal group data, there are several sources of variance. For example, Kivlighan et al (2021) collected a measure of in-session intimate behaviors for every session and intersession intimate behaviors for the weeks between group sessions. A group member’s in-session intimate behaviors can vary from session-to-session (within-member intimate behavior), with some sessions having fewer and other sessions having a greater number of intimate behaviors.…”

The transition to online psychotherapy during the pandemic: a qualitative study on patients’ perspectives

“…The prevalent feelings associated were embarrassment and discomfort, however a minority of GP patients also reported curiosity and greater sense of intimacy. These reactions evoke a wellknown theory (Yalom & Leszcz, 2005 ) that conceptualizes the group as a social space in which members play their interpersonal style in interactions with other members (Kivlighan et al ., 2021 ) and perceive the group as an environment more exposed to social judgment (Goldberg & Hoyt, 2005). These results could have interesting clinical implications suggesting that some patients felt online setting as a less safe and comfortable place and therefore less suitable for revealing their internal world.…”