Group sensitivity training: Update, meta-analysis, and recommendations.

Abstract

This investigation was a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of group sensitivity training. Analysis of 63 studies revealed a moderate size, heterogeneous effect (weighted mean d = 0.62) on all outcome measures. Categorical model testing indicated that group sensitivity training had significantly larger effects on behavioral measures than on self-report measures (mean ds = 1.03 and 0.44, respectively). Moreover, effect sizes for behavioral measures were moderated by the size of treatment groups, the number of sessions, and the precision of measurement recording. That is, interventions involving larger groups and meeting for more sessions had larger effect sizes, as did studies involving more discrete outcome measures. As recommended elsewhere, future studies need to explore group processes and mechanisms of change in group sensitivity training.

Emotional Intelligence in Organizations: Bridging Research and Practice

“…A few rigorous, experimental studies of emotional skills training programs for adults have yielded positive effects on well-being, health, social relationships, and employability (e.g., Nelis et al, 2011). Further evidence that emotional competencies can be trained comes from evaluations of stress management training (Richardson & Rothstein, 2008), positive psychology interventions (Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009), sensitivity and self-awareness training (Faith, Wong, & Carpenter, 1995), treatments of anger and other emotion-related problems in psychotherapy and counseling (Del Vecchio & O’Leary, 2004), and school-based programs of social and emotional learning (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). In most of these areas, research syntheses point to robust positive results.…”

Not So Bad After All: How Relational Closeness Buffers the Association Between Relationship Conflict and Helpful and Deviant Group Behaviors

“…McLeod & Kettner-Polley, 2004), so that group leaders are able to train their work groups to become relationally close. Meta-analytic studies have shown that T-groups are effective in accomplishing behavioral change (e.g., Faith, Wong, & Carpenter, 1995) and in establishing group members' understanding of the conditions that negatively affect group functioning as well as diagnosing and solving those issues. Recent empirical research in the area of positive psychology and psychological safety also underlines the importance of relational closeness among coworkers (e.g., Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009;Carmeli & Gittel, 2009).…”

Contributions of Psychodynamic Theories to Understanding Small Groups

“…B. Smith, 1975). Two meta-analyses provide quantitative support for this general claim (Burke & Day, 1986;Faith et al, 1995). In another meta-analysis focused specifically on psychodrama, Kipper and Ritchie (2003) examined 25 studies.…”

“…The institution most closely associated with humanistic approaches is the National Training Laboratory (Back, 1972;Bradford, Gibb, & Benne, 1964;Cooper & Mangham, 1971;Golembiewski & Blumberg, 1977;Shaffer & Galinsky, 1989) (Faith, Wong, & Carpenter, 1995;Weigel, 2002). Even the titles given to group facilitators reflect to some extent the contrast between the Tavistock and T-group traditions.…”