Is it the unexpected experience that keeps them coming back? Group climate and session attendance examined between groups, between members, and between sessions.

Abstract

Attending group therapy sessions is necessary for a group member to have a chance at receiving benefit from the intervention. Group members' perceptions of their group's climate has been linked with important group member outcomes, including session attendance. On the basis of the writings of Curran and Bauer (2011), the current study examined group members' longitudinal ratings of session engagement and decomposed them into between-groups, between-members, and between-sessions components. These components were then used to examine the relationship between group members' ratings of an engaged group climate in the previous session and their attendance the following session. Session attendance in 573 group sessions for 91 group members in 14 Taiwanese counseling groups was modeled in a 3-level hierarchical model (sessions within group members, within groups). Contrary to our hypotheses, between-groups, between-members, and between-sessions components of engagement were not related to session attendance. However, there was a significant interaction between the between-members and between-sessions components of session engagement and group size in predicting session attendance. The likelihood of attendance increased when group members who, on average, rated sessions as being low in engagement uncharacteristically rated a previous session as high in engagement. The likelihood of attendance also increased when group members who, on average, rated sessions as high in engagement uncharacteristically rated the previous session as low in engagement. Larger group sizes amplified these effects. Expectancy (dis)confirmation theory is used to explain these results. Theoretical, research, and clinical implications are discussed.

Working alliance, therapist expressive skills, and client outcome in psychodynamic therapy.

“…In the present study, we build upon prior findings and we expect to find a contrast interaction similar to the one found in Kivlighan et al (2014). The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1, and we examined the interaction at the session level as moderated by client and therapist levels.…”

“…Kivlighan et al interpreted this as a contrast effect. The study by Kivlighan et al (2014) did not examine WA and TES, but does illustrate how a within-therapist process can interact with a within-client process to predict subsequent behavior.…”

Examining state and trait alliance in group therapy: A within-person and between-person actor–partner interdependence model.

“…Group researchers have utilized the APIM to examine actor and partner effects across a variety of variables, such as the alliance (Gullo et al, 2014), absences (Kivlighan, Kivlighan, et al, 2012; Kivlighan et al, 2014; Paquin et al, 2011), treatment outcomes (Kivlighan et al, 2016; Paquin et al, 2013), intimate behaviors (Kivlighan & Paquin, 2014; Miles et al, 2011), attachment styles (Kivlighan, Lo Coco, et al, 2012; Kivlighan et al, 2017; Lo Coco, Gullo, Oieni, et al, 2016), therapeutic factors (Kivlighan, 2011), group relationships (Lo Coco, Gullo, Di Fratello, et al, 2016), and group climate (Kivlighan & Paquin, 2014; Lo Coco et al, 2013). As an example, Kivlighan, Kivlighan, et al (2012) used the APIM to test an individual group member’s attachment and the aggregated other group members’ attachment on both an individual group member’s perception of the group climate and the aggregated other group members’ perceptions of the group climate.…”

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

“…When group members typically rated sessions as low in engagement, but rated a particular session as higher than usual in engagement, they were more likely to attend the next group counseling sessions. The study by Kivlighan et al (2014) did not examine intersession intimate behaviors, but does illustrate how a between-member process (average perception of group engagement) can interact with a within-member process (perception of engagement in a particular session) to predict in-session intimate behaviors. In the present study, we build upon these prior findings and we expect to find a similar interaction effect for between-member and within-member intersession intimate behaviors: (H3) When group members who, typically, had fewer intersession intimate behaviors than other members, had a week with higher than usual intersession intimate behaviors, they will have more subsequent in-session intimate behaviors (within-member by between-member interaction hypothesis).…”