Some Observations on Encounter Group Casualties

Abstract

The negative impact of encounter groups on participants has been subject to more speculation than good research. The necessity of stringent research designs and the use of behavioral indices of change are stressed by this paper, and specific criticisms are offered of some recent research on encounter group casualties. A research project using behavioral indices and comparing the impact of encounter groups with changes noted in a "placebo control" group and a control group is described. The results indicate that the group differences immediately after the group experience dissipated by the time of the six-month follow-up and that the negative indices were undifferentiated among the three groups.

Deterioration effects in encounter groups.

“…Back (1972) and Parloff (1970) urged the development of standard criterion instruments including self-reports, ratings by others in and out of the group, and objective behavior outside the group. In those few instances in which out-ofgroup behavior has been studied (Cooper, 1972;Posthuma & Posthuma, 1973), no significant differences between encounter and control groups were found. Cooper (1972) and Carkhuff (1971) noted that monitoring of participants' expressed attitudes and testimonials does not provide tangible evidence of behavior change or lasting translation to human benefit.…”

History of Sociometry, Psychodrama, Group Psychotherapy, and Jacob L. Moreno

“…Moreno believed that the encounter movement "cannibalized" his work and impacted the reputation of psychodrama (Moreno, 2014(Moreno, , 2019. It was during this time that many developed concerns for the psychological safety of psychodrama techniques and encounter groups which had become more focused on confrontation (Blatner, 2000;Cooper, 1974Cooper, , 1975Giacomucci, 2018b;Posthuma & Posthuma, 1973;Yalom & Lieverman, 1971). In a large study on various types of encounter groups, researchers found 7.8-9.1% of participants reported harm related to their participant in the encounter groups (Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles, 1973).As the encounter groups (as well as T-Groups and sensitivity training groups) became more sensationalized in the late 1960s and early 1970s, academic respectability and theoretical connections dissipated leading to a loss in credibility (Spence, 2007).…”

Some ethical dilemmas in sensitivity training, encounter groups and related activities

“…Cooper (1975) reviewed the evidence relevant to the question of how psychologically dangerous are T-groups and encounter groups (see also Smith, 1975). Cooper found two studies (Reddy, 1970;Yalom & Leiberman, 1971) which seemed to indicate "psychological disturbance following the group experience", but he found ten studies (Cooper 1 9 7 2~; Cooper, 19726;Cooper, 1974;Lubin & Lubin, 1971; Lubin & Zuckerman, 1967;Lubin & Zuckerman, 1969;Pollack, 1966;Pollack & Stanley, 1971; Posthuma & Posthuma, 1973;Ross, Kligfeld & Whitman, 1971) which indicated "the absence of psychological disturbance following sensitivity training and encounter groups". Cooper concludes: "At the moment, the cries that T-groups and Encounter Groups are psychologically dangerous and in Gottschalk's (1966) opinion 'psychiatrically dangerous to almost half the delegates in a group' has not been proved.…”