The Etiology of Encounter Group Casualties: "Second Facts"

Abstract

This paper has two purposes. First, it conceptualizes the process by which encounter group casualties occur. Primary attention in the literature on encounter group casualties has been trained upon the rate of injury and upon the more or less discrete events which give rise to injury. For example, Lieberman, Yalom, & Miles (1973), the major study thus far, made a rather piecemeal analysis of the causes, listing such discrete factors as attack (by the group or leader), rejection, coercive expectation, and unrealistically high hopes of gain. This paper will attempt a more integrated conception of the etiology of encounter group casualties, with a central explanatory concept being the mismanagement of conflict. The second purpose is to replicate the Lieberman et al. (1973) study of encounter group casualties. Procedure for diagnosing injury was essentially the same, the type of encounter group somewhat different, and the incidence of psychological injury considerably lower.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

COOPER, C. L.

How psychologically dangerous are T-groups and encounter groups?

Human Relations, 1975, 28, 249-260.

COOPER, C. L. Adverse and growthful effects of experiential learning groups. Human Relations, 1977, 30, 1103-1129.

FROMM, E. The anatomy of human destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973.

GALINSKY, M. J. , & SCHOPLER, J. H. Warning: Groups may be dangerous. Social Work, 1977, 22(2), 89-94.

GOTTSCHALK, L. A. Psychoanalytic notes on T-groups at the human relations laboratory, Bethel, Maine. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1966, 71, 472-487.

HARTLEY, D. , ROBUCK, H. B. , & ABRAMOWITZ, S. I. Deterioration effects in encounter groups. American Psychologist, 1976, 31, 247-255.

HENRY, J. Pathways to madness. New York: Random House, 1965.

HORNEY, K. Our inner conflicts. New York: Norton, 1945.

LIEBERMAN, M. A. , YALOM, I. D. , & MILES, M. B. Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

10.

MANN, R. D. Winners, losers, and the search for equality in groups. In C. L. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes. New York: Wiley, 1975.

11.

NOYES, J. H. , Oneida Association. Mutual criticism. Oneida, New York: Office of the American Socialist, 1876. In M. Levine & B. B. Bunker (Eds.), Mutual criticism. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1975.

12.

ROGERS, C. R. Interpersonal relationships: Year 2000. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1968, 4, 265-280.

13.

SANFORD, N. , & COMSTOCK, C. Sanctions for evil. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.

14.

SCHUTZ, W. C. Not encounter and certainly not facts. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1975, 15(2), 7-18.

15.

SINGER, D. L. , ASTRACHAN, B. M. , GOULD, L. J. , & KLEIN, E. B. Boundary management in psychological work with groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1975, 11(2), 137-176.

16.

SMITH, P. B. Controlled studies of the outcome of sensitivity training. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82 (4), 597-622.

17.

STOCK, D. , WHITMAN, R. M. , & LIEBERMAN, M. A. The deviant member in therapy groups. Human Relations, 1958, 11, 341-371.

18.

TUCKMAN, B. W. Developmental sequence in small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 384-399.