Effects of a T Group as a Function of Trainers' Liking and Members' Participation,Involvement,Quantity,and Quality of Received Feedback

Abstract

In this study we examine the validity of the hypothesis that in order to gain from a T Group, members must actively participate, be emotionally involved in the process, and must open themselves to feedback from other members. We also examine the effect of the T Group as a function of trainers' differential liking for each member. Subjects in this study were 37 occupational therapy students in three T Groups, led by the same three trainers.

Participation, involvement, quantity, and quality of received feedback were rated by the three trainers after each group session, followed by a discussion which yielded one set of consensus scores. Trainers' liking scores were obtained following the completion of all three T Groups. Postgroup evaluations of effect for each member were obtained both from the members themselves (twice) and from the trainers. Global and analytic evaluations were collected, the latter based on a two-dimensional operative model of group goals and outcomes.

In light of the initial correlations, the four in-group variables were grouped into two factors, representing each member's activity (output) and received feedback (input). Trainers' liking was related most closely to the first factor. Postgroup global evaluations of effect were found to be mostly a function of members' activity, while analytic evaluations (concluded to be more balanced and more valid) were related to both activity and feedback factors. Trainers' liking was related to global evaluations more strongly than to analytic evaluations, but the results clearly indicated that both types of effect are functions of trainers' liking. The validity of the conditional demands regarding members' behavior in the group was confirmed even when the effects of trainers' liking were partialed out.

The results of analytic postgroup evaluations done by members of nine groups showed that the in-group variables predicted, in the main, the intensity of the members' immediate experience and excitement following the group. After the dissipation of excitement (in the delayed assessment), the significant predictions of effect were found in the "learning" and "interaction" categories, as were the significant predictions of trainers' evaluations.

It was suggested that trainers' liking and members' participation, involvement, and openness to receive feedback are interactive, spiral processes, the complementarity of which is an important determinant of the effects of the T Group.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aronson, E. The social animal. San Francisco, Calif.: Freeman and Co., 1972.

Babad, E.Y. , Tzur, A. , Oppenheimer, B. , & Shaltiel, A. An all purpose model for group work. Human Relations, 1976, in press.

Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York. McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Bolman L. Some effects of trainers on their t groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7, 309-325.

Bolman, L. Some effects of trainers on their groups: A partial replication. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1973, 9, 534-539.

Campbell,J.P. , & Dunnette, M.D. Effectiveness of t group experiences in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 73-104.

Cohen, A.M. , & Smith, R.D. The critical-incident approach to leadership intervention in training groups. In W.G. D)yer (Ed.), Modern theory and method in group training. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1972.

Flournoy, O. The psychoanalyst and the psychoanalytic process. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1971, 52, 127-127.

Golembiewski, R.T. , & Blumberg, A. Sensitivity training and the laboratory approach. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock, 1970.

10.

Greenacre, P. Certain technical problems in the transference relationship. Journal of American Psychoanalytic Association, 1959, 7, 484-502.

11.

Hurley,J.R. "Some effects of trainers on their t groups" reconsidered. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1973, 11, 190-196.

12.

Leavitt, H. , & Mueller, R. Some effects of feedback on communication. Human Relations, 1931, 4, 401-410.

13.

Lieberman, M.A. , Yalom, I.D. , & Miles, M.B. Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic Books, 1973.

14.

Lomranz, J. , Lakin, M.X. , & Schiffman, H.

Variants of sensitivity training and encounter: Diversity or fragmentation?

'Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1972, 8, 399-420.

15.

Rogers, C. On encounter groups. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.

16.

Tesch, F.E. , Lansky, L.M. , & Lundgren, D.C. The one-way/two-way communication exercise: Some ghosts laid to rest. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1972, 8, 664-673.

17.

Tzur, A. Analysis of group process: A proposed theoretical model and initial empirical findings. Unpublished master's thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, 1975.