Open and closed therapeutic groups are contrasted in the context of group development research Positive and negative aspects of group membership (including coerced entry) are considered. With application of the Hill Interaction Matrix (HIM) available data are reanalyzed; it is concluded that results support the existence of a discernible process of development in the closed groups, while open groups with residual "old" members show counterproductive activity—especially as involuntary residual membership leads to "arrested" behavior in group performance
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bednar, R.L. and T.K. Kaul (1978) "Experiential group research current perspective," in S L Garfield and A E. Bergin (eds) Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change An Empirical Analysis.New YorkJohn Wiley
2.
Corey, G. (1981) Theory and Practice of Group CounselingMonterey, CABrooks/Cole
3.
Crandeli , R. ( 1978) "The assimilation of newcomers into groups."Small Group Behavior3 (August): 331-336.
4.
Gazda, G.M. ( 1978) Group Counsel A Developmental ApproachBostonAllyn and Bacon
5.
Gruner, L. ( 1972) "A study of group development in purposive groups " Ph D dissertation, University of Southern California
6.
Hartford, M.E. (1972) Groups in Social WorkNew York . Columbia Univ. Press
7.
Hill, W.F. and L. Gruner (1973) "A study of development in open and closed groups "Small Group Behavior4 (August) 355-381.
8.
Lacoursiere, R.B. (1980) The Life Cycle of GroupsNew YorkHuman Sciences Press
9.
Levine, B. (1979) Group Psychotherapy Practice and DevelopmentEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10.
Si Avson, S.R. (1979) Dynamics of Group PsychotherapyNew YorkJason Aronson.
