Skip to main content
Log in

Essential theory, processes, and procedures for successful group psychotherapy: Group cohesion as exemplar

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With few exceptions or at the very least cautions (cf. Burlingame, MacKenzie & Strauss, 2003) group psychotherapy has proven to be an effective and efficient treatment for a number of psychological disorders (Burlingame, Kapetanovic, & Ross, 2005). This article will briefly describe a theory that underlies successful group therapies. In addition, certain group processes—those elements that occur during the group itself that appear to be necessary conditions for improved patient outcomes—will also be addressed, although unfortunately, the sufficient conditions tying moment-to-moment process to actual outcome (improved patient functioning by the end of therapy, and at 6-month follow-up, for instance) are not quite as easily delineated. A closer study of the group therapeutic factor cohesion will be utilized as an example of these practice and research dilemmas. Finally, suggestions for future directions, which might more clearly uncover important connections between process and outcome, are addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barlow, S., Burlingame, G., & Fuhriman, A. (2005). The History of group practice: A century of knowledge. In S. Wheelan (Ed.),Handbook of group research and practice (pp. 39–64). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow, S.H., Fuhriman, A.J., & Burlingame, G.M. (2004). The history of group counseling and psychotherapy. In J. De Lucia-Waack, D. Gerrity, C. Kalodner, & M. Riva (Eds.),Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 3–22). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A.P., & Lewis, C.M. (Eds.). (2000).The process of group psychotherapy: Systems for analyzing change. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednar, R., Melnick, J., & Kaul, T. (1974). Risk, responsibility, and structure: Ingredients for a conceptual framework for initiating group therapy.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, L.S. (2000). Use of Structural Analysis of Social Behavior for interpersonal diagnosis and treatment in group therapy. In A. Beck & C. Lewis (Eds.),The process of group psychotherapy: Systems for analyzing change. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G., Burlingame, G., Lambert, M., Jones, E., & Vaccaro, J. (2001). Pushing the quality envelope: A new outcomes management system.Psychiatric Services, 52, 925–934.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Burlingame, G., Kapetanovic, S., & Ross, S. (2005). Group Psychotherapy. In S. Wheelan (Ed.),Handbook of group research and practice (pp. 387–406). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burlingame, G., Fuhriman, A., & Johnson, J. (2004). Process and outcome in group counseling and psychotherapy: A Perspective. In J. De Lucia-Waack, D. Gerrity, C. Kalodner, & M. Riva (Eds.),Handbook of group counseling and psychotherapy (pp. 49–61). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burlingame, G., MacKenzie, K. R., & Strauss, B. (2003). Small-group treatment: Evidence for effectiveness and mechanisms of change. In M. Lambert (Ed.),The bergin and garfield handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, (5th ed.) (pp. 647–696). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burlingame, G.M., Fuhriman, A.J., & Mosier, J. (2003). The differential effectiveness of group psychotherapy: A meta-analytic perspective.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burlingame, G., Fuhriman, A., & Johnson, J. (2002). Cohesion in group psychotherapy. In J. Norcross (Ed.),Psychotherapy relationships that work (pp. 71–87). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, D.R., Burlingame, G.M., & Layne, C.M. (in press). Integrating small-group process principles into trauma-focused group psychotherapy: What should a group trauma therapist know? In L. A. Schein, H. I. Spitz, G. M. Burlingame, & P.R. Muskin (Eds.),Group approaches for psychological effects of catastrophic disaster and terrorist threats: Principles and methods. New York: Hayworth Press.

  • Duvall, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000a). A non-parametric method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duvall, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in met-analysis.Biometrics, 56, 455–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. (Ed.) (2000). Special issue: 100 years of research.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 3–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhriman, A., & Burlingame, G. (Eds.) (1994).Handbook of group psychotherapy: An empirical and clinical synthesis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuhriman, A., & Barlow, S.H. (1983). Cohesion: Relationship in group therapy. In M. J. Lambert (Ed.),Psychotherapy and patient relationships (pp. 263–289). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivlighan, D.M., & Lilly, R.L. (1997). Developmental changes in group climate as they relate to therapeutic gain.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(3), 208–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivlighan, D.M., & Shaughnessy, P. (2000). Patterns of working alliance development: A typology of working alliance ratings.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 362–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M.J., & Bergin, A.E. (1994). Effectiveness of psychotherapy. In A. Bergin & S.G. Garfield (Eds.),Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (pp. 143–189). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, M.J. (Ed.) (2003).The Bergin and Garfield handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change, (5th ed.) (pp. 647–696). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRoberts, C., Burlingame, G. M., & Hoag, M. J. (1998). Comparative effectiveness of individual and group psychotherapy: A meta-analytic perspective.Group Dynamics, 2(2), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran, D.K., Stockton, R., & Teed, C. (1998). Facilitating feedback exchange in groups: Leader interventions.Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1979). Comparing significance levels of independent studies.Psychology Bulletin, 86, 1165–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rychlak, J.F. (1981).Introduction to personality and psychotherapy, (2nd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steering Committee (2002). Empirically supported therapy relationships: Conclusions and recommendations of the Division 29 Task Force. In J. Norcross (Ed.),Psychotherapy relationships that work (pp. 441–443). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockton, R., & Moran, D.K. (1981). Feedback exchange in personal growth groups: Receiver acceptance as a function of valence, session, and order of delivery.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 490–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wampold, B. (2001).The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods & findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yalom, I.D. (1995).The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books. (Original work published 1970).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally H. Barlow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Barlow, S.H., Burlingame, G.M. Essential theory, processes, and procedures for successful group psychotherapy: Group cohesion as exemplar. J Contemp Psychother 36, 107–112 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729053

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02729053

Keywords

Navigation