How can encounter group behavior, and behavior change following such groups, be understood most fruitfully? This article reviews social factors, inside and outside the encounter group setting, that may influence behavior change, maintenance, and generalization. The rudiments of social learning theory (SLT) are outlined, and it is argued that a cognitive social learning?nodel has distinct applied, heuristic, and sociopolitical value when used in conceptualizing encounter group processes and outcomes. It is proposed that a number of grotup-facilitated motor, affective, cognitive, and verbal behavior changes noted in the literature are a function of specific social learning processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronson, S. R. A comparison of cognitive vs. focused-activities techniques in sensitivity group training. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, 1970.
2.
Bandura, A.Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.
3.
Bunker, D. R., & Knowles, E. S.Comparison of behavioral changes resulting from human relations training laboratories of different lengths. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1967, 3, 505-523.
4.
Campbell, J. P., Sc Dunnette, M. D.Effectiveness of t-group experiences in managerial training and development. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 73-104.
5.
Culbert, S. A.Trainer self-disclosure and member growth in two t groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science1968, 4, 47-73.
6.
D'Augelli, A. R., Chinsky, J. M., & Getter, H.The effect of group composition and time on sensitivity training. Paper presented at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, April 1971.
7.
Dement, W.Experimental dream studies. In J. Masserman (Ed.), Science and psychoanalysis. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1964. Chap. 7, pp. 129-162.
8.
Diamond, M. J., & Shapiro, J. L.An expedient model of encounter group learning. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, April 1973. (a)
9.
Diamond, M. J., & Shapiro, J. L.Changes in locus of control as a function of encounter group experiences: A study and replication. Journal of Abnormal Psychology1973, 82, 514-518. (b)
10.
Diamond M. J., & Shapiro, J. L.Toward the long-term scientific study of encounter group phenomena: I. Methodological considerations and II. Empirical findings. Journal of Humanistic Psychology1974, in press.
11.
Dies, R. R., Sc Hess, A. K.An experimental investigation of cohesiveness in marathon and conventional group psychotherapy. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology1971, 77, 259-262.
12.
Fo, W., & Robinson, C. H.Behavior modification in group therapy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1972
13.
Franks, C. M.Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.
14.
Gibb, J. R.Effects of human relations training. In A. E. Bergin and S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. New York: Wiley, 1971. Pp. 839-862.
15.
Hampden-Turner, C. H.An existential "learning theory" and the integration of t-group research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science1966, 2, 367-386.
16.
Harrison, R.Cognitive change and participation in a sensitivity training laboratory. Journal of Consulting Psychology1966, 30, 517-520.
17.
Houts, P. S., & Serber, M.After the turn on, what? Learning perspectives on humanistic groups. Champaign, Ill.: Research Press, 1972.
18.
Kamiya, J.Operant control of the EEG alpha rhythm and some of its reported effects on consciousness. In C. Tart (Ed.), Altered states of consciousness. New York: Wiley, 1969.
19.
Kane, F. J., Jr., Wallace, C. D., & Lipton, M. A.Emotional disturbances related to t-group experience. American Journal of Psychiatry1971, 127, 954-957.
20.
Kanfer, F. H., & Phillips, J. S.Learning foundations of behavior therapy. New York: Wiley, 1970.
21.
Lazarus, A.Behavior therapy and beyond. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
22.
Leith, W. R., & Uhlemann, M. R.The shaping group approach to stuttering. Comparative Group Studies1972, 3, 175-199.
23.
Lewin, K.Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science. Social equilibria and social change. Human Relations1947, 1, 5-41.
24.
Liberman, R.A behavioral approach to group dynamics. I. Reinforcement and prompting of cohesiveness in group therapy. Behavior Therapy1970, 1, 141-175. (a)
25.
Liberman, R.A behavioral approach to group dynamics. II. Reinforcing and prompting hostility to the therapist in group therapy. Behavior Therapy1970, 1, 312-327. (b)
26.
Lieberman, M. A., Yalom, I. D., & Miles, M. B.Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic Books, 1973.
27.
Marshall, K. E., & Colman, A. D. Operant analysis of encounter groups: A pilot study. Unpublished manuscript, University of California Medical Center, San Francisco, California, 1972.
28.
May, R.Rollo May writes. Newsletter of the Association for Humanistic PsychologyJanuary 1972, 8, 1-3.
29.
Miles, M. B.Changes during and following laboratory training: A clinicalexperimental study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science1965, 1, 215-242.
30.
Miller, N. E.Learning of visceral and glandular responses. Science1969, 163, 434-453.
31.
Mischel, W.Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley, 1968.
32.
Mischel, W.Introduction to personality. New York: Holt, 1971.
33.
Reddy, W. B.On affection, group composition, and self-actualization in sensitivity training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology1972, 38, 211-214.
34.
Rogers, C. B.Carl Rogers on encounter groups. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.
35.
Rotter, J. B.Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954.
36.
Rubin, I.The reduction of prejudice through laboratory training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science1967, 3, 29-50.
37.
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G.Personal and organizational change through group methods: The laboratory approach. New York: Wiley, 1965.
38.
Serber, M.The experiential group as entertainment. In P. S. Houts and M. Serber, After the turn on, what? Learning perspectives on humanistic groups. Champaign, Ill.: Research Press, 1972. Pp. 123-131.
39.
Shapiro, J. L., & Diamond, M. J.Increases in hypnotizability as a function of encounter group training: Some confirming evidence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology1972, 79, 112-115.
40.
Shapiro, J. L., Marano, P. J., & Diamond, M. J.An investigation of encounter group outcome and its relationship to leadership experience. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Psychological Association, New Orleans, April 1973.
41.
Staats, A. W.Child learning, intelligence and personality. New York: Harper &c Row, 1971.
42.
Stein, D. K. Expectation and modeling in sensitivity groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, 1970.
43.
Thoresen, C. E.Behavioral humanism. Research and Development Memorandum No. 88, Stanford Center for Research and Development in Teaching, Stanford University, 1972.
44.
Thoresen, C. E., &C Mahoney, M. J.Behavioral self-control. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, in press.
45.
Ullmann, L. P., & Krasner, L.A psychological approach to abnormal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
46.
Weiss, L. B.Methodology for naturalistic observation of therapist behavior in group psychotherapy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1972.
