Group Therapy Dynamics: Bion and Yalom Compared

Introduction to Group Norms and Cohesion

By the very nature of culture and humanity, humans are group animals — they thrive in groups, coalesce into groups, and indeed the very process of moving from hunter-gatherer societies to cities was itself a form of group behavior. This essay first examines group normative behavior, intergroup communication, and leadership, and then considers the way in which group behaviors influence individuation and specific responses to a group's culture.

Group norms are defined as a set of internal rules followed by group members in order to increase the overall efficiency of the group's activity. These norms typically govern members' behavior toward one another, toward their hierarchical superiors, and toward outsiders, as well as their approach and attitude toward the work they are expected to perform. Norms determine the way in which groups solve problems, make decisions, and carry out their work. They influence interactions between members and between the group and its facilitator. Norms also reflect the group's culture of shared values (Berry, 2007; Characteristics of a Group — Group Composition, 2007).

A group's cohesive nature is determined by its members' ability to coexist and complement one another in order to form a balanced and harmonious whole. To achieve this, group leaders need to consider three major elements: interpersonal relationships, structural relationships, and organizational relationships. Beyond these three, group leaders must also account for two additional forces that influence unity: the size of the team and the technology used within the group. The size of the group directly influences cohesion because it critically impacts communication between members. The greater the number of members, the harder it is for them to properly convey their messages and ensure they are clearly understood. In moving from transmitter to receiver, information may be distorted or even lost, thereby impairing the function of the group (Witte and Davis, 1996).

This is the very nature and foundation of group psychotherapy, in which one or more trained therapists treat a small group of clients together. It is typically characterized in general terms as cognitive behavioral therapy or interpersonal therapy, but is often applied to the psychodynamic process in which change is developed by exploring and examining interpersonal relationships within the group. Through this process, the group finds similarities and differences and is able to articulate feelings more readily within the safety of the group — knowing that other individuals are experiencing similar discomfort (Montgomery, 2002). There is clear academic evidence for the efficacy of group therapy, particularly for depression, abuse issues, and traumatic stress. There is less evidence for its use as a key factor in recovery for other psychological issues, such as borderline personality disorders, sociopathic issues, or schizophrenia (McDermut, 2001; Kanas, 2006). There are, however, dozens of variations on group dynamic therapy, each with varying degrees of theory, practice, special methods, interventions, and focus. This essay focuses on two of those approaches as they relate to group dynamics: the Tavistock-based method of Wilfred Bion and Irvin Yalom's classic text, The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy.