1. Perception of Group Cohesion
Mirta Vranko; Dolores Novak; Tihana Jendričko
University Psychiatric Hospital Vrapče
Abstract
Introduction
Methods and Materials
Department for Psychotherapy celebrated this year first anniversary of its activity. The Department is designed in a way that hospitalized patients through group therapy participate in all the proposed activities, and are also involved in the group analysis, psychodrama, reality psychotherapy, gestalt psychotherapy, social skills training, logotherapy, art therapy, occupational therapy, sociotherapy, medical gymnastics and medical relaxation.
Study participants are people who are being treated in the hospital treatment of the Department for Psychotherapy and in daily hospital, in the period from the beginning of February to the end of April 2017.
Group approach in the treatment of mental disorders goes back to the past, but it seems that today this approach is more relevant than ever. Probably the biggest advantage of group approach helps the knowledge of the patient that he or she is not alone - that there are other people who have similar difficulties. In addition, the group provides an opportunity to develop a social network and the various processes of socialization and social support. The group is like a "training ground" for the development of new communication and social skills, with the aim of transferring knowledge in other social contexts.
The goal of the research is to gain insight into the connection of the current group cohesion due to the diagnostic criteria and forms of treatment. 
Paper is theoretically grounded in the theory of group cohesion. Cartwright and Zander (1962) and Lewin, Lippett and White (1939, as cited in Dion, 2000) were some of the first to define cohesion, both noting cohesion was a force which acted upon the group members. Others have agreed with that definition further calling cohesion “the resultant forces which are acting on the members to stay in the group” (Festinger, 1950; Yalom & Leszcz, 2005), or “basic bond or uniting force” (Piper, Marrache, Lacroix, Richardsen & Jones, 1983).
Yalom & Leszcz (1995) described it as the “we-ness” of the group, “the connectedness of the group, demonstrated by working together toward a common therapeutic goal” (Budman et al., 1989), or “tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its goals and objectives” (Carron, 1982). Several authors have also proposed the cohesion describes the individual’s “sense of belonging to a group attraction to the group as a whole” (Frank, 1957) and more specifically, the attractiveness of a group for its members (Evans & Jarvis, 1980; Frank, 1957; Ribner, 1974; Roark & Sharah, 1989).
The data were collected anonymously, in accordance with the Principles of the Code of Ethics under the Protection of Persons with Mental Disorders.
The sample consisted of 51 participant (21,4% men and 70,6% women). The average age of participants in the study was 42,45 years. Forms of treatment in which the participants are involved is out-hospital care (51%) and in-hospital care (49%). The most common diagnosis is depressive disorder (47,1%), followed by the personality disorder (17,6%), anxiety-depressive disorder (13,7%), psychosis (11,8%), trauma and stress-related disorders (5,9%), bipolar-affective disorder (2%) and the organic affective disorder (2%).
The study used Group Cohesion Scale-Revised (GCS-R; Treadwell et al., 2001). The GCS-R is a 25-item questionnaire designed to assess group cohesion in terms of interaction and communication among grown up members (including domination and subordination), member retention, decision-making, vulnerability among group members, and consistency between group and individual goals. Each item is rated on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) . Examples of items include: ‘‘Group members usually feel free to share information,’’ ‘‘There are usually feelings of unity and togetherness among the group members,’’ and ‘‘Many members engage in ‘back-biting’ in this group.’’ This scale was recently revised (Treadwell et al., 2001) in order to modify one item, discard another item, and change the wording of the anchor points. In a validation study, internal consistency (as measured by Cronbach’s alpha) ranged from .48 to .89 on pre-test assessment and .77–.90 on post-test assessment (Treadwell et al., 2001).
Results
The study measured group cohesion in two psychotherapy groups: daily and in-hospital treatment patients. There are no differences nor significant correlations in group cohesion considering gender or forms of treatment. Group cohesion rating was single-point measured (M= 70,13, SE = 2,08). Therefore, we can conclude that group cohesion is moderately strong. Participants perceive strong relationships in both groups. There are expressed feelings of unity and belonging. Also, participants in both groups agree to jointly make decisions during group treatment. Considering vulnerability participants perceive group as a safe place where they can freely speak and where the rule of confidentiality is granted.
Conclusions
Results confirm our hypothesis that every group build their own group cohesion who’s power is independible of treatment type or diagnostic criteria.
It appears that vulnerability, sense of belonging and confidentiality are strenghts of participants in those groups.
For the next research in this field, we propose using Group Cohesion Scale-Revised in two points measurement research design (pre-test – post-test) that aims to evaluate treatment.
Contact
References
Mirta Vranko,
Dolores Novak,
Tihana Jendričko,
University Psychiatric Hospital Vrapče
Website:
Yalom, I. D., Lescz, M. (1995, 2005). The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Basic Books.
Treadwell, T., Lavertue, N., Kumar, V. K., Veeraraghavan, V. (2001). The Group Cohesion Scale – Revised: Realiability and Validity. International Journal of Action Methods: Psychodrama, Skill Training and Role Playing. 54, 3-12.
Dion, K. L. (2000). Group Cohesion: from „field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics. 4, 7-26.
Piper, W. E. et al. (1983). Cohesion as a Basic Bond in Groups. Human Relations. 36,
Budman, S. H. et al. (1989). Cohesion, Aliance, and Outcome in Group Psychotherapy. Psychiatry. 52,
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in Sport Groups: Interpretations and Considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology. 4,
Roark, A. E., Sharah, H. S. (1989). Factors related to group cohesiveness. Small Group Behavior, 20, 62 – 69.