Social climate comparison of mutual help and psychotherapy groups.

• DOI: 10.1037/0022-006x.55.3.430
• Publication Date: 2005-09-15T13:06:32Z
• Authors: Paul A. Toro; Julian Rappaport; Edward Seidman
• Keywords: Group psychotherapy

Mutual help groups (n=32) were compared to three other types of groups (psychotherapy, n=35; social-recreational, n=59; and task oriented, n=39) on 10 social climate dimensions derived from the 90-item Group Environment Scale. All 10 dimensions yielded significant (p..05) differences. Differences between the mutual help and psychotherapy groups were particularly intereting and large in size. The mutual help groups had a more active leadership role and greater group cohesion, in addition to being more structured and task-oriented and fostering more independence. The psychotherapy groups were more encouraging in the expression of negative and other feelings and showed more flexibility in changing the group's functions and activities. Suggestions are made on how the study's findihgs might be used in the community and how they might be extended in future research. Social Climate Comparison 3 A Social Climate Comparison of Mutual Help and Psychotherapy Groups In the past few decades, mutual help groups have been proliferating at a rapid pace. These groups address a wide array of problems including substance abuse, chronic physical illness, mental illness, marital disruption, and child abuse. Despite the proliferation of groups, little research has been done to assess their efficacy or what happens in them. This lack of research may be due to many factors, including the unfamiliarity and sometimes outright skepticism that mental health professionals and researchers have concerning these groups. If the mutual help approach is to develop and become integrated with other services, it is ioportant that research proceed. Much of the early research on mutual help groups consisted of impressionistic descriptions of particular groups (e.g., Silverman, 1970; Weiss, 1973) and theoretical discussions about the nature of mutual help groups or their historical development (see Caplan & Killilea, 1976). Other research has surveyed group participants (e.g., Knight, Woller, Levy, Frame, & Padgett, 1980; Lieberman & Bond, 1976; Lieberman, Bond, Solow, & Reibstein, 1979) or professionals familiar with mutual help groups (e.g., Black & Drachman, 1985; Levy, 1978). Only recently have more rigorous evaluation designs and comparative approaches been applied to mutual help groups (e.g., Rappaport, et al., 1985; Toro, in press). The present study investigated the nature of mutual help groups by comparing them to three other types of groups, including psychotherapy groups, using a social climate (Moos, 1974b) approach. Such comparison could help us understand how mutual help groups are different from, or similar to, other groups which exist in the community. The social climate approach to the