Posted by Medusa on August 6, 2002, at 1:09:02
In reply to Re: participant roles in group therapy??? « Medusa » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 5, 2002, at 15:53:38
> Med(By the way is that MedUSA or Medusa?),
LOL! It's Medusa, though both could be appropriate.
> went so far as to get Kottler's book on Group leadershipSo you're ahead of plenty of group "facilitators" already ...
> could you elaborate on what you mean by roles?Well, I haven't read up on this much, so this will be just observations and lay terms.
In many groups, there are the "normal", cooperative participants. Then there's generally a "needy" member, who fills as much time and takes as much energy as permitted, and doesn't consider that the others might be there as something besides caretakers.
>what role do you find yourself in?In groups with strong leaders, I end up upsetting the needy member by suggesting that we find some method of time allotment so that others can talk. Then the needy person's feelings of invalidation take up a few sessions, and the needy person hates me for the rest of the group. One woman spit at me, but later wanted to hang out.
Then there are self-aware needy members, who really really really need group time but hesitate to take even their fair share. I tend to try to draw them out, and tell them it's okay to ask for more time both in and outside of group, and that they should be sure they're getting enough from their therapist and the leader.
In groups with untrained or otherwise incompetent leaders, I often end up trying to repair invalidation felt by other members, and this often precipitates the leader somehow attacking me, and then the group becomes overtly upset with the leader.
Example: a "Feeding Ourselves" group, all women, exploring a non-diet, non-control approach to eating disorders and overeating. The leader suggested to one woman that she put a picture of herself from a healthy, thin time on the refrigerator, and I suggested that this wasn't really in step with the approach as I understood it, and asked the other participant if she could use a visualisation exercise and if it was possible to reduce outside demands on her time. She responded enthusiastically, and after that other group members seemed to look to me for "second opinions" on a lot of what the leader said. I don't know for sure that it was in response to this, but the leader started saying in front of the group that I had lost enough weight. Other members took this as a statement that the leader thought they were fat, which sounds weird to people without eating problems, but it was really not good for group morale for the leader to be single-ing out members for "success" based on appearance - the group was supposed to help us combat those stereotypes!
Example: a DBT group in an outpatient hospital program. One girl asked a question about applying the principle we were discussing to her anxiety/panic attacks, and the facilitator said that this wasn't relevant, since panic attacks weren't as serious as another member's violent outbreaks. I interjected that perhaps panic attacks did more damage to the person experiencing them than violent outbreaks did to the trash cans that the other guy beat up in his outbursts - just because he got arrested didn't mean he suffered more than the panic-attacked girl did. Even the violent guy seemed to accept this, but I got hauled out of the group and the directors told me I'd "better take a look at why I felt the need to stand up for other members, which they could very well do for themselves."
So I wonder if there's a group role of "know-it-all" or "leader-undercutter" or something, and I wonder why I keep falling into it. The directors were right, that I need to look at this, which doesn't make them right about putting a poorly-trained group leader in place.
Sorry this is all me-specific and not really about groups in general - I'm not sure I'm the person to describe the optimally-functioning idea group!
poster:Medusa
thread:818
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20020702/msgs/836.html