Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human Relations
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bramlette, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Tucker, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Encounter Groups: Positive Change or Deterioration? More Data and a Partial Replication

Carl A. Bramlette

Georgia State University

Jeffrey H. Tucker

Department of Quantitative Methods, Georgia State University, University Plaza, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.

Several recent articles have concluded that 8% to 10% of participants in encounter groups can be classified as casualties and up to 50% reap a negative benefit. However, these articles investigate negative benefit. Using the Lieberman, Yalom, and Miles criteria of two peer nominations or a self-nomination for identifying a participant's experience, 10% of 327 participants in 39 trainerless T groups were classified as negatively affected and 54% as positively affected. Of the 10% classified as having a negative experience, 7% were also classified as having had a positive experience, leaving only 3% with solely a negative experience. It may be that some discomfort is inherent in the growth process. Future research on encounter groups might investigate the positive as well as the negative aspects and how these experiences aid in overall growth.

Human Relations, Vol. 34, No. 4, 303-314 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/001872678103400404
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
C. J. Roussin
Increasing Trust, Psychological Safety, and Team Performance Through Dyadic Leadership Discovery
Small Group Research, April 1, 2008; 39(2): 224 - 248.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Small Group ResearchHome page
J. A. Ramsay
A Brief Note On Unobtrusive Observation of an Encounter Group
Small Group Research, August 1, 1984; 15(3): 414 - 416.