THE FACTS ABOUT “ENCOUNTER GROUPS: FIRST FACTS” ELBERT W. RUSSELL

Veterans Administration Hospital, Miami, Florida

The book, Encounter groups: First jack , by Lieberman, Yalom and Miles (1973), probably the most extensive research done on groups, concluded, among other things, that encounter groups are hazardous and ineffective. A reanalysis of the data found that these groups were unrepresentative of en- counter groups because over one-third of the leaders had little or no previous experience in leading encounter groups, and only one-fifth of the leaders were high in emotional stimulation, the major characteristic of encounter group leaders. Also, both “caring” and “emotional stimulation,” or “group inten- sity,” which is an encounter group characteristic, are beneficial elements in psychotherapy and encounter groups. This reanalysis supported either no difference between encounter and therapy groups, or a slightly greater effec- tiveness of encounter group methods.

During the 1960s there was an acrimonious controversy between the supporters of the newer forms of psychotherapy and traditional psychotherapists. While this controversy has died down to some extent in the last few years, it is by no means extinguished. Rather, i t has appeared to have become a more chronic condition. As such, this controversy may be expected to last many years. I n this struggle, one major piece of research has been used by the traditionalists as the central critique of the New Therapies. This research by Lieberman, Yalom and Miles was published in their book, Encounter groups: First fac ts (1973). (These new therapies were called “Encounter Groups’’ by the authors of this piece of research).

Their research was the most extensive single research project related to group work yet undertaken. It was extensive in the number of participant group members used (275), the number of groups compared (17), and the number of measures administered (over 50). By sheer size, such a study became one of the major studies of groups.

I n their final evaluation of encounter groups, the authors conclude that “en- counter groups are superbly engineered to provide intense, meaningful, transitory relationships [p. 4521.”’ However, this study “does not suggest that ‘new techniques’ . . , are in and of themselves highly potent methods of changing behavior [p. 4491.”

I n fact, “Encounter groups present a clear and evident danger if they are used for radical surgery in which the product will be a new man [p. 4551.” Such a conclusion, apparently backed by the massive data collected in this research, constitutes a severe indictment of encounter groups. Even the admission that such groups pro- duce enjoyable but superficial intimate relationships in a society in which such relationships are often lacking does not erase their warning that such groups are a “clear and evident danger [p. 4551.”

Because encounter groups are a relatively large and growing phenomenon, various institutions as well as individuals will want, “facts” on which to base their attitudes and actions toward such groups. As such, this book may wield a strong influence on decisions related to encounter groups. Already, reviews are citing this book as an authoritative analysis of the effects of enoounter groups (Bergin & Suinn, 1975; Hartley, Roback, & Abramowite, 1976; Lieberman, 1976; Riecken, 1975).

This book was subjected to a critique in a previous issue of the J o u r n a l of Humanis t ic Psychology, which demonstrated that its conclusion about casualities was unjustified and that many aspects of the research were inadequate in terms of general design (Rowan, 1975; Schutz, 1975; Smith, 1975). None of these critiques] however, attempted a thorough reanalysis of the data presented in the book itself.

‘All page references, unless indicated, refer to Lieberman, Ydom and Miles, Encounter groups, first fucts, 1973.

130

Facts About ‘(Encounter Groups, First Facts” 131

It occasionally happens that an author can arrive, on the basis of an excellent piece of research, at conclusions quite opposed to those that the data should have provided (Russell, 1967). Thus, one of the safeguards of research is the publication of the data analysis as well as the conclusions. I n a study as important a t this, such an analysis should be done before one accepts the author’s conclusions. It is the purpose of this paper to examine the validity of Lieberman et al’s conclusions.2

While there is no doubt that this study of groups does demonstrate that under certain conditions some groups can be hazardous to some people while other groups are beneficial, Lieberman et al. apply these findings to all encounter groups.

COMPARISON OF PSYCHOTHERAPY AND ENCOUNTER GROUPS Part of Lieberman et al.’s criticism of encounter groups was derived from their

comparison of these encounter groups with psychotherapy. “It appears, thus, that overall, encounter groups are less successful in positively changing individuals when compared to psychotherapy and are more likely to induce deteriorative effects than psychotherapy [p. 4451 .” Lieberman et al.’s conclusion that encounter groups are less effective than psychotherapy was derived from a comparison of their group results with nine psychotherapy studies selected from the studies in Bergin’s (1971) review of outcome research. The results of this comparison were given on pages 443-445.

Because this comparison was made on only a few pages in Lieberman et al.’s book, the authors evidently did not consider it vital. Nevertheless, i t is fairly crucial because it is apparently the only evidence that the results of Lieberman et a1.ls study of “encounter” groups were not the same as those of traditional psycho- therapy. Bergin (197 1) has demonstrated that traditional therapy also may pro- duce detrimental results, which Lieberman (1975) recognized. This raised the pos- sibility that the results of Lieberman et al.’s study were merely in line with the effects of group therapy in general. This, of course, would have implications for traditional group therapy as well as ‘encounter groups.”

On examination, Lieberman et al.’s comparison can be criticized in regard to almost every element in its design. First, both types of processes were not studied within the same piece of research. Second, the studies derived from Bergin’s list were almost entirely studies of individual psychotherapy. Thus, Lieberman et al. were comparing groups against individual face-to-face psychotherapy.

Third, Ss were not assigned randomly to the two types of processes, and in fact the kinds of Ss were quite different. Fourth, the therapists in the studies select- ed from Bergin’s review were also quite divergent in terms of the therapy method used and experience. In regard to time, Lieberman et al. were comparing 2.5 hours of leader time per participant to 52 hours of individual psychotherapy. Sixth, the measures used in this comparison were different. Seventh, Lieberman et al. made no attempt to use tests of significance in their comparison.

CASUALTIES The evidence for a higher negative impact of encounter groups compared to

individual psychotherapy is even less convincing. The basis for Lieberman et al.’s conclusion apparently rests on a single statement that Bergin (1971) makes in his review on deterioration. It was: “A subjective reading of the material listed in Tables 7.11 and 7.12 reveals approximately a 10 percent mean rate of deterioration for therapy cases and less than 5 percent for controls.” About this statement Lieber- man et al. write, “Bergin and Garfield (1971) report a figure of approximately 10 percent overall negative impact for the studies they have reviewed [p. 4451.” The

2A longer report of this re-examination is provided in Journal Supplement Abstract Service entitled MS. 1533 “Encounter Groups: First Facts?: A Reexamination.” This can be ordered for $6.00 from: Subscription Department, American Psychological Association, 1200 - 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20036.

132 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January, 1978, Vol. 34, No . i

phrase “report a figure” gives the impression that Lieberman e t al. were comparing their “hard” data to hard data derived from Bergin’s review, not merely a subjec- tive estimate.

Such a “subjective reading’’ of a list of studies in which the deterioration rate ranged from 0 t o 41 yo does not meet any of the criteria for a reliable comparative measurement of negative impact. Consequently, Lieberman et al.’s conclusion on the greater negative impact of encounter groups than individual psychotherapy has no valid research support.

The conclusion of this reexamination of Lieberman et al.’s comparison is that no part of this comparison adequately meets any of the usual criteria for valid com- parison research. While the criteria for good comparative research are rather strict, they are not impossible to meet, since other studies, such as that by Paul (1966), have met most of them. Certainly with the facilities available to them as indicated in their book, Lieberman et al. easily could have constructed a research project that would have satisfied the necessary criteria. Consequently, it is a little difficult to understand why these authors did not utilize such an obvious design if their

-original purpose was a comparison of encounter and therapy techniques. Alterna- tively, if they had not planned to make this comparison, they should not have pre- sented such a poorly substantiated comparison a t all.

REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE The second question to be examined is whether the groups in Lieberman et al.’s

study were representative of encounter groups in general. If they did not constitute a representative sample of encounter groups, the findings with regard to these groups would not apply to encounter groups as a whole, regardless how powerful were the effects.

In order bo determine whether a sample is representative, a clear differentia definition must be provided. In this case, the definition of encounter groups must be clear enough to separate them from psychotherapy groups.

Like the leader of group 15 (p. Sl) , I personally do not believe that encounter groups as a whole can be distinguished from therapy groups on the basis of any essential characteristics. Consequently, in this study I was forced to utilize the definition that Lieberman et al. used to define their sample.

In spite of their extensive study and severe criticism of encounter groups, Lieberman et al. became quite vague when they characterized encounter groups. At no place in their book did they explicitly, differentially define encounter groups. In fact, the only place in which they even described differential characteristics with any thoroughness was on page 4. Consequently, Lieberman et al.’s characteristics given on page 4 were used in this reanalysis to determine their differential definition or differential characteristics.

The division between traditional and more recent types of therapy could not be the basis for a separation of encounter and psychotherapy because most of these methods have been used for psychotherapy. The theory label alone could not sepa- rate therapy from encounter techniques.

If this is not the basis for their definition, then the characteristics given on page 4 might be used to determine the differential characteristics that Lieberman et al. used to separate encounter and psychotherapy groups. From this page it can be determined that the authors of this study ascribed the following characteristics to encounter groups: (1) Their goal is “personal change” or growth and not psycho- therapy; thus, “The participant is usually not labeled a ‘patient’ and the experi- ence is not ordinarily labeled ‘therapy’ [p. 41 .” (2) Encounter groups encourage strong emotions that are open and confronting, i.e., “high stimulation.” (3) En- counter groups focus on the here and now. The rest of this critique will be devoted to examining the results of Lieberman et al.’s research as related to these three characteristics in order t o examine the representativeness of their sample.

Facts About ‘%ncounter Groups, Firs t Facts” 133

ENCOUNTER vs. PSYCHOTHERAPY .- INTERNAL EVIDENCE In regard to the first of Lieberman et al.’s differential characteristics, the dif-

ference in aim and experience between encounter and psychotherapy groups, this study does contain relevant material. It can be assumed that if a leader were an encounter group leader, his aim would be personal growth and he would work with “nonpatients.” On the other hand, if a leader were a psychotherapy group leader, his aim would be therapy and he would work with “patients.”

Since Lieberman et al. indicated that the leaders were all highly experienced (p. l l ) , it might be assumed that the aim of all of the leaders in their study would be personal growth and that consequently their group experience would be with “nonpatients.” The authors said very little about the background of the leaders, but one or two sentences were given about each leader’s background in Chapter Two. It was stated that the leader of group nine “had never previously led a non- patient group [p. 541.” This was a rather unusual statement to make about an “experienced” encounter group leader. As for the leader of group seven, it was stated that his group was a psychoanalytic group led by a psychoanalyst who “had been practicing and teaching group therapy for over twenty years (italics mine) [p. 461.)’ A psychoanalytic encounter group is a contradiction in terms, especially when led by a man with 20 years of experience practicing and teaching group therapy, not encounter groups. The leader of group three was described as “a clinical psychologist who had been running therapy groups for about eight years (italics mine) [p. 281.” There was no indication that he had previously run an encounter group. Thus these three leaders must have been experienced in leading psycho- therapy, i.e., patient groups and not encounter groups.

An examination of what little is given of the backgrounds of the group leaders in this research project indicates that between a third and a half had experience exclusively with or primarily with “patient” groups. That is, they appear lo have been experienced psychotherapists and not experienced encounter group leaders. (See long report for more detailed evidence.)

This creates a rather anomalous situation in regard to the representativeness of this entire research project. If these groups were in fact all “Encounter Groups,” and between a third and a half of the leaders had little or no experience in leading encounter groups, then over a third of the leaders would not be competent encounter group leaders.

Examination of the sentences in Chapter Two that describe the background of the leaders permitted each of them to be tentatively classified as an encounter group leader, a psychotherapy group leader or a mixed method leader. The mixed leaders were those who had had experience with both therapy (patient) groups and encoun- ter (nonpatient) groups. (See long report for details.)

This procedure placed groups 2, 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14 in the encounter group category. Leaders of groups 3, 5 , 7, 9 and 12 were therapy group leaders, and the leaders of 1, 4, 11 and 15 had had mixed experience. Thus, of the 15 groups with leaders, 6 were led by encounter group leaders and 5 were led by therapy group leaders, while 4 were mixed. Because each of the “mixed” leaders generally had more experience with either therapy or encounter methods they probably could have been distributed into these two types also. However, Lieberman et al. did not pro- vide enough information to make this further classification.

The conclusion of the reexamination of Lieberman et al.’s work was that evidently many of the leaders had no great experience in leading encounter groups. Rather, their experience appears to have been in leading psychotherapy groups. Because the crucial data that concern the background of the leaders were not pro- vided and the data that were provided indicated the possibility that many of the leaders were not encounter group leaders, their actual experience is conjectural. This, of course, means that all of Lieberman et al.’s conclusions on encounter groups are conjectural.

134 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January , 1978, Vol. 34, No. 1.

LEADERSHIP TYPE : ENERGIZERS Because Lieberman et al.’s first characteristic of encounter groups, leader

experience, was not representative of the sample, their second characteristic was examined to determine its representativeness. This second characteristic was the leadership quality of high emotional stimulation. It was studied by Lieberman et al. in Chapter Seven in conjunction with several other leadership characteristics of their groups and it was studied in two ways : as a leadership type and as a leadership dimension. I n regard to type, Lieberman et al. examined many measures of leader- ship and from these measures they derived a typology of leaders [pp. 245-2481. One type, Type-A Energizers, who were high in emotional stimulation, were considered to be more characteristic of encounter groups [p. 4771. I n their analysis, Lieberman et al. used the results of this type to indicate that, these leaders produced a high rate of casualties and only a small positive effect. On the other hand, Type B - pro- viders, whom they felt were more like conventional good psychotherapists, produced few casualties and a high rate of positive change (p. 245-247). Again, i t is evident that most of the group leaders in this study did not use encounter group techniques, since only 4 of the 15 group leaders were classified as energizers. Thus, on this ground the sample again was not representative, and the results should not be extrapolated to encounter groups as a whole.

On the basis of Table (7-5), which gives yield scores in percentages, it was con- cluded by Lieberman et al. that “Clearly, Providers were the most effective in pro- ducing positive changes while minimizing the number of participants who had Negative Outcomes [pp. 245-2461.’’

In regard to this conclusion, it is rather surprising that after their extraordin- arily complicated statistical analysis, which occurred in three steps and involved two factor analyses and sophisticated clustering techniques, the authors failed to use the most elementary statistical procedure to evaluate the between-type dif- ferences in yield scores, i.e., a test of significance. Because the conclusion of the authors was related primarily to the total yield, the differences in yield between types could have been tested easily. The N for the number of leaders in each type was so low that no parametric test of significance was really appropriate. The non- parametric median test (Siegel, 1956) can be used for a low N . However, when i t was applied to this reanalysis, i t did not yield a single significant comparison be- tween any two types. Although not strictly applicable, an F-test also was used in this reexamination to determine whether any comparisons approached significance. The F-tests were applied and none even approached significance. (See long report for full analysis.)

LEADERSHIP DIMENSION : EMOTIONAL STIMULATION In Lieberman et al.Js analysis, Emotional Stimulation is the most important

leadership characteristic for differentiating encounter and therapy groups. According to Lieberman et al., “Only the dimension of encounter leader behavior which we have called Stimulation seems to represent an unusual technological contribution of the encounter group movement [p. 4481.”

If this sample were representative of encounter groups, one would expect most of these groups, all of which the authors call “encounter groups,” to be high in “emotional stimulation.” Examination of dimension # 1, Emotional Stimulation, derived from the authors’ factor analysis of leadership, did demonstrate this factor to be highly skewed. However, i t was skewed in the wrong direction for the authors’ contentions (Figure 7-1, p. 236). Most of the groups were low in stimulation and, in fact, only 3 out of 15 groups were above the midpoint in the amount of emotional stimulation on the scale for dimension # 1. Thus, according to this criterion of high emotional stimulation, only one-fifth of these groups were encounter groups. As such, this again supported the previous finding that apparently a large proportion of these groups were in reality therapy, not encounter groups. At the least, this sample was not representative of encounter groups as a whole.

Facts About “Encounter Groups, First Facts” 135

As a comment on emotional stimulation, Lieberman et al. twice used the leader of group # 6 as a typical example of the fact that encounter groups are detrimental and produce a low yield (Lieberman et al., 1973, pp. 450-451; Lieberman, 1975, p. 53). Yet the leader of group #6 was extremely atypical in the high amount of emotional stimulation produced (see dimension 1, Figure 7-1, p. 236). In spite of this, by their own data (Table 3-8, p. 118 and Figure 3-3, p. 119), three other groups had as many or more casualties. In regard to yield, Lieberman et al.’s figures show that group # 6 had a t time 2 (p. 119) the fourth highest overall yield and it had the second highest number of “high learners” in the entire study (Table 3-8, p. 118). Thus, by their own data, group # 6 was one of the better groups in regard to yield. To say that leader # 6 “operated in the group in such a way as to create a low yield and a high risk group [Lieberman, 1975, p. 531” is a distortion of their own data. In this regard it also should be noted that group nine, which was the lowest in Emo- tional Stimulation (Figure 7-1, p. 236) of all groups, produced as many casualties as group six without producing much in the way of positive learning (Table 3-8, p. 118). It had the third lowest yield score in this study (Figure 3-3, p. 119).

CONCLUSION The title of the book that was examined in this paper is “Encounter groups:

First facts.” The present examination has uncovered so many inadequacies in what originally appeared to be an impressive data analysis that both parts of the title are called into question. In regard to “encounter groups,” this reanalysis of Lieber- man et al.’s study indicated that their sample was not representative of encounter groups. Over a third of the leaders did not have experience in leading encounter groups, and only one-fifth of the leaders were high on emotional stirnulation. Thus a large proportion of their groups could not reasonably be called encounter groups.

In regard to the “first facts” part of their title, so many errors in design and analysis were found that none of their results could be considered “facts.” These errors were not trivial, but of central significance to Lieberman et al.’s conclusions. Some of them are as follows:

1. No adequate differential definition of the subject matter of their book, “encounter groups,” was provided.

2. The sample evidently was not representative of encounter groups in regard to the experience of the leaders.

3. The sample was not representative of encounter groups in regard to emo- tional stimulation.

4. There was no statistical difference between the yield of different leader- ship types.

5. Participants and leadership variables were confounded. (See long report.) 6. Emotional stimulation along with intensity did appear to produce posi-

tive results in almost as great amount as caring. (See long report.) 7. Evidence that ran contrary to the authors’ contentions often was ignored

(e.g., the effect of massed time, and the relatively strong effect of “climate intensity,” which was correlated strongly with emotional stimulation, p. 309).

Some of the evidence that was crucial to the authors’ contentions was de- rived by unusual and undescribed statistical procedures (e.g., the effect of Meaning- Attribution). (See long report.)

SOME VALID RESULTS

8.

Nevertheless, the reanalysis given in this paper did provide some suggestion of valid results, though they were far from “facts.”

136 Journal of Clinical Psychology, January, 1978, Vol. 34, No. 1.

One conclusion of this study was that the variability is between individual leaders and not whether the leaders are called “encounter group leaders” or “therapy group leaders.” The rather wide distribution of yield scores and casualties again strongly supports Bergin’s (1971) contention that some leaders produce positive results and others negative results. As yet, psychotherapists, psychologists, psychia- trists and encounter group leaders have not come t o grips with the implications of this “fact.”

BENEFICIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GROUPS AND LEADERS On the other hand, it should be pointed out here that the positive effect of

some leaders appeared to be quite powerful, and this study does give some indication as to what characteristics of groups are beneficial. The outstanding conclusion here is that a warm supportive relationship is related to beneficial results. This was seen in the strong results related to the leadership dimension # 2, Caring, and the group climate characteristic of Harmony [pp. 304-3051.

A second characteristic that appears to be related to personality change is emotional stimulation. Although not quite significant, the leadership dimension # 1, “Emotional Stimulation,” did have a fairly strong correlation with yield. (See long report.) I n addition, the group climate characteristic of Intensity, which was highly correlated with Emotional Stimulation (Table 9-1, p. 310) , was related significantly to positive change (pp. 304-305).

These findings tend to support the theory proposed by Bierman (1969) that there are two major orthogonal dimensions in therapy related to outcome, which he called “Affection” and “Activity.” Affection is similar to the Caring and Harmony variables found in Lieberman et al.’s study, while Activity is similar to Emotional Stimulation or Intensity. Bierman’s (1969) theory hypothesized that Affection was related to positive therapeutic change. Therapists high in Affection, i.e., loving, caring, and warm, produce positive results, while therapists low on this dimension, with cold and rejecting behavior, produce negative changes. The review by Truax and Mitchell (1971) of studies related to positive outcome certainly supported the idea that Affection in several of its aspects is related strongly to positive outcome. Thus, there appears to be general support of this part of Bierman’s theory.

In Bierman’s theory, the Activity dimension potentiates the effect of the Aflec- tion dimension. Highly active therapists who are warm produce strong beneficial results, while those low in activity produce only mild positive results. On the other hand, highly active therapists who are cold, rejecting or hostile produce strong negative results, while those low on activity produce mild negative results.

The statistical analysis in Lieberman et al.’s book supported the existence of these dimensions. In fact, the two factors of Climate (p. 303) appear to correspond to Bierman’s dimensions. Also, an examination of individual groups and leader behavior does appear to support this interaction to some extent.

One other variable examined in this book that evidently affected group outcome was spacing. Massed sessions (p. 310) appeared to affect yield positively and signi- ficantly more than spaced sessions. This, of course, is a direct challenge to the ide- ology of traditional psychotherapy, i.e., sessions should be 1 hour long because patients do their best work in anticipation of the end of the session.

Thus the final conclusion of this reanalysis, contrary to the interpretation of Lieberman et al., is that their study, rather than demonstrating the greater detri- mental effect of encounter groups, supported either no difference or that, compared to therapy group methods, encounter group methods are somewhat more effective than psychotherapy group methods.

REFERENCES BEROIN, A. E. The evaluation of therapeutic outcomes. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.),

Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. New York: John Wiley, 1971.

Facts About ‘‘Encounter Groups, First Facts” 137

BERGIN, A. E., & SUINN, R. M. Individual psychotherapy and behavior therapy. Annual Review of PSyChOlOgy, 1975, 86, 509-556.

BIERMAN, R. Dimensions of interpersonal facilitation in psychotherapy and child development.

HARTLEY, D. ROBACK, H. B., & ABRAMOWITZ, S. I. Deterioration effects in encounter groups. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 6, 338-352.

American &choloaist. 1976. 31. 247-255. - ” , , , LIEBERMAN, M. A. Joy less facts? A responye to Schuts, Smith and Rowan. Journal of Humanistic

Psychology, 1975, 16, 49-54. LIEBERMAN, M. A. Change induction in small groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 1976, 87, 217-

LIEBERMAN, M. A., YALOM, I. D., & MILES, M. B. Encounter groups: First facts. New York: Basic

PAUL G. L. Insight us. desensitization in psychotherapy: An experiment in anxiety reduction. Stanford,

RIECKEN, H. W. Encounter brief. (Review of M. A. Lieberman, I. D. Yalom, & M. B. Miles, E m

ROWAN, J. RUSSELL, E. W. Rorschach stimulus modification. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality

SCHUTZ, W. Nonencounter and certainly not facts. Journal of Humanistic PsychoTogy, 1975,16,7-18. SIEGEL, S. SMITH, P. B. Are there adverse effects of training? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1975,16,29-48. TRUAX, C. B., & MITCHELL, K. M. Research on certain therapist interpersonal skills in the relation

to process and outcome. In A, E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change. New York: John Wiley, 1971, pp. 299-344.

250.

Book.., 1973.

dalif. : Stanford University Press, 1966.

counter groups: First facts.) Contemporary Psychology, 1975, 80, 16-17. Encounter group research: No joy? Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1975,16, 19-28.

Assessment, 1967, 31, 20-22.

Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.