“We Need Each Other!”: Adapting the Tavistock Method for Large Group Therapy for Adults with Severe Mental Illness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/z1nkgz88Keywords:
Group Psychotherapy,, Tavistock Group, Long-term Care, Severe Mental IllnessAbstract
Wilfred Bion (1954) proposed a model of group theory known as a group-as-a-whole approach or the Tavistock method. This approach to group therapy emphasizes the unconscious, group-as-a-whole dynamics versus any individual member’s process. As a means for individuals to deflect discussing their own idiosyncratic trauma history and allowing for a general discussion of trauma, this approach helps members feel safe to risk addressing painful issues in the present moment (Semmelhack, Ende, & Hazell, 2013). We hypothesize that this is the case because the Tavistock method creates, among other things, a deep sense of psychological safety (Hazell, 2005) There are a limited number of research studies examining the applicability, efficacy, and general impact of the Tavistock model on individuals diagnosed with a severe mental illness (Semmelhack, Ende & Hazell, 2013). Additionally, research studies examining the Tavistock model, and its application to group work, focus on small group settings instead of large group settings. This focus on small groups has perhaps resulted
from widespread assumptions regarding the tendency for large groups to cause regression and depersonalization in members.
This study will highlight on-going research conducted over a six month period of time utilizing a modified Tavistock approach (Semmelhack, Ende & Hazell, 2013) extending the application of the modified Tavistock method to large group work for adults with severe mental illness. It was hypothesized that group members would exhibit increased comfort and cohesiveness in the large group and reduced anxiety regarding engaging in a large group. It was also hypothesized that there would be improvements in other group dynamics such as a stable group size and the understanding of group norms. By this we mean that the group would be well attended by at least a core set of members and that a relatively stable set of growth-promoting norms such as listening and openness to experience would be understood and promulgated by group participants.
The authors conducted monthly large group sessions in the style of an adapted Tavistock method (Semmelhack, Ende & Hazell, 2013). Unlike the small groups described in the 2013 study, these large groups included 22-25 members. All groups consisted of members diagnosed with severe mental illness (e.g., Bipolar Spectrum Disorder, Schizophrenia Spectrum) residing in a long-term skilled nursing home facility. Qualitative and quantitative data, in the form of questionnaires, were collected and compiled after the completion of each group session. Data were collected after the first group session and subsequently for six total sessions. Results indicated increases in group comfort/cohesion (as defined as a desire to attend group sessions and willingness to share; Yalom, 2005), insight, emotional expression, enjoyment, and participation. It was also found that members preferred the large group size overall; however, this change in group size preference gradually increased based on the number of group sessions the member attended. Conclusions from this pilot study suggest the effectiveness of a novel application of the Tavistock method to large group work with a population of individuals with severe mental illness (Semmelhack, Ende & Hazell, 2013). Further research on large Tavistock style groups could focus on the use of the large group in the formation of a community setting in a long-term care institution and the dynamics of residing in a long-term facility. This study furthers research in group work, treatment approaches for individuals with severe mental illness, and treatments for individuals residing in a nursing home facility.
Downloads
References
Bion, W.R. (1954). Group dynamics: A re-view. In M. Klein, P. Heimann & R.E. Money-Kyrle (Eds.), New directions in psycho-analysis (pp. 440-477). New York: Basic Books.
Blanchot, M. (1988). The unavowable community. Station Hill Press.
Bry, A. (1984). Est: Erhard seminars training: 60 hours that transform your life. Avon Books.
Colman, A.D. & Geller, W. H. (eds) (1985). Group relations reader 2. Washington, DC, A. K. Rice Institute.
de Mare, P. (2011). Koinonia: From hate through dialogue to culture in the larger group. London: Karnac Books.
Devereux, G. (1980). Basic problems of ethnopsychiatry. University of Chicago Press. Edelson, M. (1970). Sociotherapy and psychotherapy. University of Chicago Press.
Erikson, E. (1993). Childhood and society. W.W. Norton.
Freud, S. (1922/1990). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. W.W. Norton. Hazell, C. (2005). Imaginary groups. Bloomington, Indiana: Authorhouse.
Jaques, E. (1954). Social systems as defense against persecutory and depressive anxiety. In M. Klein, P. Heimann & R.E. Money-Kyrle (Eds.), New directions in psycho-analysis (pp. 478 - 498). New York: Basic Books.
Jones, M. (2013). Social psychiatry: A study of therapeutic communities. Routledge. Kardiner, A. (1939). The individual and his society. New York, Columbia University Press. Kreeger, L. (2012). The large group: Dynamics and therapy. London, Karnac Books.
LeBon, G. (1895/2002). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. Dover. Nancy, J-L. (1991). The inoperative community. University of Minnesota Press. Roheim, G. (1971). The origin and function of culture. Anchor Books.
Seikkula, J. and Arnkil, T.E. (2006). Dialogical meetings in social networks. London: Karnac.
Semmelhack, D., Ende, L. & Hazell, C. (2013). Group therapy for adults with severe mental illness: Adapting the Tavistock method. New York, NY: Routledge.
Semmelhack, D., Ende, L., & Hazell, C. (2015). The interactive world of severe mental illness: Case studies of the U.S. mental health system. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sullivan, H. S. (1968) The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York, NY: Norton.
Treadwell, T., Lavertue, N., Kumer, V.K., & Veeraraghavan, V. (2001). The group cohesion scale-revised: Reliability and validity. International Journal of Action Methods, Psychodrama, Skill Training, and Role Playing, 54, 3-12.
Winnicott, D.W. (2009). Playing and Reality. New York, NY: Routledge.
Yalom, I. D. & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy, 5th edition. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b67b2/b67b296c4d3b028c918eaf7bf864d9ab589a7b44" alt="Creative Commons License"
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.