Co-Therapy

MacLennan, Beryce W.

doi:10.1080/00207284.1965.11642823

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the advantages enumerated in the literature over the past 20 years include: enhancement of the perception of the group therapist's self-awareness and capacity for limit setting through the presence and expertise of a second therapist (Block, 1961;MacLennan, 1965;McGee & Schuman, 1970); stimulation of transference development, ability on the part of cotherapists to more carefully study members' transference to each other and to the leaders (Block, 1961;Borghi, 1978;Brayborg & Marks, 1973;Demarest & Teicher, 1954;Gans, 1962;Mintz, 1963); therapeutic benefits inherent in pooling the resources and abilities of both therapists (Dick et al, 1980;Grand, 1982;Lothstein, 1980;Mintz, 1963); increased possibility of therapeutic identification for the members (Grand, 1982;Lothstein, 1980); alleviation of isolation involved in the single leadership model (MacLennan, 1965); approximation of the family context (Block, 1961;Cooper, 1976;Grand, 1982;Yalom, 1985); and provision of cognitive, emotional, and physical support (Dick et al, 1980;Gans, 1962;MacLennan, 1965).…”

Section: Positive and Negative Aspects Of The Cotherapy Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four distinct themes and related patterns of interaction were identified. The first dealt with how co-leadership may serve to enhance perception through the presence of a second therapist (Block, 1961;Demarest & Teicher, 1954;MacLennan, 1965;McGee & Schuman, 1970); the second involved the mechanism of splitting (Cooper, 1976;Heilfron, 1969;Kadis & Markowitz, 1973) and its effect on the cotherapy relationship and ultimately the group dynamics; the third related to the impact of parental transferences on the cotherapist relationship (Block, 1961;Cooper, 1976;Grand, 1982;Yalom, 1985); the fourth involved the influence of multiple deaths on the cotherapy relationship (Bechett & Rutan, 1990;Gabriel, 1991;Gambel & Getzel, 1989;Spiegel & Yalom, 1978;Tunnel, 1991).…”

Section: Special Issues For Cotherapists In Aids Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The cotherapy relationship: Special issues and problems in aids therapy groups

Gabriel

1993

Group

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Positive and Negative Aspects Of The Cotherapy Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Special Issues For Cotherapists In Aids Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cotherapy relationship: Special issues and problems in aids therapy groups

Gabriel

1993

Group

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sometimes the part ners were family members -father and son (26) and a psychiatrist and his wife (who had no professional training) (1). The train ing potential of co-psychotherapy has been frequently noted (5,14,23,27) and given more systematic attention, particularly by Rosenberg et al (22) and Lott (12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In co-therapy there is a pre-arranged strategy before each session and the therapists are assigned specified rolesone supportive, the other confronting (2,8,14). Multiple therapy is more processoriented and the atmosphere is one of in timate personal encounter where there is a freer interplay of association and interpreta tion among the participants than there is in most single-handed psychotherapy (6,17,19,26).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explorations in Co-Psychotherapy

Watterson

Collinson

1974

Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publications regarding the joint psychotherapy of individual patients or couples describe a variety of therapist-pairings, many styles of treatment approach, and an increasing interest, in the last two decades, in a treatment tool which impresses workers as having particular therapeutic effect with both research and training potential. The pairings of therapists show many permutations by profession, previous experience, and relatedness. In this ongoing study the partners are a male psychoanalytically trained psychiatrist and a female social psychology graduate. The style used has been referred to as multiple therapy although the term co-psychotherapy is less ambiguous and more specific. Patients seen in private practice readily accepted the joint participation of the junior partner, no matter whether they were already underway in psychotherapy or were newly referred. Co-psychotherapy appears to be more effective than single-handed psychotherapy, especially in the treatment of psychotic and borderline patients. When one member of a therapeutic pair is a trainee, co-psychotherapy offers an apprenticeship in psychotherapy by direct and intense immersion. Its value as part of psychotherapy training would seem to warrant more extensive deployment.

show abstract

Dual authority problems in classes for the emotionally disturbed

Miller

1969

Psychol. Schs.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Junior Guidance Classes Program Board of Education of the City of New YorkADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A MULTI-AUTHORITY SETTING Recent departures from the traditional classroom structure of one adult to one class group have appeared in the form of team teaching; the use of sub-professionals in the classroom; and the inclusion of two or more adults in special classes for emotionally disturbed children. There are also situations where kindergarten and nursery groups are often supervised by two adults. This dispersion of authority in a classroom setting has resulted in a number of unique problems, heretofore nonexistent when one teacher was responsible for one class. The apparent advantages of using two or more adults for one class, assuming the group is not enlarged, are: an increase in the individual attention that each child receives; a pooling of the specific educational strengths that each adult brings to the situation; greater opportunities for meeting individual educational needs and interests through small group instruction; a flexibility in dealing with student crises when the need arises; and the moral support they offer one another when confronted with the emotional stresses emanating from a class of disturbed youngsters. However, these benefits, at times, may be vitiated and/or the educational process undermined by the subtly destructive effects growing out of the same multiple teacher-class relationship. The negative interactions between the adults, as well as the easy opportunities for children to play one adult off against another, add complications not present in a one-teacherto-class relationship.The situation can be further exacerbated when working with classes of emotionally disturbed children, many of whom already have a history of problems in relating to adult authority figures. Moreover, the reduction in emotional distance that frequently accompanies a reduced teacher-student ratio tends to stimulate more profound levels of emotional reactivity in both participants. Similarly, the sheer weight of time that teachers experience in one another's presence during a working day tends to elicit, both consciously and unconsciously, a range of feelings that cannot but have a significant impact on their interactions, as well as have an effect on the class in general.

show abstract

Co-Therapy

Cited by 28 publications

References 3 publications

The cotherapy relationship: Special issues and problems in aids therapy groups

The cotherapy relationship: Special issues and problems in aids therapy groups

Explorations in Co-Psychotherapy

Dual authority problems in classes for the emotionally disturbed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About