Effects of specific cognitive and behavioral structure on early group behavior and atmosphere.

Abstract

Prior theoretical formulations have suggested that client exposure to levels of personal risk and responsibility most conducive to optimal group development can be regulated with group structure. The current study employed a randomized, between-subjects design with a 2 X 4 factorial arrangement of treatments to determine the effects of (a) two levels of risk-taking disposition and (b) four types of pregroup preparation on early group development. Analysis of variance results revealed a consistent Behavioral Structure X Risk-Taking Disposition interaction effect on all six dependent measures. The primary source of this interaction was the differential response of high and low risk takers to behavioral structure. High risk takers exposed to the behavioral structure condition were more involved in self-disclosure and interpersonal feedback, reported higher levels of group cohesion, and reported greater perceived depth of communications. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

Influence of group cohesion on the behavioral treatment of smoking.

“…Consistent with previous research, a combination of contracting on self-disclosure (Kirshner et al, 1978;Ribner;, feedback (Jacobs et al, 1973;Rose & Bednar, 1980), behavioral practice (Evensen & Bednar, 1978), and modeling (Liberman, 1970) were found to increase perceived group cohesion. Because these variables were used in combination, no statements can be made con cerning which specific variables or subgroup of variables effectively increased the level of cohesion.…”

Group cohesion: A new multidimensional model

“…If the group leader neglects these conditions, building cohesion turns out to be virtually impossible. AI~ Table 2 Empirical Studies of Pregroup Conditions for Cohesion Bednar & Battersby (1976) Bednar & Lawlis (1971) Bednar et al (1974a) Braaten (1983 Bugen (1977) D'Augelli (1973) Dies & MacKenzie (1983) Evensen & Bednar (1978) Jackson et al (1971) Lee & Bednar (1977) Libo (1953) Lieberman et al (1973) Orlinsky & Howard (1986) Piper et al (1984) Ribner (1974) Shipley (1977) Yalom (1983 though the major purpose of this report is to present and advocate a new integrative model of cohesion, these conditions must be covered rather carefully (Drescher et al, 1985).…”

Structure and Ambiguity: Conceptual and Applied Misconceptions

“…We would like, however, to present a representative study to explicate some of these parameters in greater detail. Hence, we will describe briefly a study done by Evensen and Bednar (1978) that exemplifi"es some of the ways in which group structure has been varied and the treatment effects resulting from these manipulations.…”

“…174 Evensen and Bednar (1978) employed a 2 x 4 factorial design with two levels of risk taking (high and low) and four levels of pregroup preparation (cognitive structuring, behavioral structuring, a combination of cognitive and behavioral structuring, and minimal structuring). After receiving one of these kinds of pregroup training, participants of each treatment condition were asked to "form a group and get better acquainted using the information they had learned" (Evensen & Bednar, 1978, p. 69).…”