Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups
Identifieur interne : 001769 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001768; suivant : 001770Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups
Auteurs : Lowell CooperSource :
- Small Group Research [ 1046-4964 ] ; 1976-11.
Url:
DOI: 10.1177/104649647600700407
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFCLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Cooper, Lowell" sort="Cooper, Lowell" uniqKey="Cooper L" first="Lowell" last="Cooper">Lowell Cooper</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Oakland, California</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC</idno><date when="1976" year="1976">1976</date><idno type="doi">10.1177/104649647600700407</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001769</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001769</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Cooper, Lowell" sort="Cooper, Lowell" uniqKey="Cooper L" first="Lowell" last="Cooper">Lowell Cooper</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Oakland, California</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Small Group Research</title><idno type="ISSN">1046-4964</idno><idno type="eISSN"></idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1976-11">1976-11</date><biblScope unit="volume">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="473">473</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="498">498</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1046-4964</idno></series><idno type="istex">DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/104649647600700407</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_104649647600700407</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1046-4964</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></TEI><istex><corpusName>sage</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Lowell Cooper</name><affiliations><json:string>Oakland, California</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>10.1177_104649647600700407</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><qualityIndicators><score>5.512</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>376 x 607 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>0</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7310</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>44763</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>26</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>1</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>7</volume><publisherId><json:string>SGR</json:string></publisherId><pages><last>498</last><first>473</first></pages><issn><json:string>1046-4964</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><title>Small Group Research</title></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>psychology, social</json:string><json:string>psychology, applied</json:string><json:string>management</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>economic & social sciences</json:string><json:string>economics & business </json:string><json:string>business & management</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>1976</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1976</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1177/104649647600700407</json:string></doi><id>DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><availability><p>SAGE</p></availability><date>1976</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Lowell</forename><surname>Cooper</surname></persName><affiliation>Oakland, California</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Small Group Research</title><idno type="pISSN">1046-4964</idno><idno type="eISSN"></idno><imprint><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><pubPlace>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1976-11"></date><biblScope unit="volume">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="473">473</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="498">498</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1177/104649647600700407</idno><idno type="ArticleID">10.1177_104649647600700407</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1976</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1976-11">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus sage not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3" xml:lang="EN"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">spsgr</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">SGR</journal-id><journal-title>Small Group Research</journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">1046-4964</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Sage Publications</publisher-name><publisher-loc>Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1177/104649647600700407</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">10.1177_104649647600700407</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cooper</surname><given-names>Lowell</given-names></name><aff>Oakland, California</aff></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>11</month><year>1976</year></pub-date><volume>7</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>473</fpage><lpage>498</lpage><custom-meta-wrap><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>sagemeta-type</meta-name><meta-value>Journal Article</meta-value></custom-meta><custom-meta xlink:type="simple"><meta-name>search-text</meta-name><meta-value>473 Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups SAGE Publications, Inc.1976DOI: 10.1177/104649647600700407 Lowell Cooper Oakland, California While there is growing agreement on the value of co-therapy relationships in groups, there is also ample recognition of major pitfalls and interferences which can arise (Rosenbaum, 1971; Yalom, 1970). Theoretical literature is still generally rather sparse and at the relatively embryonic stage of clinicians describing pros and cons of their co-therapy experiences (Hulse et al., 1956; Adler and Berman, 1960; Gans, 1962; MacLennan, 1965). There has been virtually no systematic writing on the group dynamics of co-therapy relationships and the use of such a perspective by therapists to further specific learning around which the group may have been formed. Rosenbaum ( 1971 ) and Yalom (1970) both have relatively complete and current reviews and statements on the co-therapy literature. Perhaps the most agreed upon model for such work is the transference simulation of the family for individual patients, particularly when opposite-sex co-therapists are involved. "The rationale is that co-therapy permits the patients to identify with a therapist of the same sex and to clarify problems with a therapist of the opposite sex" (Rosenbaum, 1971: 503). Often an implication of the current writing is the view that processes occur at a relatively highly developed family dynamics level of identification and SMALL GROUP BEHAVIOR, Vol. 7 No. 4, November 1976 © 1976 Sage Publications, Inc. 90474 oedipal confusion (Kew, 1970). Looking at the group as a more developmental entity, however, it would seem reasonable to also consider more basic and primitive object relations which might precede sexual concerns. Useful and positive aspects of the co-therapy arrangement have been described as relief at splitting the work and the sense that splitting the work between two therapists can at times be particularly useful, as with male and female co-therapists providing a replication of familial transference objects. The main theoretical sense made of splitting is in relation to an individual therapy model-that is, individual patients' transference experiences and differential use of therapists for transference purposes. Although an ideally open and comfortable relationship would be best between co-therapists, it is frequent that splitting will occur between therapists in the form of defensiveness, competition, com1) laining, submission-dominance struggles, and so on (Heilfron, 1969). It would seem to make most sense to have a theory which accounts for phenomena between co-therapists in a way that makes it possible to see splitting, to understand it, and to transform it into interpretive mileage towards the ends of the group. Problems with "imperfections" in the co-therapy relationship often arise from an inability to make useful sense of group issues involved and therefore an inability to know what to do about them. Since many typical co-therapy issues arise within the context of the group through dynamic instigation, patients' use of transference possibilities for change is limited by the scope of the therapists' viewpoint. So, for instance, if somewhere during the midst of the group (as described by Kadis and Markowitz, 1973) an intense struggle develops between the co-therapists, it is greatly to the advantage of the patients for the therapists to attempt to resolve their differences in relation to the group through discussion, exposure of the issues, and interpretation rather than to act on the tempting feeling that conflict would be resolved if co-therapy were terminated. 91475 While it cannot be denied that there are uniquely individual transference stances which must be considered in relation to the therapists, to this author the fullest sense of usefulness of the co-therapy arrangement requires a broader theoretical view which encompasses the psychology of the entire group as well as that of individual members. Since the writing on individual transference issues is quite plentiful, this paper will focus on another view which integrates the use of co-therapy within a more systematic or group dynamic framework. An attempt will be made to talk to the co-therapy situation bringing together notions from systems theory and from a psychoanalytic point of view. Since the theoretical notions themselves are by no means widely written about or understood within the group field, some concepts will be presented, described in terms which seem relevant to the group setting, and then integrated with the more overall concern of this paper. The backdrop to this work is formed by theoretical work done by psychoanalysts (such as Bion, Ezriel, Sutherland, and others) at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, and by experiential opportunities offered through the Center for Applied Social Research of the Tavistock and currently by the A. K. Rice Institute and its affiliates in the United States. While there has been no specific work from the Tavistock dealing with the co-therapy situation, basic aspects of thinking about groups are critical to the view presented in this paper. Theory develops the notion-and conferences provide opportunities to more directly experience-that groups are whole, dynamic units which have a psychology of their own. The group is seen as having a psychology which is uniquely different from that of any one of the members, in a sense a unique compounding of participants' personalities, which has overt and covert properties and mechanisms which can be observed, specified, and intervened around-much the same as an analysis of an individual personality system. It is this author's belief that the co-therapy setting is one particular medium for observing 92476 and working with the forces of group psychology, and it is based on a cornerstone conviction that such a psychology exists, can be experienced by group participants, and can be looked at and learned from through a variety of perspectives-including a therapeutic one. This particular view of groups has also been used considerably in therapeutic settings. Foulkes (1964) considers everything happening in groups to involve the group as a whole as well as each individual member, and that "all interpretations of events are made in view of the group as a whole, the psyche group" (Foulkes, 1964: 76) which has dynamics distinct from individuals composing the group. He considers viewing the group in this way to require a particular turn of mind in which the group becomes a psychical unit vis-a-vis the therapist. To look at the group dynamics stance from Deutsch's viewpoint, All psychological events ... are conceived to be a function in the life space which consists of the peison and the envi~onment mewed as one constellation of independent factois. That is, all psychological events are conceived to be determined, not by isolated piopeities of the person or his environments, but by the mutual ielations among the totality of coextstmg facts which comprise the life span. [Olmsted, 1959] It is within this general context, one in which therapists functioning within their roles have a major influence on group climate and culture, that therapeutic phenomena are understood. And it is with this view of groups that the co-therapy situation will be considered in this paper. RELEVANT GENERAL THEORY The systems theory and psychoanalytic work on groups both comprise vast literatures in and of themselves. Rather than attempt to summarize these bodies of work, it seems to make more sense to focus on the few concepts which carry 93477 great impact for the co-therapy situation as it will be discussed herein. The systems model involves a rather complicated theoretical network, from the more biological orientation of Von Bertalanffy (1968) to the extremely technical information theory view of Miller (1965). The thinking has also been applied to complex human systems (Rice and Miller, 1967) and even to group therapy (Durkin, 1972). Two issues of central concern here are (a) the view of the social organism as a dynamic whole which (b) develops progressively over time to have subparts which become differentiated from each other through a variety of boundary mechanisms. Tile model is that of the living organism. To put these ideas into general narrative about a therapy group, one could say the following. The group begins its life as a relatively undifferentiated newborn entity. Conception occurs when therapists decide to embark on a group and begin to plan for it: decide on who they want as members, that members will be patients of a particular kind, how many members, when to meet, where to meet, and so on. Most importantly, therapists decide why the group is to get together, its primary task in terms of what kinds of questions it will address and goals it will pursue. The organism itself is born when the group actually gets together for the first time. As with any newborn organism (or living organism in general), the living entity is composed of interrelated elements which interact dynamically and have a developmental potential which is conceivably greater than its individual parts. Members in total, in other words, pool particular resources and emerge with purposes and effective actions which could not arise as an additive sum of the separate individuals. From immediate birth the group develops in ways which (hopefully) can be labeled as progressive in terms of what people are gathered to do. Certainly, whether progressive or not, the group develops and becomes articulated in a variety of ways. Subjectively, patients and therapists get to know each other better and develop internal images of each other, 94478 ideas how each will participate within the roles of therapist and patient. People soon sense the group has having particular unique qualities which set it off in their mind from other groups in which they have participated and may be currently involved. In most abstract systems terminology, this sense might be called a boundary around the group; the combination of feeling qualities around the experience which makes it feel "labelable," describable as this particular group, may be summarized by the idea of a group boundary. As the organism continues to develop, many within-group boundaries develop which correspond to particular regularities in the experience within the group itself. So, for instance, people have a growing sense of the differences between the behavior and role of staff and members: some members are lnore or less talkative, some people share particular problems, some have a better sense of humor, some are early and others late, and so on. The experience of within-group boundaries (or differences) also becomes articulated. From a different perspective, three psychoanalytic notions are relevant here: projective identification, splitting, and unconscious object relations. These terms are derived from Kleiman thinking, particularly applied to groups through the work of Bion (1955, 1959). Bion is a British analyst with a Kleltllall orientation who described in analytic terms particular observations about group processes. Others influenced by him, and also by Klein, carried his thinking forward and clarified particular theoretical notions of Klein's into the group area. So while Bion's work with groups in general has been relatively intl uential, only recently have people (especially in America) begun to address themselves to the implication of his work for group therapy (Cooper and Lofgren, 1972).1 Incidentally, while not directly influenced by systems notions, Bion's observations lent great support to a wholistic view of group events. The notions of splitting and projective identification refer to two parts of the same process, as developed by Klein (Segal, 1964) and elaborated by Rosenfeld (1969). The idea 95479 of projective identification is a conceptually complex one, but has in part to do with the individual's (either infant or primitive adult) tendency to split off unacceptable thoughts from within the self and to put them with (or into) an outside object and then experience them as external. Rosenfeld notes that one crucial function served by such projective mechanisms is communication, and he notes that by the psychotic person being able to put into and attribute to the analyst particularly difficult and/or frightening ideas, affects, or fantasies, the analyst may become aware of internal states of the patient which would otherwise be difficult for the patient to communicate. Rosenfeld emphasizes that this process serves a dual function of e1'Gcuating that which is experienced unconsciously as unacceptable and communicating crucial covert (unconscious) information. The argument has been extended to groups, and so one frequently observed attempts to fill the therapists with projections which are unacceptable to the group membership. In terms of the group experience splitting and projective identification are ever-present parts of group processes. As Bion (1955) describes, particular affect states which are covert or unconscious in the group, and which in fact may be out of awareness of most if not all of the individual members before they are labeled, will be split off from members and put into therapists. The data for this kind of process are often subjective on the part of the therapist. If, for instance, the feeling of independence-along with the desire to take initiative and be self-motivating-is unconsciously being split off from members and these affective states are projected into the therapist group leader, the leader feels he is "being manipulated so as to be playing a part ... in somebody else's phantasy" (Bion, 1955: 446). Members are left feeling dependent and helpless, which might normally be expected to occur in the beginning of the group, the early life of this newborn organism. The other part of the human experience of this early state of group membership, the desire to exert initiative to make sense out of an ambiguous and anxiety- 96480 arousing situation, becomes absent from the internal experience of members and is forced upon the therapist. The more complicated and contradictory, but internally more whole, experience of both dependence and independence is split into simpler parts, with one level being projectively removed and placed into therapists. It is worth nothing at this point the very different uses of the idea of splitting between a more transactional and psychoanalytic view. In the transactional view splitting is taken as an event occurring particularly at the level of people's views of other people and refers more accurately to divisiveness: observation of differences between a male and female therapist, provoking two therapists to fight with each other, dividing labor, and so on. The analytic view talks to the underlying mechanism in the group psychology which may have observable effects in kinds of overt divisiveness, but may only be observable in striking bipolarities in reported experience. While at one level the word splitting refers to a discriminatory process, it is worth nothing that the concept has been used to refer to much more primitive intrapsychic processes following its development by Klein. Splitting, according to Klein, allows the ego to emerge out of chaos and to order its experiences. This ordering of experience which occurs with the process of splitting into a good and bad object, however excessive and extreme it may be to begin with, nevertheless orders the universe ... and is a precondition of later integration.... Splitting is also the basis for what later becomes repression. [Segal, 1964, p. 22] Looking at the whole group as operating within systematic constraints, the newborn group shows evidence of psychic processes which are both primitive and unconscious and which have adaptive and developmental functions. Splitting is used to refer to the attempt to remove (and literally split off) an unacceptable element from conscious 97481 and/or unconscious experience to the end of making safe functioning possible. So that, in a dependency situation in a group, dangers of independence are reflected by the removal of independence from within patients' experience to therapists who are seen as powerful enough to be capable of using such independence wisely in patients' best interests. This rather primitive mechanism does not necessarily involve a more transactional splitting, in that members may not be using one therapist differently from another, or be aware of really wanting much concretely from the therapists, or of feeling directly dependent. The mechanism is of central importance, however, for it really talks to a strictly psychological approach to group phenomena, derivatives of which take the form of later co-therapist divisiveness. In terms of theoretical integration, it is a broader use of the term which encompasses a wider range of levels of developmental activities in the group than only transactions. Unconscious object relations is another central notion in this thesis, which also has its roots in British psychoanalysis and has been used in thinking about groups--particularly by Ezriel (1950). The idea of unconscious object relations labels a process occurring in individual psychoanalysis and group work in a sense covertly operates to make the therapy work. Focusing on the group, patients try both to diminish the internal tension-tension inside individuals-and to establish relationships with therapists to display irrational transference elements which they have brought to the group to work on. Ezriel (1950: 61) notes the question from therapists' point of view as "what makes this patient behave (speak or act) towards me in this particular way at this moment?" From the patients' point of view, the unconscious question might be "what way can I act so as to most safely expose my problem and make it possible for me to be helped?" The patient tries to put the (group) therapist into roles which both express unconscious relationships with fantasy objects and relieve tension. 98482 Both Klein and Ezriel allude to underlying conditions of the transference situation and both she and Ezriel trace the roots of such processes to earliest infantile developmental stages. They are processes which have important survival functions which seem worth expanding upon again in relation to the group. Regardless of the introduction of individuals to the group, and the ease with which individuals may talk about their reasons for joining the group, first meetings are quite nerve-wracking and anxiety-provoking. Members feel unsafe. If one makes the assumption that for this new organism to survive it must have relatively safe growth conditions, then many of the conscious and unconscious mechanisms of the group can be seen as geared towards providing the kind of safe conditions which will make growth and use of the group in the future possible and individually tolerable to members. If the group is terrified by the extent of its independence (for any of a wide variety of reasons), splitting and projecting become multifunctional safety valves which not only communicate severe dilemmas for members, but also lower tension and make it feel more comfortable to maintain the situation. While the use of such mechanisms cannot be encouraged without risking conversion of the group into a sanctuary, such processes will probably by nature occur and can only be interfered with by active interventions by therapists. To the extent that the goal of safety-producing tactics can be subsumed under and har- nassed for the primary task of the overall group, there would seem little reason to discourage them, particularly since they are also one means for therapists to learn about the state of the group psyche. One crucial early developmental task for the group, as noted earlier, is simplifying the object situation for individuals who are initially faced with the complication of several other members and therpists who need to be figured out. Since the initial experience of the group is likely a chaotic one, splitting represents a primary mechanism to attain order for each individual (and perhaps this kind of 99483 unconscious pressure explains some of the individuals' lack of resistance to early group forces). It is as if each person says to himself (probably unconsciously) upon entering the newborn group, "I don't know anything about anybody here, and I'm not sure I even know how I will behave in this place. I know one thing for sure, I'm here for help and they (the therapists) can help me." In a systems view, the unconscious object relationship characterized by splitting, as evidenced overtly in the first me-you kinds of thoughts or behaviors, would also demonstrate the beginning of a member's sense of boundary differentiation. THERAPISTS' POSITION IN THE GROUP As noted earlier, it is quite possible to talk about co-therapy in terms of the way each individual patient sets up particular transference splits between therapists which in some way gets at individual childhood familial experiences and defenses and character developments around those experiences. Using this view, one could then talk usefully to interpretative work with individuals' situations and how other members of the group can be used in a sibling context to clarify and expose these dynamics. Such a method has been dealt with in great detail and much to the benefit of the group therapist. It is also possible to add another dimension to this transference view: the whole patient-group vis-a-vis the therapists. As Bion repeatedly notes, the therapist is also open to influence by the group forces. In systems terms it would also make sense that since therapists are present within system boundaries, they too would be subject to field forces. But the nature of influence would be different from the influences felt by members, since roles vary: they have different purposes for being in the system, hope to get different things 100484 from the group, and have different rules for and constraints upon their behavior. The result is that therapists see things from a different perspective. So if one patient threatens to get into a fist-fight or to throw a chair through a window, other patients might take a provacative stance in anticipating vicarious pleasure in this kind of situation, while therapists might be much more worried about environmental destruction or consequences of physical harm befalling a member. This kind of notion makes sense when looking at other groups or systems. In a family, if father loses his job, he and mother might worry about feeding the family, a five year old child might like the idea because it might mean that father is at home more, an adolescent might be angry at budget tightening, a 25 year old might be concerned about the impact of added worry on parents' health, and so forth. If a company loses money for a period of time, the man on the production line might be pleased with the lightened work, but the president of the board of directors might worry about losing his job. In other words, while events within the system have effects throughout, the effect is connected with and related to individuals' roles in that system. While a role defines particular aspects of a person's participation in a group, it is also quite obvious that a role is performed by an individual and thus has the inevitable imprint of the larger individual personality system within which the role occurs. As in all situations, there is a wide range of individual difference in performance of the same explicit role, and this is not only expectable and natural, but totally unavoidable. So not only will there be a great deal of difference amongst the patients as to how they define their patient role, but the therapists-in spite of some degree of similarity in the way they define their role ecplicitly-know full well that they cannot expect to be exactly alike. Therapists also have unconscious fantasy lives and differ explicitly in what they personally want from the group experience, what they hope to accomplish, what they need 101485 from patients to feel good about their work, and how they hope to relate to each other as a working pair. So, while their roles are bounded and share a great number of dimensions in common, and while on top of that there might be a prominent feeling expressed by members early in the group that the two therapists are alike, identical, or even fused, co-therapists' internal experiences of the situation will often be quite different from each other. Along with these more subtle differences between the therapists, there is also a range of more obvious, apparent differences. They talk differently, are possibly of different sexes, and display different nonverbal behaviors. They have different values and different views of how individuals function. Each patient is faced with a rather complex task in relation to his or her reason for participation: that of meshing their "patient" needs with what is seen as available from the therapists. Relative to co-therapists, the question might be posed (unconsciously) as follows: "How can I make the kind of sense of these therapists and other members so that I might most effectively use them to get the kind of help I'm here for?" This kind of question is being asked from the moment that the patient joins the group. In some sense there is probably no difference in the processes which occur amongst patients compared to those occurring between patients and therapists, but the importance of the latter becomes particularly apparent because of a crucial difference in role between the two. A patient rather quickly becomes aware that other patients are there to get something for themselves, while therapists are there primarily for patients and offer opportunities for very special kinds of learning through interpretation. So therapists are observed early on to have more patience with impoliteness, temper, symptom exposures, and other behaviors and attributions to their person which other members may react rather negatively to and may compete with in terms even of getting the floor. As Foulkes (1968: 61) notes, it is 102486 important with such group phenomena to "get away from the pseudo-problem of individual versus group, or individual and group, or individual in the group" and to note and work with the interacting processes. CO-THERAPY DEVELOPMENT Recognizing the special position of therapists in the infant group gives some direction to patients at an early stage of group participation, when patient roles are still unclear. One very concrete way in which therapists are dealt with early on in the group is described in Bion's (1959) basic assumptions. Taking basic assumption dependency, for instance, the group acts in an overt way so as to reveal a covert group-wide feeling of helplessness and search for an omnipotent leader. At the same time, therapists are turned to either explicitly or covertly for leadership. Members attempt to simplify the chaotic group experience, dividing it into the leaders and led according to rather stereotyped interpretations of the two roles. The chaos of the newborn group is apparent: a merged mass of helpless patients and omnipotent therapists. Members become safe both because their helpless state is seen to inhibit exposure, and because therapists are viewed as powerful controllers. The unconscious process in the psychology of the group has led to a split in which strength has been purged from patients and put into therapists-a situation which replicates a rather primitive psychological state intended in part to create idealized (parental) objects (Segal, 1964). While there are no doubt multiple motivations for such unconscious behavior, a central therapeutic one would be an unconscious test of therapists' ability to deal with feeling states which patients cannot tolerate: omnipotence, initiative, and independence. If therapists can tolerate such projections and attributions, and possibly through interpretation (which does not by any means refer to exclusively 103487 verbal communication) make it clear that they appreciate how intolerable such feelings are for patients at that moment, it becomes more possible to identify with therapist strength and to experience some initiative on one's own. Most groups successfully grow beyond this early dependent state since therapists are neither surprised nor cowed by projections, nor likely to be overly tempted by invitations to participate in this role and be omnipotent. This rather common theme could occur in a variety of ways. The following illustration describes how an early dependency situation might concretely be expressed in a co-therapy group. The group to be described met within a university clinic devoted to both training and service, and with yearly student turnover. Some members came to the current group having been seen previously in other groups, with varying leadership styles. The male leader of the group [the author of this paper] was a more experienced group therapist, quite committed to working with group process issues, who initiated the group around an academic group psychotherapy seminar. The female therapist was younger and less experienced, was a student in this seminar, and was considerably more anxious about the group. (Needless to say, this set-up alone invites problems.) During early phases of the group the female therapist was feeling considerably on the spot and unsure of how to work, and decided to adhere to a rather exclusive group process orientation, i.e., talking to the group as a whole. She was also obviously tense and nervous. The male leader was also working within a group process model, but talked more frequently, and at times also addressed individuals. The difference was noticed rather early in the meetings and picked up in terms of who would be the best leader for the group, someone who was seen as cold, stern, and nervous, or relaxed, personal, and more informal. During this penod of time it was as if the content of both therapists' comments was unimportant. It was met with either being ignored, scorned as useless, or more likely listened to with bated breath and then a member noting that the statement was totally mcomprehensible. While the co-therapists were different, warmth accompanying comments clearly didn't affect their impact. The real changes consistently requested to make 104488 people feel good about the group were some more definite guidelines from therapists about how to work on problems. As well as the leadership issues (around basic assumption activity), we generally took the interpretative stance that attempts to differentiate leaders were based on some valid observations and strong hopes for the nature of effective therapy in that group. Worry about success of the group for each individual was seen as the issue. At many points in the course of the group co-therapy issues arise: are the two alike or different, is one sexier than the other, is one kinder or crueler than the other, do they agree or disagree, are they friends or lovers outside the group, and so on. Many of these issues arise from within members and reflect particular areas of concern which can be worked on. Very often the complexity of the situation is such that issues do not become clear until after they have really developed quite a bit between therapists. So therapists become aware of feeling locked into strong opposition or fusion: each may be highly critical of the other's participation, or there develops a strong sexual attraction, or there develops a tremendous ideological battle around the state of the group. Whatever the forerunners of issues are, by the time they become explicit therapists are likely to be thoroughly involved in living them experientially and possibly behav- iorally. Kadis and Markowitz (1973) provide a vivid case illustration of the point that by the time issues become labeled, therapists often really are acting in accordance with a fantasied split which largely emanates from patients. In their illustration, group members participated in one therapist's passivity and the other's activity in an effort to learn about the dangers of activity versus passivity. Insofar as one therapist's personality characteristics create a proneness for one role or the other, active and passive positions become compelling. But the main point is that after the issue was exposed to the group it became quite apparent how 105489 extensively it was a collective one for patients, and one around which a good deal of therapeutic learning occurred. Possibly because therapists are more quickly and easily differentiated by virtue of their role relative to other participants, individual group members really look at therapists rather carefully (as they will later also look at each other). Accurate observation of therapist personality traits is neither surprising nor deniable. (In fact, a fascinating empirical question would be how both accuracy and content of observations about therapists develop along with progressive group development in general.) Whc ther observations are accurate or not, from the therapists' point of view they would seem to denote landmark indices of important current issues for group members. If therapist activity-passivity is noted, wondered about, and dissected, some part of the concern might originate in real perceptions of one therapist being more active and one more passive. But from the therapist point of view the question would seem to be how this issue is reflective of current patient concerns. So, while therapists would want to consider the reality aspects of patient "fantasies" insofar as they may really be in roles which interfere with functioning as therapists, seeing such patient observations as also reflective of the (unconscious) psychological state of the group might increase therapeutic effectiveness. The potential power of the view presented here has less to do with endorsing accurate observations about personality characteristics of therapists, but more in the u,se of these differences to expose difficulties within the group (patients) psyche. The real split is in the notion that, for instance, activity and passivity cannot exist compatibly within the group and, by extension, within individuals in the group. The idea proposed is not to hope to eliminate all possibilities of differences being observed and projected into by patients, but rather a way of maximizing information available to therapists for interpretation to members. Rather than cover- 106490 ing over differences, the viewpoint suggests constant work within the co-therapy relationship-both in and out of the group-to be aware of differences between therapists and how at any one time these differences are being elaborated and exploited unconsciously for the most part to create a situation whicli might potentially further clarify patient difficulties. Rather than homogenizing patients within a collective "group psyche," this kind of approach can be used valuably to emphasize differences amongst patients. To illustrate: At a later point in the early group phase described above, there was a several-week period of intense demandingness on the therapists that they be open, self-revealing, and warm. Although therapists did not change style, and continued to interpret along group process lines, members became quite consistent in the positions they took around these discussions: one openly attacking, another openly defending the therapists; one steadfastly silent; another said that he would remain stubborn and just not give in to what he saw as therapist demands even if it meant doing exactly the opposite; another male and female coupled off. What was worked on interpretatively were unique ways that individuals expressed themselves in the group around strong feelings of demandingness. Individual defensive operations became available to investigation, along with group issues. Differences are used to help individuals focus not only on groupwide issues, but also to examine how they have been participating relative to their own personality. So one can dovetail group and individual concerns (a model of work elaborated by Ezriel, 1950; and Heath and Bacal, 1972). The individual then has the opportunity to examine social participation as it relates directly to joining the group in the first place. Several people joined this group with specific concerns around social functioning: feeling uncomfortable and out of touch with people in social groups. During the period of several sessions in which this discussion of getting from therapists ensued, therapists 107491 got into an argument in an after-group discussion of a particular meeting. The male leader felt and expressed that indeed the female was being too stern, and trying to get a good grade by holding on to an extreme position out of anxiety, and should change. The female leader felt the male was too giving and placating towards the group, and in doing so was undercutting the authority of her comments. After arguing about this for awhile it became clear not only that neither felt right changing and that indeed there were differences in leadership style, but that the leaders were picking up grave concern within patients about the nature of patient participation; to put it m question form: "Is it possible to participate in this group (and other groups by extension) as a member, be oneself under criticism, experience differences between oneself and others, and not feel guilty and capitulate to other demands?" Of course this was a mouthful, especially since most of the issue was unconscious, but interpretative work could be begun around it by acknowledging observed differences between therapists and inquire further into the impact of, and concerns about, such differences. Thinking of group therapy as a social system having as its task to provide growth-oriented experiences for patients (whose patienthood qualifies them for roles as members in the group), one can see unconscious object relations which develop as representing attempts to reach collective goals in individual ways with the help of therapists. The co-therapy situation is a particularly rich medium for group growth since it provides more complex projective possibilities and two reflective sources. From therapists' point of view co-therapy might provide a somewhat more manageable way of working than a single therapist because the splitting can be experienced as between people, which may be considerably more tolerable than primitive bi-polar issues being put into a single therapist who must then endure and make sense of the inner conflict which may be produced. Basic assumption activity not only reflects damnable difficulties in social functioning to which we all are prone, but also represents central mechanisms of group life which can be used for therapeutic ends. Dependency, fight-flight, and pairing are three obvious 108492 assumptions which Bion himself noted to be an oversimplification of the developmental picture of groups and, in some sense, are epiphenomena of projective and splitting mechanisms through which the organism and the individuals of which it is composed will grow clearer and more differentiated. To put this another way, therapy groups are not formed either to elicit or to overcome basic assumptions, but to understand these (and other) difficult and often covert unconscious events in terms of why individuals are in the group. So this viewpoint is not organized around the futile fantasy that co-therapy issues need only to be exposed or overcome, but that they can perhaps be marshaled-partially through a more coherent theoretical understanding of the situation-to further the ends of therapists and patients in their collective group tasks. TECHNICAL ISSUES This view of transference issues within a group has definite technical implications which need spelling out. While it is, of course, much too early in the progress of our knowledge of group co-therapy process to make rules for behavior, it does seem possible within the model outlined to think somewhat about technical implications. 1. While co-therapists would ideally always want to be on top of issues which involve their working together, both positive and negative aspects of feelings, working on personal issues in the group would have to be questioned within a more general framework. Often the writing on co-therapy would imply that co-therapists should use group time to talk to each other, clarify issues between them, and work out interpersonal conflicts (Benjamin, 1972), and that all of this by way of modeling for patients. Reservations have also been expressed, however (Heilfron, 1969), and this notion can be made more precise theoretically. Insofar as therapist role 109493 boundaries must define particular behaviors and exclude certain other kinds of behaviors, activity between therapists in the group outside of role might very easily become confusing to patients and intrude on the work of the group-confusing in that it interferes with the unconscious ways the therapists can be used because they are constantly changing. It makes sense to look at the communication between therapists as being organized around work within their roles. So, therapists who assume a relatively distant and group process role for the sake of consistency and simplicity might want to stay within this mode for their own communication to each other in the group. Co-therapy issues will become interpreted, but within the same guidelines as other group issues are handled. On the other hand, if therapists talk a great deal to the patient-therapist transference issues or patient-patient issues, it does seem more likely that personal comments could be made to each other. It would seem that the trickiest issues arise when therapists have an unclear or mixed model of work, which often creates the feeling that anything goes. Some role boundaries are absolutely necessary, if not inevitable, and continued articulation of these boundaries between patients and therapists and between the therapists themselves would seem useful and important. 2. There seems no way to avoid the development t of unconscious object relations of one sort or another. Sometimes co-therapy situations evolve around encouragement of a particular kind of transference, such as a co-therapy which is designed for a population of adolescents in which a male and female therapist are decided upon to replicate familial situations and give family dynamics a chance to surface and be looked at. It makes sense, but it seems a potentially limiting situation if therapists view male-female co-therapy as a kind of role modeling situation-because it might pre- establish the expectable range of dimensions of transference and possibly exclude from view other dimensions which 110494 might at some point be crucial, but not inherently built into the traditional male-female issue. For instance, it is not always exactly clear what would be expected if one were to have a female therapist as a model for a mother: would the role expectation be a dominant assertive mother, a mother who submits to and defers to the strong male therapist, and so on. One would still have to consider the vicissitudes of the unconscious splitting process, even if there is a hope for some explicit and prior control over the nature of aspects of it. To be most concise, even with preplanning, many important aspects of patients' perceptions of co-therapists will reflect not only observable (and plannable) differences, such as sex, but also unconscious ways in which differences are infused with meaning. It is unconscious meaning which must also be accounted for by therapists, along with modeling levels. It seems quite possible, therefore, that issues of mothering and fathering could be usefully evoked in a group with same-sex co-therapists. It is not at all clear theoretically, and certainly not empirically, that traditional manipulations of co-therapy variables have a definitive effect on group development. 3. Given the view of the group as a social system containing a number of individual personality systems, one (oversimplified) way of formulating a goal of group intervention would be patients' ability to experience themselves in an increasingly integrated way in their social environment. Interpretation would seem to be the primary tool in such work (Foulkes, 1968), with the idea that interpreting transference issues would give patients opportunities to see how their social roles and social anxieties are molded in large part by attempts to rid themselves of particularly threatening internal states which often have to do with self-reliance, independence, and the like. (For a more detailed discussion of the internal state of patients relative to a systems view, see Lofgren, 1972.) Patienthood might be formulated for individuals, relative to their position within the group and larger 111495 social contexts, the use of splitting mechanisms which leave them helplessly at the mercy of one caretaker or another; splits perceived between therapists often reflect patients' own conflict around the meaning and implication of caring for themselves versus being cared for. Interpretation is crucial in this kind of view since processes of splitting occur unconsciously until labeled by therapists. Labeling not only would have the impact of making issues less fearful topics of conversation, but would also serve to make clear that difficult issues can be verbalized and understood by therapists and therefore possibly by patients. In other words, talking about it would make clearer that therapists have no vested interest in members' patienthood, and opens the possibility of reconsideration of limitations of such unconscious or conscious social roles. Use of interpretation itself does not talk to a related issue, one which is certainly quite immediate to therapists: what to interpret, what level of the incredibly complex systems interactions can be most usefully dealt with. While the author has a clear preference for group process work integrated with individual comments (a la Ezriel) this itself does not answer the question of focus on member-member or member- therapist issues. From the point of view presented here, what would be most reasonable would be some approach which is integrative, relatively sensible to patients, and responsive to dynamics which are unconscious in the group. 4. One time-honored clinical teaching technique has to do with supervision or consultation about clinical interactions on a regular basis (Ekstein and Wallerstein, 1958). This supervisory process can be very useful in untangling the web of co-therapist conflict and therefore conceivably can be of great use toward the ultimate accomplishment of group goals (Benjamin, 1972). At one level, there is ample opportunity for therapists to talk explicitly about perceptions of the group and to obtain a more objective point of view. At another level, again a more covert level reflective of uncon- 112496 scious issues, the therapists in a sense have an opportunity to display group issues within supervision, as if to mirror dynamic conflicts. (For a more detailed discussion of this kind of mirroring and some of its implications, see Cooper, 1973.) Therapists may unconsciously create within supervision a similar projective emotional field for the purpose of exposing issues under circumstances which are less threaten- ing-i.e., they are not under fire by group members at that moment and possibly can lead to some greater clarification which can later be taken back and used within the group itself. SUMMARY This paper represents an attempt to present a particular model for viewing co-therapy issues which takes a single- mindedly psychological view of therapy group phenomena. The power of the model clinically is the extent to which it maximizes information available to therapists to do their job by integrating co-therapy information within a theoretical framework which makes events between all participants in the group part of the therapeutic process and available to interpretation. Of course clinical experience, which is what this article is primarily based on, does not substitute for more rigorous research, but a solid theoretical position can be both a useful clinical tool and an empirical starting point. NOTE 1. See Klein and Astrachan (1971) tor a more detailed historical perspective on the development and influence of Bion's thinking. 113497 REFERENCES Adler, J. and I.R. Berman (1960) "Multiple leadership in group treatment of delinquent adolescents." Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy 10: 213-226 . Benjamin, S.E., Jr. (1972) "Co-therapy: a growth experience for therapists." Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy 22: 199-209 . Bion, W.R. (1959) Experiences in Groups New York : Basic Books. ——— (1955) "Group dynamics: a re-view," pp. 440-447 in M. Klein, P. Heimann, and R. Money-Kyrle (eds.) New Directions in Psychoanalysis. London: Tavistock. Cooper, L. (1973) "Mirroring: one vehicle to organizational clarity." (unpublished, available from author) ——— and L. Lofgren (1972) "Clinical use of Bion's group-process model." (unpublished, available from author). Durkin, H. (1972) "Analytic group therapy and general systems theory," pp. 9-18 in C. J. Sager and H. S. Kaplan (eds.) Progress in Group and Family Therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Ekstein, R. and R.S. Wallerstein (1958) The Teaching and Learning of Psychotherapy New York: Basic Books. Ezriel, H. (1950) "A psycho-analytic approach to group treatment." British J. of Medical Psychology 23: 59-74 . Foulkes, S.H. (1968) "Group dynamic and group analysis—a transatlantic view." J. of Group Psychoanalysis and Process 1: 47-75 . ——— (1964) Therapeutic Group Analysis New York: International Universities Press. Gans, R.W. (1962) "Group co-therapists and the therapeutic situation: a critical evaluation." Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy 12: 82-88 . Heath, E.S. and H.A. Bacal (1972) "A method of group psychotherapy at the Tavistock Clinic," pp. 33-42 in C. J. Sager and H. S. Kaplan (eds.) Progress in Group and Family Therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Heilfron, M. (1969) "Co-therapy: the relationship between therapists." Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy 19: 366-381 . Hulse, W.C., W.V. Ludlow, B.K. Rindsberg, and N.B. Epstein (1956) "Transference reactions in a group of female patients to male and female co-leaders." Int'l J. of Group Psychtherapy 6: 430-435 . Kadis, A.L. and M. Markowitz (1973) "Countertransference between co-therapists in a couples psychotherapy group," pp. 113-121 in L. R. Wolberg and E. K. Schwartz (eds.) Group Psychotherapy: 1973, An Overview. New York: Intercontinental Medical Book Corporation. Kew, C.L. (1970) "Co-therapists." Group Analysis 3: 165 . Klein, E.B. and B.M. Astrachan (1971) "Learning in groups: a comparison of study group and T groups." J. of Applied Behav. Sci. 7: 659-683 . Lofgren, L. (1972) "Organizational design and therapeutic effect." Memorial volume to A. K. Rice, Task and Organization London: Tavistock. MacLennan, B.W. (1965) "Co-therapy." Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy 15: 154-166. 114498 Masler, E.G. (1969) "The interpretation of projective identification in group psychotherapy." Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy 19: 441-447 . Miller, J.G. (1965) "Living systems: basic concepts." Behavioral Science 10: 193-237 . Mullan, H. and M. Rosenbaum (1962) Group Psychotherapy: Theory and Practice New York: Free Press. Olmstead, M.S. (1959) The Small Group New York: Random House. Rice, A.K. and E.J. Miller (1967) Systems of Organization London : Tavisto ck. Rosenbaum, M. (1971) "Co-therapy," pp. 501-514 in H. Kaplan and B. Sadock (eds.) Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy. Baltimore : Williams & Williams. Rosenfeld, H. (1969) "On projective identification." Contribution to International Colloquium on Psychosis Montreal. Segal, H. (1964) Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein New York: Basic Books. V, L. ( 1968) General Systems Theory New York: George Braziller. Yalom, I. (1970) The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy New York: Basic Books. Lowell Cooper is a Clinical Psychologist currently codirecting the Adolescent Residential Treatment Center for the Westside Community Mental Health Center in San Francisco, California. Having just returned from a teaching and research position in Zambia, Africa, his most recent papers extend a long interest in groups to include some cross-cultural dimensions. His current research interests include trying to develop concepts and clinical tools for using group interventions in a treatment setting for severely disturbed adolescents.</meta-value></custom-meta></custom-meta-wrap></article-meta></front><back><notes><p>1. See Klein and Astrachan (1971) tor a more detailed historical perspective on the development and influence of Bion's thinking.</p></notes><ref-list><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Adler, J.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>I.R. Berman</surname></name> (<year>1960</year>) <article-title>"Multiple leadership in group treatment of delinquent adolescents."</article-title><source>Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy</source><volume>10</volume>: <fpage>213</fpage>-<lpage>226</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Benjamin, S.E., Jr.</surname></name> (<year>1972</year>) <article-title>"Co-therapy: a growth experience for therapists."</article-title><source>Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy</source><volume>22</volume>: <fpage>199</fpage>-<lpage>209</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Bion, W.R.</surname></name> (<year>1959</year>) <source>Experiences in Groups</source><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc> : <publisher-name>Basic Books.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">——— (<year>1955</year>) <source>"Group dynamics: a re-view,"</source> pp. <fpage>440</fpage>-<lpage>447</lpage> in M. Klein, P. Heimann, and R. Money-Kyrle (eds.) <series>New Directions in Psychoanalysis.</series><publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Tavistock.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Cooper, L.</surname></name> (<year>1973</year>) <source>"Mirroring: one vehicle to organizational clarity."</source> (unpublished, available from author)</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">——— and <name name-style="western"><surname>L. Lofgren</surname></name> (<year>1972</year>) <source>"Clinical use of Bion's group-process model."</source> (unpublished, available from author).</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Durkin, H.</surname></name> (<year>1972</year>) <source>"Analytic group therapy and general systems theory,"</source> pp. <fpage>9</fpage>-<lpage>18</lpage> in C. J. Sager and H. S. Kaplan (eds.) <series>Progress in Group and Family Therapy.</series><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Brunner/Mazel.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ekstein, R.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>R.S. Wallerstein</surname></name> (<year>1958</year>) <source>The Teaching and Learning of Psychotherapy</source><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Basic Books.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ezriel, H.</surname></name> (<year>1950</year>) <article-title>"A psycho-analytic approach to group treatment."</article-title><source>British J. of Medical Psychology</source><volume>23</volume>: <fpage>59</fpage>-<lpage>74</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Foulkes, S.H.</surname></name> (<year>1968</year>) <article-title>"Group dynamic and group analysis—a transatlantic view."</article-title><source>J. of Group Psychoanalysis and Process</source><volume>1</volume>: <fpage>47</fpage>-<lpage>75</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">. ——— (<year>1964</year>) <source>Therapeutic Group Analysis</source><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>International Universities Press.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Gans, R.W.</surname></name> (<year>1962</year>) <article-title>"Group co-therapists and the therapeutic situation: a critical evaluation."</article-title><source>Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy</source><volume>12</volume>: <fpage>82</fpage>-<lpage>88</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Heath, E.S.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>H.A. Bacal</surname></name> (<year>1972</year>) <source>"A method of group psychotherapy at the Tavistock Clinic,"</source> pp. <fpage>33</fpage>-<lpage>42</lpage> in C. J. Sager and H. S. Kaplan (eds.) <series>Progress in Group and Family Therapy.</series><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Brunner/Mazel.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Heilfron, M.</surname></name> (<year>1969</year>) <article-title>"Co-therapy: the relationship between therapists."</article-title><source>Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy</source><volume>19</volume>: <fpage>366</fpage>-<lpage>381</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Hulse, W.C.</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>W.V. Ludlow</surname></name>, <name name-style="western"><surname>B.K. Rindsberg</surname></name>, and <name name-style="western"><surname>N.B. Epstein</surname></name> (<year>1956</year>) <article-title>"Transference reactions in a group of female patients to male and female co-leaders."</article-title><source>Int'l J. of Group Psychtherapy</source><volume>6</volume>: <fpage>430</fpage>-<lpage>435</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Kadis, A.L.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>M. Markowitz</surname></name> (<year>1973</year>) <source>"Countertransference between co-therapists in a couples psychotherapy group,"</source> pp. <fpage>113</fpage>-<lpage>121</lpage> in L. R. Wolberg and E. K. Schwartz (eds.) <series>Group Psychotherapy</series>: <year>1973</year>, An Overview. <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Intercontinental Medical Book Corporation.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kew, C.L.</surname></name> (<year>1970</year>) <article-title>"Co-therapists."</article-title><source>Group Analysis</source><volume>3</volume>: <fpage>165</fpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Klein, E.B.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>B.M. Astrachan</surname></name> (<year>1971</year>) <article-title>"Learning in groups: a comparison of study group and T groups."</article-title><source>J. of Applied Behav. Sci.</source><volume>7</volume>: <fpage>659</fpage>-<lpage>683</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Lofgren, L.</surname></name> (<year>1972</year>) <source>"Organizational design and therapeutic effect."</source><source>Memorial volume to A. K. Rice, Task and Organization</source><publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Tavistock.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>MacLennan, B.W.</surname></name> (<year>1965</year>) <article-title>"Co-therapy."</article-title><source>Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy</source><volume>15</volume>: <fpage>154</fpage>-<lpage>166</lpage>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Masler, E.G.</surname></name> (<year>1969</year>) <article-title>"The interpretation of projective identification in group psychotherapy."</article-title><source>Int'l J. of Group Psychotherapy</source><volume>19</volume>: <fpage>441</fpage>-<lpage>447</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="journal" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Miller, J.G.</surname></name> (<year>1965</year>) <article-title>"Living systems: basic concepts."</article-title><source>Behavioral Science</source><volume>10</volume>: <fpage>193</fpage>-<lpage>237</lpage></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple">. <name name-style="western"><surname>Mullan, H.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>M. Rosenbaum</surname></name> (<year>1962</year>) <source>Group Psychotherapy: Theory and Practice</source><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Free Press.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Olmstead, M.S.</surname></name> (<year>1959</year>) <source>The Small Group</source><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Random House.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rice, A.K.</surname></name> and <name name-style="western"><surname>E.J. Miller</surname></name> (<year>1967</year>) <source>Systems of Organization</source><publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc> : <publisher-name>Tavisto ck.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rosenbaum, M.</surname></name> (<year>1971</year>) <source>"Co-therapy,"</source> pp. <fpage>501</fpage>-<lpage>514</lpage> in H. Kaplan and B. Sadock (eds.) <series>Comprehensive Group Psychotherapy.</series><publisher-loc>Baltimore</publisher-loc> : <publisher-name>Williams & Williams.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rosenfeld, H.</surname></name> (<year>1969</year>) <source>"On projective identification." Contribution to International Colloquium on Psychosis</source><publisher-loc>Montreal</publisher-loc>.</citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Segal, H.</surname></name> (<year>1964</year>) <source>Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein</source><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Basic Books.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>V, L.</surname></name> ( <year>1968</year>) <source>General Systems Theory</source><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>George Braziller.</publisher-name></citation></ref><ref><citation citation-type="book" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Yalom, I.</surname></name> (<year>1970</year>) <source>The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy</source><publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>: <publisher-name>Basic Books.</publisher-name></citation></ref></ref-list></back></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" lang="en" contentType="CDATA"><title>Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Lowell</namePart><namePart type="family">Cooper</namePart><affiliation>Oakland, California</affiliation></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Sage Publications</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1976-11</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1976</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Small Group Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1046-4964</identifier><identifier type="eISSN"></identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">SGR</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">spsgr</identifier><part><date>1976</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>7</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>473</start><end>498</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1177/104649647600700407</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">10.1177_104649647600700407</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource>SAGE</recordContentSource></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Psychologie/explor/TherFamFrancoV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001769 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001769 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Psychologie
|area= TherFamFrancoV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:DE68C5B76449BBA50DE57389185445AEC13F9EFC
|texte= Co-Therapy Relationships in Groups
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.29. |  |