Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 197–203 | Cite as

Group Work with Aggressive Men: Group Within a Group Within a Group

  • Marilyn Lewis Lanza
  • Satu Inge Schmidt
Original Paper


Psychodynamic group therapy offers many opportunities for members to identify, understand, and change the underlying problems, which lead to their aggressive behavior. In addition, group therapy can help to improve the members’ interpersonal relationships. The “Coping with Aggression” is comprised of three groups. A psychodynamic group of assaultive men made up the first group. The second group consisted of two leaders and a consultant whom the group members knew about but never actually met. The observers who sat outside the group made up the third group. Therapy contracts, boundaries, and leadership, and group process are discussed.


Group therapy Process 



Funded by Medical Care Funds, Central Office, Washington, D.C. and supported by Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Hospital.


  1. Barlow, S. H., & Burlingame, G. M. (2006). Essential theory, processes, and procedures for successful group psychotherapy: Group cohesion as exemplar. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 36(3), 107–112.Google Scholar
  2. Billow, R. M. (2003). Bonding in group: The therapist’s contribution. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 53(1), 83–110.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, N. W. (2006). Reconceptualizing difficult groups and difficult members. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 36(3), 145–150.Google Scholar
  4. Dies, R. R. (1994). Therapist variables in group psychotherapy research. In: A. Fuhriman, G. M. Burlingame (Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy: An imperical and clinical synthesis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, IncGoogle Scholar
  5. Dugo, J. M., & Beck, A. P. (1997). Significance and complexity of early phases in the development of the co-therapy relationship. Group dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(4), 294–305.Google Scholar
  6. Friedman, R., & Handel, O. (2002). Facilitating individuation process in supervision groups comprised of co-therapists conducting group therapy with bereaved parents. Group, 26(1), 95–105.Google Scholar
  7. Gans, J. S., Rutan, J. S., & Lape, E. (2002). The demonstration group: A tool for observing group process and leadership style. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 52(2), 233–252.Google Scholar
  8. Lanza, M. L. (1998). A multidisciplinary course to teach staff to conduct psychodynamic group psychotherapy. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 34(1), 28–35.Google Scholar
  9. McIntosh, D., Stone, W. N., & Grace, M. (1991). The flexible boundaried group: Format, techniques, and patients’ perceptions. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 41(1), 49–64.Google Scholar
  10. Myers, D., & Hayes, J. A. (2006). Effects of therapist general self-disclosure and countertransference disclosure on ratings of the therapist and session. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 43(2), 173–185.Google Scholar
  11. Nelson, M. L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory relationships: The trainee’s perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 384–395.Google Scholar
  12. Oldham, J. M. (1982). The use of silent observers as an adjunct to short-term inpatient group therapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 32(4), 38–45.Google Scholar
  13. Reamer, F. G. (2003). Boundary issues in social work: Managing dual relationships. Social Work, 48(1), 121–133.Google Scholar
  14. Rice, C. A., & Rutan, J. S. (1981). Boundary maintenance in inpatient therapy groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 31(3), 297–309.Google Scholar
  15. Rutan, S., & Stone W. N. (2001). Psychodynamic group psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Sandahl, C., & Lindgren, A. (2006). Focused group therapy: An integrative approach. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 36(3), 113–119.Google Scholar
  17. Shields, J. D., & Lanza M. L. (1993). The parallel process of resistance by clients and therapists to starting groups; a guide for nurses. Archives in Psychiatric Nursing, 7(5), 300–307.Google Scholar
  18. Stinchfield, R., Owen, P., & Winters, K. C. (1994). Group therapy for substance abuse: A review of the empirical research. In A. Fuhriman & G. M. Burlingame (Eds.), Handbook of group psychotherapy: An imperical and clinical synthesis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, IncGoogle Scholar
  19. Weiss, E. S., Anderson, R. M., & Lasker, R. D. (2002). Making the most of collaboration: Exploring the relationship between partnership synergy and partnership functioning. Health Education Behavior, 29(6), 683–698.Google Scholar
  20. Wheelan, S. A. (1997). Co-therapist and the creation of a functional psychotherapy group: A group dynamic perspective. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(4), 306–310.Google Scholar
  21. Yerushalmi, H., & Kron, T. (2001). Participant supervision in co-therapy. Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 38(2), 102–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans HospitalBedfordUSA

Personalised recommendations