Taken From http://www.gmu.edu/student/csl/5stages.html 5 Stages of Group Development Stage 1: Forming In the Forming stage, personal relations are characterized by dependence. Group members rely on safe, patterned behavior and look to the group leader for guidance and direction. Group members have a desire for acceptance by the group and a need to know that the group is safe. They set about gathering impressions and data about the similarities and differences among them and forming preferences for future subgrouping. Rules of behavior seem to be to keep things simple and to avoid controversy. Serious topics and feelings are avoided. The major task functions also concern orientation. Members attempt to become oriented to the tasks as well as to one another. Discussion centers around defining the scope of the task, how to approach it, and similar concerns. To grow from this stage to the next, each member must relinquish the comfort of non-threatening topics and risk the possibility of conflict. Stage 2: Storming The next stage, which Tuckman calls Storming, is characterized by competition and conflict in the personalrelations dimension an organization in the task-functions dimension. As the group members attempt to organize for the task, conflict inevitably results in their personal relations. Individuals have to bend and mold their feelings, ideas, attitudes, and beliefs to suit the group organization. Because of "fear of exposure" or "fear of failure," there will be an increased desire for structural clarification and commitment. Although conflicts may or may not surface as group issues, they do exist. Questions will arise about who is going to be responsible for what, what the rules are, what the reward system is, and what criteria for evaluation are. These reflect conflicts over leadership, structure, power, and authority. There may be wide swings in members’ behavior based on emerging issues of competition and hostilities. Because of the discomfort generated during this stage, some members may remain completely silent while others attempt to dominate. In order to progress to the next stage, group members must move from a "testing and proving" mentality to a problem-solving mentality. The most important trait in helping groups to move on to the next stage seems to be the ability to listen. Stage 3: Norming In Tuckman’s Norming stage, interpersonal relations are characterized by cohesion. Group members are engaged in active acknowledgment of all members’ contributions, community building and maintenance, and solving of group issues. Members are willing to change their preconceived ideas or opinions on the basis of facts presented by other members, and they actively ask questions of one another. Leadership is shared, and cliques dissolve. When members begin to know-and identify with-one another, the level of trust in their personal relations contributes to the development of group cohesion. It is during this stage of development (assuming the group gets this far) that people begin to experience a sense of group belonging and a feeling of relief as a result of resolving interpersonal conflicts. The major task function of stage three is the data flow between group members: They share feelings and ideas, solicit and give feedback to one another, and explore actions related to the task. Creativity is high. If this stage of data flow and cohesion is attained by the group members, their interactions are characterized by openness and sharing of information on both a personal and task level. They feel good about being part of an effective group. 5 stages of group development .doc The major drawback of the norming stage is that members may begin to fear the inevitable future breakup of the group; they may resist change of any sort. Stage 4: Performing The Performing stage is not reached by all groups. If group members are able to evolve to stage four, their capacity, range, and depth of personal relations expand to true interdependence. In this stage, people can work independently, in subgroups, or as a total unit with equal facility. Their roles and authorities dynamically adjust to the changing needs of the group and individuals. Stage four is marked by interdependence in personal relations and problem solving in the realm of task functions. By now, the group should be most productive. Individual members have become self-assuring, and the need for group approval is past. Members are both highly task oriented and highly people oriented. There is unity: group identity is complete, group morale is high, and group loyalty is intense. The task function becomes genuine problem solving, leading toward optimal solutions and optimum group development. There is support for experimentation in solving problems and an emphasis on achievement. The overall goal is productivity through problem solving and work. Stage 5: Adjourning Tuckman’s final stage, Adjourning, involves the termination of task behaviors and disengagement from relationships. A planned conclusion usually includes recognition for participation and achievement and an opportunity for members to say personal goodbyes. Concluding a group can create some apprehension - in effect, a minor crisis. The termination of the group is a regressive movement from giving up control to giving up inclusion in the group. The most effective interventions in this stage are those that facilitate task termination and the disengagement process. Adapted from: Tuckman, B. (1965) Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. Tuckman, B. & Jensen, M. (1977) Stages of Small Group Development. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427. For a group to develop properly through the stages of group development, it needs to do the following. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Rotate the responsibility of group facilitation. The purpose/mission of the group must be clear to all members and the purpose/mission should be periodically revisited. Ground rules should be established and monitored. Help group understand that “conflict” (conflict in a positive way) is a normal and perhaps necessary part of group development. Group must be reminded to “listen” to each other. Wrap-up at the end of each session should be comprised of meaningful and constructive comments relative to group process. Everyone must contribute and work to make the group a “learning team.” 5 stages of group development .doc Number 10, 2010 Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen NUMBER 11, 2011 Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal A R ESEARCH & Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal Number 10, 2010 © International Association of Facilitators ISSN 1534-5653 The mission of the International Association of Facilitators (IAF) is to promote, support and advance the art and practice of professional group facilitation through methods exchange, professional growth, practical research, collegial networking and support services. Chair Gary Rush Past Chair Eunice Shankland Chair-Elect Martin Gilbraith Treasurer Anthony Nash Secretary Stephen Thorpe Editor: Associate Editors: Book Review Editors: Managing Editor: Editorial Board Member: Past Editors: Publisher: Scott Gasman, IdeaJuice Andrew Rixon, Babel Fish Group Pty Ltd. Tammy Adams, Chaosity LLC Mark Edmead, MTE Advisors Jon Jenkins, Imaginal Training Sascha Rixon, Swinburn University of Technology Mark Fuller (1997-2000) Sandor Schuman (2000-2007) Bill Staples, ICA Associates Inc. Charmaine Arner, John Batros, Alan Belasen, Andy Bell, Juliana Birkhoff, Hamish Brown, Gervase Bushe, Peter Classetti, Helen Dawn, Gerardus DeVreede, Sabine Drückler, Don Dutko, Andrea Elbaum, Mike Eng, Anthony Griffin, Chris Harkess, Darin Harris, Dale Hunter, Joey Jackson, Matthew Jager, Jeanne Juenger, Jean-Anne Kirk, Jan Lelie, Jennifer Longnion, Kathryn McCarty, Jo Nelson, Nick Noakes, Bertram Raven, Gary Rush, Michelle Rush, Keith Ryall, Tom Schwarz, Sue Senecah, Gilbert Steil, Norma Sutcliffe, Rosanna Tarsiero, Glyn Thomas, Nancy White Copyright 2010 No copying permitted without prior consent of the Publisher. Excerpting for classroom use and course readings is permitted with the following notice, "Excerpted from Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal © 2010 International Association of Facilitators. For full information visit www.iaf-world.org." Subscription & Back Issues PDFs of all issues are free with annual membership to IAF at www.iaf-world.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3498. Some back issues may be purchased from the IAF Office. Individuals: $25; Institutions: $40. Current and some back issues available in hardcopy from www.virtualbookworm.com Association Coordinating Team Sharon Almerigi, Kimberly Bain, Jackie Chang, Mark Edmead, Pamela Lupton-Bowers, Mary Sue McCarthy, Jerome Passmore, Susan Peryam Keith Ryall, Carol Sheriff, David Spann, Michael Spivey, Tom Schwarz, Simon Wilson, International Association of Facilitators 14985 Glazier Ave., Suite 550 St. Paul, MN 55124 Tel: 952-891-3541 Fax: 952-891-1800 office@iaf-world.org www.iaf-world.org Sandor P. Schuman Steven N. Pyser Reviewers: Vice Chair International Theresa Ratnam Thong Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal is published annually by the: Stephen Thorpe, Auckland University of Technology journal.editor@iaf-world.org Online Indexing Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal is available online from ProQuest and EBSCO. 2 Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen Classics for Facilitators Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited1 Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen EDITOR’S NOTE Thinking today about the phases of group development, a group facilitator is hard pressed to not hear the famous words of Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 seminal work Developmental Sequence in Small Groups2 that hypothesized his forming, storming, norming and performing model of group development. Tuckman’s 1965 article was reprinted in a Special Issue on Group Development in Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal in 20013. What many facilitators may not be aware of is that Bruce Tuckman and Mary Ann Jensen conducted a follow-up review thirteen years later, to discover what empirical testing of the model had been conducted by others. The following article, originally published in 1977 in Group & Organization Studies, noted that several subsequent empirical studies suggested a termination stage, which Tuckman and Jensen then integrated into the model of group development as a fifth stage named adjourning. While many have argued that there are limitations of “stage models” such as this, the wide use and popularity of the Tuckman model means this article is suggested reading for every group facilitator. — Stephen Thorpe, Editor The purpose of this review was to examine published research on small-group development done in the last ten years that would constitute an empirical test of Tuckman's (1965) hypothesis that groups go through the stages of "forming," "storming," "norming," and "performing." Of the twenty-two studies reviewed, only one set out to directly test this hypothesis, although many of the others could be related to it. Following a review of these studies, a fifth stage, "adjourning," was added to the hypothesis, and more empirical work was recommended. Tuckman (1965) reviewed fifty-five articles dealing with stages of small group development in an attempt to isolate those concepts common to the various studies and produce a generalizable model of changes in group life over time. He examined studies of (1) Therapy Groups, (2) human relations training or T-groups, and (3) natural and laboratory-task groups in terms of two realms—task and interpersonal. The way members acted and related to one another was considered groupstructure or the interpersonal realm: the content of the interaction as related to the task was referred to as the task-activity realm. Both realms represented simultaneous aspects of group functioning because members completed tasks while relating to one another. The Model As a result of the literature reviewed, Tuckman proposed a model of developmental stages for various group settings over time, labeled (1) testing and dependence, (2) intragroup conflict, (3) development of group cohesion, and (4) functional role relatedness. The stages of task activity were labeled (1) orientation to task, (2) emotional response to task demands, (3) open exchange of relevant interpretations, and (4) emergence of solutions. An essential correspondence between the groupstructure realm and the task-activity realm over time caused Tuckman to summarise the four stages as “forming,” “storming,” “norming,” and “performing.” He acknowledged, however, that this was “a conceptual statement suggested by the data presented and subject to further test” (p.5). Tuckman cited several limitations of the literature, e.g., that the literature could not be considered truly representative of smallgroup developmental processes because there was an overrepresentation of therapy and T-group settings and an underrepresentation of natural or laboratory groups, indicated the need for more rigorous methodological considerations in studying group process, and criticized the use of a single group Tuckman, Bruce W. and Jensen, Mary Ann C. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427. Copyright 1977 by Sage Publications. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications 43 Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited for observation because it made control and systemic manipulation of independent values impossible. Tuckman provided a developmental model of group process by organizing and conceptualizing existing research data and theoretical precepts rather than by presenting original empirical data to support a particular model. He stated, however, that his model was in need of further testing. Tuckman and Jensen neighborhood action committees in Topeka, Kansas, over a nineteen-month period. Results from a team of participantobservers indicated that the stages of development for these neighborhood committees included (1) orientation, (2) catharsis, (3) focus, (4) action, (5) limbo, (6) testing, and (7) purposive. Zurcher stated that these seven stages “could parisimoniously have been reduced to four stages suggested by Tuckman” (p. 245) as shown below. Purpose and Methodology of This Review Orientation Forming The purpose of this follow-up study is to discover whether anyone has empirically tested the model of group development proposed by Tuckman in 1965, to investigate any new models in light of Tuckman’s hypothesis, and to determine whether any alternative models have been conceived. Catharsis Storming Focus, Action Limbo, Testing Norming Purposive Performing To locate any studies referencing the 1965 Tuckman article, the Science Citation Index from 1965 and the Social Science Citation Index from 1970 were consulted and a list of fifty-seven articles was compiled. Of these, only those studies concerned primarily with empirical research (approximately twenty-two) were reviewed. Review of the ‘New’ Literature Only one study could be found that set out to test Tuckman’s hypothesis. Runkel et al. (1971) studied three groups of fifteen to twenty college students in a classroom setting. The task of each group was to decide on a project, collect and interpret data, and write a final report. During meetings of the work group, sixteen observers, armed with descriptions of the Tuckman model of stage development, observed the group “until something happened that fitted a behavior described by Tuckman as belonging to one of the four stages of group structure or task activity” (. 186). The observers rotated among groups in an effort to reduce observer bias. Ratings from observers supported Tuckman’s theory of group development. Although this empirical test of Tuckman’s hypothesis supported his suggested developmental sequence, observers were given only descriptions of Tuckman’s four stages and asked to “fit” their observations to that model. A methodology less prone to observer bias would have been to have observers record particular behaviors apparent in the group; at a later time, these could have been reviewed in light of particular models. Runkel et al. did, however, provide an empirical base for further testing of the Tuckman model. Several articles from the literature contained elements of the Tuckman model. Zurcher (1969) offered some explanation of the developmental sequence in natural groups, an area Tuckman described as underrepresented in the literature. Data were obtained from 174 meetings of twelve poverty programme Although Zucher’s results would serve to support the Tuckman model, he did not specifically set out to test any particular model of group development and did not present any statistical treatment of his data. Smith (1966) observed, over a period of approximately four months, a group of seven man stationed in Antarctica and collected data on technical-task activities as well as on behavioral dimensions of informal structure. He reported on only two developmental stages rather than on the four listed by Tuckman. However, Smith’s two developmental stages appear to be task-activity behavior and interpersonal behavior, both of which were identified by Tuckman as the realms of group behavior. Smith’s results serve to reinforce the hypothesis that task and interpersonal dimensions play a substantial role in the way groups develop. Smith also concluded that the order of development would be different for various groups. Although the interpersonal “stage” seemed most important for therapy or training groups, task activity was stressed by the men in Antarctica. That the content or task activity appeared prior to development of a group structure might be due to the specific nature of the group assignment and to the well-defined roles of the participants, which suggest that those aspects related to the primary purpose of the group develop first. Due to the uniqueness of his group in terms of task and setting, Smith’s results might not be applicable to other types of groups. Shambaugh and Kanter (1969) described the evolution of a therapy group for spouces of patients on hemodialysis machines. A group of six spouses met weekly for a period of eight months. As observed by the group leader/psychiatrist, the stages of group Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010 44 Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited development included (1) initial experience, (2) formation of the group, (3) optimism and partial separation, and (4) final stage. The authors believed that this group was a “paradigm of the unconscious forces inherent in group structure and process” and that “the overall developmental sequence was that of the usual small group” (p. 936). They did not attempt to “test” any particular model of group development; however, their observations appear to fit the behaviors characterizing Tuckman’s stages of “forming,” “storming,” “norming,” and “performing” (i.e., dependence on leader, criticism among members, optimism and cohesiveness). Shambaugh and Kanter did not describe behaviors characteristic of each stage clearly, which made it difficult to differentiate among them. The authors did observe, however, that their observations supported Tuckman’s four-stage theory. A second problem with this study was the introduction of new members into the group prior to the final stage, which made identification of the four stages and the characteristic behaviors pertinent to each difficult. Lacoursiere (1974) observed stage development while using a group method to facilitate learning for student nurses involved in a psychiatric setting. The student nurses, in their twenties, single and female (except for one male student in each of the three groups observed), worked in a state mental hospital and met as a group for one and one-half hours each week to discuss their concerns. Over a ten-week period, Lacoursiere observed four stages of group development: 1. Orientation, characterized by fears and anxieties and fairly strong positive expectations; 2. Dissatisfaction, characterized by an increasing sense of frustration, along with depression and anger; 3. Production, demonstrated by a more realistic appraisal of what could be accomplished; and 4. Termination, concerned with sadness and some selfevaluation. Lacoursiere’s four stages differed from Tuckman’s in three respects. First, in stage 2, dissatisfaction, there was a lack of intragroup conflict among the student nurses. Any anger and hostility present was directed toward the hospital, the staff, and psychiatry in general rather than toward group members. Second, Lacoursiere combined “norming” and “performing” into stage 3, production, at which tome students’ expectations became more realistic and they desired “to learn what can be learned and to do what they can reasonably do as student nurses” (p. 348). Third, and the major difference between models, was the addition of the termination stage. Tuckman and Jensen Another article dealing with the training of nursing students was one by Spitz and Sadock (1973), who observed twenty-one second-year nursing students, all white females from twenty to forty years old, using techniques such as role playing, video taping, and analysis of dreams. Spitz and Sadock categorized group life into three phases: 1. Stage One, characterized by anxiety, guardedness, dependency, and a mixture of curiosity and confusion; 2. Stage Two, the period of beginning trust, cohesiveness, interdependence, and group interaction; 3. Stage Three, the final phase of disengagement, anxiety about separation and termination, and positive feelings toward the leader. Stages one and two contain elements of Tuckman’s “forming” and “norming” stages, respectively. Tuckman’s second stage, “storming,” has for the most part been eliminated. Although Lacoursiere’s group demonstrated anger and hostility toward an outside force, Spitz and Sadock’s group appeared to touch on themes of anger and discontent in their group discussions. It is of significance that neither student-nurse group demonstrated noticeable characteristics of intragroup conflict. Possibly the close association experienced by nursed unites them in a cohesive, personal group. Also, the groups’ composition— overwhelmingly female—might be a factor, as women have traditionally been socialized to be more passive and trusting. Spitz and Sadock also observed third-year medical students and found them to be more guarded and “overtly hostile.” Group composition, therefore, may be one of the variables that influence appearance of stages in the developmental process. A second variation in Spitz and Sadock’s model, which also was found in the Lacoursiere model, was the addition of a stage concerned with termination and separation, a significant departure from the Tuckman model. Braaten (1975) compiled an interesting review of fourteen models of the developmental stages of groups. Several of the more recent models not reviewed in the 1965 tuckman article demonstrated a resemblance to his four-stage model. For example, Yalom (1970) presented a four-stage model, including an initial phase of orientation and hesitant participation; a second phase of conflict, dominance, and rebellion; a third phase of intimacy, closeness, and cohesiveness; and a final phase of termination (differing from Tuckman). Braaten presented a composite model of the fourteen theories and also set fourth his own model. His composite model utilized the three stages identified by Tuckman as “forming,” “storming,” and “performing” (which incorporated “norming”) Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010 45 Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen and added a final stage of termination. Braaten’s own model followed the composite model fairly closely: 1. Initial phase lacking in structure; 2. An early phase characterized by hostility and conflicts between subgroups; 3. The mature work phase in which norms are resolved and interdependency and trust formation are apparent; 4. Termination, ending. concerned with disengagement and Braaten concluded, as did Tuckman, that there appeared to be substantial agreement among authors on the aspects of a developmental phase but that systemic research was needed to verify the theoretical concepts. Braaten’s review of the literature suggests that empirical research in stages od small group development is sparse and inconclusive. Only two of the journal articles reviewed substantially deviated from the four-stage Tuckman model. Dunphy (1968) conducted an empirical study of the developmental process in self-analytic groups (therapy and T-groups). He observed two sections of a Harvard Social Relations 120 course for a period of nine months. Though the use of a computer system of content analysis, Dunphy identified six developmental phases for the group: 1. Maintenance of external normative standards; 2. Individual rivalry; 3. Aggression; 4. Negativism; 5. Emotional concerns; 6. High Affection. Individual rivalry, aggression, and negativism parallel Tuckman’s second stage, “storming.” Emotional concerns and high affection might be viewed in terms of the “norming” stage. However, Dunphy’s model does not include any stage resembling “performing.” Dunphy acknowledged that his results might not be generalizable to all self-analytic groups and that further testing was needed to establish the extent of their validity. A study by Heckel, Holmes, and Salzberg (1967) examined whether distinct verbal behavioral phases occur in group psychotherapy. Seventeen neuropsychiatric male and female patients were observed over eighteen sessions of group therapy. Verbal responses of participants were recorded and grouped according to type of response and specific category (i.e., therapist-directed response, etc.). Results revealed a significant change between the seventh and eighth and twelfth and thirteenth sessions. Therapist-directed responses were most noticeably affected, going from fifty-nine to twenty-three; group-directed responses went from twenty-one to thirty-nine. On the basis of these results, Heckel et al. believed their findings were “somewhat supportive” of a two-stage hypothesis of group development. The authors did not describe characteristics of the two stages, however, nor did they attempt to propose their own theoretical model for further testing. Another study by Heckel, Holmes, and Rosecrans (1971) employed a factor-analytic approach for analyzing verbal responses of group-therapy members. Utilizing the theory of two-stage development derived from the 1967 study, the authors rated responses from approximately thirty male neuropsychiatric patients during their second and third sessions and from seventeen of these patients during the twelfth and thirteenth sessions. The authors reported that combined results from sessions two and three indicated low group cohesiveness, high defensiveness and superficial verbal interaction and a pattern of personal and group-building responses. An obvious change had occurred by the twelfth and thirteenth sessions, but the lossof almost half the members of the group by this time also may have had an impact on changes in their verbal responses. Without observing interactions over the life of the group, the suggestion that these four sessions represent the only changes taking place seems premature. Mann (1967) offered a third variation to the four-stage model. Through the use of factor analysis, he categorized five stages of group development: (1) initial complaining, (2) premature enactment, (3) confrontation, (4) internalization, (5) separation and terminal review. This model appears to incorporate characteristics of Tuckman’s “forming,” “storming,” “norming,” and “performing” stages, with the addition of stage 5 – termination. Braaten (1975) included an updated version of Mann’s (1971) developmental model: 1. Dependency upon trainer; 2. Initial anxiety and/or resistance; 3. Mounting frustration, hostility; 4. Work phase, intimacy, integration, mutual synthesis; 5. Separation. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010 46 Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Discussion This review of articles was undertaken to discover whether the Tuckman (1965) model of group development had been empirically tested. Only Runkel et al. (1971) set out to test this model. Their conclusions were supportive of Tuckman’s fourstage model, but their results may not be reliable because of the researchers’ methodology. The bulk of the literature from 1965 to present has been theoretical in nature; those articles describing empirical research were not primarily concerned with testing already existing models. Many of the authors described a group’s behavior and offered their own models of group development, however similar to models already described in the literature.4 Two studies and a review did identify termination as an important final stage overlooked by Tuckman. Braaten’s (1975) review of fourteen models led to a composite model incorporating “forming,” “storming,” and “performing” stages and including a termination stage. Gibbard and Hartman (1973) introduced the concept of a “life cycle” model as developed by Mills (1964). Proponents of a life cycle approach recognize the importance of separation concerns as an issue in group development. Although Tuckman saw performing as the final stage of group evolution, those who agree with a life cycle model view separation as an important issue throughout the life of the group and as a separate and distinct final stage. With a substantial amount of activity taking place in training and therapy groups in which presumably strong interpersonal feelings are developed, the “death of the group” becomes an extremely important issue to many of the group members. As a reflection of the recent appearance of studies postulating a life cycle approach (Mann, 1971; Gibbard & Hartman, 1973; Spitz & Sadock, 1973; Lacoursiere, 1974; Braaten, 1975), the Tuckman model is hereby amended to include a fifth stage: adjourning. Conclusion It is noteworthy that since 1965 there have been few studies that report empirical data concerning the stages of group development. It is also of interest that most authors, although writing from a theoretical framework, call for further research to verify their hypotheses. A virtually untapped field is the empirical testing of existing models of group-stage development. There is a need to supply statistical evidence as to the usefulness and applicability of the various models suggested in the literature. A major outcome of this review has been the discovery that recent research posits the existence of a final discernible and significant stage of group development – termination. Because the 1965 model was a conceptual statement determined by the Tuckman and Jensen literature, it is reasonable, therefore, to modify the model to reflect recent literature. The model now stands: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. REFERENCES Adelson, J. Feedback and group development. Small Group Behavior, 1975 6(4), 389-401. Braaten, L.J. Developmental phases of encounter groups and related intensive groups: A critical review of models and a new proposal. Interpersonal Development , 1974-75,5, 112129. Dunphy, D. Phases, roles and myths in self-analytic groups. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1968, 4(2), 195-225. Gibbard, G., & Hartman, J. The oedipal paradigm in group development: A clinical and empirical study. Small Group Behavior, 1973, 4(3), 305-349. Heckel, R., Holmes, G., & Salzberg, H. Emergence of distinct verbal phases in group therapy. Psychological Reports, 1967, 21, 630-632. Heckel, R.V., Holmes, G.R., & Rosecrans, C.J. A factor analytic study of process variables in group therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1971, 27(1), 146-150. Lacoursiere, R. A group method to facilitate learning during the stages of a psychiatric affiliation. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy , 1974, 24, 342-351. Liebowitz, B. A method for the analysis of the thematic structure of T-groups. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1972, 8(2), 149-173. Lundgren, D.C. Trainer style and patterns of group development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7(6), 689709. Lundgren, D.C. Attitudinal and behavioral correlates of emergent status in training groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1973, 90, 141-153. Mann, R.D. The development of the member-trainer relationship in self-analytic groups. In C. L. Cooper & I. L. Mangham (Eds.), T-groups: A survey of research. London: WileyInterscience, 1971. Mann, R.D. Interpersonal styles and group development. New York: John Wiley, 1967. Mills, T.M. Group transformation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Runkel, P.J., Lawrence, M. Oldfield, S., Rider, M., Clark, C. Stages of group development: An empirical test of Tuckman's hypothesis . The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7(2), 180-193. Shambaugh, P., & Kanter, S. Spouses under stress: Group meetings with spouses of patients on hemodialysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1969, 125, 928-936. Smith, W.M. Observations over the lifetime of a small isolated group; structure, danger, boredom, and vision. Psychological Reports, 1966,19, 475-514. Spitz, H., & Sadock, B. Psychiatric training of graduate nursing students. N. Y State Journal of Medicine, June 1, 1973 , pp. 1334-1338. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010 47 Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen Tucker, D.M. Some relationships between individual and group development. Human Development, 1973, 16, 249-272. Tuckman, B.W. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin , 1965, 63(6), 384-399. Yalom, I. The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books, 1970. Zurcher, L.A., Jr. Stages of development in poverty program neighborhood action committees. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1969, 5(2), 223-258. AUTHORS Bruce W. Tuckman was professor of education and director of the Bureau of Research and Development of the Rutgers University Graduate School of Education. He completed his masters and doctoral training in psychology at Princeton University in 1963 and, after two years at the Naval Medical Research Institute, joined the Rutgers faculty as an associate professor. He has published extensively, including two textbooks, and has developed several instruments in use today on teacher style and on personality. In 1977 he was a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and an active member of both the American Educational Research Association and Phi Delta Kappa. Mary Ann Conover Jensen was a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at the Rutgers University Graduate School of Education. She has been involved in counseling both residential and commuting students at a four-year college, served as a small-group facilitator for a series of “life-skills” workshops, and has conducted research in the area of smallgroup development. In 1977 she was an intern at a community guidance center, participating in child psychotherapy, family therapy, and individual and group counseling. 1 Tuckman, Bruce W. & Jensen, Mary Ann C. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427. Copyright 1977 by Sage Publications. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications. 2 Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups, Psychological Bulletin, (63)6, 384-399. 3 Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal (3), 66-81. 2001. 4 Other studies examined but not cited because of their limited relevance to the discussion are Lundgren (1971), Liebowitz (1972), Tucker (1973), and Adelson (1975). Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010 48
Purchase answer to see full attachment