Interpersonal learning is associated with improved self-esteem in group psychotherapy for women with binge eating disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yalom and Leszcz (2005) indicated that interpersonal learning is a key therapeutic factor in group psychotherapy. In this study, we conceptualized interpersonal learning as the convergence over time between an individual's and the group's perception of the individual's cohesion to the group. First, we developed parallel measures of: (a) an individual's self-rated cohesion to the group (Cohesion Questionnaire-Individual Version [CQ-I]), and (b) the group's rating of the individual's cohesion to the group (CQ-G) based on the original Cohesion Questionnaire (CQ; Piper, Marache, Lacroix, Richardsen, & Jones, 1983). Second, we used these parallel scales to assess differences between an individual's self-rating and the mean of the group's ratings of the individual's cohesion to the group. Women with binge eating disorder (N = 102) received Group Psychodynamic Interpersonal Psychotherapy. Participants were assigned to homogeneously composed groups of either high or low attachment anxiety. Outcomes were measured pre- and post-treatment, and the CQ-I and CQ-G were administered every fourth group session. We found significant convergence over time between the CQ-I and mean CQ-G scale scores in both attachment anxiety conditions. Participants with higher attachment anxiety had lower individual self-ratings of cohesion and had greater discrepancies between the CQ-I and CG-G compared with those with lower attachment anxiety. There was a significant relationship between greater convergence in cohesion ratings and improved self-esteem at post-treatment. More accurate self-perceptions through feedback from group members may be a key factor in facilitating increased self-esteem in group therapy. Group therapists may facilitate such interpersonal learning, especially for those higher in attachment anxiety, by noting discrepancies and then encouraging convergence between an individual and the group in their perceptions of cohesion to the group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".