Getting absorbed in group therapy: Absorption and cohesion in integrative group treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Absorption is a trait‐like dimension reflecting a tendency to immerse oneself in sensory and imaginative experiences. This characteristic has scarcely been investigated in group psychotherapy. The present study examined absorption in relation to clients′ experience of early group process, and as a moderator of group cohesion and improvement in psychiatric symptoms, in an integrative group treatment programme. Methods Participants included 81 clients, who completed an 18‐week programme of intensive, integrative, group treatment for personality dysfunction. Clients completed assessments of absorption and psychiatric symptom severity, and rated three aspects of group cohesion at week 5 of the programme. Results Absorption was significantly associated with stimulation from the group after controlling for severity of symptoms and personality dysfunction. Moderation analyses found a significant interaction effect for absorption and the stimulation component of group cohesion with regard to symptom improvement. Absorption thus had a moderating effect on the relationship between stimulation from the group and improvement in psychiatric symptoms; for clients with higher levels of absorption, stimulation from group therapy contributed significantly to reduced symptom severity at post‐treatment. Discussion Findings suggest that absorption may be a salient personality feature to consider in group therapy for clients with personality dysfunction. Conclusion Absorption may contribute to treatment outcome, in that clients′ absorption tendencies could interact with their enthusiasm for the group experience, thereby leading to reduced symptoms following intensive group treatment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".