Circling Science

Encounter Groups: Positive Change or Deterioration? More Data and a Partial Replication

Carl A. Bramlette and Jeffrey H. Tucker · 1981

Evidence
Follow-up study
Kind
Journal article
peer-reviewed
Method
Partial replication of the Stanford casualty study, classifying members by self- and peer nominations
Sample
327 members of 39 T-groups that met without a trainer
Published
Human Relations, 34(4), 303–314
Practices
Encounter groups

Adjacent

Studies a related practice or mechanism, without testing Circling.

In 39 T-groups with no trainer, 10% of 327 members were named as harmed and 54% as helped. Most of those named as harmed were named as helped too; 3% had only a bad experience.

The Stanford study (Yalom & Lieberman (1971)) flagged a member as possibly harmed when they said so themselves or when two other members said so. This study used the same rule in groups that ran with no trainer at all, and counted the members named as helped as well. About one in ten was named as harmed, but for seven of those ten percentage points the same people were also named as helped, which left 3% whose experience was only negative. The authors suggest that some discomfort may belong to growth, and that research on these groups should weigh the gains alongside the losses.

Because the groups had no trainer, it bears on peer-run practice more directly than studies of led groups.

What it doesn’t show

Nominations record a bad experience, not lasting harm, and the abstract does not say who took part or when they were asked. Groups of the 1970s, not Circling.

Summary based on the abstract.

Directions that build on it

  1. Safety, facilitation and harm

    Builds on 14 works · 3 funding routes

    What makes a circle safe, and what goes wrong when it isn’t?

Links

Cite

Bramlette, C. A., & Tucker, J. H. (1981). Encounter Groups: Positive Change or Deterioration? More Data and a Partial Replication. Human Relations, 34(4), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678103400404