Psychological Bulletin1965, Vol. 63, No. 6, 384-399

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS1

BRUCE W. TUCKMAN

Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Maryland

50 articles dealing with stages of group development over time are separated bygroup setting, as follows: therapy-group studies, T-group studies, and natural-and laboratory-group studies. The stages identified in these articles are separatedinto those descriptive of social or interpersonal group activities and thosedescriptive of group-task activities. Finally, 4 general stages of developmentare proposed, and the review consists of fitting the stages identified in theliterature to those proposed. In the social realm, these stages in the develop-mental sequence are testing-dependence, conflict, cohesion, and functional roles.In the task realm, they are orientation, emotionality, relevant opinion exchange,and the emergence of solutions. There is a good fit between observed stages andthe proposed model. Further study of temporal change as a dependent variablevia the manipulation of specific independent variables is suggested.

The purpose of this article is to review theliterature dealing with the devlopmentalsequence in small groups, to evaluate thisliterature as a body, to extrapolate generalconcepts about group development, and tosuggest fruitful areas for further research.

While small-group processes have beengiven great attention in recent years by be-havioral scientists, the question of change inprocess over time has been relatively neg-lected. Perhaps the major reason for this isthe overwhelming tendency of the small-groupresearcher to run groups for short periods oftime and thus avoid the "problems" createdby temporal change. Laboratory studies ofdevelopmental phenomena are quite rare. Themajority of articles dealing with sequentialgroup development come from the group-therapy setting and human relations training-group setting, neither of which features strictexperimental control nor manipulation of in-dependent variables. Moreover, the only ma-jor theoretical statements of group develop-ment which have appeared are those of Bales(19S3), Schutz (1958), and Bach (1954).

In an attempt to bring the facts and theissues into sharper focus, existing research in

1 From Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, NavyDepartment, Research Task MR005.12-200S.01, Sub-task I. The opinions and statements contained hereinare the private ones of the writer and not to beconstrued as official or reflecting the views of theNavy Department or the naval service at large.The author is grateful to Irwin Altman for his in-valuable ideas and suggestions, and to Robert Nyefor his efforts in helping to review the literature.

the area of small-group development will becited, and a framework within which this phe-nomenon can be better understood and fur-ther investigated will be presented. Thisframework will also serve to integrate thevariety of studies cited in a meaningful way.

CLASSIFICATION MODEL

The classification approach adopted for dis-tinguishing between and within developmentalstudies is a threefold one. The delineationsare based on (a) the setting in which thegroup is found, (b) the realm into which thegroup behavior falls at any point in time,that is, task or interpersonal, and (c) theposition of the group in a hypothetical de-velopmental sequence (referred to as the stageof development). It is this last delineationthat allows not only for the separation andordering of observations within each set-ting, but for the development of additionalhypotheses as well.

Setting

Classification according to setting allows forthe clustering of studies based on their simi-larity of features, for example, group size,group problem area, group composition, dura-tion of "group life," etc. More similaritybetween observations made in the same set-ting than in different settings is expected.

In the group-therapy setting the task is tohelp individuals better deal with their per-sonal problems. The goal is individual adjust-

384

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS 385

ment. Such groups contain from 5 to ISmembers, each of whom has some debili-tating personal problem, and a therapist, andthe group exists for 3 months or more. Thedevelopmental data for such groups consistof the observations of the therapist andthose professional observers that are present,usually as trainees. Such data are highlyanecdotal in nature and reflect the clinicalbiases of the observers. Furthermore, suchaccounts are usually formulated after the factand based on the observation of a singlegroup. Since the bulk of the literature re-viewed comes from this setting, its generalitymust be limited by the limitations of thesetting and the mode of data collection.

In the human relations training-group(T-group) setting, the task is to help indi-viduals interact with one another in a moreproductive, less defensive manner, and to beaware of the dynamics underlying such inter-action. The goal is interpersonal sensitivity.Such groups contain ordinarily from IS to30 members, usually students or corporationexecutives, and one trainer or leader, andendure from about 3 weeks to 6 months.

The most striking differences betweentherapy- and training-group settings are inthe areas of group composition, task, goal, andduration of group life. Such differences canaccount for different findings in the two set-tings. The most striking similarity is in themanner of data collection. Data in thetraining-group setting are highly anecdotal,subjective, collected by the trainer and hisco-workers, and often based on the observa-tions of a single group. Again, this serves tolimit the generality of these findings.

The natural-group setting is distinguishedon the basis that the group exists to performsome social or professional function overwhich the researcher has no control. Membersare not brought together for self-improve-ment; rather, they come together to do a job.Such groups may be characterized either byappointed or emergent leadership. Presidentialadvisory councils and industrial groups repre-sent examples of natural groups. Similar limi-tations to generalization based on the mannerof data collection and number of groups ob-served applies in this setting as in the previoussettings.

The laboratory-task setting features groupsbrought together for the purpose of studyinggroup phenomena. Such groups are small (gen-erally under 10 members), have a short life,and may or may not have leaders. In this set-ting, groups are given a task or tasks whichthey are to complete. Quantitative data arecollected and analyzed based on multiple-group performances.

The last two settings have been combineddue to the small number of studies in each(the dearth of group development studies inthe industrial area is notable), and also be-cause theoretical statements are reviewedwhich are generalized to cover both areas. Allstudies will be classified into one of the threesetting categories according to best fit.

Realm: Interpersonal versus Task

Within the studies reviewed, an attempt willbe made to distinguish between interpersonalstages of group development and task be-haviors exhibited in the group. The contentionis that any group, regardless of setting, mustaddress itself to the successful completion ofa task. At the same time, and often throughthe same behaviors, group members will berelating to one another interpersonally. Thepattern of interpersonal relationships is re-ferred to as group structure and is interpretedas the interpersonal configuration and inter-personal behaviors of the group at a point intime, that is, the way the members act andrelate to one another as persons. The contentof interaction as related to the task at handis referred to as task activity. The proposeddistinction between the group as a social en-tity and the group as a task entity is similarto the distinction between the task-orientedfunctions of groups and the social-emotional-integrative functions of groups, both of whichoccur as simultaneous aspects of group func-tioning (Bales, 19S3; Coffey, 1952; Deutsch,1949; Jennings, 1947).

In therapy groups and T groups, the task isa personal and interpersonal one in that thegroup exists to help the individuals deal withthemselves and others. This makes the inter-personal-task distinction a fuzzy one. A fur-ther problem with this distinction occurs be-cause the studies cited do not distinguish be-tween the two realms and often talk about

386 BRUCE W. TV C KM AN

interpersonal development at one point in thesequence and task development at anotherpoint. The distinction will be maintained, how-ever, because of the generic difference betweenthe reaction to others as elements of thegroup task versus the reaction to others associal entities. Failing to separate stages byrealm obscures the continuity of the develop-mental process. While the two realms differ incontent, as will be seen, their underlying dy-namics are similar.

Proposed Developmental Sequence

The following model is offered as a con-ceptualization of changes in group behavior,in both social and task realms, across all groupsettings, over time. It represents a set ofhypotheses reflecting the author's biases(rather than those of the researchers) andthe perception of trends in the studies re-viewed which become considerably more ap-parent when these studies are viewed in thelight of the model. The model of developmentstages presented below is not suggested forprimary use as an organizational vehicle, al-though it serves that function here. Rather,it is a conceptual statement suggested by thedata presented and subject to further test.

In the realm of group structure the firsthypothesized stage of the model is labeled astesting and dependence. The term "testing"refers to an attempt by group members todiscover what interpersonal behaviors areacceptable in the group, based on the reac-tions of the therapist or trainer (where one ispresent) and on the reactions of the othergroup members. Coincident to discoveringthe boundaries of the situation by testing, onerelates to the therapist, trainer, some power-ful group member, or existing norms andstructures in a dependent way. One looks tothis person, persons, or standards for guidanceand support in this new and unstructured sit-uation.

The first stage of task-activity developmentis labeled as orientation to the task, in whichgroup members attempt to identify the task interms of its relevant parameters and the man-ner in which the group experience will be usedto accomplish the task. The group must decideupon the type of information they will need

in dealing with the task and how this infor-mation is to be obtained. In orienting to thetask, one is essentially defining it by discov-ering its "ground rules." Thus, orientation, ingeneral, characterizes behavior in both inter-personal and task realms during this stage. Itis to be emphasized that orientation is a gen-eral class of behavior which cuts across set-tings; the specifics of orientation, that is,what one must orient to and how, will besetting-specific.

The second phase in the development ofgroup structure is labeled as intragroup con-flict. Group members become hostile towardone another and toward a therapist or traineras a means of expressing their individualityand resisting the formation of group structure.Interaction is uneven and "infighting" is com-mon. The lack of unity is an outstanding fea-ture of this phase. There are characteristickey issues that polarize the group and boildown to the conflict over progression into the"unknown" of interpersonal relations or re-gression to the security of earlier dependence.

Emotional response to task demands isidentified as the second stage of task-activitydevelopment. Group members react emotion-ally to the task as a form of resistance to thedemands of the task on the individual, that is,the discrepancy between the individual's per-sonal orientation and that demanded by thetask. This task stage will be most evidentwhen the task has as its goal self-understand-ing and self-change, namely, the therapy- andtraining-group tasks, and will be considerablyless visible in groups working on impersonal,intellectual tasks. In both task and interper-sonal realms, emotionality in response to adiscrepancy characterizes this stage. How-ever, the source of the discrepancy is differentin the different realms.

The third group structure phase is labeledas the development oj group cohesion. Groupmembers accept the group and accept the idio-syncracies of fellow members. The group be-comes an entity by virtue of its acceptanceby the members, their desire to maintain andperpetuate it, and the establishment of newgroup-generated norms to insure the group'sexistence. Harmony is of maximum impor-tance, and task conflicts are avoided to insureharmony.

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS 387

The third stage of task activity develop-ment is labeled as the open exchange of rele-vant interpretations. In the therapy- and train-ing-group context, this takes the form of dis-cussing oneself and other group members,since self and other personal characteristicsare the basic task inputs. In the laboratory-task context, exchanged interpretations takethe form of opinions. In all cases one sees in-formation being acted on so that alternativeinterpretations of the information can be ar-rived at. The openness to other group mem-bers is characteristic in both realms duringthis stage.

The fourth and final developmental phaseof group structure is labeled as functionalrole-relatedness. The group, which was estab-lished as an entity during the preceding phase,can now become a problem-solving instru-ment. It does this by directing itself to mem-bers as objects, since the subjective relation-ship between members has already been es-tablished. Members can now adopt and playroles that will enhance the task activities ofthe group, since they have learned to relate toone another as social entities in the precedingstage. Role structure is not an issue but aninstrument which can now be directed at thetask. The group becomes a "sounding board"off which the task is "played."

In task-activity development, the fourth andfinal stage is identified as the emergence ofsolutions. It is here that we observe construc-tive attempts at successful task completion.In the therapy- and training-group context,these solutions are more specifically insightinto personal and interpersonal processes andconstructive self-change, while in the labora-tory-group context the solutions are moreintellectual and impersonal. Here, as in thethree preceding stages, there is an essentialcorrespondence between group structural andtask realms over time. In both realms theemphasis is on constructive action, and therealms come together so that energy previ-ously invested in the structural realm can bedevoted to the task.

The next section presents a review of rele-vant studies separated according to setting.The observations within each study are sepa-rated according to stage of development andrealm,

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT INTHERAPY GROUPS

Stage 1

Group Structure: Testing and Dependence.Of the 26 studies of development in therapygroups which were reviewed, 18 identified abeginning stage as either testing or depen-dence or both. Bach (19S4) speaks of initialsituation testing to determine the nature ofthe therapy environment and discover thekinds of relationships the therapist will pro-mote, followed closely by leader dependencewhere group members relate to the therapistdependently. Barton (1953), Beukenkamp(1952), and Mann and Semrad (1948) iden-tify an initial stage in which the group teststo determine the limits of tolerance of thetherapist and the group.

Researchers emphasizing the more depen-dent aspects of this initial stage are Bion(1961), who describes groups operating withthe basic assumption of dependency, Cholden(1953), who has observed dependency intherapy groups of blind individuals, andStoute (1950), who observed dependency inlarger classroom therapy groups.

Others have observed this stage and haveused a variety of names to label it. Corsini(1957), in an integration of other studies,identifies hesitant participation as an initialstage, in which members test the group andtherapist to discover how they will respondto various statements. Grotjahn (1950) refersto an initial period of orientation and infor-mation, while King (1959) labels initial test-ing and orienting behavior in activity-grouptherapy as acclimatization. Powdermaker andFrank (1948) and Abrahams (1949) describethe initial period as one of orientation andtesting where group members attempt to re-late to the therapist and to discover the struc-ture and limits of the therapy group. Schind-ler (1958), using bifocal-group therapy, la-bels the initial stage as attachment to thegroup, in which individuals discharge old tiesand establish new ones. Taylor (1950) talksabout qualifying for acceptance by the groupat the start of therapy which implies bothtesting and conforming.

Four of the studies reviewed describe astage preceding the testing-dependence stage

388 BRUCE W. TVCKMAN

which will be referred to as Prestage 1. Thorpeand Smith (1953) and Osberg and Berliner(1956), in therapy with hospitalized narcoticaddicts, describe an initial stage of resistance,silence, and hostility followed by a testingperiod where patients attempt to discoverwhat behaviors the therapist deems accept-able. Shallow, Ward, and Rubenfeld (1958),who worked with institutionalized delinquents,described two such stages of resistance andhostility preceding the testing stage, whileMartin and Hill (1957) theorized about astage of isolation and "unshared behavior"preceding one of stereotypic responding tofellow group members and a dependent orien-tation toward the therapist.

Three of the four studies identifying a Pre-stage 1 were specifically based on observa-tions of groups of antisocial individuals (drugaddicts and delinquents) who probably mustbe won over to the situation and their initialextreme resistance overcome before the normalsequence of therapy-group development canbegin. This would account for Prestage 1.

The remaining studies did not identify aninitial stage of testing-dependence but dealteither with task development (to be discussedbelow), or offered as an initial Stage 1 whichis postulated here as a second stage. Finally, astudy by Parker (1958) described an initialstage of cohesive organization in which sub-groups are formed, rules followed, and har-mony maintained—a description which is dif-ficult to fit into the testing-dependence cate-gory.

Task Activity: Orientation and Testing.During the initial stage, task development ischaracterized by indirect attempts to discoverthe nature and boundaries of the task, i.e.,what is to be accomplished and how muchcooperation is demanded, expressed specifi-cally through (a) the discussion of irrelevantand partially relevant issues (Bion, 1961;Coffey, Freedman, Leary, & Ossorio, 1950;Martin & Hill, 1957; Osberg & Berliner,1956), (b) the discussion of peripheral prob-lems (Stoute, 1950), (c) the discussion ofimmediate behavior problems (Abrahams,1949), (d) the discussion of symptoms (Bach,1954; Taylor, 1950), (e) griping about theinstitutional environment (Mann & Semrad,1948; Shellow et al., 1958; Thorpe & Smith,

1953), and (/) intellectualization (Clapham& Sclare, 1958; Wender, 1946).

This stage is also characterized by moredirect attempts at orientation toward the taskas illustrated in (a) a search for the meaningof therapy (Cholden, 1953), (b) attempts todefine the situation (Powdermaker & Frank,1948), (c) attempts to establish a propertherapeutic relationship with the therapistthrough the development of rapport and con-fidence (Dreikurs, 1957; King, 1959; Wolf,1949), (d) mutual exchange of information(Grotjahn, 1950), and (e) suspiciousness ofand fearfulness toward the new situationwhich must be overcome (Corsini, 1957).

Stage 2

Group Structure: Intragroup Conflict. Thir-teen of the 26 studies of group therapy re-viewed identified a stage of intragroup con-flict (in 11 cases as a second stage and in 2as a first stage). Abrahams (1949) identifiesan interaction stage typified by defensiveness,competition, and jealousy. Bion (1961) dis-cusses a figkt-fligkt period in which membersconflict with the therapist or attempt to psy-chologically withdraw from the situation.Grotjahn (1950) identifies a stage of increas-ing tension, while Parker (1958) talks abouta crisis period where friction is increased,anxiety mounts, rules are broken, argumentsensue, and a general structural collapse oc-curs. Powdermaker and Frank (1948) discussa second stage featuring sharp fluctuation ofrelationships, sharp reversals of feelings, and"intense but brief and brittle linkages."Schindler (1958) talks about a stage of psy-chodramatic acting-out and localization of con-flicts in the group, while Shellow et al. (1958)describe a stage characterized by ambivalencetoward the therapist which is expressedthrough the formation of conflicting factionsin the group. Stoute (1950) describes a sec-ond stage beginning with derogation andnegativity, while Thorpe and Smith (1953)describe a stage beginning with disintegration,distance, defenses out of awareness, and dis-rupted communication. King (1959), in ac-tivity-group therapy, describes a second stageof benign regression characterized by extremeacting-out and unacceptable behavior. Martinand Hill (1957) theorize about a stage of

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS 389

polarization featuring the emergence of sub-groups following a stage of interpersonal ex-ploration.

Coffey et al. (1950) identify an initial stageof defensiveness and resistance where mem-bers clash with one another. However, theseauthors also see "pecking orders" being es-tablished during this period; perhaps theirinitial stage includes Stages 1 and 2 as postu-lated in this review. Mann (1953) describesan initial phase of "working through of hos-tility" followed by a stage of "workingthrough of anxieties." The hostility phase ischaracterized by disruption and fragmentationwhich are reduced gradually in the anxietyphase.

The remaining studies fail to identify thisstage. Some of them jump from Stage 1 di-rectly to Stage 3, while others deal with taskdevelopment as concerns the first two stages oftherapy-group development.

Task Activity: Emotional Response to TaskDemands. The outstanding feature of this sec-ond task stage appears to be the expression ofemotionality by the group members as a formof resisting the techniques of therapy whichrequire that they "expose" themselves and ofchallenging the validity and usefulness oftherapy (Bach, 1954; Barton, 1953; Cholden,1953; Clapham& Sclare, 1958; Mann, 1953;Mann & Semrad, 1948; Martin & Hill, 1957;Stoute, 1950; Wender, 1946). Furthermore,mention is made of the fact that this is aperiod of extreme resistance to examinationand disclosure (Abrahams, 1949; Barton,1953), and an attempt at analysis of this re-sistance is made (Wolf, 1949). Others em-phasize ambivalence toward the therapist(Shellow et al,, 1958), the discussion of sensi-tive areas (Powdermaker & Frank, 1948),psychodrama (Schindler, 1958), and resis-tance via "putting one on" (Thorpe & Smith,1953).

Stage 3

Group Structure: Development of GroupCohesion. Twenty-two of the 26 studies re-viewed identified a stage in which the groupbecame a cohesive unit and developed a senseof being as a group. Bach (1954), Barton(1953), and Clapham and Sclare (1958)identify a stage during which ingroup con-

sciousness is developed and establishment andmaintenance of group boundaries is empha-sized. Bion (1961) discusses the basic as-sumption of pairing in which the emphasis ison cohesion, but the unit is the pair as op-posed to the whole group. Coffey et al. (1950),Corsini (1959), and Taylor (1950) describe astage following the stage of intragroup hos-tility in which the group becomes unified andis characterized by the existence of a com-mon goal and group spirit. Parker (1958) andShellow et al. (1958) see the stage of crisisand factions being followed by one featuringconsensual group action, cooperation, andmutual support. Mann and Semrad (1948),Grotjahn (1950), and Powdermaker andFrank (1948) describe a third stage charac-terized by group integration and mutuality.Noyes (1953) describes a middle stage ofgroup integration, while Stoute (1950) andThorpe and Smith (1953) see the stage of in-tragroup hostility grading into a period ofunity, support, and freedom of communica-tion. Martin and Hill (1957) theorize about astage featuring awareness that the group is anorganism preceding the final stage of develop-ment. Abrahams (1949) describes the devel-opment of "we-consciousness" in the thirdstage, while Mann (1953) sees the thirdstage as one of personal mutual explorationand analysis during which the group attainsunity.

The notion that the group becomes a simu-lation of the family constellation (that is,through transference members react to oneanother as members of their family), withthe unity and cohesion generally accepted inthat structure, fits as a close parallel to thestage of development of group cohesion beingpostulated. Beukenkamp (1952) describes themiddle stage of reliving the process of thefamily constellation where the group becomesa familylike structure, while King (1959)utilizes a similar description (that is, familyunity in the group) for the final stage in ac-tivity-group therapy. Wender (1946) andWolf (1949) both describe a stage precedingthe final stage in which the group becomes thenew family through the displacement of parentlove.

Studies that fail to identify this stage arethose that deal primarily with task develop-

390 BRUCE W. TUCKMAN

ment or those that integrate it as part of thefinal stage.

Task Activity: Discussing Oneself andOther Group Members, Many researchers ob-served probing and revealing by group mem-bers at a highly intimate level during this pe-riod and labeled it as (a) confiding (Clapham& Sclare, 1958; Coffey et al., 1950; Thorpe &Smith, 1953), (b) discussing personal prob-lems in depth (Corsini, 1957; Mann & Sem-rad, 1948; Osberg & Berliner, 1956; Taylor,1950), (c) exploring the dynamics at workwithin the individual (Dreikurs, 1957; Noyes,1953), and (d) exploring the dynamics atwork within the group (Bach, 1954; Martin& Hill, 1957; Powdermaker & Frank, 1948).

Beukenkamp (1952) observed that recalledmaterial was related to the family; Abrahams(1949) observed the process of common idea-tion; and Shellow et al. (1958) and Wolf(1949) emphasized patients' discussion oftopics related to transference to the therapistand to other group members which took placeduring this period.

Stage 4

Group Structure: Functional Role-related-ness. Only 12 of the therapy studies are at allexplicit in their identification of this stage.Almost all of the therapists discuss the finalstage of development of the therapy group intask terms as the therapeutic stage of under-standing, analysis, and insight. The group isseen as serving a therapeutic function, but thenature of this therapeutic function is notspelled out. This is a stage of mutual task in-teraction with a minimum of emotional inter-ference made possible by the fact that thegroup as a social entity has developed to thepoint where it can support rather than hindertask processes through the use of function-oriented roles.

Bach (1954) and Bion (1961) both referto the group in its final stage as the workgroup. As such it serves a function supportiveof therapy. Wender (1946) and Abrahams(1949) see the group as creating a therapeuticatmosphere in the final stage, while Wolf(1949), Stoute (1950), and Corsini (1951)describe this stage as one of freedom andfriendliness supportive of insightful behaviorand change. Both Coffey et al. (1950) andDreikurs (1957) see the group as a thera-

peutic force producing encouragement and in-tegrating problems with roles. Martin andHill (1957) identify the group as an integra-tive-creative-social instrument in its finalstage which facilitates problem solving, diag-nosis, and decision making. Osberg and Ber-liner (1956) describe the self-starting stagewhere the group environment supports analy-sis, while Mann (1953) discusses a final stageof personal mutual synthesis.

Other therapy researchers failing to specif-ically delineate this final stage in social de-velopment have tended to lump the third andfourth stages together and not make the dis-tinction between the development of cohesionand the "use" of cohesion (via functionalroles) as a therapeutic force. Such descrip-tions were included in the section on the thirdstage. The small number of investigatorsidentifying this final stage is most likely dueto the high visibility of task functions occur-ring during this time period which obscureand minimize social processes occurring simul-taneously.

Task Activity: Emergence of Insight. Thereseems to be overwhelming agreement amongthe observers of therapy-group developmentthat the final stage of task development ischaracterized by attainment of the desiredgoal, insight into one's own problems, an un-derstanding of the cause of one's abnormalbehavior and, in many cases, modification ofoneself in the desired direction (Beukenkamp,1952; Bion, 1961; Clapham & Sclare, 1958;Coffey et al., 1950; Corsini, 1957; Dreikurs,1957; King, 1959; Noyes, 1953; Schindler,1958; Stoute, 1950; Thorpe & Smith, 1953;Wender, 1946; Wolf, 1949). Others (Abra-hams, 1949; Bach, 1954; Barton, 1953;Cholden, 1953; Grotjahn, 1950; Shellow etal., 1958; Taylor, 1950) place more emphasison the processes of attempting to develop in-sight and change during this last period asopposed to the development of such insightand change itself.

Two additional therapy-group studies areworthy of inclusion, both of which utilized atechnique for collecting and analyzing datawhich was highly dissimilar to the approachused in the other therapy-group studies,namely, interaction-process analysis (Bales,1950). Psathas (1960) found that groupsphase from orientation to evaluation to con-

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS 391

trol, based on an analysis of early, middle,and late sessions. Talland (1955) failed toobserve this phase movement based on ananalysis of the first eight sessions.

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT INTRAINING GROUPS

Stage 1

Group Structure: Testing and Dependence.Nine of the 11 training-group studies reviewedthat deal with the development of groupstructure identify an initial stage character-ized at least in part by testing and depen-dence, with the emphasis on the dependent as-pect of this stage.

Herbert and Trist (1953), Bennis andShepard (1956), Bradford and Mallinson(1958), and Bradford (1964a) describe theinitial group phase as one characterized bythe strong expression of dependency needs bythe members toward the trainer, and attemptsat group structuring to work out authorityproblems by the quick acceptance of and de-pendence on such structure and arbitrarynorms. Thelen and Dickerman (1949) discussinitial stage establishment of a leadershiphierarchy catering to the dependency needs ofthe members. Hearn (1957) sees group mem-bers making an attempt to structure the un-known and to find their position in the groupin the earliest group stage. Here again, struc-ture reflects the expression of dependencyneeds.

Miles (1953) describes a first stage charac-terized by establishment oj the situationthrough interpersonal exploration and testing,while Semrad and Arsenian (1961) identifyan initial phase during which group members"test" the central figure and "test" the situa-tion.

Whitman (1964) describes a beginningstage in which the chief "vectors" are de-pendency and hostility. It would appear thatWhitman has identified a first stage whichcombines the first two stages proposed in thisarticle.

The two studies that do not yield an exactfit to the proposed scheme are those of Barronand Krulee (1948) and the Tulane Studies inSocial Welfare (1957) which identify an ini-tial period characterized by the emergence ofleadership and orientation, respectively. Inso-far as these authors see the authority area as

being of central concern and emphasize theorientation aspects of the first stage, there isoverlap with the scheme proposed herein.Moreover, orientation as a first stage fits thehypothesized initial stage for task activities;perhaps the observation in the Tulane studies(1957) of a member orientation as an initialstage is better classified in the task-activityarea.

Task Activity: Orientation. Bradford(1964b) identifies an initial stage of learninghow to learn which is characterized by accep-tance of the group's goal and orientation tothe techniques to be used. Herbert and Trist(1953) label their initial stage as discovery,in which the members orient themselves to theconsultant or trainer who serves an interpre-tive and educational role. Stock and Thelen(1958) discuss an initial stage characterizedby little "work" and a variable amount of"emotionality," during which time the mem-bers are concerned with defining the directionsthe group will pursue.

As can be seen, initially interpersonal prob-lems are dealt with via dependence, while taskproblems are met with task-orienting behav-ior (i.e., what is to be accomplished and how).

Stage 2

Group Structure: Intragroup Conflict. Tenof the 11 studies identify intragroup conflictas a second stage, while the remaining study(Whitman, 1964) describes an initial stageencompassing both dependence and hostility,in that order.

Barron and Krulee (1948) and Bradford(1964a) discuss a second stage characterizedby group cleavage and conflict. Both studiesidentify the emergence of polarities duringthis stage—members favoring a more active,less defensive approach versus those who aremore passive and defensive and seek "safety"via structure. Thelen and Dickerman (1949),Hearn (1957), the Tulane studies (1957),and Bradford and Mallinson (1958), as well,identify a similar polarization and resultantconflict, frustration, and disruption during thesecond stage.

Herbert and Trist (1953) describe a secondstage characterized in part by resistance,while Miles (1953) identifies anarchic re-bellion during this stage of anxiety, threat,and resistance. Semrad and Arsenian (1961)

392 BRUCE W. TUCKMAN

identify rivalry for the position of central fig-ure and emotional struggles in this period,while Bennis and Shepard (1956) see a simi-lar power struggle in which counterdependentsseek to usurp the leader, resulting in a con-flict between counterdependents and depen-dents.

There appears to be general agreement thatthe dependency stage is followed by a stage ofconflict between warring factions representingeach side of the polarized issue: dependenceversus independence, safe retreat into the fa-miliar versus risky advance into the unfa-miliar, defensiveness versus experimenting.

Task Activity: Emotional Response to TaskDemands. Bradford (1964b) identifies a sec-ond stage in which individuals learn how togive help which requires that they removeblocks to learning about themselves, reduceanxiety, and express real reactions. Stock andThelen (1958) see emotionality occurring inconsiderable excess of work during this pe-riod. The Tulane studies (1957) describe thesecond stage as one of experimental aggres-siveness and hostility where individuals ex-press themselves freely.

Thus, self-change and self-denial necessi-tated by the learning task is reacted to emo-tionally, as is the imposition of the group onthe individual. Often the two (representativeof the two realms) are difficult to separate.

Stage 3

Group Structure: Development oj GroupCohesion. All of the relevant T-group develop-ment studies see the stage of conflict andpolarization as being followed by a stage char-acterized by the reduction of the conflict,resolution of the polarized issues, and estab-lishment of group harmony in the place ofdisruption. It is a "patching-up" phase inwhich group norms and values emerge.

Hearn (1957), Miles (1953), and Thelenand Dickerman (1949) identify a third stagecharacterized by attempts to resolve conflictand the consequent development of group co-hesion and mutual support. Semrad and Ar-senian (1961) and the Tulane studies (1957)each describe two phases in their temporalsequences which would be included in Stage 3.In the case of the former, their first cohesionphase is characterized by group cohesion pro-cesses and their second by the development of

affection bonds; in the latter, the first co-hesion stage features the emergence of struc-ture, roles, and "we-feeling," while the secondfeatures increased group identification on aconscious level and vacillation in role accep-tance. Whitman (1964) talks about a middlephase, following conflict, described as the de-velopment of a new group culture via thegeneration of norms and values peculiar tothe group as an entity. Bradford and Mallin-son (1958) describe Stage 3 as one of reor-ganization, in which reforming and repair takeplace and a flexible organization emerges.

Bradford (1964a) describes a third stagein which the group norm of "openness"emerges, and a fourth stage in which thegroup generates additional norms to deal withself-revelation and feedback. Furthermore,Bradford (1964b) identifies a third stage asone of developing a group climate of permis-siveness, emotional support, and cohesivenessin which learning can take place. This descrip-tion would appear to subserve both interper-sonal and task realms.

Bennis and Shepard (1956) describe athird stage in which resolution of authorityproblems occurs, and a fourth stage charac-terized by smooth relations and enchant-ment as regards the interpersonal sphere ofgroup functioning. Finally, Barron and Krulee(1948) identify the third stage as increasingmember responsibility and changing facultyrole in which a definite sense of structure andgoal orientation emerge in the group.

Task Activity: Discussing Oneself andOthers. Herbert and Trist (1953) identify asecond stage labeled as execution, in whichthe group settles down to the description ofa single basic problem and learns to accept"the examination of what was going on insideof itself as a regular part of the task . . . ."Stock and Thelen (1958) describe a thirdtask phase in which the group shows a newability to express feelings constructively andcreatively. While emotionality is still high, itnow contributes to work.

While the social function of the third stageis to cause a unique and cohesive group struc-ture to emerge, the task function is to at-tempt to use this new structure as a vehiclefor discovering personal relations and emo-tions by communicating heretofore privatefeelings.

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS 393

Stage 4

Group Structure: Functional Role-Related-ness. There is some tendency for T groupers,as there was for the therapy groupers, to em-phasize the task aspects of the final stage,namely, the emergence of insight into the in-terpersonal process. In doing this, it is madeimplicit that the group as a social entitycharacterized by task-oriented role-relatednessmakes the emergence of such insight possibleby providing support and an opportunity forexperimentation and discovery.

Bradford (1964a) sees the group becominga work organization which provides membersupport, mutual acceptance, and has strongbut flexible norms. Hearn (1957) discussesmutual acceptance and use of differences inthe collaborative process during the fourthand fifth group stages, while Miles (1953)sees group structure as tending "to be func-tional and not loved for itself alone" as it wasin the preceding stage. The support functionis further emphasized by Miles when he says,

in groups where the interpersonal bonds are genuineand strong . . . members give one another a greatdeal of mutual evaluative support, which seems to bea prime requisite for successful behavior change [p.94].

Semrad and Arsenian (1961) describe afinal phase of productive collaboration, whileThelen and Dickerman (1949) identify thegroup as an effective social instrument duringthis period. Barren and Krulee (1948) see,as one group function occurring during thefinal two meetings, the sharing and refining offeelings through the group process.

Bennis and Shepard (1956) see the stageof group cohesion being followed by anotherperiod of conflict, in which the issue is inti-mate social relations versus aloofness. Thefinal stage is then one of consensual validationin which group interpersonal problems aresolved and the group is freed to function as aproblem-solving instrument.

The Tulane studies (1957) describe thestage following the emergence of cohesion asone in which behavior roles become dynamic,that is, behavior is changed as a function ofthe acceptance of group structure. An addi-tional stage is also identified in this study inwhich structure is institutionalized by thegroup and thus becomes rigid. Perhaps this

stage, not identified by other researchers,would most apply to groups with a long orindefinite group life.

The remaining T-group studies describetask development exclusively during the finalgroup phase.

Task Activity: Insight. Bradford's (1964b)fourth stage is one in which members discoveiand utilize various methods of inquiry asways of group development and individualgrowth, while, in his fifth and final stage,members learn how to internalize, generalize,and apply learnings to other situations. Her-bert and Trist (1953) label their final stageas evaluation. Stock and Thelen (1958) de-scribe the fourth and final stage as one char-acterized by a high degree of work in the ab-sence of affect. The issues are dealt with in aless excited way.

The overall fit between stages of develop-ment postulated in this paper for applicationin all settings and those delineated by Tgroupers is highlighted in the fourfold schemepresented by Golembiewski (1962), based onhis examination of some T-group develop-ment studies already reviewed in this paper.Golembiewski describes his stages as: (a)establishing the hierarchy; (b) conflict andfrustration; (c) growth of group security andautonomy; (d) structuring in terms of prob-lems facing the group rather than in termsof stereotypic role prescriptions.

STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT IN NATURALAND LABORATORY GROUPS

Few studies or theoretical statements haveconcerned themselves with the developmentalsequence in natural groups or laboratorygroups.

Stage 1

Group Structure: Testing and Dependence.Modlin and Paris (1956), studying an inter-disciplinary professional group, identify aninitial stage of structuralization, in whichmembers are dependent upon roles developedoutside of the group, well-established tradi-tions, and a fixed hierarchy of responsibility.

Schroder and Harvey (1963) describe aninitial stage of absolutistic dependency, fea-turing the emergence of a status hierarchy andrigid norms which reduce ambiguity and fos-ter dependence and submission.

394 BRUCE W. TVCKMAN

Theodorson (1953) observed a tendencyinitially for only one leader to emerge andfor group members to categorize one anotherso that they could define the situation and re-duce ambiguity.

Schutz (1958)3 sees the group dealing ini-tially with problems of inclusion—to join ornot to join; to commit oneself or not. Thegroup concern, thus, is boundary problems,and the behavior of members is individuallycentered. This description is somewhat sug-gestive of testing.

Task Activity: Orientation. Bales andStrodtbeck (1951) and Bales (1953), usingBales' (1950) interaction-process categories,discovered that leaderless laboratory groupsbegin by placing major emphasis on problemsof orientation (as reflected in Bales' cate-gories: "asks for orientation" and "gives ori-entation"). This orientation serves to definethe boundaries of the task (i.e., what is to bedone) and the approach that is to be used indealing with the task (i.e., how it is to be ac-complished).

Stage 2

Group Structure: Intragroup Hostility.Modlin and Faris .(1956) describe unrestcharacterized by friction and disharmony asthe second stage, while Schroder and Harvey(1963) identify a second stage of negativeindependence featuring rebellion, opposition,and conflict. In this stage the greater empha-sis is on autonomy and individual rights.Theodorson (1953) observed more friction,disharmony, and animosity early in the grouplife than during later periods.

Schutz (1958) postulates a second stage inwhich the group deals with problems of con-trol. This entails a leadership struggle inwhich individual members compete to estab-lish their place in the hierarchy culminatingin resolution.

In the task area, the stage of emotionalresponse to task demands is not delineated,presumably due to the impersonal and non-threatening nature of the task in these set-tings. When the task does not deal with the

2 The classification of Schutz's theory as one pri-marily descriptive of natural and laboratory groupsis arbitrary. Some would argue that Schutz is work-ing in the T-group tradition.

self at a penetrating level, extreme emotion-ality in the task area is not expected.

Stage 3

Group Structure: Development of GroupCohesion. Modlin and Faris (1956) identifychange as the third stage, characterized by theformation of the concept of the group as afunctioning unit and the emergence of a team"dialect." Schroder and Harvey (1963) referto Stage 3 as conditional dependence, featur-ing a group concern with integration and anemphasis on mutuality and the maintenanceof interpersonal relationships.

Theodorson (1953) observed the followinggroup tendencies over time (i.e., tending tooccur later as opposed to earlier in group de-velopment): (a) discovering what is commonto the members and developing a within-group"parochialism"; ( b ) the growth of an inter-locking network of friendship; (c) role in-terdependence; (d) mutual involvement andidentification between members with a con-comitant increase in harmony and solidarity;and (e) the establishment of group norms fordealing with such areas as discipline.

Schutz (1958) postulated a third stagewherein problems of affection are dealt with.Characteristic of this stage are emotional in-tegration, pairing, and the resolution of inti-macy problems.

Task Activity: Expression of Opinions.Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) and Bales(1953) observed that the orientation phasewas followed by a period in which major em-phasis was placed on problems of evaluation(as reflected by categories: "asks for opinion"and "gives opinion"). "Evaluation" as a de-scriptor of the exchange of opinions appearsto be comparable to the third task stagein therapy- and training-group developmentwhich was heretofore labeled as "discussingoneself and others." Because the therapy andtraining tasks are personal ones, task opinionsmust involve self and others. When the task isan impersonal one, the content of task opin-ions varies accordingly.

Stage 4

Group Structure: Functional Role-Related-ness. Modlin and Faris (1956) identify inte-gration as the fourth and final stage in whichstructure is internalized and the group phi-

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS 395

losophy becomes pragmatic, that is, the uni-fied-group approach is applied to the task.

Schroder and Harvey (1963) postulate afinal stage of positive interdependence, char-acterized by simultaneous autonomy and mu-tuality (i.e., the members can operate in anycombination, or as a unit), and an emphasison task achievement which is superordinate tosocial structure.

Theodorson (1953) sees the group as de-veloping into a subculture over time, alongwith the development of member responsibil-ity to the group.

Schutz (1958) does not identify a fourthstage; rather, he sees his three postulatedstages in continually cycling over time.

Task Activity: Emergence of Solution. Thethird and final phase observed by Bales andStrodtbeck (1951) and Bales (1953) is onein which major emphasis is placed on prob-lems of control (as reflected by categories:"asks for suggestion" and "gives sugges-tion"). The purpose of suggestions is to offersolutions to the task based on informationgathered and evaluated in previous develop-mental periods. This then represents an ana-logue to final stages in therapy- and training-group task development where the emergenceof insight yields solutions to personal prob-lems.

These authors do not identify a period oftask development in laboratory groups com-parable to the second task stage in therapy-and training-group development which fea-tures the expression of emotional material.Again, because therapy and training tasks arepersonal ones, this will be reflected in thecontent of discussion, specifically by the mani-festation of resistance prior to dealing withthe personal task at a level of confidence andhonesty. This task stage does not appear tobe quite relevant in laboratory discussiongroups, and its existence has not been re-ported by Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) orBales (1953).

Philp and Dunphy (1959) have furthersubstantiated the findings of Bales and Strodt-beck (1951) and Bales (1953) by observingthe same phase-movement pattern in groupsworking on a different type of discussionproblem.8 Furthermore, Philp and Dunphy

8As mentioned earlier, Psathas (I960), workingwith therapy groups, observed the same phase move-

(1959) present evidence which indicates thatsex of the participants does not affect the pat-tern of phase movements.

Finally, Smith (1960) has observed thatexperimental groups show early concentrationon matters not related to the task, and, onlylater in the development sequence, concen-trate on task-relevant activities. Again, thisfinding suggests a strong similarity betweentask development in laboratory groups andin therapy and training groups, since, in thelatter settings, constructive task-relevant ac-tivity appears only late in the developmentalsequence.

DISCUSSION

The literature that has been reviewed canbe criticized on a number of grounds. First,it may be pointed out that this literaturecannot be considered truly representative ofsmall-group developmental processes, sincecertain settings have been overrepresented,primarily the therapy-group setting, andothers underrepresented, primarily the natu-ral-group and laboratory-group settings. Thisshortcoming cannot be rectified within theexisting literature; rather, it must serve as astimulus for further research in the lattergroup settings. Furthermore, the inequality ofsetting representation necessitates caution ingeneralizing from this literature. Generaliza-tion must, perforce, be limited to the fact thatwhat has been presented is mainly researchdealing with sequential development in ther-apy groups.

A second source of criticism concerns theextent of experimental rigor characteristic ofthe majority of studies cited in this review.Most of the studies carried out in the therapy-group, training-group, and natural-group set-tings are based on the observation of singlegroups. Furthermore, these observations arequalitative rather than quantitative, and assuch are subject to the biases of the observer,ordinarily the therapist or trainer. This is notto suggest that the therapy-group setting isnot appropriate for studying group processes,but that the study of such processes shouldbe more subject to methodological considera-tions. A good instance of the application of

ment, namely, orientation to evaluation to control.However, Talland (19SS) failed to get this phasemovement in therapy groups.

396 BRUCE W. TV C KM AN

such considerations is the study of Psathas(1960) conducted in the therapy-group set-ting. Psathas coded group protocols usingBales' (19SO) scheme of interaction-processanalysis. After satisfactory reliabilities wereobtained, the data could be considered ashighly quantitative and objective, and couldthen be subjected to statistical analysis. Ap-proaches of equal rigor are recommended forother studies conducted in the therapy-groupsetting and other settings as well.

A final criticism concerns the descriptionand control of independent variables. Sincemost of the studies in the therapy-, training-,and natural-group settings used a singlegroup, the control and systematic manipula-tion of independent variables was impossible.In the absence of the manipulation of inde-pendent variables and the consequent dis-covery of their differential effects within stud-ies, these effects can only be approximatelydiscerned by comparing studies. However,many independent variables are likely to varyfrom study to study, for example, group com-position, duration, etc., and little light will beshed on the effects of these variables on thedevelopmental process. Therefore, no conclu-sions about the specific effects of independentvariables on developmental phenomena will bedrawn, and further work along these lines isencouraged.

In order to isolate those concepts commonto the various studies reviewed (across set-tings), a developmental model was proposed.This model was aimed at serving a conceptualfunction as well as an integrative and organi-zational one. The model will be summarizedhere.

Groups initially concern themselves withorientation accomplished primarily throughtesting. Such testing serves to identify theboundaries of both interpersonal and task be-haviors. Coincident with testing in the inter-personal realm is the establishment of de-pendency relationships with leaders, othergroup members, or preexisting standards. Itmay be said that orientation, testing, and de-pendence constitute the group process offorming.

The second point in the sequence is charac-terized by conflict and polarization aroundinterpersonal issues, with concomitant emo-

tional responding in the task sphere. Thesebehaviors serve as resistance to group influ-ence and task requirements and may be la-beled as storming.

Resistance is overcome in the third stagein which ingroup feeling and cohesiveness de-velop, new standards evolve, and new roles areadopted. In the task realm, intimate, personalopinions are expressed. Thus, we have thestage of norming.

Finally, the group attains the fourth andfinal stage in which interpersonal structure be-comes the tool of task activities. Roles becomeflexible and functional, and group energy ischanneled into the task. Structural issues havebeen resolved, and structure can now becomesupportive of task performance. This stagecan be labeled as performing.

Although the model was largely inducedfrom the literature, it would seem to with-stand the test of common sense as well asbeing consistent with developmental theoryand findings in other areas. It is not unrea-sonable to expect "newness" of the group tobe greeted by orienting behavior and resultantunsureness and insecurity overcome throughdependence on an authority figure, as pro-posed in the model. Such orienting responsesand dependence on authority are character-istic of the infant during the first year (Ilg &Ames, 1955), the young child when first ap-prehending rules (Piaget, 1932), and the pa-tient when first entering psychotherapy (Rot-ter, 1954).

After the "newness" of the group has "wornoff," the members react to both the imposi-tion of the group and the task emotionallyand negatively, and pose a threat to furtherdevelopment. This proposal is mirrored bythe rebelliousness of the young child follow-ing his "obedient" stages (Ilg & Ames, 1955;Levy, 1955).

Such emotionality, if overcome, is followedby a sense of "pulling together" in the groupand being more sensitive to one another. Thissensitivity to others is mirrored in the de-velopment of the child (Ilg & Ames, 1955;Piaget, 1932) and represents an essentialaspect of the socialization process (Mead,1934).

Finally, the group becomes a functional in-strument for dealing with the task. Interper-

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS 397

sonal problems lie in the group's "past," andits present can be devoted to realistic ap-praisal of and attempt at solutions to the taskat hand. This interdependence and "marriageto reality" is characteristic of the "mature"human being (Erikson, 1950; Fromm, 1941)and the "mature" 9-year-old child (Ilg &Ames, 1955)*

The suggested stages of group developmentare highly visible in the literature reviewed.The fit is not perfect, however. Some of thestudies identify some but not all of the sug-gested stages. In some of these cases, two ofthe suggested stages have been welded intoone by the observer. For instance, Barton(1953) describes three stages; the first andsecond fit the first two conceptual stagesclosely, while Barton's third stage is descrip-tive of the third and fourth conceptual stagesinsofar as it is characterized by both theemergence of cohesiveness and the workingthrough of problems. In other cases, one ormore of the hypothesized stages have beenclearly missing, and thus not recognized inthe group or groups being observed. Forinstance, Powdermaker and Frank (1948)identify three stages that fit the first threeconceptual stages fairly closely, but they donot identify any fourth stage. Perhaps caseslike this can be accounted for on the basis ofindependent variables such as duration ofgroup life.

A few studies identify more than fourstages. Some of these additional stages repre-sent a greater degree of differentiation thanthat of the model and are of less generality(i.e., highly specific to the independent condi-tions of the study). For instance, therapy-group studies with delinquents and dope ad-dicts identify a stage prior to conceptualStage 1 in which the antisocial group mem-bers must be won over to the point wherethey will take the therapy seriously.

Some of the studies identify a stage that isclearly not in the model. Parker (1958) de-scribes a first stage of cohesive organization.This divergence from the model may reflect adifferent way of describing much the same

* A more detailed model of individual development(similar to the group model proposed here), alongwith many citations of supporting literature, may befound in Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder (1961).

thing or may reflect an unusual set of inde-pendent conditions. Parker was observing award population of about 25, rather than asmall weekly therapy group. It may be thatthe hypothesized first stage is somewhat in-appropriate for larger, living-together groups.

While the suggested sequence appeared tohold up under widely varied conditions ofgroup composition, duration of group life, andspecific group task (i.e., the sequence held upacross settings), it must be assumed that thereis a finite range of conditions beyond whichthe sequence of development is altered, andthat the studies reviewed did not exceed thisassumed range to any great extent. Setting-specific differences and within-setting differ-ences may affect temporal change as regardsthe specific content of the stages in the de-velopmental sequence, the rate of progressionthrough the sequence, or the order of the se-quence itself. In the therapy-group setting,for instance, task information in the thirdstage is considerably more intimate than it isin the laboratory-group setting, and this stagemay be attained at a later chronological timein therapy groups than in laboratory groups.

Certainly duration of group life would beexpected to influence amount and rate of de-velopment. The laboratory groups, such asthose run for a few hours by Bales and Strodt-beck (1951), followed essentially the samecourse of development as did therapy groupsrun for a period of a year. The relativelyshort life of the laboratory group imposesthe requirement that the problem-solvingstage be reached quickly, while no such im-position exists for the long-lived therapygroup. Consequently, the former groups areforced to develop at a rapid rate. The possi-bility of such rapid development is aided bythe impersonal and concrete nature of thelaboratory task. Orientation is still requireddue to the newness of the task but is mini-mized by task rules, players' manuals, and thelike, that help to orient the group members.Emotionality and resistance are major featuresof therapy-group development and representpersonal and interpersonal impediments togroup development and solution attainment asa function of the highly emotionally chargednature of the therapy-group task. The imper-sonal laboratory task features no such impedi-

398 BRUCE W. TV C KM AN

ments and consequently the stage of emotion-ality is absent. The exchange of relevant in-formation is as necessary to the laboratorytask as it is to the therapy task, but the in-formation to be exchanged is limited in thelaboratory task by the nature of the task andtime considerations. The behavior of "norm-ing" is common to both settings but not sosalient in the laboratory where the situationis so task-oriented. Finally, the problem-solv-ing or "performing" stage is an essential stagein both settings.

One would expect the laboratory group tospend relatively more time in the fourth stagerelative to the first three stages because ofthe task orientation in the laboratory setting.In the therapy task, with its unavoidable deepinterpersonal penetration, we would expectrelatively equal time to be spent in each stage.This, however, can undoubtedly be furthermodified by group composition as well as bythe duration of group life and specific natureof the laboratory task. Undoubtedly there isan interaction between setting and develop-ment such that the sequence proposed herewill be altered.

Unfortunately, the above hypotheses cannotbe substantiated with available data, thoughcertain of the studies are suggestive of the ex-planations offered. The articles reviewed donot deal with rate of temporal change nor dothey give sufficiently complete and detailedtime data associated with each stage to makecalculations of rate possible. Furthermore,they do not systematically describe their inde-pendent variables nor relate them to the de-velopmental phenomena through systematicvariation and the observation of cause andeffect. The major task of systematically study-ing the effects of a variety of appropriate in-dependent variables on development still re-mains. The value of the proposed model isthat it represents a framework of generictemporal change within which the above ex-plorations can be nested and which shouldlead to the derivation of many specific hy-potheses relating independent variables to thesequence of temporal change. Such quantita-tive explorations will undoubtedly lead to re-finements and perhaps major modifications ofsuch a model.

REFERENCESABRAHAMS, J. Group psychotherapy: Implications

for direction and supervision of mentally ill pa-tients. In Theresa Muller (Ed.), Mental health innursing. Washington, D. C.: Catholic Univer. Press,1949. Pp. 77-83.

BACH, G. R. Intensive group psychotherapy. NewYork: Ronald Press, 19S4. Pp. 268-293.

BALES, R. F. Interaction process analysis: A methodfor the study of small groups. Cambridge, Mass.:Addison-Wesley, 1950.

BALES, R. F. The equilibrium problem in smallgroups. In T. Parson, R. F. Bales, & E. A. Shils,Working papers in the theory of action. Glencoe,111.: Free Press, 1953. Pp. 111-161.

BALES, R. F., & STRODTBECK, F. L. Phases in groupproblem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 1951, 46, 485-495.

BARRON, MARGARET E., & KRULEE, G. K. Case studyof a basic skill training group. Journal of SocialIssues, 1948, 4, 10-30.

BARTON, W. E. Group psychotherapy of the psy-choses. Digest of Neurology and Psychiatry, 1953,21, 148-149.

BENNIS, W. G., & SHEPARD, H. A. A theory of groupdevelopment. Human Relations, 1956, 9, 415-437.

BEUKENKAMP, C. Some observations made duringgroup therapy. Psychiatric Quarterly Supplement,1952, 26, 22-26.

BION, W. R. Experience in groups. New York: BasicBooks, 1961.

BRADFORD, L. P. Trainer-intervention: Case episodes.In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, & K. D. Benne(Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method.New York: Wiley, 1964. Pp. 136-167. (a)

BRADFORD, L. P. Membership and the learning proc-ess. In L. P. Bradford, J. R. Gibb, & K. D. Benne(Eds.), T-group theory and laboratory method.New York: Wiley, 1964. Pp. 190-215. (b)

BRADFORD, L. P., & MALLINSON, T. Group formationand development. In, Dynamics of group life.Washington, D. C.: National Education Associa-tion, National Training Laboratories, 1958.

CHOLDEN, L. Group therapy with the blind. GroupPsychotherapy, 1953, 6, 21-29.

CLAPHAM, H. I., & SCLARE, A. B. Group psycho-therapy with asthmatic patients. InternationalJournal of Group Psychotherapy, 1958, 8, 44-54.

COFFEY, H. S. Socio and psyche group process: In-tegrative concepts. Journal of Social Issues, 1952,8, 65-74.

COFFEY, H., FREEDMAN, M., LEARY, T., & OSSORIO, A.Community service and social research—grouppsychotherapy in a church program. Journal ofSocial Issues, 1950, 6(1), 14-61.

CORSINI, R. J. Methods of group psychotherapy.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1957. Pp. 119-120.

DEUTSCH, M. A. A theory of cooperation and com-petition. Human Relations, 1949, 2, 129-152.

DREIKURS, R. Group psychotherapy from the pointof view of Adlerian psychology. InternationalJournal of Group Psychotherapy, 1957, 7, 363-375.

ERIKSON, E. H. Childhood and society. New York:Nortm, 1950. Pp. 213-220.

DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS 399

FROMM, E. Escape from freedom. New York: Rine-hart, 1941.

GOLEMBIEWSKI, R. T. The small group. Chicago, 111.:Univer. Chicago Press, 1962. Pp. 193-200.

GROTJAHN, M. The process of maturation in grouppsychotherapy and in the group therapist. Psychia-try, 19SO, 13, 63-67.

HARVEY, 0. J., HUNT, D. E., & SCHRODER, H. M.Conceptual systems and personality organization.New York: Wiley, 1961.

HEARN, G. The process of group development. Au-tonomous Groups Bulletin, 1957, 13, 1-7.

HERBERT, ELEONORE, L., & TRIST, E. L. The institu-tion of an absent leader by a student's discussiongroup. Human Relations, 1953, 6, 215-248.

ILC, FRANCES L., & AMES, LOUISE B. Child behavior.New York: Harper, 1955.

JENNINGS, HELEN H. Sociometric differentiation ofthe psychegroup and sociogroup. Sodometry, 1947,10, 71-79.

KINO, C. H. Activity group therapy with a schiz-phrenic boy—follow-up two years later. Interna-tional Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1959, 9,184-194.

LEVY, D. M. Oppositional syndromes and opposi-tional behavior. In P. H. Hoch & J. Zubin (Eds.),Psychopathology of childhood. New York: Grune& Stratton, 1955. Pp. 204-226.

MANN, J. Group therapy with adults. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 1953, 23, 332-337.

MANN, J., & SEMRAD, E. V. The use of group therapyin psychoses. Journal of Social Casework, 1948,29, 176-181.

MARTIN, E. A., & Hnx, W. F. Toward a theory ofgroup development: Six phases of therapy groupdevelopment. International Journal of Group Psy-chotherapy, 1957, 7, 20-30.

MEAD, G. H. Self, mind and society. Chicago: Uni-ver. Chicago Press, 1934.

MILES, M. B. Human relations training: How agroup grows. Teachers College Record, 1953, 55,90-96.

MODLIN, H. C., & PARIS, MILDRED. Group adaptationand integration in psychiatric team practice. Psy-chiatry, 1956, 19, 97-103.

NOYES, A. P. Modern clinical psychiatry. (4th ed.)Philadelphia, Pa.: Saunders, 1953. Pp. 589-591.

OSBERG, J. W., & BERLINER, A. K. The developmentalstages in group psychotherapy with hospitalizednarcotic addicts. International Journal of GroupPsychotherapy, 1956, 6, 436-447.

PARKER, S. Leadership patterns in a psychiatric ward.Human Relations, 1958, 11, 287-301.

PHILP, H., & DUNPHY, D. Developmental trends insmall groups. Sodometry, 1959, 22, 162-174.

PIAGET, J. The moral judgment of the child. NewYork: Harcourt Brace, 1932.

POWDERMAKER, FLORENCE, & FRANK, J. D. Grouppsychotherapy with neurotics. American Journalof Psychiatry, 1948, 105, 449-455.

PSATHAS, G. Phase movement and equilibrium tend-encies in interaction process in psychotherapygroups. Sodometry, 1960, 23, 177-194.

ROTTER, J. B. Social learning and clinical psychology.New York: Prentice-Hall, 1954.

SCHINDLER, R. Bifocal group therapy. In J. Masser-man & J. E. Moreno (Eds.), Progress in psycho-therapy. Vol. 3. New York: Grune & Stratton,1958. Pp. 176-186.

SCHRODER, H. M., & HARVEY, 0. J. Conceptual or-ganization and group structure. In O. J. Harvey(Ed.), Motivation and social interaction. NewYork: Ronald Press, 1963. Pp. 134-166.

SCHUTZ, W. C. FIRO: A three dimensional theory ofinterpersonal behavior. New York: Rinehart, 1958.Pp. 168-188.

SEMRAD, E. V., & ARSENIAN, J. The use of groupprocesses in teaching group dynamics. In W. G.Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.), The plan-ning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston, 1961. Pp. 737-743.

SHELLOW, R. S., WARD, J. L., & RUBENFELD, S. Grouptherapy and the institutionalized delinquent. Inter-national Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1958, 8,265-275.

SMITH, ANTHONY J. A developmental study of groupprocesses. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1960, 97,29-39.

STOCK, DOROTHY, & THELEN, H. A. Emotional dy-namics and group culture. Washington, D. C.: Na-tional Education Association, National TrainingLaboratories, 1958.

STOUTE, A. Implementation of group interpersonalrelationships through psychotherapy. Journal ofPsychology, 1950, 30, 145-156.

TALLAND, G. A. Task and interaction process: Somecharacteristics of therapeutic group discussion.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955,50, 105-109.

TAYLOR, F. K. The therapeutic factors of group-analytic treatment. Journal of Mental Science,1950, 96, 976-997.

THELEN, H., & DICKERMAN, W. Stereotypes and thegrowth of groups. Educational Leadership, 1949,6, 309-316.

THEODORSON, G. A. Elements in the progressive de-velopment of small groups. Social Forces, 1953, 31,311-320.

THORPE, J. J., & SMITH, B. Phases in group develop-ment in treatment of drug addicts. InternationalJournal of Group Psychotherapy, 1953, 3, 66-78.

TULANE STUDIES IN SOCIAL WELFARE. The use ofgroup methods in social welfare settings. New Or-leans: Tulane Univer. School of Social Work,1957.

WENDER, L. The dynamics of group psychotherapyand its application. Journal of Nervous and Men-tal Disease, 1946, 84, 54-60.

WHITMAN, R. M. Psychodynamic principles under-lying T-group processes. In L. P. Bradford, J. R.Gibb, & K. Benne (Eds.), T-group theory andlaboratory methods. New York: Wiley, 1964. Pp.310-335.

WOLF, A. The psychoanalysis of groups. AmericanJournal of Psychotherapy, 1949, 3, 16-50.

(Received July 6, 1964)