Aaron M. Brower

Are College Students Alcoholics

A re college students alcoholics? We get this question a lot. I t is a different question from “Is student drinking worse than ever before?” or “Is student drinking out of control?’ This question is specifically about whether college students are alcoholics-whether their drinking is making them alcohol dependent or whether they are headed down a road to long-term alcohol abuse. We get this question from people with different agendas: from those who are sincerely interested in whether college students are alcoholics and from those who want to discuss why students drink, what harm drinking causes i n a campus community, and how universities should best handle it. But we also get this question from those whom we c;ill the Carrie Nations. Their question often leads to a one-sided lecture about the evils of alcohol (and society) and their contention that prohibition is the only real stance to take and that universities should promote abstinence. We also get the question from people who simply want the issue of college drinking to go away. Very (often these questioners are bar owners or others with ties to the alcohol industry, although equally often they are alumni who are remembering their college days and are asking us what all the fuss is about. From these people, the real statement they are making is, “I know students aren’t alcoholics, so what’s the big deal?’ College students, they say, have been drinking excessively since colleges began, so the best thing a university can do is just get out of the way. Students, they say, need to experiment and learn through trial and error-just as they did when they were in college.

Group Development as Constructed Social Reality Revisited: The Constructivism of Small Groups

Constructivism can be used in small groups as specific techniques are applied for behavior changes in a group setting. Constructivism can also be used to describe group processes. The author presents a constructivist reexamination of group development, that is, how individuals come together to form a shared reality of their group experience. The study and treatment use of small groups present an especially good venue from which to view how constructivism and social constructionism meet. Several practice implications of the group-development model are identified and discussed, along with two constructivist techniques particularly well suited to the group modality.

Behavior Changes in Psychotherapy Groups A Study Using an Empirically Based Statistical Method

Methodological problems in charting phases of group development have created a tendency to overgeneralize existing theories in the field. An extensive review of the statistical methods used to chart group phases notes two methodological traps that reduce the utility of prevailing methods. A statistical methodology is suggested to avoid these traps. The model proposed allows description of the natural unfolding of behavior phases without destroying the multivariate richness of a groups activity. Using a Bales-type observational system to code behaviors of two psychotherapy groups, sessions were statistically clustered according to their behavioral similarity. These clusters were compared to identify distinct phases of development. A clinical description was prepared for each group using only the results obtained from the statistical model. Although similarities were found, it was shown that different groups develop differently, according to their own particular sets of internal and external pressures, and that unique configurations of systematically specified factors characterize group development.

Introduction to Point/Counterpoint

Several months ago, in April of 2010, a new feature appeared in Small Group Research. In that feature, called Point/Counterpoint, a basic issue involving small group research was identified and leading researchers with opposing viewpoints on that issue were invited to present their opinions. The first Point/Counterpoint feature focused on whether dyads are really groups or not. Richard Moreland argued that dyads are qualitatively different from larger sets of people, and so dyads probably should be analyzed separately from them. In contrast, Kipling Williams argued that dyads are similar to larger groups in so many ways that they probably should be considered as groups themselves. The current Point/Counterpoint feature focuses on the importance of behavioral data, especially data on the interactions among group members, for understanding small groups. Joseph Bonito and Robert Sanders argue that such data capture essential aspects of groups and thus should be examined in every study. In contrast, Katherine Reynolds argues that whereas behavioral data can be useful, they are not essential and that much can be learned about groups even in studies where group members never interact. This issue is timely, given a recent article by Moreland, Fetterman, Flagg, and Swanenburg (2010) showing that social psychologists (at least) have become much less likely in recent years to collect behavioral data in research on small groups. If there is a basic issue involving research on small groups that you think is especially important, and might thus serve as the focus for a future Point/ Counterpoint feature, then please let us know what that issue is and suggest some people (maybe yourself) who might be willing to write essays about that issue. And if you want to express your own opinions about the issues raised in any of the Point/Counterpoint features, then you can do that at the journal’s blog, which resides at http://sgrjournal.blogspot.com/

The Way We Were

The editors of SGR—Dick Moreland, Vanessa Druskat, Joann Keyton, and I—were e-mailing recently about some of our favorite small group articles, and it got us thinking about reprinting a few classics from the early days of this journal, before Small Group Behavior and the International Journal of Small Group Research merged. After much discussion, we picked two review articles from Small Group Behavior that we are reprinting in this issue: Paul Hare’s 1973 “Theories of Group Development and Categories for Interactional Analysis” and Ralph Warhman’s 1972 “Status, Deviance, and Sanctions: A Critical Review.” This essay will provide a bit more description of these articles, but suffice it to say that each provided a needed springboard for future research into small group behaviors.