Group Therapy & Food Addiction
Group approaches to psychotherapy are used not only
because they are less costly but because many clinicians
believe that therapy can be at least as effective with
groups as it is with individuals. One appealing feature
of group psychotherapy is that clients can learn both by
observing other group members' adaptive and maladaptive
attempts to solve personal problems and by comparing
their own relationship with the therapist with
those of the other members.
Group therapy is usually seen as a means of broadening
the application of psychotherapeutic concepts.
Some advocates of group psychotherapy believe it may
actually produce better results than individual therapy.
There is evidence that groups are particularly effective
when they give participants opportunities to acquire
new social skills.
Opportunities to rehearse or practice these skills
in the group increase the chances that the participants
will actually use their newly acquired skills in everyday
life. The following arc among the most frequently observed
features of group therapy for addiction in general:
1. Self disclosure-the opportunity to tell the group
about one's personal problems and concerns.
2. Acceptance and support-feeling a sense of belongingness
and being valued by the group members.
3. Norm clarification-learning that one's problems are
neither unique nor more serious than is true for
other group members.
4. Social learning-being able to relate constructively
and adaptively within the group.
5. Vicarious learning-learning about oneself through
the observation of other group members, including
the therapist.
6. Self understanding-finding out about one's behavior
in the group setting and the motivations contributing
to the behavior.
Group therapy for food addiction provides an opportunity for members
to observe how their behavior affects other people
and to receive personally relevant feedback. To maximize
the likelihood that this will happen, group therapists often
emphasize not only what members reveal about
themselves, but also how the others react to what is said
in the group setting.
Example: John who had been in the group for approximately
six months reported to the group that he had had an
extremely upsetting fight with his girl friend that had
resulted in the rupture of their relationship. He and
she were coming home from a Hawaiian vacation
trip between Christmas and New Year's. It had been
a very good trip during which they had deeply
enjoyed each others company. Yet John noticed that
his girl friend had grown silent and tearful on the
way home. Upon inquiring he learned that she did
not wish to talk; she stated she was having some
problems around the holidays, and needed some time
and space to think about them. John guessed from
previous conversations that she was troubled by her
feelings surrounding her ex-husband (she had been
divorced for only four months) and he grew annoyed
and demanded more information from her. (Before
they started dating he had carefully and closely
questioned her about her relationship with her ex-husband,
and she had reassured him that that was
no longer an issue for her. John now flit that she had
lied and he became more indignant and intrusive.)
The situation-her withdrawal and his demand escalated
until John raised the question of whether or
not they should continue their relationship. After they
returned to their homes) he gathered up all the
Christmas presents she had given him and left them
on her doorstep with a note stating that it was better
if they ended their relationship. The next day he
thought better of it and tried calling her, but she
refused to speak to him. He then tried to force his
way into her house using his key; she became
frightened and called the police.
-(Yalom, 1986, p. 707)
How did what John said, and the way that he said
it, affect the other members? His account of the incident
was biased by his personal involvement in the incident
and his strong emotions. All four of the women in the
group expressed feelings suggesting that what John said
had frightened them. One woman said that John appeared
very impatient in most group sessions. Two
women said that John frequently seemed angry. The
fourth woman mentioned that John frightened her and
she preferred not to sit next to him. Another group
member observed that John had on more than one occasion
commented on the "petty grievances of other
members." Yet another mentioned that John lacked empathy
for the problems and limitations of other people.
Interestingly, John commented that he tended to present
a "strong front" to the group, by which he meant
he did not admit to weaknesses and failings. All of these
contributions of members following John's account focused
attention on the "here and now," how the group
members were affecting each other.