One group analysis and many. Response to Farhad Dalal’s ‘One group analysis or many?’

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 334-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hermann Staats

Responding to Farhad Dalal’s question ‘one group analysis or many?’ the author looks at contextual factors of working with groups, claiming that group therapists are different in different groups and adjusting to setting variables. He describes aspects of the ‘Goettingen Model of Group Psychotherapy’. This model offers variability in conducting groups within one theoretical concept. Different scientific approaches are integrated in order to adjust to different patients and settings. Many aspects (e.g. a marked intersubjective approach and working with an ‘responsive’ mode (‘antwortender modus’) are close to Dalal’s thinking. In contrast to Dalal, however, empirical evidence and evidence based therapies are seen as valuable parts of group psychotherapies and group analysis. Within this conceptual frame, working in and with groups is both—one group analysis and many.

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1938-1944
Author(s):  
Irwan Shah Zainal Abidin ◽  
Mohd Dan Jantan ◽  
Nurulhuda Mohd Satar ◽  
Muhammad Haseeb

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Charras ◽  
Véronique Laulier ◽  
Armelle Varcin ◽  
Jean-Pierre Aquino

Biofeedback ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 110-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Gevirtz

Heart rate variability biofeedback has enjoyed increased popularity in recent years. In this review, empirical evidence from multiple sources is presented from the point of view of possible mechanisms of effect. While more research is clearly needed, the data thus far are certainly promising.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-70
Author(s):  
Gaëtanelle Gilquin ◽  
Andrew McMichael

Abstract This paper empirically tests a number of criteria proposed in the literature to identify the prototype of a linguistic category in order to see how they compare with each other - and what this can tell us about the concept of prototypicality. The item under investigation is through, and the starting point is an intuition-based definition of prototypical through. The different criteria are frequency of use, ease of elicitation, historical origin, patterns in L1 acquisition and patterns in L2 use. All instances of through retrieved for testing each of these criteria are classified according to a taxonomy couched in Construction Grammar terms. The findings confirm the special status of the intuition-based prototype of through (the [X moves through Y] construction) according to some of the criteria, but also reveal divergent results, in particular a central use of the instrumental prepositional phrase with through. Conclusions are drawn about the theoretical concept of prototypicality and its possible multi-faceted nature, and more generally about the place of empirical evidence in Cognitive Linguistics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 1085-1105
Author(s):  
Michael J. Lamla ◽  
Sarah M. Lein ◽  
Jan-Egbert Sturm

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document