Number 10, 2010

Stages of Small-Group
Development Revisited

Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen

NUMBER 11, 2011

Group Facilitation:
A Research & Applications Journal
A R ESEARCH &
 Group Facilitation:
A Research & Applications Journal
Number 10, 2010 © International Association of Facilitators ISSN 1534-5653

Editor: Stephen Thorpe, Auckland University of Technology

The mission of the International
[email protected]
Association of Facilitators (IAF) is
to promote, support and advance
Associate Editors: Sandor P. Schuman
the art and practice of professional
Steven N. Pyser
group facilitation through methods
exchange, professional growth, Scott Gasman, IdeaJuice
Book Review Editors:
practical research, collegial Andrew Rixon, Babel Fish Group Pty Ltd.
networking and support services.
Chair Managing Editor: Tammy Adams, Chaosity LLC
Gary Rush
Editorial Board Member: Mark Edmead, MTE Advisors
Past Chair
Eunice Shankland Jon Jenkins, Imaginal Training
Sascha Rixon, Swinburn University of Technology
Chair-Elect
Martin Gilbraith Past Editors: Mark Fuller (1997-2000)
Sandor Schuman (2000-2007)
Treasurer
Anthony Nash
Publisher: Bill Staples, ICA Associates Inc.
Secretary
Stephen Thorpe Reviewers: Charmaine Arner, John Batros, Alan Belasen,
Andy Bell, Juliana Birkhoff, Hamish Brown,
Vice Chair International Gervase Bushe, Peter Classetti, Helen Dawn,
Theresa Ratnam Thong Gerardus DeVreede, Sabine Drückler, Don Dutko,
Andrea Elbaum, Mike Eng, Anthony Griffin, Chris
Association Coordinating Team Harkess, Darin Harris, Dale Hunter, Joey Jackson,
Sharon Almerigi, Kimberly Bain, Matthew Jager, Jeanne Juenger, Jean-Anne Kirk,
Jackie Chang, Mark Edmead, Pamela Jan Lelie, Jennifer Longnion, Kathryn McCarty, Jo
Lupton-Bowers, Mary Sue McCarthy, Nelson, Nick Noakes, Bertram Raven, Gary Rush,
Jerome Passmore, Susan Peryam Michelle Rush, Keith Ryall, Tom Schwarz, Sue
Keith Ryall, Carol Sheriff, David Senecah, Gilbert Steil, Norma Sutcliffe, Rosanna
Spann, Michael Spivey, Tom Schwarz, Tarsiero, Glyn Thomas, Nancy White
Simon Wilson,
Copyright 2010 No copying permitted without prior consent of the
Group Facilitation: A Research & Publisher. Excerpting for classroom use and course
Applications Journal is published readings is permitted with the following notice, "Excerpted
from Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications
annually by the: Journal © 2010 International Association of Facilitators.
For full information visit www.iaf-world.org."
International
Association of Facilitators
Subscription PDFs of all issues are free with annual membership to IAF
14985 Glazier Ave., Suite 550 & Back Issues at www.iaf-world.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3498.
St. Paul, MN 55124 Some back issues may be purchased from the IAF Office.
Tel: 952-891-3541 Individuals: $25; Institutions: $40. Current and some back
Fax: 952-891-1800 issues available in hardcopy from www.virtualbookworm.com
[email protected]
www.iaf-world.org Online Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal is
Indexing available online from ProQuest and EBSCO.

2
Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen

Classics for Facilitators

Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited1

Bruce W. Tuckman and Mary Ann C. Jensen

EDITOR’S NOTE

Thinking today about the phases of group development, a group facilitator is hard pressed to not hear the famous words of
Bruce Tuckman’s 1965 seminal work Developmental Sequence in Small Groups2 that hypothesized his forming, storming,
norming and performing model of group development. Tuckman’s 1965 article was reprinted in a Special Issue on Group
Development in Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal in 20013. What many facilitators may not be
aware of is that Bruce Tuckman and Mary Ann Jensen conducted a follow-up review thirteen years later, to discover what
empirical testing of the model had been conducted by others. The following article, originally published in 1977 in Group &
Organization Studies, noted that several subsequent empirical studies suggested a termination stage, which Tuckman and
Jensen then integrated into the model of group development as a fifth stage named adjourning. While many have argued that
there are limitations of “stage models” such as this, the wide use and popularity of the Tuckman model means this article is
suggested reading for every group facilitator. — Stephen Thorpe, Editor

The purpose of this review was to examine published research on The Model
small-group development done in the last ten years that would
constitute an empirical test of Tuckman's (1965) hypothesis that As a result of the literature reviewed, Tuckman proposed a
groups go through the stages of "forming," "storming," model of developmental stages for various group settings over
"norming," and "performing." Of the twenty-two studies time, labeled (1) testing and dependence, (2) intragroup conflict,
reviewed, only one set out to directly test this hypothesis, (3) development of group cohesion, and (4) functional role
although many of the others could be related to it. Following a relatedness. The stages of task activity were labeled (1)
review of these studies, a fifth stage, "adjourning," was added to orientation to task, (2) emotional response to task demands, (3)
the hypothesis, and more empirical work was recommended. open exchange of relevant interpretations, and (4) emergence of
solutions. An essential correspondence between the group-
Tuckman (1965) reviewed fifty-five articles dealing with stages structure realm and the task-activity realm over time caused
of small group development in an attempt to isolate those Tuckman to summarise the four stages as “forming,”
concepts common to the various studies and produce a “storming,” “norming,” and “performing.” He acknowledged,
generalizable model of changes in group life over time. He however, that this was “a conceptual statement suggested by the
examined studies of (1) Therapy Groups, (2) human relations data presented and subject to further test” (p.5).
training or T-groups, and (3) natural and laboratory-task groups
in terms of two realms—task and interpersonal. The way Tuckman cited several limitations of the literature, e.g., that the
members acted and related to one another was considered group- literature could not be considered truly representative of small-
structure or the interpersonal realm: the content of the interaction group developmental processes because there was an
as related to the task was referred to as the task-activity realm. overrepresentation of therapy and T-group settings and an
Both realms represented simultaneous aspects of group underrepresentation of natural or laboratory groups, indicated
functioning because members completed tasks while relating to the need for more rigorous methodological considerations in
one another. studying group process, and criticized the use of a single group

Tuckman, Bruce W. and Jensen, Mary Ann C. (1977). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization 43
Management, 2(4), 419-427. Copyright 1977 by Sage Publications. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications
Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen

for observation because it made control and systemic neighborhood action committees in Topeka, Kansas, over a
manipulation of independent values impossible. nineteen-month period. Results from a team of participant-
observers indicated that the stages of development for these
Tuckman provided a developmental model of group process by neighborhood committees included (1) orientation, (2) catharsis,
organizing and conceptualizing existing research data and (3) focus, (4) action, (5) limbo, (6) testing, and (7) purposive.
theoretical precepts rather than by presenting original empirical Zurcher stated that these seven stages “could parisimoniously
data to support a particular model. He stated, however, that his have been reduced to four stages suggested by Tuckman” (p.
model was in need of further testing. 245) as shown below.

Purpose and Methodology of This Review Orientation Forming

The purpose of this follow-up study is to discover whether Catharsis Storming

anyone has empirically tested the model of group development
proposed by Tuckman in 1965, to investigate any new models in Focus, Action
light of Tuckman’s hypothesis, and to determine whether any Limbo, Testing Norming
alternative models have been conceived.
Purposive Performing
To locate any studies referencing the 1965 Tuckman article, the
Science Citation Index from 1965 and the Social Science
Citation Index from 1970 were consulted and a list of fifty-seven
articles was compiled. Of these, only those studies concerned Although Zucher’s results would serve to support the Tuckman
primarily with empirical research (approximately twenty-two) model, he did not specifically set out to test any particular model
were reviewed. of group development and did not present any statistical
treatment of his data.
Review of the ‘New’ Literature
Smith (1966) observed, over a period of approximately four
Only one study could be found that set out to test Tuckman’s months, a group of seven man stationed in Antarctica and
hypothesis. Runkel et al. (1971) studied three groups of fifteen collected data on technical-task activities as well as on
to twenty college students in a classroom setting. The task of behavioral dimensions of informal structure. He reported on only
each group was to decide on a project, collect and interpret data,
two developmental stages rather than on the four listed by
and write a final report. During meetings of the work group, Tuckman. However, Smith’s two developmental stages appear
sixteen observers, armed with descriptions of the Tuckman to be task-activity behavior and interpersonal behavior, both of
model of stage development, observed the group “until which were identified by Tuckman as the realms of group
something happened that fitted a behavior described by behavior. Smith’s results serve to reinforce the hypothesis that
Tuckman as belonging to one of the four stages of group task and interpersonal dimensions play a substantial role in the
structure or task activity” (. 186). The observers rotated among way groups develop.
groups in an effort to reduce observer bias. Ratings from
observers supported Tuckman’s theory of group development.
Smith also concluded that the order of development would be
different for various groups. Although the interpersonal “stage”
Although this empirical test of Tuckman’s hypothesis supported seemed most important for therapy or training groups, task
his suggested developmental sequence, observers were given activity was stressed by the men in Antarctica. That the content
only descriptions of Tuckman’s four stages and asked to “fit”
or task activity appeared prior to development of a group
their observations to that model. A methodology less prone to
structure might be due to the specific nature of the group
observer bias would have been to have observers record assignment and to the well-defined roles of the participants,
particular behaviors apparent in the group; at a later time, these which suggest that those aspects related to the primary purpose
could have been reviewed in light of particular models. Runkel of the group develop first. Due to the uniqueness of his group in
et al. did, however, provide an empirical base for further testing terms of task and setting, Smith’s results might not be applicable
of the Tuckman model. to other types of groups.
Several articles from the literature contained elements of the Shambaugh and Kanter (1969) described the evolution of a
Tuckman model. Zurcher (1969) offered some explanation of the therapy group for spouces of patients on hemodialysis machines.
developmental sequence in natural groups, an area Tuckman A group of six spouses met weekly for a period of eight months.
described as underrepresented in the literature. Data were As observed by the group leader/psychiatrist, the stages of group
obtained from 174 meetings of twelve poverty programme

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010

44
Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen

development included (1) initial experience, (2) formation of the Another article dealing with the training of nursing students was
group, (3) optimism and partial separation, and (4) final stage. one by Spitz and Sadock (1973), who observed twenty-one
second-year nursing students, all white females from twenty to
The authors believed that this group was a “paradigm of the forty years old, using techniques such as role playing, video
unconscious forces inherent in group structure and process” and taping, and analysis of dreams. Spitz and Sadock categorized
that “the overall developmental sequence was that of the usual group life into three phases:
small group” (p. 936). They did not attempt to “test” any
particular model of group development; however, their 1. Stage One, characterized by anxiety, guardedness,
observations appear to fit the behaviors characterizing dependency, and a mixture of curiosity and confusion;
Tuckman’s stages of “forming,” “storming,” “norming,” and
“performing” (i.e., dependence on leader, criticism among 2. Stage Two, the period of beginning trust, cohesiveness,
members, optimism and cohesiveness). Shambaugh and Kanter interdependence, and group interaction;
did not describe behaviors characteristic of each stage clearly,
which made it difficult to differentiate among them. The authors 3. Stage Three, the final phase of disengagement, anxiety
did observe, however, that their observations supported about separation and termination, and positive feelings
Tuckman’s four-stage theory. toward the leader.

A second problem with this study was the introduction of new Stages one and two contain elements of Tuckman’s “forming”
members into the group prior to the final stage, which made and “norming” stages, respectively. Tuckman’s second stage,
identification of the four stages and the characteristic behaviors “storming,” has for the most part been eliminated. Although
pertinent to each difficult. Lacoursiere’s group demonstrated anger and hostility toward an
outside force, Spitz and Sadock’s group appeared to touch on
Lacoursiere (1974) observed stage development while using a themes of anger and discontent in their group discussions. It is of
group method to facilitate learning for student nurses involved in significance that neither student-nurse group demonstrated
a psychiatric setting. The student nurses, in their twenties, single noticeable characteristics of intragroup conflict. Possibly the
and female (except for one male student in each of the three close association experienced by nursed unites them in a
groups observed), worked in a state mental hospital and met as a cohesive, personal group. Also, the groups’ composition—
group for one and one-half hours each week to discuss their overwhelmingly female—might be a factor, as women have
concerns. Over a ten-week period, Lacoursiere observed four traditionally been socialized to be more passive and trusting.
stages of group development: Spitz and Sadock also observed third-year medical students and
found them to be more guarded and “overtly hostile.” Group
1. Orientation, characterized by fears and anxieties and composition, therefore, may be one of the variables that
fairly strong positive expectations; influence appearance of stages in the developmental process.

2. Dissatisfaction, characterized by an increasing sense of A second variation in Spitz and Sadock’s model, which also was
frustration, along with depression and anger; found in the Lacoursiere model, was the addition of a stage
concerned with termination and separation, a significant
3. Production, demonstrated by a more realistic appraisal departure from the Tuckman model.
of what could be accomplished; and
Braaten (1975) compiled an interesting review of fourteen
4. Termination, concerned with sadness and some self- models of the developmental stages of groups. Several of the
evaluation. more recent models not reviewed in the 1965 tuckman article
demonstrated a resemblance to his four-stage model. For
Lacoursiere’s four stages differed from Tuckman’s in three example, Yalom (1970) presented a four-stage model, including
respects. First, in stage 2, dissatisfaction, there was a lack of an initial phase of orientation and hesitant participation; a second
intragroup conflict among the student nurses. Any anger and phase of conflict, dominance, and rebellion; a third phase of
hostility present was directed toward the hospital, the staff, and intimacy, closeness, and cohesiveness; and a final phase of
psychiatry in general rather than toward group members. termination (differing from Tuckman).
Second, Lacoursiere combined “norming” and “performing” into
stage 3, production, at which tome students’ expectations Braaten presented a composite model of the fourteen theories
became more realistic and they desired “to learn what can be and also set fourth his own model. His composite model utilized
learned and to do what they can reasonably do as student nurses” the three stages identified by Tuckman as “forming,”
(p. 348). Third, and the major difference between models, was “storming,” and “performing” (which incorporated “norming”)
the addition of the termination stage.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010

45
Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen

and added a final stage of termination. Braaten’s own model Verbal responses of participants were recorded and grouped
followed the composite model fairly closely: according to type of response and specific category (i.e.,
therapist-directed response, etc.). Results revealed a significant
1. Initial phase lacking in structure; change between the seventh and eighth and twelfth and
thirteenth sessions. Therapist-directed responses were most
2. An early phase characterized by hostility and conflicts noticeably affected, going from fifty-nine to twenty-three;
between subgroups; group-directed responses went from twenty-one to thirty-nine.
On the basis of these results, Heckel et al. believed their findings
3. The mature work phase in which norms are resolved were “somewhat supportive” of a two-stage hypothesis of group
and interdependency and trust formation are apparent; development. The authors did not describe characteristics of the
two stages, however, nor did they attempt to propose their own
4. Termination, concerned with disengagement and theoretical model for further testing.
ending.
Another study by Heckel, Holmes, and Rosecrans (1971)
Braaten concluded, as did Tuckman, that there appeared to be employed a factor-analytic approach for analyzing verbal
substantial agreement among authors on the aspects of a responses of group-therapy members. Utilizing the theory of
developmental phase but that systemic research was needed to two-stage development derived from the 1967 study, the authors
verify the theoretical concepts. Braaten’s review of the literature rated responses from approximately thirty male neuropsychiatric
suggests that empirical research in stages od small group patients during their second and third sessions and from
development is sparse and inconclusive. seventeen of these patients during the twelfth and thirteenth
sessions. The authors reported that combined results from
Only two of the journal articles reviewed substantially deviated sessions two and three indicated low group cohesiveness, high
from the four-stage Tuckman model. Dunphy (1968) conducted defensiveness and superficial verbal interaction and a pattern of
an empirical study of the developmental process in self-analytic personal and group-building responses. An obvious change had
groups (therapy and T-groups). He observed two sections of a occurred by the twelfth and thirteenth sessions, but the lossof
Harvard Social Relations 120 course for a period of nine months. almost half the members of the group by this time also may have
Though the use of a computer system of content analysis, had an impact on changes in their verbal responses. Without
Dunphy identified six developmental phases for the group: observing interactions over the life of the group, the suggestion
that these four sessions represent the only changes taking place
1. Maintenance of external normative standards; seems premature.

2. Individual rivalry; Mann (1967) offered a third variation to the four-stage model.
Through the use of factor analysis, he categorized five stages of
3. Aggression; group development: (1) initial complaining, (2) premature
enactment, (3) confrontation, (4) internalization, (5) separation
4. Negativism; and terminal review. This model appears to incorporate
characteristics of Tuckman’s “forming,” “storming,” “norming,”
5. Emotional concerns; and “performing” stages, with the addition of stage 5 –
termination.
6. High Affection.
Braaten (1975) included an updated version of Mann’s (1971)
developmental model:
Individual rivalry, aggression, and negativism parallel
Tuckman’s second stage, “storming.” Emotional concerns and
high affection might be viewed in terms of the “norming” stage. 1. Dependency upon trainer;
However, Dunphy’s model does not include any stage
resembling “performing.” Dunphy acknowledged that his results 2. Initial anxiety and/or resistance;
might not be generalizable to all self-analytic groups and that
further testing was needed to establish the extent of their 3. Mounting frustration, hostility;
validity.
4. Work phase, intimacy, integration, mutual synthesis;
A study by Heckel, Holmes, and Salzberg (1967) examined
whether distinct verbal behavioral phases occur in group 5. Separation.
psychotherapy. Seventeen neuropsychiatric male and female
patients were observed over eighteen sessions of group therapy.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010

46
Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen

Discussion literature, it is reasonable, therefore, to modify the model to

reflect recent literature. The model now stands: forming,
This review of articles was undertaken to discover whether the storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.
Tuckman (1965) model of group development had been
empirically tested. Only Runkel et al. (1971) set out to test this REFERENCES
model. Their conclusions were supportive of Tuckman’s four- Adelson, J. Feedback and group development. Small Group
stage model, but their results may not be reliable because of the Behavior, 1975 6(4), 389-401.
researchers’ methodology. Braaten, L.J. Developmental phases of encounter groups and
related intensive groups: A critical review of models and a
The bulk of the literature from 1965 to present has been new proposal. Interpersonal Development , 1974-75,5, 112-
theoretical in nature; those articles describing empirical research 129.
were not primarily concerned with testing already existing Dunphy, D. Phases, roles and myths in self-analytic groups.
models. Many of the authors described a group’s behavior and Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1968, 4(2), 195-225.
offered their own models of group development, however Gibbard, G., & Hartman, J. The oedipal paradigm in group
similar to models already described in the literature.4 Two development: A clinical and empirical study. Small Group
studies and a review did identify termination as an important Behavior, 1973, 4(3), 305-349.
final stage overlooked by Tuckman. Braaten’s (1975) review of Heckel, R., Holmes, G., & Salzberg, H. Emergence of distinct
fourteen models led to a composite model incorporating verbal phases in group therapy. Psychological Reports,
“forming,” “storming,” and “performing” stages and including a 1967, 21, 630-632.
termination stage. Heckel, R.V., Holmes, G.R., & Rosecrans, C.J. A factor analytic
study of process variables in group therapy. Journal of
Gibbard and Hartman (1973) introduced the concept of a “life Clinical Psychology, 1971, 27(1), 146-150.
cycle” model as developed by Mills (1964). Proponents of a life Lacoursiere, R. A group method to facilitate learning during the
cycle approach recognize the importance of separation concerns stages of a psychiatric affiliation. International Journal of
as an issue in group development. Although Tuckman saw Group Psychotherapy , 1974, 24, 342-351.
performing as the final stage of group evolution, those who Liebowitz, B. A method for the analysis of the thematic structure
agree with a life cycle model view separation as an important of T-groups. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
issue throughout the life of the group and as a separate and 1972, 8(2), 149-173.
distinct final stage. With a substantial amount of activity taking Lundgren, D.C. Trainer style and patterns of group development.
place in training and therapy groups in which presumably strong The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1971, 7(6), 689-
interpersonal feelings are developed, the “death of the group” 709.
becomes an extremely important issue to many of the group Lundgren, D.C. Attitudinal and behavioral correlates of
members. As a reflection of the recent appearance of studies emergent status in training groups. The Journal of Social
postulating a life cycle approach (Mann, 1971; Gibbard & Psychology, 1973, 90, 141-153.
Hartman, 1973; Spitz & Sadock, 1973; Lacoursiere, 1974; Mann, R.D. The development of the member-trainer relationship
Braaten, 1975), the Tuckman model is hereby amended to in self-analytic groups. In C. L. Cooper & I. L. Mangham
include a fifth stage: adjourning. (Eds.), T-groups: A survey of research. London: Wiley-
Interscience, 1971.
Conclusion Mann, R.D. Interpersonal styles and group development. New
York: John Wiley, 1967.
It is noteworthy that since 1965 there have been few studies that Mills, T.M. Group transformation. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
report empirical data concerning the stages of group Prentice-Hall, 1964.
development. It is also of interest that most authors, although Runkel, P.J., Lawrence, M. Oldfield, S., Rider, M., Clark, C.
writing from a theoretical framework, call for further research to Stages of group development: An empirical test of
verify their hypotheses. A virtually untapped field is the Tuckman's hypothesis . The Journal of Applied Behavioral
empirical testing of existing models of group-stage development. Science, 1971, 7(2), 180-193.
There is a need to supply statistical evidence as to the usefulness Shambaugh, P., & Kanter, S. Spouses under stress: Group
and applicability of the various models suggested in the meetings with spouses of patients on hemodialysis.
literature. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1969, 125, 928-936.
Smith, W.M. Observations over the lifetime of a small isolated
A major outcome of this review has been the discovery that group; structure, danger, boredom, and vision.
recent research posits the existence of a final discernible and Psychological Reports, 1966,19, 475-514.
significant stage of group development – termination. Because Spitz, H., & Sadock, B. Psychiatric training of graduate nursing
the 1965 model was a conceptual statement determined by the students. N. Y State Journal of Medicine, June 1, 1973 , pp.
1334-1338.

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010

47
Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited Tuckman and Jensen

Tucker, D.M. Some relationships between individual and group

development. Human Development, 1973, 16, 249-272.
Tuckman, B.W. Developmental sequence in small groups.
Psychological Bulletin , 1965, 63(6), 384-399.
Yalom, I. The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New
York: Basic Books, 1970.
Zurcher, L.A., Jr. Stages of development in poverty program
neighborhood action committees. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 1969, 5(2), 223-258.

AUTHORS

Bruce W. Tuckman was professor of education and director of

the Bureau of Research and Development of the Rutgers
University Graduate School of Education. He completed his
masters and doctoral training in psychology at Princeton
University in 1963 and, after two years at the Naval Medical
Research Institute, joined the Rutgers faculty as an associate
professor. He has published extensively, including two
textbooks, and has developed several instruments in use today
on teacher style and on personality. In 1977 he was a Fellow of
the American Psychological Association and an active member
of both the American Educational Research Association and Phi
Delta Kappa.

Mary Ann Conover Jensen was a doctoral candidate in

counseling psychology at the Rutgers University Graduate
School of Education. She has been involved in counseling both
residential and commuting students at a four-year college, served
as a small-group facilitator for a series of “life-skills”
workshops, and has conducted research in the area of small-
group development. In 1977 she was an intern at a community
guidance center, participating in child psychotherapy, family
therapy, and individual and group counseling.

1 Tuckman, Bruce W. & Jensen, Mary Ann C. (1977). Stages of Small-Group

Development Revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427.
Copyright 1977 by Sage Publications. Reprinted by permission of Sage
Publications.

2 Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,

Psychological Bulletin, (63)6, 384-399.

3 Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal (3), 66-81. 2001.

4 Other studies examined but not cited because of their limited relevance to the
discussion are Lundgren (1971), Liebowitz (1972), Tucker (1973), and Adelson
(1975).

Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 10, 2010

48