Security-enhancement Processes within Group Settings: Revising Insecure Working Models of Attachment During Playful Group Interactions

ABSTRACT

According to attachment theory and research, a supportive social or therapeutic group can assuage relational worries and promote members’ sense of attachment security (or felt security, confidence that others will be supportive when needed), which is crucial for sustaining goal pursuit, social relations, and mental health. As yet, however, little is known about the group provisions that move attachment-insecure members toward greater security. In this article, we propose that the Attachment Security Enhancement Model, which was originally developed to explain attachment processes within couples, can also explain security enhancement in group settings. Within this framework, we first conceptualize the specific group provisions that are critical for fostering security among attachment-insecure members. We then discuss how a particular kind of group interactions—playful ones—might facilitate security-enhancement processes, and we present a clinical vignette illustrating the therapeutic value of such interactions.

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1973, 1982, 1988) emphasizes the importance of the sense of attachment security or felt security (i.e., confidence that others will be supportive when needed) for healthy socioemotional development and sustained mental health. Felt security develops during childhood within the realm of comforting interactions with responsive and supportive caregivers, usually parents, and it allows children to cope effectively with threats, to maintain a stable sense of self-worth and emotional equanimity, and to thrive psychologically (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). When caregivers are not reliably responsive and supportive, however, felt security is not attained, negative mental representations of the self and others (inner working models) are formed, and insecure attachment orientations (relatively stable patterns of relational feeling, cognitions, and behavior) are consolidated with detrimental consequences for mental health and interpersonal functioning across the life span (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). These orientations are conceptualized and measured along two dimensions: attachment anxiety and attachment-related avoidance (Brennan et al., 1998). Attachment anxiety is defined by intense worries about one’s lovability and others’ responsiveness, desperate attempts to get others’ attention and care, and a sense of helplessness in dealing with life’s adversities. Attachment-related avoidance is defined by distrust of other people’s goodwill and discomfort with relational interdependence and closeness.

There is accumulating evidence that adults’ insecure attachment orientations are rooted in early painful interactions with nonresponsive caregivers and that the prototype insecure working models formed during these early interactions continue to exert a shaping influence on attachment orientations over the life span (see Fraley, 2002, 2019, for reviews and meta-analyses). However, these insecure working models can also be revised and updated across the life span by positive, security-enhancing experiences that deviate from previous frustrating and painful experiences (Simpson & Overall, 2014). At any point in life, important and sustained positive changes in the quality of close relationships can produce discontinuities in attachment anxiety or avoidance. For example, the formation of a stable and satisfactory romantic relationship during adolescence or adulthood, or feeling valued and competent as a parent, can counteract insecure working models and move insecure people toward greater felt security (e.g., Davila et al., 1999; Simpson et al., 2003).

This revision of insecure working models and subsequent security enhancement can also occur as a result of comforting and empowering interactions with a responsive and supportive social or therapeutic group. Previous research has indicated that people tend to use the groups they belong to as sources of safety and security and to feel calmed and empowered by a cohesive, supportive group (e.g., Marmarosh et al., 2013; Smith et al., 1999). However, although there is some evidence that a cohesive group can promote felt security (e.g., Rom & Mikulincer, 2003), we still know relatively little about the group provisions that move attachment-insecure members toward heightened security. In this article, we propose that the Attachment Security Enhancement Model (ASEM; Arriaga et al., 2018), which was originally developed to explain attachment processes within couples, can explain security enhancement in group settings. Within this framework, we first conceptualize the specific group provisions that are critical for fostering security among attachment-insecure members. We then discuss how a particular kind of group interactions— playful group interactions—might facilitate security-enhancement processes. We present a clinical vignette illustrating the therapeutic value of these interactions.

ATTACHMENT TO GROUPS

Over the years, attachment theory has gradually been extended from its original focus on infant-parent interactions (e.g., Ainsworth, 1991) to a wide variety of relational contexts, including group relationships (Smith et al., 1999). This extension was based on the idea and research findings that people tend to rely on a social or therapeutic group as a protective safe haven and a secure base for exploration and growth (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2023). As such, a group that is responsive to its members’ needs for protection and support might increase their confidence in the availability of support when needed (felt security), which reduces distress and helps members respond effectively to opportunities and challenges.

There is evidence that responsive groups have beneficial effects on members’ well-being and instrumental functioning. For example, research on group cohesion—the sense of unity, safety, and need-satisfaction that members feel their group provides, even during times of tension and conflict within the group (Marmarosh & Van Horn, 2011)—reveals that members of more cohesive groups feel and perform better during demanding or challenging group tasks (see Marmarosh & Sproul, 2021, for a review). From an attachment perspective, group cohesion refers to the extent to which a group is perceived as sensitive and responsive to members’ needs. The greater a group is perceived as cohesive, the more its members feel protected, comforted, and supported by the group, and the more secure they are likely to feel within the group (Marmarosh & Sproul, 2021).

Research also indicates that group members can develop attachment insecurities (anxiety, avoidance) in relation to their group, with negative effects on group-related feelings, cognitions, and behaviors (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2023). In 1999, Smith et al. constructed the Group Attachment Scale (GAS) to assess anxious attachment to groups (e.g., “I often worry my group will not always want me as a member”) and avoidant attachment to groups (e.g., “I prefer not to depend on my group”). Smith et al. (1999) found that higher scores on group attachment anxiety or avoidance predicted lower engagement in group activities, more negative evaluations of social groups (e.g., fraternities, sororities), and lower perceived support from groups.

Importantly, a person’s attachment orientation with respect to a group tends to correspond with his or her dominant attachment orientation in close relationships (Smith et al., 1999). Specifically, Smith et al. (1999) found that people who are attachment-anxious in close relationships are also more likely to experience attachment anxiety with respect to a group, and people who are more avoidant in close relationships are more likely to develop avoidant attachment to a group. But the correlations were only moderate in size, indicating that although group attachment insecurities may be special cases of global insecurities, they can also be influenced by other factors, such as comforting experiences with a cohesive social group or empowering experiences within group therapy.

In line with this possibility, Rom and Mikulincer (2003) found that members’ perceived cohesiveness of a military team attenuated anxious attachment toward the team among members with a dominant attachment-anxious orientation in close relationships. In a highly cohesive team, their dominant insecure attachment orientation was less likely to be manifested during interactions with the team. However, perceived group cohesion failed to attenuate avoidant attachment to the team among members with a dominant avoidant orientation in close relationships. According to Rom and Mikulincer (2003), a cohesive group, which implies a high level of interdependence among members, might be so uncomfortable for attachment-avoidant people that it exacerbates rather than calms their relational worries and defenses.

Group cohesion is also beneficial in improving the mental health of attachment-anxious people undergoing group therapy. Gallagher et al. (2014) examined the effects of group cohesion during 16-week group psychodynamic therapy for women with a binge eating disorder and found that increases in the cohesiveness of the therapeutic group over the course of therapy (measured weekly) were associated with reduced binge eating among attachment-anxious clients. Although attachment anxiety in close relationships was associated with more severe binge eating symptoms before therapy, this association was dramatically reduced after 16 weeks of therapy in groups that became more cohesive over time. In other studies, Tasca et al., (2006, 2007) found that increases in reported emotional bonds, trust, and consensus between group members over the course of therapy contributed greatly to the effectiveness of group therapy for attachment-anxious clients.

There is also evidence that group therapy has an enduring positive effect on clients’ felt security. Several studies have examined pre-to-post therapy changes in clients’ self-reported attachment orientations in close relationships, and most of them have found a significant reduction in attachment anxiety and avoidance (e.g., Tasca et al., 2019). Additional studies have also revealed significant pre-to-post therapy increases in a secure state of mind, as indexed in the Adult Attachment Interview (e.g., Maxwell et al., 2018). Importantly, these positive changes were sustained 6 and 12 months after the end of therapy. Only one study (Keating et al., 2014) assessed attachment to the therapeutic group during therapy (weeks 4, 8, 12, and 16 of therapy) and found that group attachment anxiety and avoidance decreased significantly during therapy. Moreover, reductions in group-specific attachment insecurities during therapy predicted decreases in global attachment insecurities within close relationships one year later.

These studies have documented the security-enhancement effects of group therapy but have provided little evidence concerning the mechanisms of change underlying these effects. We know only that cohesive group interactions might move attachment-anxious members toward greater security. However, we still know little about the extent to which group cohesion is sufficient to counteract the negative working models of attachment-avoidant members and sustain the observed pre-to-post therapy changes in felt security. It is still important to identify more specific group provisions that can sustain and strengthen the security-enhancement effects of group cohesion among both attachment-anxious and avoidant members. For this purpose, we rely on Arriaga et al. (2018) model of attachment security enhancement in romantic relationships and attempt to extend it to group relationships.

THE ATTACHMENT SECURITY ENHANCEMENT MODEL AND ITS EXTENSION TO GROUP RELATIONSHIPS

The ASEM is a dual-process model focused on the ability of romantic partners and spouses to produce positive attachment-related change within their relationship. Regarding the first process, partners’ responsive behaviors can reduce distress and attenuate the destructive relational tendencies aroused by attachment insecurities during couple interactions. Regarding the second process, partners’ ongoing provision of opportunities to revise deeply rooted insecure working models can increase the possibility of sustained felt security in the long run.

According to Arriaga et al. (2018), partners who are sensitive and responsive to each other’s needs, fears, and defenses can effectively manage the dysfunctional manifestations of attachment insecurities during couple interactions. In the case of attachment-anxious people, who tend to doubt their value and lovability and experience intense fears of rejection, a responsive partner can allay these concerns by providing unwavering reassurance, love, and commitment. This kind of behavior signals safety in the relationship (safe strategies), which can reduce attachment-anxious individuals’ worries and counter their need to cling, monitor, intrude, and demand care. In the case of avoidant individuals, who distrust a partner’s intentions and feel uncomfortable with intimacy and interdependence, a responsive partner can soften these concerns by understanding and validating the person’s need for self-reliance and conveying a sense that it is possible to feel unconstrained and autonomous even during intimate interactions (softening strategies). Research has shown that a partner’s display of affection, commitment, and love can reduce attachment-anxious people’s self-focused worries and destructive relational tendencies, whereas a partner’s validation of avoidant people’s needs for autonomy reduce their tendency to withdraw from close and interdependent interactions (e.g., Farrell et al., 2016; Schrage et al., 2020; see; Overall et al., 2022, for a review).

It is important to note that managing attachment insecurities during couple interactions may not be enough for cultivating security (Arriaga et al., 2018). In fact, moving attachment-anxious people toward security requires not only their partner’s expressions of affection and support but also providing opportunities to disconfirm their negative models of self and replace them with a sense of competence and self-worth. That is, attachment anxiety is likely to decline as anxious people experience their partner’s confidence in, and empowerment of, their competence and value. In the case of avoidant individuals, moving them toward greater security requires not only respecting their need for self-reliance, but also creating comforting experiences of interdependence that can disconfirm their negative working models of others (Arriaga et al., 2018). In this way, avoidant people learn that interdependence is not as discomforting or frightening as they thought (based on past relationships) and that they can trust their partner.

Recent studies confirm that relational experiences that bolster feelings of worth and competence are critical for reducing attachment anxiety within a couple (e.g., Arriaga et al., 2020; Park et al., 2019). In a study of newlywed couples, for example, participants who were more likely to perceive their partner as valuing of their personal goals reported less attachment anxiety 12 months later (Arriaga et al., 2014). There is also evidence that positive interdependent experiences contribute to a decrease in avoidant attachment (e.g., Stanton et al., 2017). In a 2-year longitudinal study of couples transitioning to parenthood, for example, participants who perceived that they were receiving and providing support within the couple exhibited a steeper decline in attachment-related avoidance over time (Rholes et al., 2021).

In extending the ASEM to group relationships, we suggest that groups can reduce the destructive manifestations of attachment insecurities during group interactions by creating a safe, loving, and reassuring setting as well as a climate of respect for members’ individual voices and autonomous strivings. These group gestures can assuage attachment-insecure members’ relational worries and allow them to engage more openly and constructively in group activities. Moreover, a group’s ongoing provision of opportunities to revise insecure working models (i.e., attachment-anxious members’ sense of helplessness; avoidant members’ negative views of interdependence) can increase the possibility of sustained security in the long-term.

In the case of attachment-anxious members, a cohesive group may be able to attenuate attachment-anxious members’ fears of being criticized, ridiculed, or rejected during group interactions by providing unwavering signs of acceptance, understanding, and caring (safe strategies). But group cohesion is not enough to counteract attachment-anxious people’s negative models of self. In fact, a cohesive group might actually increase attachment-anxious people’s over-dependence on the group and thereby prevent the development of feelings of self-efficacy, competence, and autonomy. Only a cohesive group that also supports, encourages, and celebrates attachment-anxious members’ assertion of their needs and beliefs within the group and initiative-taking during group tasks is likely to facilitate their construal of self-construal as worthy and competent, thus contributing to greater felt security. In other words, groups can reduce attachment anxiety in the long run by creating or amplifying interactions that affirm attachment-anxious members’ sense of competence and autonomy and by engaging in explicit group discussions that highlight their positive qualities and boost their self-confidence.

In the case of members who are avoidant with respect to attachment, group cohesion may exacerbate rather than reduce their relational worries and defenses. However, a cohesive group might be able to soften avoidant people’s worries if group members unconditionally accept and validate each other’s uniqueness and autonomy and respect each other’s decisions to refrain from intimate, emotion-laded disclosures. This respectful group attitude can make it less dangerous for avoidant members to engage actively in group activities; they can then gradually learn that being an active member of the group is safe and rewarding.

In addition, when these softening group gestures are made during smooth and joyful group interactions, avoidant members may gain an appreciation of the positive aspects of interdependent group interactions and the benefits that group activities can provide. These positive group experiences can counteract their negative models of others and enhance their confidence in the group’s goodwill. Groups can then facilitate this security-enhancement process by creating or amplifying enjoyable interactions and by engaging in group discussions that highlight the positive feelings and outcomes that members have experienced during the group activity. As group members look back and reflect on a successfully completed group activity, positive feelings, such as enjoyment and fulfillment, and an authentic and comfortable feeling of belonging may arise. Reflection on these feelings can arouse still more positive emotions and more positive models of others, resulting in desired security enhancement.

An attachment-informed group therapist can sustain, reinforce, and accelerate these security-enhancement processes (e.g., Marmarosh et al., 2013; Tasca et al., 2021). In the early stages of therapy, the therapist may attempt to meet the relational needs of both attachment-anxious and avoidant members (e.g., to feel loved and protected, to feel self-reliant) during group activities. The therapist can emotionally coach group members to be accepting, empathic, and kind to each other and encourage them to respect and reinforce each other’s uniqueness and autonomy. With the consolidation of group cohesion, the therapist can begin to sensitively challenge insecure working models. Attachment-anxious members can be given opportunities to exercise, experiment, and enjoy competence and autonomy within the group. Avoidant members can be given opportunities to enjoy interdependent group interactions. In this way, attachment-insecure members can begin to question and revise their maladaptive beliefs about themselves and others and become less anxious or avoidant with respect to their group.

In extending the Attachment Security Enhancement model to group settings, we need to consider that, although both responsive relationships, partners and groups can facilitate security enhancement processes, there are basic differences between dyadic and group-level attachment figures. A main difference is that a romantic partner represents the most important source of attachment security for most adults (Zeifman & Hazan, 2016), whereas in a therapy group the other members are initially perceived as strangers and after some positive meetings as subsidiary attachment figures. Another difference relies on the nature of a dyadic relationship with a romantic partner, which does not match the complex nature of multiple relationships within the group. In fact, all bonds in a group are not the same and a person could experience a positive relationship with some group members but not with others. In addition, there is evidence that the fit or lack of fit on attachment dimensions among group members is an important variable to consider when addressing positive relationships in groups (Kivlighan et al., 2017). For example, when the group as a whole is high in attachment-related avoidance, adding a low avoidant member may be dissonant with the group’s tendency to maintain social distance and may reduce group cohesion. These and other differences between dyadic and group relationships should be considered when examining security-enhancement processes within group settings.

PLAYFUL GROUP INTERACTIONS AND THEIR SECURITY-ENHANCEMENT EFFECTS

In this section, we focus on a particular kind of group interactions—playful interactions (e.g., team sports, group improvisation games, team problem-solving games, and humorous group chats), and the ways these interactions facilitate security-enhancement processes within a group. During playful group interactions, members may feel that it is easier to react to each other in safe and softening ways. Moreover, playful group interactions may provide vivid and experiential opportunities to revise insecure working models. In addition, these group interactions may promote members’ playfulness (willingness and ability to joyfully engage in free play), which might have important implications for felt security. When working with children, group therapists can invite and encourage group members to take part of team sports, classic children’s games (e.g., hide and seek), chase games, tag games, or problem-solving games. When working with adults, group therapists can invite the group to take part of improvisation exercises, humorous chats, or hilarious problem-solving games (e.g., drop a hint).

Playful group interactions may make it easier for attachment-insecure members to remain calm and fully engaged with a group. During these interactions, members can laugh together and support and collaborate with each other without feeling that something threatening and important is at stake (“it’s only a game”). Joyful games might allow attachment-anxious members to feel valued and supported by others and temporarily enjoy moments of togetherness rather than ruminating on relational worries. During playful interactions, members are likely to respect, appreciate, and even encourage each other’s idiosyncratic ideas and personal initiatives because mistakes do not result in the loss of any important goal. In this calm and relaxed context, members who are avoidant with respect to attachment may feel that their self-reliance is respected and that they can freely express their autonomous voice even if they decide not to join the group’s play. Therefore, we can expect the destructive relational tendencies of attachment-insecure members, either anxious or avoidant, to be less evident during playful group interactions, mainly when they are guided by a skillful therapist who encourages members to play in safe and softening ways.

Playful group interactions may also provide attachment-insecure members opportunities to exercise, experiment with, and enjoy more secure ways of responding and relating. Attachment-anxious members may have opportunities to exercise and strengthen their competence and autonomy without being afraid of making mistakes or being disapproved of, or criticized by others. Of course, these personal gains during the game might be reinforced by subsequent group discussions that celebrate attachment-anxious members’ progress. For avoidant members, playful group interactions might be most helpful by counteracting their negative models of others. Within the relaxed, accepting, and engaging climate of group games, they can learn about the positive aspects of interdependent interactions, appreciate other members’ good qualities and intentions, and enjoy moments of togetherness and belonging without being afraid of losing their autonomy. In both cases, attachment-anxious and avoidant members can experience and enjoy more positive aspects of themselves and others.

Of course, within-group tensions and conflicts during playful group interactions that are not handled effectively by the group or therapist might hinder the security-enhancement effects of these interactions. In these cases, we might witness to the typical responses of attachment-anxious and avoidant members to conflictual situations (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016). Attachment-anxious members are likely to appraise within-group conflicts in catastrophic terms, display intense negative emotions, ruminate obsessively, and hence fail to attend to and understand what other group members are trying to tell to them. Attachment-avoidant members are likely to distance themselves cognitively or emotionally from the conflict and to avoid interacting with the group. However, when circumstances do not allow detachment, avoidant members might attempt to dominate the group interaction, in line with their need for control, negative views of others, and confidence in their own views (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016).

Playful group interactions can also contribute to security enhancement by promoting members’ willingness and ability to engage joyfully in free play (playfulness). Winnicott (1942, 1946) was the first theoretician to view playfulness as an indicator of mental health and to consider its relational and development roots. Winnicott argued that playfulness needs a facilitating environment provided by a sensitive and responsive caregiver, which encourages and empowers the child to fully engage in and enjoy experimenting and playing with reality and imagination. Without this facilitating environment (lack of a caregiver’s supportiveness), children’s willingness and ability to play can be impaired. Winnicott also wrote that playfulness evolves in four stages. In the first stage, by being willing to make the child’s fantasies real, the mother allows the child’s imagination and reality to merge. In the second stage, children begin to develop trust in their mother; they have magical control in her presence, and they can therefore play with their inner experiences. In the third stage, children are so trusting of their mother that they know that she is present and available, and they can play alone without worry or fear; they can explore the world and summon their mother for comfort when they felt threatened. In the final stage, children discover that their mother has her own needs and they can learn how to play “together” with mother or other partners in a more reciprocal, cooperative manner.

In their recent theoretical review, Masek and Stenros (2021) identified six psychological processes that underlie playfulness. First, playfulness requires the capacity to attend to what is happening (internally and externally) at the moment and explore it openly and nonjudgmentally without fear or defensive biases (i.e., mindfulness, Kabat-Zinn, 1994). Second, playfulness requires openness to novel information and experiences, and flexible adaptation of one’s cognitive structures when an experience is complicated or ambiguous. Third, it involves full engagement with the activity, one’s subjective experience, and the other players. Fourth, it involves engagement in an activity for the joy it brings (intrinsic motivation) without necessarily expecting an extrinsic reward. Fifth, playfulness involves imagining things that create more emotional involvement than real things. Sixth, playfulness involves nonconventional ways of thinking that allow a person to create novel ways of understanding reality. In short, playfulness involves mindfulness, openness, flexibility, engagement, creativity, and intrinsic joy.

From an attachment perspective, playfulness seems likely to contribute to felt security. Winnicott’s construct of a facilitating environment that fosters the development of playfulness resembles the caregiver’s responsive attitudes and behaviors that contribute to felt security and provide a secure base for exploration (Ainsworth, 1991). Moreover, the main processes involved in playfulness— mindfulness, openness, flexibility, engagement, nonconventionality, and intrinsic joy—have been consistently identified as core characteristics of people who are secure with respect to attachment (see Mikulincer & Shaver, 2016, for a review). Hence, one can expect that a facilitating environment will foster both playfulness and felt security, and that a self-amplifying cycle will be created between these two inner senses. Specifically, enjoyable play experiences might contribute to felt security and feeling more confident in others’ support might further enhance a person’s willingness and ability to engage joyfully in free play.

Playful group interactions may allow attachment-insecure members to occasionally break free from their rigid positions. In a dynamic and flexible oscillation between proximity and distance, arousal and calmness, and relatedness and autonomy, they can collaborate with others and form alliances during some game segments while engaging in idiosyncratic imagination and autonomous actions during other segments. In this way, attachment-insecure members can increase their trust in others and confidence in their own capacities and strengths. Moreover, they can embark in a journey of self-development assisted by a skillful therapist and sustained by a supportive group. They may be able to express their fantasies, explore positive aspects of self and others, and meet their basic needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy.

Clinical Vignette

In this section, we present a clinical vignette exemplifying the therapeutic relevance of playful group interactions during group psychotherapy with children. Although most of the research on the Attachment Security Enhancement Model has been conducted with adults and in the context of romantic relationships, the intraindividual and interpersonal processes proposed by this model are also relevant to children and adolescents and the relationship they hold with parents, therapists, and their peer or therapeutic group. Therefore, we believe that the following vignette can provide valuable information about security enhancement during playful interactions within the context of group psychotherapy.

We describe the case of Josh, an elementary-school-age child, the eldest of two brothers, who was a member of a therapeutic group led by the second author of this article (N. Z.) at the “Friends - Group Psychological Therapy” center. At this center, groups of six to ten children meet for weekly therapeutic sessions with two therapists. Each meeting begins with a group discussion where members share something with the group, and the group then engages in a specific game resembling the types of games played during school breaks or youth movements (e.g., Hide and Seek, Foxes and Hares, Freeze Tag). Group members choose the game they will play and the rules for the game. After finishing a game, the therapists encourage group members to reflect on and share with others their experiences during the game. In the next pages, we briefly describe and discuss Josh’s responses and interactions with the therapists and the group during the intake meeting, the initial group meetings, a therapeutic session conducted after four months of group therapy, and subsequent meetings after this session.

Josh, a handsome boy with a body structure large for his age and a lot of energy, came to group therapy for what his parents described as impulsivity, difficulties in self-regulation, and complaints about violence at school since kindergarten. During the intake meeting, Josh refused to sit and talk with the therapist, and instead went over to the pillows that were scattered around the room and started building a tower out of them. He dismantled the tower and built it again and again. The therapist asked Josh why “you came here today,” and he said it was because of what he was doing to the kids in his class. “Doing what?” the therapist asked. “Dismantling them,” he replied. The therapist asked Josh why he was attacking kids in his class, and he started talking about an incident where his tractor was stolen in kindergarten, and he got so angry that he started hitting. As he was telling this, Josh sat down across from the therapist on the pile of pillows. The therapist asked him if he had wanted to come to the session today, and he replied affirmatively. Josh explained that he wants to “succeed in not hurting others.” The therapist told Josh what children were doing in the group and asked him if he would like to begin group therapy. After a short thought, Josh replied: “Yes I want to, but I’m just afraid of hurting the other kids.”

From an attachment perspective, Josh came to therapy with both negative models of self (as unlovable and destructive) and others (as rejecting and betraying). He was afraid of his acts of violence and of being rejected by his peers due to his aggressiveness; he attempted to cope with these fears by withdrawing from peer interactions. At the same time, however, as he explicitly expressed during the intake, Josh wanted to get close to peers without destroying them, and this desire motivated him to come to group therapy. In terms of attachment orientations, Josh seemed to hold a mixture of attachment anxiety and avoidance (what Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991, called fearful avoidance). This extremely insecure stance led him to desperately seek others’ closeness, worry about his negative characteristics and others’ rejection, experience outbursts of explosive rage and aggression whenever he encountered minimal signs of disapproval or rejection, and withdraw from these painful interactions. This withdrawal might, in turn, reignite his unmet need for closeness, thus creating a self-exacerbating cycle of anxious proximity seeking, resulting in frustration, violence, rejection, and withdrawal.

In the initial group meetings, Josh tried to play successfully with the other children. However, he had difficulty adapting to the rules of the game. Moreover, his touch was so strong and painful that some children complained and asked him to leave the play. Josh became frustrated by the other children’s requests and sometimes responded in angry and violent ways. As a result, he preferred not to take part in group games and remained isolated while other children played. As one can see, the self-exacerbating cycle that Josh had experienced since kindergarten was fully reproduced during the therapeutic sessions. At this initial stage of group therapy, the group failed to provide a protective safe haven or a secure base for personal growth, and Josh seemed very insecure with respect to the group.

Now, we will provide excerpts from a therapeutic session conducted after four months of group therapy. Josh arrived slightly late for the group session and entered the room with a sense of agitation. He took a seat on one of the poufs arranged in a circle, surrounded by the rest of the group. One of the therapists greeted him and mentioned that they had been waiting for him. However, the other kids in the group paid little attention to Josh’s arrival, as Ruthie continued sharing something with the group. After a few moments, Josh abruptly stood up from his pouf, grabbed it, and impulsively hurled it at Ruthie. She promptly expressed her discontent to the therapists, who suggested that she inquire about Josh’s actions. Ruthie declined the suggestion and retaliated by throwing a small pillow back at him. The situation escalated quickly as the kids screamed in shock and dismay, while Josh broke into tears and resorted to hitting out in frustration. Despite the chaos, one of the therapists swiftly intervened, emphasizing that while they understood Josh’s anger, violence would not be tolerated in the room. Ignoring the therapist’s words, Josh persisted in trying to attack Ruthie. Meanwhile, Ruthie responded by hurling sharp words his way, which further fueled his rage. Other children chimed in, claiming that Josh had a history of hitting them. The therapist made multiple attempts to calm Josh down, but he stubbornly refused to comply and continued to charge at Ruthie.

This episode is an example of how a minimal sign of rejection (group members did not greet Josh) served as a trigger for the eruption of Josh’s rage and aggression against what he believed to be the source of his current frustration and pain (Ruthie). But what is missing here is the withdrawal segment of the self-exacerbating cycle of fearful avoidance. Josh was unable to emotionally disengage from the situation and to isolate from the group. Perhaps Ruthie’s retaliation and other kids’ screams did not allow Josh to withdraw from the group. However, it is also possible that Josh had become more confident in the group’s goodwill during the four months of therapy, which allowed him to express his frustration and rage without attempting to withdraw. During these months, the group accepted and respected Josh’s decision not to participate in group games and this softening gesture might have eroded some of his defenses.

Eventually, after persistent efforts by the therapist, Josh reluctantly agreed to leave the room together. After a brief period, Josh gradually calmed down, allowing the therapist to ask about the cause of his intense anger that day. Josh began to share a childhood incident from kindergarten where his classmates had taken his tractor and thrown it at him, causing him to harbor resentment ever since. The therapist asked if this incident had fueled his anger over the years, to which Josh said yes. The therapist proposed the possibility of his sharing this experience with group members.

While the therapist returned to the room, Josh took some time to compose himself and eventually reentered. However, he could not immediately disclose his feelings to the group, because, upon his return, the group started to play Foxes and Hares. It was challenging for Josh to join in, and, although feeling frustrated, he struggled to participate in the next round of play. Group members then celebrated and applauded Josh’s participation, overtly expressed their joy of playing with him, and encouraged him to be active and engaged during the game. According to our extension of ASEM to group settings, these positive and empowering group gestures might have helped Josh to reevaluate his working model of self or others. In fact, toward the end of the meeting, Josh requested an opportunity to address the group. He apologized for his hurtful actions, explaining that he did not intend to cause harm, and proposed that in the future if they sense that he is about to hurt someone or his reactions are too intense, they should use a hand gesture he had devised to signal “stop.”

Josh had returned to the group after the therapist was sensitive and responsive to his pain and assisted him in assuaging his distress and reflecting on the source of his rage (what Fonagy et al., 2002, called mentalizing). This kind of facilitating environment created by the therapist may have allowed Josh to endure the frustration he felt upon entering the room and to engage in a playful group interaction game without attacking other children or withdrawing from the group. At this turning point, Josh may have realized that he could fully engage and enjoy playing with others and that this kind of group activity should not end in violence, tears, and withdrawal. It is possible that this positive change in models of others drove Josh to share his experience with the group at the end of the session, authentically apologize for his rage, and provide the group with a means for helping him to play without hurting others. This may indicate that Josh had also experienced a positive change in his model of self as capable of managing his rage and achieving the goal that he pursued in therapy from the beginning—“to succeed in not hurting others.”

In subsequent meetings, the group made more and more softening gestures toward Josh. Some of the members started using Josh’s hand gesture to signal “stop” when they sensed that he might become aggressive or react too strongly during chase games. However, not all of them were consistent in using it, leading to mixed results in managing Josh’s emotional outbursts. Nevertheless, as the sessions progressed, there was a gradual understanding of and accommodation to Josh’s unique needs. This allowed Josh to agree to participate in specific play episodes that he felt comfortable with. In other instances, however, he preferred to construct towers out of poufs, and he became extremely upset if anyone touched or disrupted his creations. Initially, the other kids were apprehensive and fearful of his unpredictable reactions, but over time they learned how to give him his space and adapt to his sensitivities, thus creating opportunities to revise Josh’s models of others.

To create a safe environment, the group members allowed Josh to act as the referee in games that he did not wish to participate in. This approach gave him a sense of control and involvement while ensuring calmness and comfort. Moreover, becoming a referee and being valued by others in this role seems to have allowed Josh to revise his negative models of self and feel more lovable and competent. He began to seize these opportunities and gradually became more engaged in the group games. With each new session, he allowed himself to participate in a wider range of activities, eventually discovering enjoyment in them. He even started requesting specific kinds of play that he particularly loved, actively seeking out interactions with the other children. Through this process, he began to develop friendships and become closer to some of the group members.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

To summarize, according to our extension of the ASEM to group settings, there are four core elements that group therapists can emphasize in the clinical context. First, they can invite and encourage members to create a safe, loving, and reassuring setting during group interactions, which, in turn, might assuage attachment-anxious members’ relational worries of being unlobed and rejected. Second, they can invite and encourage members to create a climate of respect for members’ individual voices and autonomous strivings during group interactions, thereby calming attachment-avoidant members’ fear of losing autonomy and control. Third, they can invite and coach attachment-anxious members to exercise, experiment, and enjoy competence and autonomy within the group as a means of counteracting their negative self-views. Fourth, they can invite and coach attachment-avoidant members to enjoy playful group interactions and then question the validity of their negative beliefs about others.

We trust this article and the ideas we have discussed will inspire researchers who are interested in the study of group processes to systematically examine our extension of the Attachment Security Enhancement Model to group settings. One of the weaknesses of our theoretical proposal is the lack of systematic studies on the relevance of Arriaga et al. (2018) model for explaining the potential security-enhancing effects of group psychotherapy. Findings from such studies could advance our understanding of the group provisions that might move attachment-insecure members toward greater security. They would also enrich our knowledge concerning the ways that playful group interactions can assuage relational worries and defenses and allow attachment-insecure members to question and revise their negative models of self and others. In addition, such studies could contribute to the development of attachment-informed group interventions aimed at increasing clients’ felt security, interpersonal functioning, and mental health.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Dana Azani Sadka

Dana Azani Zadka is a clinical psychologist and a Doctoral student at Reichman University.

Netanel Zingboim

Netanel Zingboim is a clinical psychologist, a group psychotherapist, and a Doctoral student at Reichman University.

Phillip R. Shaver

Phillip R. Shaver is a social psychologist and an Emeritus University Professor at University of California Davis.

Mario Mikulincer

Mario Mikulincer is a social psychologist and a Professor of Psychology at Reichman University.