scapegoating

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2002 • VOLUME 80 271

According to the Biblical story, the term scapegoat originates in the ancient ritual in which a goat was sent into the desert to symbolically atone for the sins of the Israelites (Leviticus, 16:8–17; New International Version). In con-

temporary usage, an innocent person is assigned the blamewhen actual targets are excessively threatening and thoughtto have the potential for retaliation (Clark, 1997). In boththe historical tradition and the modern definition, indi-viduals purge themselves by transferring their iniquities toa victimized scapegoat. From the long-established perspec-tive of family therapy, the scapegoated member of a family,who is perceived as a problem by his or her parents, isimplicitly encouraged to persist with acting-out behavior (Vogel& Bell, 1960). By adopting the role of a disruptive family mem-ber, the scapegoat provides a relative degree of equilibrium bymasking tensions and submerging unresolved parental issues.Within an alcoholic family, a scapegoat may perform a stabi-lizing function by diverting conflicts in what is an otherwisechaotic and confusing family system (Harris, 1996). In groupcounseling settings, the prevalence of scapegoating is common.Yet the dynamic has not received the attention it deserves, espe-cially in light of its prominence in the family therapy literature(e.g., Scheidlinger, 1982; Toker, 1972), which suggests that it isan important factor when working with any group.

The scapegoat often performs a central function in coun-seling groups by channeling tensions and establishing a typeof unity among group members (Toker, 1972; Vogel & Bell,1960). While the group repeatedly focuses on the inadequa-cies of a group member who deviates from the norm, thedynamic serves to minimize the scrutiny of other groupparticipants through a form of group collusion. Typically,the most vulnerable and weakest group member becomesthe focal point of negative and harsh interactions, and the

emotional cost for the targeted person can be high. Inexperi-enced group counselors may inaccurately assume that intensemember exchanges that occur during scapegoating representsound therapeutic process (Carroll, Bates, & Johnson, 1997).At the same time, if the group counselor does not understandthe dynamics leading to an occurence of scapegoating andattempts to protect the scapegoated member, other partici-pants may view this response as intrusive and unjustified(Rutan & Stone, 2000). Finally, existing literature suggeststhat, in many instances, particular qualities of the scapegoatedmember serve to trigger an attack, and the target is notalways simply an “innocent” bystander (Toker, 1972). Forexample, in a children’s group, a group participant occasion-ally bobs his head and makes bird sounds, and he becomesupset when criticized for his behavior by other group mem-bers. This article explores the dynamics of scapegoating ingroup counseling and suggests interventions for processingscapegoating in counseling groups.

DYNAMICS OF SCAPEGOATING IN GROUP COUNSELING

Scapegoating can have a profound effect on the intrapsychicfunctioning of the target member, but the phenomenon alsoaffects subgroups and the group as a whole. Scapegoated indi-viduals range from innocent victims to group members whomore “willingly” assume the role. Frequently, group partici-pants will collude to stigmatize a single member in order toavoid assuming responsibility for their own behavior. As aninterpersonal response to conflict and threat, memberscapegoating in groups is associated with the defensemechanisms of displacement, projection, and projectiveidentification (Clark, 1997, 1998a; Gazda, Ginter, & Horne,2001; Ginter & Bonney, 1993). At the group entity level,members channel tensions and gain stability by exploiting

Arthur J. Clark, Counseling and Development Program, St. Lawrence University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arthur J.Clark, Counseling and Development Program, St. Lawrence University, Atwood Hall, Canton, NY 13617 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Scapegoating: Dynamics and Interventions in GroupCounseling

Arthur J. Clark

Scapegoating in group counseling may be understood from the perspective of 3 levels of group functioning: intrapsychic,interpersonal, and the group as an entity. Intense scapegoating interactions tend to trigger defense mechanisms among groupmembers. The article reviews a progressive 3-stage conceptualization of group development that contributes to a more completeunderstanding of the means to initiate therapeutic change of the phenomenon. Various interventions outlined in the article canassist the group counselor in effectively responding to scapegoating in group counseling.

© 2002 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. pp. 271–276

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT • SUMMER 2002 • VOLUME 80272

C l a r k

victims, either inside or outside of the group, and thus effec-tive interventions aimed at occurrences of scapegoating havethe potential to positively affect an entire array of interper-sonal involvements.

Intrapsychic Functioning of Scapegoating

On an individual basis, the scapegoat becomes the subjectof ridicule and rejection by a group member or members.Although there are clear instances of unwilling and preemp-tive scapegoats, more often the target at some level provokesattack (Gazda et al., 2001; Ginter & Bonney, 1993; Scheidlinger,1982). It is possible that such persons may find it moretolerable to handle rejection for their immediate actions thanfor other reasons (Levine, 1979). As another possibility,individuals may feel unworthy of acceptance, and negativeinteractions become the psychological price that they are will-ing to pay for not being ignored (Dinkmeyer & Muro, 1979;Levine, 1979). Considering the scapegoat identity formedwithin the family setting, it is reasonable to assume that somepersons with this background may anticipate rejection uponentering a group and as a result “easily” slip into the role of ascapegoat (Schoenewolf, 1998). Thus, from a lifestyle or coreconvictions perspective, some individuals who endure suffer-ing intrinsic to scapegoating use safeguarding tendencies toprotect their self-esteem through evasive tactics (Clark, 1999,2000, 2002). As an example, an adolescent client enters acounseling group and immediately puts his head down andcovers his face. Within minutes, a group member begins totaunt the individual for acting like a “dork.” The ridiculedtarget reacts by meekly stating that the teasing “doesn’t botherme,” and a pattern of scapegoating sets in.

During the course of group counseling, some group coun-selors may experience countertransference and believe thatthe targeted person “deserves” the attack and thus fail toprovide essential support and protection (Gazda et al.,2001; Rutan & Stone, 2000). Conversely, counselors com-ing from backgrounds in which they were scapegoated maybecome highly protective of persons subjected to ridiculeand rejection by group participants (Schoenewolf, 1998).In another direction that is particularly challenging, groupcounselors themselves may become a scapegoat. In par-ticular, authoritarian individuals tend to provokescapegoating when they refuse to understand member at-tempts to gain power and control. Beyond the confines ofthese dynamics, the group participant central toscapegoating is the victimizer or the person who inflictshurtful exchanges. Clarifying motivational issues for thisclient is more appropriately understood in the next sec-tion involving member interactions.

Interpersonal Functioning of Scapegoating

Group situations evoking threat and conflict among groupmembers typically result in defensive reactions by individu-als. Specifically, intense interpersonal exchanges associatedwith scapegoating often trigger member defense mechanismsof displacement, projection, and projective identification

(Clark, 1991, 1992, 1997, 1998a; Gazda et al., 2001). Dis-placement occurs in groups when one or more members redi-rect intolerable feelings to a vulnerable substitute. The targetof the displacement is usually perceived as weak and unlikelyto retaliate. Individuals engaging in displacement are typicallyunable to express negative feelings directly to their source pri-marily because of their fear or the inaccessibility of anotherperson (Clark, 1998a). For example, in an adult group withsubstance abusers, a client repeatedly berates another personfor his lack of participation in discussion. After a number ofsessions, however, it becomes apparent that the vocal memberexperiences strong unresolved feelings toward her deceased fa-ther whom she earlier perceived as emotionally distant andunresponsive. By diverting intolerable feelings to the targetmember, the client avoids differentiating emotional issues asthey relate to their actual source.

Clients may also use projection in groups by attributingintolerable behavior to others that is characteristic of them-selves (Clark, 1992; Gazda et al., 2001). A group member orprojector assumes that other group members maintain nega-tive feelings toward him or her, even though there may be novalid basis for this assumption. Consequently, the individualengaging in projection typically reacts to other group partici-pants in a suspicious and aggressive manner. When theprojector’s target of hostility settles on a single client, thepotential for scapegoating is high. Other group membersmay be intimidated by the projector’s threatening presenceand experience relief that they are not singled out. As ver-bal attacks escalate toward the victimized client, some ofthe other members may perceive the individual as vulner-able and join in the disparaging assault. It is apparent in thispotential sequence of interactions that the counselor mustintervene at some point to avoid what can become a destruc-tive pattern. As with displacement, crucial client issues willremain obscure as long as projection operates full force out-side of the group’s understanding.

Projective identification is an even more complex interactionin which a group member subjects another participant to in-flammatory remarks in a manipulative and controlling pat-tern. The defense mechanism may be conceptualized into athree-part sequence, with direct implications for scapegoating(Clark, 1995c, 1997; Gazda et al., 2001; Ginter & Bonney,1993). In the first phase, an individual projects contemptuouspersonal characteristics toward a target or recipient. This pro-cess reduces the marked self-contempt of the projector by at-tributing the feelings to another client. In the second phase, theinteraction becomes more intricate as the projector provokesthe recipient to enact the scorned behavior. Through a barrageof objectionable and loathsome remarks, the projector incitesfeelings of self-contempt in the target person. The third phasecontinues the circular dynamic as the projector vicariously iden-tifies with the victim’s feelings of self-contempt and persistswith the provocation. In the interaction involving projectiveidentification, the target client may demonstrate a proclivity toenact the behavior provoked by the projector. Subsequently,other group participants, intimidated by the intensity of theprojector, may attack the “deserving” client.


S c a p e g o a t i n g : D y n a m i c s a n d I n t e r v e n t i o n s i n G r o u p C o u n s e l i n g

As with other defense mechanisms, it is critical for thecounselor to intervene in the projective identification pat-tern to avoid an emotional assault on a scapegoated mem-ber. At the same time, the counselor may experience coun-tertransference feelings, which inhibit support to the targetperson or incite strong feelings of retaliation toward theprojector. In this regard, the counselor either succumbs tothe projector’s provocations and fails to provide crucial sup-port or overreacts and begins an intense counterattack. It isalso possible for the counselor to become a target becausethe projector may be adept at detecting his or her vulner-abilities. In this instance, the group counselor may serve as asource of blame and as a scapegoat for the perceived failuresof group members or the whole group (Taylor & Rey, 1953).This interaction has a pervasive effect and has implicationsrelated to whole group scapegoating, which is the focus inthe next section.

Whole Group Functioning of Scapegoating

In patterns similar to how individuals seek out scapegoats,the group as an entity can repeatedly focus in a negativeway on a single member or even persons outside of the group.In this case, unlike previous examples given, the origin ofthe scapegoating activity does not reside with one groupmember. Particular behaviors of the group as a whole servea diversionary function that precludes the scrutiny and riskof rejection of clients other than the scapegoat. Scapegoatingis obvious when an entire group expresses a barrage of hos-tile feedback to one individual. The dynamic can be moresubtle, however, when the group demonstrates a pattern oftransferring attention to a particular client when interac-tions become mutually threatening or disturbing (Trotzer,1999). Group members may even appear to be altruisticallydevoting an extensive amount of time to one member throughintrospective probing (Toker, 1972). Yet, questions, such as“Why do you act this way?” and “What is your problem?”asked in an invasive and grilling tone of inquiry, reveal anovertly scapegoating intent and further isolate the “deviant”(Clark, 1989; Garland & Kolodny, 1973). In another direc-tion, constant negative references to persons outside of thegroup, such as teachers, parents, and employers, may occurwith minimal reference to personal responsibilities of indi-vidual group members (Levine, 1979). As long as othersoutside the group function as sources of blame, the likeli-hood for member accountability and change is remote. Thus,scapegoating at the group entity level creates victims inorder to channel group tensions, avoid responsibility, andestablish a basis for solidarity (Vogel & Bell, 1960).

It is frequently more expedient for a group to designate ascapegoat rather than deal with difficulties and challengesmore directly. Even though a certain cohesiveness developsdue to scapegoating, the degree of intimacy and willingnessto risk is often shallow. Groups are also susceptible to cre-ating scapegoats rather than attempting to accommodatediversity within their ranks (Colman, 1995; Kottler, 1994).Individuals perceived as deviants can be rejected in order

to protect remaining members. However, although rejectingundesirable elements may unify a group for a period of time,these patterns also preclude the development of diverse per-spectives and collective responsibilities. As another aspectof group development, the scapegoated client frequentlyplays a prominent role in the formative stages of group. Inlater stages, however, as communication and interactions ingroup become more direct and supportive, the diversive func-tion of the scapegoat is no longer needed. Consequently, ifthe scapegoated client attempts to elicit attention as a vic-tim, the group will attempt to ignore or limit the behaviorrather than provoke it. The result is that overlookedscapegoating will serve to hinder the group’s full therapeuticpotential from being reached (Levine, 1979).

SCAPEGOATING INTERVENTIONS IN GROUP COUNSELING

Understanding various dynamics of scapegoating assists thegroup counselor in conceptualizing sound treatment ap-proaches in therapeutic groups. In concert with knowledgeabout possible interactions relating to scapegoating, it isessential for a group counselor to apply effective interven-tions in responding to the phenomenon in a group setting.It is possible to suggest particular strategies and techniquesin progressive stages of the group development process(Clark, 1992, 1998a). In the formative or relationship stageof group, member threat and potential to scapegoat is gen-erally high. Interventions that establish a supportive andexploratory climate are essential in order to respond tothe intensity and rapid escalation of scapegoating. In themiddle or integration stage of group, the norms of clientsaffect more open communication and trust. In a cohesivegroup, members are able to explore conflicting aspects ofscapegoating and begin to develop alternative perspectives.The final or accomplishment stage of group counseling em-phasizes an action orientation to behavioral change. With theencouragement of other group members, individuals seekto perform adaptive goals. Of course an adaptive goal couldbe to alter patterns of behavior to prevent future occur-rences of scapegoating.

Relationship Stage

In the initial period of group counseling, the group counse-lor generally attempts to support the open expression offeelings among clients. This practice, however, may actuallyexpose a potential scapegoat target to attack by anothergroup member. Yet, if a group counselor prematurely at-tempts to stop scapegoating interactions, hostilities may bediffused but little is accomplished in addressing underlyingemotional issues or permitting the full expression of feel-ings necessary for it to be understood (Levine, 1979; Toker,1972). Thus, in this early stage of group development, thegroup counselor should attempt to strike a balance betweenallowing clients to openly express their feelings and provid-ing protection to individuals from undue pressure and in-timidation. As another general consideration, clients who


C l a r k

are given opportunities to assess their own readiness forgroup counseling, to define and evaluate their personal goals,and to develop group norms are less likely to feel hostileand seek out scapegoats (Ohlsen, Horne, & Lawe, 1988).

Reflection of feelings and meaning. An empathic response bya group counselor may enable group members to begin tounderstand their scapegoating role. Acknowledging the feel-ings and perspectives of a client engaged in scapegoatingoften reduces the emotional intensity of an attack on an-other group member (Ivey & Ivey, 1999; Ivey, Pedersen, &Ivey, 2001). For example, a group counselor may say to aclient, “You feel angry at Mary for not contributing to ourdiscussion, and for some reason her behavior troubles you.”An empathic response may also offer support to a scapegoattarget. To continue with the present example, a group coun-selor might say, “Mary, Susan’s strong feelings toward youcaught you by surprise, and you seem uncertain about whatto say at this point.” This type of reciprocal interventionattempts to assist both sides of the scapegoat exchange andto clarify a sense of “common ground” rather than directlyprotecting the client under attack (Shulman, 1967).

Blocking. In various instances, the scapegoating of a groupmember intensifies despite the empathic efforts of the groupcounselor. When the statements of one individual becomeincreasingly threatening toward another client, it becomesnecessary for the group counselor to intervene in a moredirect way. Blocking by the group counselor limits psycho-logically harmful interactions by group members (Corey &Corey, 2002). When it is apparent that no other client willoffer support to a person under attack, the group counselormust attempt to block destructive communication in a waythat does not degrade the scapegoating individual. As anexample, an adolescent client repeatedly berates anothergroup member, “Joe, you are such a disgusting person. Ev-eryone in the school hates you.” In response, the group coun-selor may offer the comment, “You have strong feelings aboutJoe, but no one in our group will feel any degree of supportif I allow you to continue in this way.” The group counselorthen must be prepared to empathically respond to thescapegoating member.

Modification. There are also numerous occasions when aclient expresses negative feedback to another group mem-ber that does not necessarily involve scapegoating. A groupmember’s negative feedback to another individual can in-clude counterproductive as well as constructive qualities. Itis possible for the group counselor or other group memberto request that a client’s initial statement be modified in amore purposeful way so that the individual receiving themessage does not persist in rejecting it (Clark, 1995b). Whenthe original message manifests some measure of positiveintent, the client expressing the statement almost invari-ably will change it to a more palatable form. On the otherhand, when an individual is unwilling to revise negativefeedback, scapegoating may be operating. As an example ofmodification in a group counseling session, Lori says to Grace,“You really are a sick cookie, and you never do anything tohelp yourself.” In response, the group counselor states, “Grace,

I am sure it is upsetting for you to hear what Lori is saying.”The group counselor then continues, “Lori, you feel stronglyabout what you are saying, but the way you are expressingit is hard for Grace to accept.” Finally, the group counselorcomments, “Lori, can you say what you mean without theput-down.” As a general mediating intervention, the groupcounselor’s use of modification may also preclude the sub-sequent singling out of a target in a pattern of scapegoating(Shulman, 1967).

Self-disclosure. As a form of self-disclosure, self-involvingstatements by the group counselor provide feedback on howthe group counselor perceives clients relating to scapegoatingand other interactions in group (Clark, 1998a). Other groupmembers may also make scapegoating observations, eitheron a spontaneous basis or as elicited by the group counselor.In a group counseling example, the group counselor states toa scapegoat target, “When you put yourself down that wayit is painful for me to hear.” In another instance, the groupcounselor says to a scapegoating individual, “You appear tohave strong feelings built up that are difficult to express di-rectly.” The group counselor may also comment on scapegoatinginteractions at the group entity level. A group counselorobserves, for example, “It seems that we spend a lot of timeblaming people outside of our group, rather than looking atour own responsibility to make things better.” Group mem-ber feedback qualitatively varies, but peer reactions oftenhave a forceful impact (Gladding, 1999). Consider the thera-peutic value of the following client’s statement to ascapegoated target: “When you continually whine and sulk,I feel like putting you down too. I want to be on your side,but you don’t give me much to work with.” Although it isless likely to occur due to fear of retaliation by group mem-bers, occasionally a client will offer feedback to ascapegoating individual. As an example, Jim states, “A lot oftimes you come down on Donnie for no good reason. Youare doing this right now.” When interactions of this typebegin to take place more regularly, it is an indication thatthe group is entering the next stage of counseling.

Integration Stage

In the middle period of group development, with a support-ive and cohesive atmosphere, scapegoating tends to lessen astensions among group members emerge more directly (Vogel& Bell, 1960). At this point in the life of a group, it becomesessential that group members assume responsibility for evalu-ating their own behavior in relation to scapegoating (Gladding,1999). Specific counseling interventions contribute to chal-lenging group participants to work toward this goal.

Confrontation. Individuals engaging in scapegoating inter-actions often maintain conflicted behaviors, which can bechallenged through the counseling technique of confronta-tion (Ivey & Ivey, 1999; Ivey et al., 2001). Contradictoryfunctioning generally becomes apparent to group membersat this stage of the group process. As an example, a groupcounselor says, “Larry, you say that you have had it withBob putting you down, but each time that he says some-


S c a p e g o a t i n g : D y n a m i c s a n d I n t e r v e n t i o n s i n G r o u p C o u n s e l i n g

thing negative about you, you give him your full attention.”To continue with the same example, later in the group, aclient comments to Bob, “You said a little while ago thatyou don’t need to pick on Larry, but now you are makingfun of him again.” It is also possible to use confrontation toclarify inconsistencies at the group entity level. A groupcounselor states, for instance, “We have talked about makingbetter use of our time, but much of our discussion today hasfocused on complaining about someone outside of our group.”

Cognitive restructuring. In various instances, it is necessaryin group counseling to go beyond clarifying contradictorybehavior in order to effect more enduring change inscapegoating patterns. Ingrained perspectives that individu-als maintain about life may relate to their scapegoating func-tioning. In this regard, developing alternative assumptionscan contribute to fundamental change in a group member’scharacteristic outlook on life or lifestyle (Clark, 1999, 2000,2002). As a counseling technique in group counseling, cog-nitive restructuring emphasizes the transposition of self-defeating beliefs of clients into more purposeful core convic-tions or schemas (Cormier & Cormier, 1998). Consider theinstance of a scapegoat target who repeatedly berates himself,“I can’t do anything right” and “I’m a loser.” Through a sup-portive and challenging effort, group members encourage theindividual to develop more constructive self-perceptions. Intime, through group involvement and personal actions, theclient begins to adopt a more purposeful belief: “I am a some-body.” In another example, a group member demonstrates ascapegoating pattern of intimidation and manipulation. Hercore convictions about others suggest “I can treat peopleany way that I wish.” With the steady concern of the group,the client realizes that her pattern of behavior entails thehigh cost of a loss of intimate relationships. Over a periodof time, this insight fosters a new awareness for the client:“It matters whether I treat people with some respect.”

Reframing. Cognitive restructuring procedures involveclarification, discussion, and follow-up among group mem-bers. In a related, but less extensive process, reframing trans-poses specific meanings of experiences through a relabelingor reclassification technique (Clark, 1998b). As a seman-tic aspect of interpretation, reframing generates changein the meaning of scapegoating interactions in a positivedirection. A scapegoated client, for example, maintains aview of the group counseling experience as a period oftension and threat. With the support and perspective shar-ing of other group members, the client begins to perceivethe group as an opportunity for advancing self-understandingand personal development. In a related instance, a clientusing projection in conjunction with scapegoating, withthe supportive perspective offered by another group mem-ber, starts to recognize that he or she has an ability toempathize with people and that this quality has a socialvalue. In a final example, at the group-as-a-whole level,the group counselor offers the view that the energy usedby the group complaining about people outside of the groupdemonstrates how forceful the group can be when it uniteson a topic.

Interpretation. In order to progress toward resolution ofscapegoating issues, some group members need to examinemotivational factors relating to the dynamic. Through apropositional aspect of interpretation, it is possible for cli-ents to clarify causal relationships between their presentbehavior and current or past experiences (Clark, 1993, 1995a).Typically, the group counselor initially renders an interpre-tation, but, in time, other group members develop skill inusing the technique. In a group example, the group counselorstates to an adult target of scapegoating, “Could it be that along time ago you assumed the role of a victim in order tohave a place in your family?” As with any interpretation,clients, with the support of the group, require time to exam-ine the implications of a proposition. In another instance, agroup counselor comments to a scapegoating client demon-strating a pattern of projection, “Is it possible that you firstreject other people so that they are not in a position to rejectyou?” In a final example, a client expresses an interpretationto the group as a whole by saying, “I’m wondering if we per-haps spend a lot of time on less significant issues, like blam-ing people inside and outside of our group, so that we don’thave to really get to know one another.”

Accomplishment Stage

As group members establish more purposeful perspectivesthrough the middle period of counseling, they develop areadiness to seek action change. In regard to scapegoatingbehavior, clients possibly have long-established patterns thatrequire supportive interventions to reduce habitual re-sponses. Furthermore, individuals with entrenchedscapegoating roles typically need encouragement to func-tion in alternative ways. As the group enters a new level ofdevelopment, group participants focus on mutual contribu-tions to individual and collective goals (Colman, 1995).

Behavior rehearsal. Group members attempting to changescapegoating interactions are in a position to acquire newand more desirable skills with the support of other clients.Through a series of graded practices, individuals are able totry out and evaluate their performance in a group setting(Cormier & Hackney, 1999). Group participants are gener-ally willing to observe one another’s attempts at behavioralchange and provide feedback. As an example, a scapegoatedindividual, attempting to establish a new role, on a weeklybasis makes several efforts to act more assertively in group.In another instance, a client who has demonstrated ascapegoating pattern involving projection strives to expresshis feelings more directly. In each case, the entire group pro-vides encouragement to both individuals as they encounterproblems and successes with new responses.

Self-monitoring. Another action-oriented procedure involvesgroup members monitoring their progress toward attainingexplicit goals relating to scapegoating. Individuals regulate andmonitor the frequency or duration of their actions and com-municate the results to other clients (Cormier & Hackney,1999). Movement toward stated goals provides a sense ofaccomplishment for clients striving to change scapegoating


C l a r k

and other maladaptive patterns. In a concluding example, apreviously scapegoated client maintains a weekly cumulativerecord of a frequency count of personal assertive actions. Inthe group setting, the individual reports the target responseto other group members and receives supportive feedback.

CONCLUSION

Scapegoating is a dynamic process in group counseling withpotential for profound effects at multiple levels of function-ing, including intrapsychic, interpersonal, and the group as awhole. The interactive and threatening quality of scapegoatingentails and evokes particular defense mechanisms that can beidentified and serve to mark points in the group process thatrequire intervention. Furthermore, adopting a progressive stagemodel of group development contributes toward conceptual-izing therapeutic change for group members as it relates tothe scapegoating phenomenon. Various counseling interven-tions discussed in this article enable the group counselor toeffectively process scapegoating interactions among groupparticipants in a manner to facilitate group achievment of itsfull therapeutic potential.

REFERENCES

Carroll, M., Bates, M., & Johnson, C. (1997). Group leadership: Strategiesfor group counseling leaders (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.

Clark, A. J. (1989). Questions in group counseling. Journal for Specialistsin Group Work, 14, 121–124.

Clark, A. J. (1991). The identification and modification of defense mecha-nisms in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 231–236.

Clark, A. J. (1992). Defense mechanisms in group counseling. Journal forSpecialists in Group Work, 17, 151–160.

Clark, A. J. (1993). Interpretation in group counseling: Theoretical andoperational issues. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18, 174–181.

Clark, A. J. (1995a). An examination of the technique of interpretationin counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 483–490.

Clark, A. J. (1995b). Modification: A leader skill in group work. Journalfor Specialists in Group Work, 20, 14–17.

Clark, A. J. (1995c). Projective identification in counselling: Theoretical andtherapeutic considerations. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 29, 37–49.

Clark, A. J. (1997). Projective identification as a defense mechanism in groupcounseling and therapy. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 22, 85–96.

Clark, A. J. (1998a). Defense mechanisms in the counseling process. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clark, A. J. (1998b). Reframing: A therapeutic technique in group coun-seling. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 23, 66–73.

Clark, A. J. (1999). Safeguarding tendencies: A clarifying perspective. TheJournal of Individual Psychology, 55, 72–81.

Clark, A. J. (2000). Safeguarding tendencies: Implications for the coun-seling process. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 56, 192–204.

Clark, A. J. (2002). Early recollections: Theory and practice in counselingand psychotherapy. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Colman, A. D. (1995). Up from scapegoating: Awakening consciousness ingroups. Wilmette, IL: Chiron Publications.

Corey, M. S., & Corey, G. (2002). Groups: Process and practice (5th ed.).Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cormier, S., & Cormier, B. (1998). Interviewing strategies for helpers: Fun-damental skills and cognitive behavioral interventions (4th ed.). PacificGrove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Cormier, S., & Hackney, H. (1999). Counseling strategies and interventions(5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Dinkmeyer, D., & Muro, J. J. (1979). Group counseling: Theory and prac-tice (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: Peacock.

Garland, J. A., & Kolodny, R. L. (1973). Characteristics and resolution ofscapegoating. In S. Bernstein (Ed.), Further explorations in group work(pp. 55–74). Boston: Milford House.

Gazda, G. M., Ginter, E. J., & Horne, A. M. (2001). Group counselingand group psychotherapy: Theory and application. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Ginter, E. J., & Bonney, W. (1993). Freud, ESP, and interpersonal relation-ships: Projective identification and the Möbius interaction. Journal ofMental Health Counseling, 15, 150–170.

Gladding, S. T. (1999). Group work: A counseling speciality (3rd ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Harris, S. A. (1996). Childhood roles and the interpersonal circle: Amodel for ACOA groups. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21,39–48.

Ivey, A. E., & Ivey, M. B. (1999). Intentional interviewing and counseling:Facilitating client development in a multicultural society (4th ed.). Pa-cific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Ivey, A. E., Pedersen, P. B., & Ivey, M. B. (2001). Intentional groupcounseling: A microskills approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Kottler, J. A. (1994). Advanced group leadership. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.

Levine, B. (1979). Group psychotherapy: Practice and development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ohlsen, M. M., Horne, A. M., & Lawe, C. F. (1988). Group counseling(3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rutan, J. S., & Stone, W. N. (2000). Psychodynamic group psychotherapy(3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Scheidlinger, S. (1982). Presidential address: On scapegoating in grouppsychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 32,131–143.

Schoenewolf, G. (1998). The scapegoat and the holy cow in grouptherapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 28, 277–287.

Shulman, L. (1967). Scapegoats, group workers, and pre-emptive inter-vention. Social Work, 12, 37–43.

Taylor, F. K., & Rey, J. H. (1953). The scapegoat motif in society and itsmanifestations in a therapeutic group. International Journal of Psy-choanalysis, 34, 253–264.

Toker, E. (1972). The scapegoat as an essential group phenomenon.International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 22, 320–332.

Trotzer, J. P. (1999). The counselor and the group: Integrating theory,training and practice (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.

Vogel, E. F., & Bell, N. W. (1960). The emotionally disturbed child as afamily scapegoat. Psychoanalysis and the Psychoanalytic Review, 47,21–42.

scapegoating

Documents