CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127Behavioral Health and InterventionsCommunity Health and DevelopmentTeam Dynamics and Performance

How do Small Groups Promote Behaviour Change? An Integrative Conceptual Review of Explanatory Mechanisms

Open access
Borek, Aleksandra J., Abraham, Charles·2018·Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being
DOI 10.1111/aphw.12120
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Small groups are used to promote health, well‐being, and personal change by altering members’ perceptions, beliefs, expectations, and behaviour patterns. An extensive cross‐disciplinary literature has articulated and tested theories explaining how such groups develop, function, and facilitate change. Yet these theoretical understandings are rarely applied in the development, description, and evaluation of health‐promotion, group‐based, behaviour‐change interventions. Methods: Medline database, library catalogues, search engines, specific journals and reference lists were searched for relevant texts. Texts were reviewed for explanatory concepts or theories describing change processes in groups, which were integrated into the developing conceptual structure. This was designed to be a parsimonious conceptual framework that could be applied to design and delivery. Results: Five categories of interacting processes and concepts were identified and defined: (1) group development processes, (2) dynamic group processes, (3) social change processes, (4) personal change processes, and (5) group design and operating parameters. Each of these categories encompasses a variety of theorised mechanisms explaining individual change in small groups. Conclusion: The final conceptual model, together with the design issues and practical recommendations derived from it, provides a practical basis for linking research and theory explaining group functioning to optimal design of group‐based, behaviour‐change interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/aphw.12120

Cites

130 of 130 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Group interventions have advantages over individual ones: they are often more cost-effective and facilitate change via interactive group processes such as social comparison, social support, and supportive yet challenging feedback.

    “There are advantages of group interventions over individual ones, in that they are often more cost-effective and facilitate change via interactive group processes that don’t occur as readily, if at all, within individual settings, e.g., social comparison, social support, and providing supportive yet challenging feedback (Borek and Abraham, 2018).”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Coaching for Music Performance Anxiety: Piloting a 6-Week Group Course With Undergraduate Dance and Musical Theatre Students (2022) · cites this paper as Borek and Abraham, 2018

    The Introduction identifies cost-effectiveness as a proposed rationale, but says groups *may* be more cost-effective than individual interventions and makes that conditional on comparable outcomes; it does not establish that they often are. The Introduction, Social Comparison Processes, and Self-Disclosure, Feedback, and Challenge sections support the claimed group mechanisms: social support, social comparison, and supportive but challenging feedback. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Communication about MPA may be more beneficial in a group setting because several known processes that facilitate individual psychological and behavioral change occur more readily in groups.

    “Communication about MPA may prove more beneficial in a group setting, because several known processes that facilitate individual psychological and behavioral change occur more readily in groups, i.e., social comparisons, social support, the provision of challenging yet supportive feedback (Borek and Abraham, 2018).”

    From Acceptance and Commitment Coaching for Music Performance Anxiety: Piloting a 6-Week Group Course With Undergraduate Dance and Musical Theatre Students (2022) · cites this paper as Borek and Abraham, 2018

  • There are additional benefits of group-based interventions, including facilitation of individual change via group processes such as social support, group norms, identification with the group, development of social identities, and the combination of challenge and feedback in a trusting, supportive environment.

    “There are also additional benefits of group-based interventions, including facilitation of individual change via group processes such as social support, group norms, identification with the group, development of social identities, and the combination of challenge and feedback in a trusting, supportive environment (Borek and Abraham, 2018).”

    From Examining a Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Intervention for Music Performance Anxiety in Student Vocalists (2020) · cites this paper as Borek and Abraham, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 132 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Burlingame, G., Fuhriman, A., & Johnson, J. (2004). Current status and future directions of group therapy research. In J.L. DeLucia-Waack, C.R. Kalodner, D.A. Gerrity, & M.T. Riva (Eds.), Handbook of group counselling and psychotherapy (pp. 651-660).
  2. Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Social cognitive theory. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour (pp. 127-169). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Borek, A. J., & Abraham, C.
Affiliations
University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Borek, Aleksandra J.
ORCID
Venue
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-02-15
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
30-61
ISSN
  • 1758-0846 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-0854
DOI
10.1111/aphw.12120
OpenAlex
W2788248808
Cited by
127
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
Keywords
small groups, behavior change, group process, group development, social change processes, group intervention, health promotion, intervention design, conceptual framework, group dynamics
MeSH terms
Group Processes, Health Promotion, Humans, Psychological Theory, Health Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review