J OURNAL OF COUNSELI NG & DEVELOPMENT SUMMER 2002 VOLUME 80 271

A
ccording to the Biblical story, the term scape-
goat originates in the ancient ritual in which a
goat was sent into the desert to symbolically
atone for the sins of the Israelites (Leviticus,
16:817; New International Version). In con-
temporary usage, an innocent person is assigned the blame
when actual targets are excessively threatening and thought
to have the potential for retaliation (Clark, 1997). In both
the historical tradition and the modern definition, indi-
viduals purge themselves by transferring their iniquities to
a 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, is
implicitly 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 by
masking 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 otherwise
chaotic and confusing family system (Harris, 1996). In group
counseling 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 is
an important factor when working with any group.
The scapegoat often performs a central function in coun-
seling groups by channeling tensions and establishing a type
of 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, the
dynamic serves to minimize the scrutiny of other group
participants through a form of group collusion. Typically,
the most vulnerable and weakest group member becomes
the 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 intense
member exchanges that occur during scapegoating represent
sound therapeutic process (Carroll, Bates, & Johnson, 1997).
At the same time, if the group counselor does not understand
the dynamics leading to an occurence of scapegoating and
attempts to protect the scapegoated member, other partici-
pants may view this response as intrusive and unjustified
(Rutan & Stone, 2000). Finally, existing literature suggests
that, in many instances, particular qualities of the scapegoated
member serve to trigger an attack, and the target is not
always simply an innocent bystander (Toker, 1972). For
example, in a childrens group, a group participant occasion-
ally bobs his head and makes bird sounds, and he becomes
upset when criticized for his behavior by other group mem-
bers. This article explores the dynamics of scapegoating in
group counseling and suggests interventions for processing
scapegoating in counseling groups.
DYNAMICS OF SCAPEGOATING IN GROUP COUNSELING
Scapegoating can have a profound effect on the intrapsychic
functioning of the target member, but the phenomenon also
affects subgroups and the group as a whole. Scapegoated indi-
viduals range from innocent victims to group members who
more willingly assume the role. Frequently, group partici-
pants will collude to stigmatize a single member in order to
avoid assuming responsibility for their own behavior. As an
interpersonal response to conflict and threat, member
scapegoating in groups is associated with the defense
mechanisms of displacement, projection, and projective
identification (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: aclark@mail.stlawu.edu).
Scapegoating: Dynamics and Interventions in Group
Counseling
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 group
members. The article reviews a progressive 3-stage conceptualization of group development that contributes to a more complete
understanding of the means to initiate therapeutic change of the phenomenon. Various interventions outlined in the article can
assist the group counselor in effectively responding to scapegoating in group counseling.
2002 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved. pp. 271276
J OURNAL OF COUNSELI NG & DEVELOPMENT SUMMER 2002 VOLUME 80 272
C l a r k
victims, either inside or outside of the group, and thus effec-
tive interventions aimed at occurrences of scapegoating have
the potential to positively affect an entire array of interper-
sonal involvements.
Intrapsychic Functioning of Scapegoating
On an individual basis, the scapegoat becomes the subject
of 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 provokes
attack (Gazda et al., 2001; Ginter & Bonney, 1993; Scheidlinger,
1982). It is possible that such persons may find it more
tolerable to handle rejection for their immediate actions than
for other reasons (Levine, 1979). As another possibility,
individuals may feel unworthy of acceptance, and negative
interactions become the psychological price that they are will-
ing to pay for not being ignored (Dinkmeyer & Muro, 1979;
Levine, 1979). Considering the scapegoat identity formed
within the family setting, it is reasonable to assume that some
persons with this background may anticipate rejection upon
entering a group and as a result easily slip into the role of a
scapegoat (Schoenewolf, 1998). Thus, from a lifestyle or core
convictions perspective, some individuals who endure suffer-
ing intrinsic to scapegoating use safeguarding tendencies to
protect their self-esteem through evasive tactics (Clark, 1999,
2000, 2002). As an example, an adolescent client enters a
counseling group and immediately puts his head down and
covers his face. Within minutes, a group member begins to
taunt the individual for acting like a dork. The ridiculed
target reacts by meekly stating that the teasing doesnt bother
me, and a pattern of scapegoating sets in.
During the course of group counseling, some group coun-
selors may experience countertransference and believe that
the targeted person deserves the attack and thus fail to
provide essential support and protection (Gazda et al.,
2001; Rutan & Stone, 2000). Conversely, counselors com-
ing from backgrounds in which they were scapegoated may
become highly protective of persons subjected to ridicule
and rejection by group participants (Schoenewolf, 1998).
In another direction that is particularly challenging, group
counselors themselves may become a scapegoat. In par-
ticular, authoritarian individuals tend to provoke
scapegoating when they refuse to understand member at-
tempts to gain power and control. Beyond the confines of
these dynamics, the group participant central to
scapegoating is the victimizer or the person who inflicts
hurtful exchanges. Clarifying motivational issues for this
client is more appropriately understood in the next sec-
tion involving member interactions.
Interpersonal Functioning of Scapegoating
Group situations evoking threat and conflict among group
members typically result in defensive reactions by individu-
als. Specifically, intense interpersonal exchanges associated
with scapegoating often trigger member defense mechanisms
of 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 target
of the displacement is usually perceived as weak and unlikely
to retaliate. Individuals engaging in displacement are typically
unable to express negative feelings directly to their source pri-
marily because of their fear or the inaccessibility of another
person (Clark, 1998a). For example, in an adult group with
substance abusers, a client repeatedly berates another person
for his lack of participation in discussion. After a number of
sessions, however, it becomes apparent that the vocal member
experiences strong unresolved feelings toward her deceased fa-
ther whom she earlier perceived as emotionally distant and
unresponsive. By diverting intolerable feelings to the target
member, the client avoids differentiating emotional issues as
they relate to their actual source.
Clients may also use projection in groups by attributing
intolerable behavior to others that is characteristic of them-
selves (Clark, 1992; Gazda et al., 2001). A group member or
projector assumes that other group members maintain nega-
tive feelings toward him or her, even though there may be no
valid basis for this assumption. Consequently, the individual
engaging in projection typically reacts to other group partici-
pants in a suspicious and aggressive manner. When the
projectors target of hostility settles on a single client, the
potential for scapegoating is high. Other group members
may be intimidated by the projectors threatening presence
and experience relief that they are not singled out. As ver-
bal attacks escalate toward the victimized client, some of
the other members may perceive the individual as vulner-
able and join in the disparaging assault. It is apparent in this
potential sequence of interactions that the counselor must
intervene at some point to avoid what can become a destruc-
tive pattern. As with displacement, crucial client issues will
remain obscure as long as projection operates full force out-
side of the groups understanding.
Projective identification is an even more complex interaction
in 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 a
three-part sequence, with direct implications for scapegoating
(Clark, 1995c, 1997; Gazda et al., 2001; Ginter & Bonney,
1993). In the first phase, an individual projects contemptuous
personal 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, the
interaction becomes more intricate as the projector provokes
the recipient to enact the scorned behavior. Through a barrage
of objectionable and loathsome remarks, the projector incites
feelings of self-contempt in the target person. The third phase
continues the circular dynamic as the projector vicariously iden-
tifies with the victims feelings of self-contempt and persists
with the provocation. In the interaction involving projective
identification, the target client may demonstrate a proclivity to
enact the behavior provoked by the projector. Subsequently,
other group participants, intimidated by the intensity of the
projector, may attack the deserving client.
J OURNAL OF COUNSELI NG & DEVELOPMENT SUMMER 2002 VOLUME 80 273
Sc a pe goa t i ng: Dy na mi c s a nd I nt e r v e nt i ons i n Gr oup Couns e l i ng
As with other defense mechanisms, it is critical for the
counselor 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 target
person or incite strong feelings of retaliation toward the
projector. In this regard, the counselor either succumbs to
the projectors provocations and fails to provide crucial sup-
port or overreacts and begins an intense counterattack. It is
also possible for the counselor to become a target because
the projector may be adept at detecting his or her vulner-
abilities. In this instance, the group counselor may serve as a
source of blame and as a scapegoat for the perceived failures
of group members or the whole group (Taylor & Rey, 1953).
This interaction has a pervasive effect and has implications
related to whole group scapegoating, which is the focus in
the 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 negative
way on a single member or even persons outside of the group.
In this case, unlike previous examples given, the origin of
the scapegoating activity does not reside with one group
member. Particular behaviors of the group as a whole serve
a diversionary function that precludes the scrutiny and risk
of rejection of clients other than the scapegoat. Scapegoating
is obvious when an entire group expresses a barrage of hos-
tile feedback to one individual. The dynamic can be more
subtle, however, when the group demonstrates a pattern of
transferring attention to a particular client when interac-
tions become mutually threatening or disturbing (Trotzer,
1999). Group members may even appear to be altruistically
devoting an extensive amount of time to one member through
introspective 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 an
overtly scapegoating intent and further isolate the deviant
(Clark, 1989; Garland & Kolodny, 1973). In another direc-
tion, constant negative references to persons outside of the
group, such as teachers, parents, and employers, may occur
with minimal reference to personal responsibilities of indi-
vidual group members (Levine, 1979). As long as others
outside 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 in
order to channel group tensions, avoid responsibility, and
establish a basis for solidarity (Vogel & Bell, 1960).
It is frequently more expedient for a group to designate a
scapegoat rather than deal with difficulties and challenges
more directly. Even though a certain cohesiveness develops
due to scapegoating, the degree of intimacy and willingness
to risk is often shallow. Groups are also susceptible to cre-
ating scapegoats rather than attempting to accommodate
diversity within their ranks (Colman, 1995; Kottler, 1994).
Individuals perceived as deviants can be rejected in order
to protect remaining members. However, although rejecting
undesirable 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 aspect
of group development, the scapegoated client frequently
plays a prominent role in the formative stages of group. In
later stages, however, as communication and interactions in
group become more direct and supportive, the diversive func-
tion of the scapegoat is no longer needed. Consequently, if
the scapegoated client attempts to elicit attention as a vic-
tim, the group will attempt to ignore or limit the behavior
rather than provoke it. The result is that overlooked
scapegoating will serve to hinder the groups full therapeutic
potential from being reached (Levine, 1979).
SCAPEGOATING INTERVENTIONS IN GROUP COUNSELING
Understanding various dynamics of scapegoating assists the
group counselor in conceptualizing sound treatment ap-
proaches in therapeutic groups. In concert with knowledge
about possible interactions relating to scapegoating, it is
essential 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 techniques
in progressive stages of the group development process
(Clark, 1992, 1998a). In the formative or relationship stage
of group, member threat and potential to scapegoat is gen-
erally high. Interventions that establish a supportive and
exploratory climate are essential in order to respond to
the intensity and rapid escalation of scapegoating. In the
middle or integration stage of group, the norms of clients
affect more open communication and trust. In a cohesive
group, members are able to explore conflicting aspects of
scapegoating and begin to develop alternative perspectives.
The final or accomplishment stage of group counseling em-
phasizes an action orientation to behavioral change. With the
encouragement of other group members, individuals seek
to perform adaptive goals. Of course an adaptive goal could
be 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 of
feelings among clients. This practice, however, may actually
expose a potential scapegoat target to attack by another
group member. Yet, if a group counselor prematurely at-
tempts to stop scapegoating interactions, hostilities may be
diffused but little is accomplished in addressing underlying
emotional 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, the
group counselor should attempt to strike a balance between
allowing clients to openly express their feelings and provid-
ing protection to individuals from undue pressure and in-
timidation. As another general consideration, clients who
J OURNAL OF COUNSELI NG & DEVELOPMENT SUMMER 2002 VOLUME 80 274
C l a r k
are given opportunities to assess their own readiness for
group counseling, to define and evaluate their personal goals,
and to develop group norms are less likely to feel hostile
and seek out scapegoats (Ohlsen, Horne, & Lawe, 1988).
Reflection of feelings and meaning. An empathic response by
a group counselor may enable group members to begin to
understand their scapegoating role. Acknowledging the feel-
ings and perspectives of a client engaged in scapegoating
often 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 a
client, You feel angry at Mary for not contributing to our
discussion, and for some reason her behavior troubles you.
An empathic response may also offer support to a scapegoat
target. To continue with the present example, a group coun-
selor might say, Mary, Susans strong feelings toward you
caught you by surprise, and you seem uncertain about what
to say at this point. This type of reciprocal intervention
attempts to assist both sides of the scapegoat exchange and
to clarify a sense of common ground rather than directly
protecting the client under attack (Shulman, 1967).
Blocking. In various instances, the scapegoating of a group
member intensifies despite the empathic efforts of the group
counselor. When the statements of one individual become
increasingly threatening toward another client, it becomes
necessary for the group counselor to intervene in a more
direct 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 will
offer support to a person under attack, the group counselor
must attempt to block destructive communication in a way
that does not degrade the scapegoating individual. As an
example, an adolescent client repeatedly berates another
group 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 about
Joe, but no one in our group will feel any degree of support
if I allow you to continue in this way. The group counselor
then must be prepared to empathically respond to the
scapegoating member.
Modification. There are also numerous occasions when a
client expresses negative feedback to another group mem-
ber that does not necessarily involve scapegoating. A group
members negative feedback to another individual can in-
clude counterproductive as well as constructive qualities. It
is possible for the group counselor or other group member
to request that a clients initial statement be modified in a
more purposeful way so that the individual receiving the
message does not persist in rejecting it (Clark, 1995b). When
the original message manifests some measure of positive
intent, the client expressing the statement almost invari-
ably will change it to a more palatable form. On the other
hand, when an individual is unwilling to revise negative
feedback, scapegoating may be operating. As an example of
modification in a group counseling session, Lori says to Grace,
You really are a sick cookie, and you never do anything to
help 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 strongly
about what you are saying, but the way you are expressing
it is hard for Grace to accept. Finally, the group counselor
comments, Lori, can you say what you mean without the
put-down. As a general mediating intervention, the group
counselors 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-involving
statements by the group counselor provide feedback on how
the group counselor perceives clients relating to scapegoating
and other interactions in group (Clark, 1998a). Other group
members may also make scapegoating observations, either
on a spontaneous basis or as elicited by the group counselor.
In a group counseling example, the group counselor states to
a scapegoat target, When you put yourself down that way
it is painful for me to hear. In another instance, the group
counselor says to a scapegoating individual, You appear to
have strong feelings built up that are difficult to express di-
rectly. The group counselor may also comment on scapegoating
interactions at the group entity level. A group counselor
observes, for example, It seems that we spend a lot of time
blaming people outside of our group, rather than looking at
our own responsibility to make things better. Group mem-
ber feedback qualitatively varies, but peer reactions often
have a forceful impact (Gladding, 1999). Consider the thera-
peutic value of the following clients statement to a
scapegoated target: When you continually whine and sulk,
I feel like putting you down too. I want to be on your side,
but you dont give me much to work with. Although it is
less likely to occur due to fear of retaliation by group mem-
bers, occasionally a client will offer feedback to a
scapegoating individual. As an example, Jim states, A lot of
times you come down on Donnie for no good reason. You
are doing this right now. When interactions of this type
begin to take place more regularly, it is an indication that
the 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 as
tensions among group members emerge more directly (Vogel
& Bell, 1960). At this point in the life of a group, it becomes
essential 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 be
challenged through the counseling technique of confronta-
tion (Ivey & Ivey, 1999; Ivey et al., 2001). Contradictory
functioning generally becomes apparent to group members
at this stage of the group process. As an example, a group
counselor says, Larry, you say that you have had it with
Bob putting you down, but each time that he says some-
J OURNAL OF COUNSELI NG & DEVELOPMENT SUMMER 2002 VOLUME 80 275
Sc a pe goa t i ng: Dy na mi c s a nd I nt e r v e nt i ons i n Gr oup Couns e l i ng
thing negative about you, you give him your full attention.
To continue with the same example, later in the group, a
client comments to Bob, You said a little while ago that
you dont need to pick on Larry, but now you are making
fun of him again. It is also possible to use confrontation to
clarify inconsistencies at the group entity level. A group
counselor states, for instance, We have talked about making
better use of our time, but much of our discussion today has
focused on complaining about someone outside of our group.
Cognitive restructuring. In various instances, it is necessary
in group counseling to go beyond clarifying contradictory
behavior in order to effect more enduring change in
scapegoating patterns. Ingrained perspectives that individu-
als maintain about life may relate to their scapegoating func-
tioning. In this regard, developing alternative assumptions
can contribute to fundamental change in a group members
characteristic 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 the
instance of a scapegoat target who repeatedly berates himself,
I cant do anything right and Im a loser. Through a sup-
portive and challenging effort, group members encourage the
individual to develop more constructive self-perceptions. In
time, through group involvement and personal actions, the
client begins to adopt a more purposeful belief: I am a some-
body. In another example, a group member demonstrates a
scapegoating pattern of intimidation and manipulation. Her
core convictions about others suggest I can treat people
any way that I wish. With the steady concern of the group,
the client realizes that her pattern of behavior entails the
high cost of a loss of intimate relationships. Over a period
of time, this insight fosters a new awareness for the client:
It matters whether I treat people with some respect.
Reframing. Cognitive restructuring procedures involve
clarification, discussion, and follow-up among group mem-
bers. In a related, but less extensive process, reframing trans-
poses specific meanings of experiences through a relabeling
or reclassification technique (Clark, 1998b). As a seman-
tic aspect of interpretation, reframing generates change
in the meaning of scapegoating interactions in a positive
direction. A scapegoated client, for example, maintains a
view of the group counseling experience as a period of
tension and threat. With the support and perspective shar-
ing of other group members, the client begins to perceive
the group as an opportunity for advancing self-understanding
and personal development. In a related instance, a client
using projection in conjunction with scapegoating, with
the supportive perspective offered by another group mem-
ber, starts to recognize that he or she has an ability to
empathize with people and that this quality has a social
value. In a final example, at the group-as-a-whole level,
the group counselor offers the view that the energy used
by the group complaining about people outside of the group
demonstrates how forceful the group can be when it unites
on a topic.
Interpretation. In order to progress toward resolution of
scapegoating issues, some group members need to examine
motivational factors relating to the dynamic. Through a
propositional aspect of interpretation, it is possible for cli-
ents to clarify causal relationships between their present
behavior 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 in
using the technique. In a group example, the group counselor
states to an adult target of scapegoating, Could it be that a
long time ago you assumed the role of a victim in order to
have 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, a
group counselor comments to a scapegoating client demon-
strating a pattern of projection, Is it possible that you first
reject other people so that they are not in a position to reject
you? In a final example, a client expresses an interpretation
to the group as a whole by saying, Im 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 dont
have to really get to know one another.
Accomplishment Stage
As group members establish more purposeful perspectives
through the middle period of counseling, they develop a
readiness to seek action change. In regard to scapegoating
behavior, clients possibly have long-established patterns that
require supportive interventions to reduce habitual re-
sponses. Furthermore, individuals with entrenched
scapegoating roles typically need encouragement to func-
tion in alternative ways. As the group enters a new level of
development, group participants focus on mutual contribu-
tions to individual and collective goals (Colman, 1995).
Behavior rehearsal. Group members attempting to change
scapegoating interactions are in a position to acquire new
and more desirable skills with the support of other clients.
Through a series of graded practices, individuals are able to
try out and evaluate their performance in a group setting
(Cormier & Hackney, 1999). Group participants are gener-
ally willing to observe one anothers attempts at behavioral
change and provide feedback. As an example, a scapegoated
individual, attempting to establish a new role, on a weekly
basis makes several efforts to act more assertively in group.
In another instance, a client who has demonstrated a
scapegoating pattern involving projection strives to express
his feelings more directly. In each case, the entire group pro-
vides encouragement to both individuals as they encounter
problems and successes with new responses.
Self-monitoring. Another action-oriented procedure involves
group members monitoring their progress toward attaining
explicit goals relating to scapegoating. Individuals regulate and
monitor 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 of
accomplishment for clients striving to change scapegoating
J OURNAL OF COUNSELI NG & DEVELOPMENT SUMMER 2002 VOLUME 80 276
C l a r k
and other maladaptive patterns. In a concluding example, a
previously scapegoated client maintains a weekly cumulative
record of a frequency count of personal assertive actions. In
the group setting, the individual reports the target response
to other group members and receives supportive feedback.
CONCLUSION
Scapegoating is a dynamic process in group counseling with
potential for profound effects at multiple levels of function-
ing, including intrapsychic, interpersonal, and the group as a
whole. The interactive and threatening quality of scapegoating
entails and evokes particular defense mechanisms that can be
identified and serve to mark points in the group process that
require intervention. Furthermore, adopting a progressive stage
model of group development contributes toward conceptual-
izing therapeutic change for group members as it relates to
the scapegoating phenomenon. Various counseling interven-
tions discussed in this article enable the group counselor to
effectively process scapegoating interactions among group
participants in a manner to facilitate group achievment of its
full therapeutic potential.
REFERENCES
Carroll, M., Bates, M., & Johnson, C. (1997). Group leadership: Strategies
for group counseling leaders (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
Clark, A. J. (1989). Questions in group counseling. Journal for Specialists
in Group Work, 14, 121124.
Clark, A. J. (1991). The identification and modification of defense mecha-
nisms in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 231236.
Clark, A. J. (1992). Defense mechanisms in group counseling. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 17, 151160.
Clark, A. J. (1993). Interpretation in group counseling: Theoretical and
operational issues. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 18, 174181.
Clark, A. J. (1995a). An examination of the technique of interpretation
in counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 483490.
Clark, A. J. (1995b). Modification: A leader skill in group work. Journal
for Specialists in Group Work, 20, 1417.
Clark, A. J. (1995c). Projective identification in counselling: Theoretical and
therapeutic considerations. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 29, 3749.
Clark, A. J. (1997). Projective identification as a defense mechanism in group
counseling and therapy. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 22, 8596.
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, 6673.
Clark, A. J. (1999). Safeguarding tendencies: A clarifying perspective. The
Journal of Individual Psychology, 55, 7281.
Clark, A. J. (2000). Safeguarding tendencies: Implications for the coun-
seling process. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 56, 192204.
Clark, A. J. (2002). Early recollections: Theory and practice in counseling
and psychotherapy. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Colman, A. D. (1995). Up from scapegoating: Awakening consciousness in
groups. 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.). Pacific
Grove, 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 of
scapegoating. In S. Bernstein (Ed.), Further explorations in group work
(pp. 5574). Boston: Milford House.
Gazda, G. M., Ginter, E. J., & Horne, A. M. (2001). Group counseling
and group psychotherapy: Theory and application. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Ginter, E. J., & Bonney, W. (1993). Freud, ESP, and interpersonal relation-
ships: Projective identification and the Mbius interaction. Journal of
Mental Health Counseling, 15, 150170.
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: A
model for ACOA groups. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 21,
3948.
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 group
counseling: 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 group
psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 32,
131143.
Schoenewolf, G. (1998). The scapegoat and the holy cow in group
therapy. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 28, 277287.
Shulman, L. (1967). Scapegoats, group workers, and pre-emptive inter-
vention. Social Work, 12, 3743.
Taylor, F. K., & Rey, J. H. (1953). The scapegoat motif in society and its
manifestations in a therapeutic group. International Journal of Psy-
choanalysis, 34, 253264.
Toker, E. (1972). The scapegoat as an essential group phenomenon.
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 22, 320332.
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 a
family scapegoat. Psychoanalysis and the Psychoanalytic Review, 47,
2142.