Moreno. Published in the International Journal of Group Psychotheraphy, 57(1). 2007. 93-105.

Scapegoating in Group Psychotherapy

J. KELLY MORENO, PH.D.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this paper is to describe and illuminate the phenomenon of

scapegoating in g;roup psychotherapy. Specifically, the role ofpmjective identifi-
cation-on both individual and group-wide bases-in the evolution ofthe deviant
is delineated. Individual, interpersonal, and whole-group interventions are pre-
sented along with the technique offunctional subgrouping, a relatively new and
particularly potent group intervention. Several case vignettes are detailed for
illustration.

If people can be educated to see the lowly side of their own natures,
it may be hoped that they will also learn to understand and to love
their fellow men better.
-Carl]ung

One of the more difficult tasks for psychotherapy (and other)

group leaders is managing the scapegoat. Sometimes facilitators
are tempted to collude with members in targeting and attacking
"bad" patients (Rutan & Stone, 1993); other times leaders feel
compelled to overprotect the object of group missives (Clark,
2002). Either way, the opportunity to explore and understand the
deviant member, the subgroup, and the group-as-a-whole is
compromised. Premature termination and poor cohesion may
eventuate (Yalom, 1995), and neither the scapegoat, the leader,
nor the rest of the group learn much from the experience
(MacKenzie, 1990).

Dr. Moreno is Professor of Psychology at Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo.
An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the 2005 meeting of the American Psycho-
logical Association, Washington, DC.
 Leader mismanagement of projection and projective identifica-
tion is often re ponsib~e for rhe fate of the group and its scapegoat
(Rum.n &.: Stone 1993). Although definitions of p-rojective identifica-
tion ometime eern as Ya.Iied and numerou as explanations f
group work, there is ome consen us that the process entails the
externalization of unwanted or disowned self aspects onto others,
followed by those contents being manipulated, controlled, or
changed accordingly (Agazarian, 1992; Aron, 2003; Horwitz,
1983; Klein, 1992; MacKenzie, 1990; Malcus, 1995; Rutan &
Stone, 1993). Projections by individuals, subgroups, or the
group-as-a-whole interfere with members' ability to reclaim and
ex..-unine forbidden elf parts (Alon o, 1993) and receiving projec-
tions obscure · other, healthier . If features the capegoat rna. · le .
ea ily acces ·(Clark, 2002). Either wa ' this unexamined exchange
of externalization limits the safe 1 of the QTOup, dep!:h of the
work . and individual (and group ) opportunitie for growth
(Gemmill, 19 9).
Clinicians need to recognize scapegoating, understand its
cau al mechani ms, and exploit its adaptive a, pect in promoting
group as well as individual developmem. In this paper key princi-
ple: are defined and eA.-plained and u eful techniques for manao--
ing the group and its capegoat are discussed. Several clinical vi-
gnettes are included to illustrate scapegoating and how leaders
can therapeutically manage the identification of group
projections.

PROJECTIVE IDENTIFICATION AND SCAPEGOATING

Historically, the scapegoat originates from the biblical story of

Aaron, who symbolically confessed the sins of Israel onto a goat.
The animal was then banished to the wilderness and, presumably,
the nation's ills expired with the beast (Rutan & Stone, 1993).
Clinically, this is called projective identification. Specifically,
others act out or contain externalizations of unwanted self parts
(Gabbard, 2005 ). In some cases, the sender may elicit in others
that which is projected; in other cases, the sender may simply see
the forbidden in others and try to change or control them accord-
ingly. In this way, the projected material is less toxic and easier to
manage insofar as it is "not me."
Group members do something similar-they project unwanted
self aspects onto another person, then attack the "deviant" in a way
that limits, skews, or terminates the latter's participation. The im-
mediate group affect is one of relief, but it is only a matter of time
before forbidden thoughts, feelings, and impulses resurface. The
group then searches for a new container in which to deposit and
dispose of undesirable parts. Additionally, members feel guilty for
what they have done to the scapegoat (Malcus, 1995) and fright-
ened by the possibility they could be next (Skolnick, 1992).
Under such powerful unconscious forces, a negative and poten-
tially fatal group cycle follows. Each member's inability to exca-
vate, examine, contain, and possibly express psychic pain makes
the group an increasingly unsafe place. Universality and cohesion,
among other therapeutic factors, fail to materialize, and members'
regressive tendencies to split the world into good/bad, either/ or,
right/wrong, and other dichotomies continue. The ability to dif-
ferentiate between self and other also remains impaired, and the
very feelings, fantasies, thoughts, and impulses that motivated the
request for help go underground.
Clearly, scapegoating can be a "pernicious form of group acting
out behavior" (Flapan & Fenchel, 1987, p. 181). As Cohen and
Schermer (2002) noted, "To exile a scapegoat is to separate one-
self from unacknowledged aspects of one's own self' (p. 107).
Such a view, however, overlooks the adaptive, even desirable role
the deviant plays in and for the group (MacKenzie, 1990). As Aron
(2003) indicated, the scapegoat can promote differentiation
among members, particularly during the conflict stage of develop-
ment where attempts to individuate and manage engulfment anxi-
ety are prominent. It has also been suggested that the scapegoat
makes the group safer, albeit in a primitive, compartmentalizing
fashion, as members maintain their goodness and the goodness of
the group by lodging their faults in one specific person (Malcus,
1 QQt;· TnkPr 1 Q72)_ ThP sclnP.goat also mav facilitate the reclama-
::ion. acceptance, and integration of self parts heretofore seen only
and despised in others.

Management of Projective Identification and Scapegoating

l.eader Tasks. One task of the group therapist is to protect. By clari-

fving, confronting, and interpreting projective processes, the
leader prevents the marginalized individual from absorbing and
being overwhelmed by externalized affects and other contents
(Skolnick, 1992). Although the group may consciously object to
defending someone who, on the surface, is so objectionable, un-
derneath it cultivates a collective sense of safety since, clearly, even
the most unbecoming of members is welcome. In fact, a powerful
antidote to individual fears of retaliation, ridicule, rejection, and
other catastrophes is to see someone far more toxic benefit by re-
maining in the room. Defending the scapegoat also protects the in-
tegrity and work of the group, and opportunities increase to see
what belongs to whom. This is particularly important early in
group life, where members remain relative strangers and
feedback is more likely the result of unexamined projection and
transference.
A related leader task is to point out projections and how a mem-
ber's impression of another may say more about the subject than
the object (Alonso, 1993; Clark, 2002). In essence, the therapist
needs to mark "Return to Sender" on many group curiosities,
thereby increasing self awareness and minimizing projective iden-
tification and scapegoating. Also, the therapist should be aware of,
and not seduced by, the group's collusive attempts to help, in-
form, or correct a troubled patient. Oftentimes group members
will make "projects" out of the scapegoat, but these seemingly al-
truistic or otherwise constructive attempts to assist or soothe may
defend against examining similar difficulties in oneself (Rutan &
Stone, 1993). At the same time, the therapist must be careful not
to interfere with group agency and the cultivation of norms con-
ducive to an interpersonal format. It is particularly important that
the therapist differentiate constructive interpersonal feedback
from projective identification (Rutan & Stone, 1993). Needless to
say, this is a fine, and not always fluid, balance; however, leader
awareness of the group's developmental level can help make this
distinction, as illustrated and explained in the vignettes below.
Another task of the therapist is to consider how and why a spe-
cific person becomes the group target. Sometimes the scapegoat is
literally infected by others and will evidence ego dystonic
thoughts, wishes, affects, and/ or behavior (Agazarian, 1992;
Malcus, 1995). Other times the projections are ego syntonic and
sensitivity to and affinity for the material make the deviant a con-
venient and capable container (Kibei, 1992). The scapegoat also
may be familiar with the role, particularly with respect to one's
family of origin (Rutan & Stone, 1993). For instance, the deviant
may deny self worth or tender affects (Kibei, 1992), but uncon-
sciously satisfy needs for attention by absorbing negativity and
inviting attack (Clark, 2002).
Leader Technique. Probing, empathy, confrontation, and interpre-
tation are some of the more effective interventions leaders may
employ to manage projection and projective identification in
group. For example, if a member tells another, "You shouldn't be
afraid to cry," the therapist might probe, "How are you with
tears?" or empathize, "It's frustrating to see him hold back." Alter-
natively, the leader might confront, "If I'm not mistaken, earlier
you were afraid to cry, too," or interpret, "Perhaps his reluctance
to cry is keeping everyone's emotions at bay." As just illustrated,
these interventions can be made at several levels or units of analy-
sis; namely, the individual, interpersonal, or group-as-a-whole.
As initiated by Agazarian ( 1992) and now embraced by others
(Agazarian &Janoff, 1993; Kaye, 1990), functional subgrouping is
a technique in which the leader identifies two or more members
who share similar thoughts, feelings, behaviors, or wishes. This in-
tervention is particularly useful for mitigating projective identifi-
cation and scapegoating insofar as no one is left holding all the
group's luggage. In the above example, for instance, a therapist
might invite members to subgroup around crying versus withhold-
ing, thereby lessening the likelihood that any one person will get
marginalized for being emotionally expressive or reserved. The vi-
gnettes below provide several examples of how subgrouping and
other said techniques have been employed in managing this
ubiquitous group dynamic.

Vignette # 1: Individual Interventions

At the final meeting of a very cohesive and hard-working

short-term psychotherapy group, one woman became quite upset
over the absence of severa1 members. Other clients soon joined in
the attack, criticizing how the delinquent patients cowardly avoided
termination and violated their commitment to the group. As the ag-
gression and blame escalated, the leader interpreted that the miss-
ing members were acting out difficulties with grief that was shared
by those present. After a long pause, one member admitted to strug-
gling with whether or not to attend, and soon several people talked
about how much they "dreaded" coming to this [last] meeting. One
member became particularly upset, and in response to leader prob-
ing and empathy, associated to deep sadness about feeling aban-
doned by her father when she was eight. Others joined her in
speaking to their own experience with loss, and the group ended on
a productive, albeit painful, note.

This example illuminates how the absentees defended against loss

by acting out, and how those present sidestepped their own grief
by focusing on the misbehavior of the deviants. The leader's initial
group-as-a-whole interpretation brought the patients back into
the here and now, effectively ending the complaining about the
absentees, a relatively passive, disempowering, and all too familiar
position. Subsequent probing and empathy by the leader facili-
tated closing with one another as well as excavating longstanding,
unspoken feelings of loss.

Vignette #2: Subgroup Interventions

In the first meeting of a short-term psychotherapy group, one

woman suddenly, and without apparent provocation, began ver-
ballv assaulting another. The victim tried to deflect the blows and
 clarify her [benign] intent, but to no avail. Likewise, other members'
attempts to gently disarm the aggressor only seemed to make her
feel more persecuted. The therapist was equally stumped, unsuc-
cessful at resolving the conflict, and unable to restore some degree
of civility and safety to the group. The meeting ended on a very un-
comfortable and unusual note, particularly for a first session.
The following week, the leader immediately probed patients re-
garding their feelings about the previous gathering. Another assault
ensued, this time toward the aggressive member. Sensing that a
scapegoat was in the making, the leader confronted the group on
whether or not the hostile patient was the only one who ever got an-
gry or aggressive. After some hesitation, one member admitted to
having a temper and acting similarly. The leader then probed for an
uaggressive . ubgroup,'' and OOn everal Other patients admitted lO
havin diffirulty concrollin their anger. Another member how-
eYer, said just the oppo ite· namely, that he avoided conflict and,
like several absentees, seriously considered skipping group. Again,
the leader inquired about a "passive subgroup," and soon a couple
others spoke to their aver ion to conflict. Last, another member de-
scribed hi indirect aggre sion, and the passive yet powerful ways in
which he secretly retaliated. Again, the leader probed for, and estab-
lished, a "passive-aggressive subgroup." By the end of the meeting,
all members acknowledged feeling and expressing the untoward
affect, thereby illuminating the reality that aggression was not
unique to the deviant member.

In this case, a young woman felt threatened by another member

and defended herself accordingly. Although her behavior sug-
gested deficits in her own character, it was too early in the group to
be sure. More importantly, assuming an exclusively interpersonal
position at this juncture increased the likelihood the young
woman would be left holding the group's aggression. Also, the lon-
ger the group focused on the aggressor (and her victim), the more
it appeared she was doing the group a favor by distracting them
from their own anxieties around introspection, self-disclosure,
and shame.
The leader's use of functional subgrouping allowed others to ex-
amine and reclaim their own styles of regulating anger and aggres-
sion (e.g., passivity and avoidance, passive-aggression, and aggres-
, ,, 'n . Imerpretation and confrontation also reminded the group
rku the\· contributed to the group's difficulties insofar as they fo-
:n;;ed on the scapegoat rather than themselves. The result was a
more cohesive and evenly distributed group where no one was
marginalized, no one quit, and everyone felt safer speaking to
.-,.\ mptom-related thoughts, affects, and behaviors otherwise
!t ;rbidden in the circles of everyday life.

Vignette #3: Interpersonal Interventions:

By the third meeting of another short-tenn psychotherapy group, a

soft spoken but talkative elderly woman complained how a nearby
housing project would negatively impac.t re ource in her commu-
nity. hartly after she began, however, member began checking
their watches, yawning, and dependently looking at the therapist,
clear sign they were bored and irritated with the peech. Finally,
one woman confronted t.he woman and everal other quickly fol-
lowed. Althouuh the leader though t eventually thi feedback might.
be u eful, a t the time he detennineditwas better framed as a group
issu e. Specifically, he interpreted the alderwoman' concern about
her neighborhood as a metaphor for similar anxieties about time,
space, and equity within the group. Cons.equently, he welcomed,
versus opposed, her contribution.
As the group progressed, however, it became clearer that the
older woman wa indeed verbo e and had difficulry engaging oth-
er . B · the rent.h meeting the QTOup again auempted ro give her
feedback , and this time the l.eader probed member for specific be-
haviors lhe woman coul d understand. Although the observations
hun (as consrructiYe commems often do), the woman was able ro in-
tegrate the messages (unlike in the beginning, where she felt misun-
derstood, attacked, and inclined to quit) and paralleled them to her
home life where she often felt neglected, minimized, or ignored. By
group's end, this woman spoke more concisely and with more emo-
tion than she had in the beginning. The result was more
engagement, both in and outside the room.

This example highlights the benefits of withholding interpersonal

feedback until the group is more cohesive, group affects and other
tensions are more evenly distributed, and impressions of mem-
bers are based more on in-group data than the projections and
transferences so common when individuals first meet. A
group-level interpretation spared the older woman from being
the container of the group's dependency needs; likewise, it helped
other members recognize their own conflicts around the wish to
be seen and heard versus their fear of being selfish, needy, and/ or
engulfed.
However, the talkative woman's conduct did, indeed, warrant
attention. In time, the leader eventually encouraged feedback
without worrying about scapegoating or how the messages might
say more about the sender than the receiver. In this way, the leader
interpreted the woman's feedback as a "gift," and gave her an op-
portunity to engage in new behavior that left her feeling less alien-
ated, unloved, and alone. Determining when feedback is construc-
tive versus projective, however, is not always easy (Rutan & Stone,
1993) but, as indicated above, usually is more reliable and valid
once group members (and the therapist) have more immediate, as
opposed to distant, data with which to work.

Vignette #4: Whole Group Interventions:

Recently, a therapist consulted a colleague about strong

countertransference feelings he was having toward a group mem-
ber. He expressed irritation that a young female member often ate
and was distracting (e.g., noisily removing food wrappers) during
meetings. Moreover, he had recently learned from another member
she had been talking about him outside the group. Immediately
prior to the consultation, she also called the leader to tell him she
would miss the next two meetings. The therapist was irritated with
the member, and asked the consultant whether or not he should
confront the woman, set limits on her behavior (e.g., no eating in
group; no more absences), and/ or give her feedback regarding his
experience.
The consultant recommended the leader do none of the above.
Instead, he hypothesized the woman's behavior represented unmet
dependency needs, ambivalence about the leader, and other group
anxieties. He opined that the deviant was a "voice" for the group,
and provided the leader and others with an opportunity to examine
these issues in everyone, not just the scapegoat. The leader, conse-
quently, set aside his personal reaction, regained his curiosity about
 the deviant and other members, and interpreted the behavior
accordingly.

Yalom ( 1995) reminds us that another function of the scapegoat is

to protect the leader. Members can displace onto each other unto-
ward feelings intended for the therapist. Direct expression is
deemed unsafe lest the leader retaliate, reject, and/ or deteriorate.
A scapegoat, however, enables group members to safely discharge
intolerable and dangerous affect.
In this vignette, the therapist of a new psychotherapy group
evoked dependent and aggressive energies that members did not
yet believe he could benignly contain. Consequently, these issues
were acted out by one member and encouraged by others. Instead
of colluding with members and confronting the deviant patient,
the leader was advised to be curious about anxieties about him and
the group-as-a-whole. Whole-group interpretations were rec-
ommended, and later employed, to redirect group anxiety, frus-
tration, and ambivalence back onto the leader.

CONCLUSION

Scapegoating i ubiquitous. It occurs in couples, families, organi-

zations and larger social systems. It also emerges in small groups,
including ps chotherap ones. Unexplored and unanalyzed,
scapegoating is destructive-through projective identification and
other defenses one member evidences affects and behaviors that
belong elsewhere. When these projections are not reclaimed,
damage is done to the scapegoat and the group suffers in the
depth and progress of the work.
Initially, therapists may be tempted to join the group in target-
ing or attacking the deviant member. Indeed, as indicated above,
some people are not strangers to the group's projections and, con-
sequently. the missives are easily absorbed. Effective leadership,
ho-we\'er. will interpret how scapegoat behavior speaks to similar
issues in other group members. In addition, skilled therapists will
be able to help scapegoats move beyond a role in which they may
be pathologically familiar.

REFERENCES

Agazarian, Y. M. (1992). Contemporary theories of group psychother-

apy: A systems approach to the group-as-a-whole. Internationaljour-
nal of Group Psychotherapy, 45, 55-71 .
Agazarian, Y. M., &Janoff, S. (1993). Systems theory and small groups. In
H. I. Kaplan, & BJ. Saddock (Eds.), Comprehensive group psychotherapy
(3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Alonso, A. (1993 ). Training for group psychotherapy. In A. Alonso, & H.
Swiller (Eds.), Group therapy in clinical practice. New York: American
Psychiatric Press.
Aron, C.M. (2003,January). Scapegoating in groups: A challenge to the
leader. The Group Circle, 1, 6.
Clark, AJ. (2002). Scapegoating: Dynamics and interventions in group
counseling. Joumal of Counseling and Development, 80, 271-277.
Cohen, B.D ., & Schermer, V.L. (2002). On scapegoating ~n therapy
groups: A social constructivist and intersubjective outlook. Intema·
tional]oumal of Group Psychotherapy, 52, 89-109 .
Flapan, D.F. , & Fenchel, G.H. (1987). The developing ego and the emergence
of self in group therapy. New Jersey: Aronson.
Gabbard, G.O. (2005). Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice (4th
Ed.). New York: American Psychiatric Press.
Gemmill, G. ( 1989). The dynamics of scapegoating in small groups. Small
Group Behavior, 20, 95-104.
Horwitz, L. ( 1983 ). Projective identification in dyads and groups. Intema-
tionaljoumal of Group Psychotherapy, 33, 259-279.
Kaye, P. ( 1990, February). Conceptualizing an integrative approach to group
process. Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the American
Group Psychotherapy Association, Boston, MA.
Kibei, H.D. (1992). The clinical application of objei:t relations theory. In
R.H. Klein, H.S. Bernard, & D.L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of contempo-
rary group psychotherapy: Contributions from object relations, self psychol-
ogy, and social systems theories. Madison, CT: International Universities
Press.
Klein, E.B . (1992 ). Contributions from social systems theory. In R.H.
 Kicm. H.S. Bernard, & D.L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary
~~, r'"/1 psychotherapy: Contributions from object relations, self psychology,
< '''' \Ocial systems theories. Madison, CT: International Universities
Prt·ss.
" 1 td\.enzie, K.R. ( 1990). Introduction to time-limited group psychotherapy.
'\e,,· York: American Psychiatric Press.
\.l :1k us , L. ( 1995 ). Indirect scapegoating via projective identification and
the mother group. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 45,
.'i5-7l.
Rutan,J.S., & Stone, W.N. (1993). Psychodynamic group psychotherapy. New
York: Guilford.
SKolnick, M.R. ( 1992). The role of the therapist from a social systems per-
spective. In R.H. Klein, H.S. Bernard, & D.L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook
of contemporary group psychotherapy: Contributions from object relations,
self psychology, and social systems theories. Madison, CT: International
Universities Press.
Toker, E. (1972). The scapegoat as an essential group phenomenon. In-
ternational Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 22, 320-332.
Yalom, I. D. (1995). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New
York: Harper-Collins.

]. Kelly Moreno, Ph.D.

Department ofPsychology
Cal Poly State University
San Luis Obispo, CA
Email: kmoreno@calpoly.edu