Elien Neimeijer

56 A small to moderate significant negative correlation was found between group climate total score and aggressive incidents ( r = -.29, p < .001). Significant small to moderate correlations in the expected direction were found between group climate subscales and different types of aggressive incidents, except for non-significant correlations between support, growth , and physical aggressive incidents . Also, a small significant negative cor- relation was found between group climate total score and coercive measures ( r = -.13, p = .043). However, no significant correlations were found between group climate sub- scales and different types of coercive measures, except for a small positive correlation between repression and confinement in a client’s room on the one hand ( r = .16, p = .011) and a small positive correlation between repression and coercive measures total score on the other hand ( r = .16, p = .014). Significant small to large positive correlations were found between different types of aggressive incidents and different types of coercive measures, except for the relation between confinement in a segregated room and verbal aggressive incidents, which was non-significant. Results indicate that an open and ther- apeutic group climate, characterised by higher degrees of perceived support, growth, and atmosphere and a lower degree of perceived repression, was associated with a lower number of aggressive incidents, but not significantly associated with coercive measures. Also, a higher number of aggressive incidents were associated with more use of coercive measures. Participants’ perceptions of an open and therapeutic group climate were associated with lower numbers of aggressive incidents, and institutional repression was associated with more aggressive incidents No significant correlations were found between aggressive incidents and participants’ age, IQ, gender, legal status, treatment duration, group size, care intensity, and security level. Coercive measures was significantly and positively related to participant’s gender ( r = .25, p < .001), legal status ( r = .22, p = .001), and care intensity ( r = .15, p = .022). Furthermore, coercive measures correlated negatively and significantly with group size ( r = -.21, p = .001). No significant correlations were found between coercive measures and participants’ age, treatment duration, and security level. These results indicate that coercive measures were more frequently enforced on female clients compared to male clients, clients who received treatment involuntarily, and those receiving more intensive care. Also, coercive measures were more often reported in smaller groups.