{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025714285714285714, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013333333333333334, 'mean_word_length': 5.9144736842105265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Diversity and Group Theory, Practice, and Research

Theories of group psychotherapy have been firmly grounded in a Eurocentric perspective. The consistency with which many of these theories postulate universal applications marginalizes minority perspectives. While attachment theory has vast potential in its application to group dynamics, it shares some of the same emphases as other Eurocentric theoretical models of group therapy, including individual psychodynamics and exploration of the interpersonal (Green & Stiers, 2002). Many conclusions about attachment stem from studies conducted with Anglo-American middle-class families in the 1980-90s (Rothbaum et al., 2000). The subsequent Eurocentric ideals of secure attachment include autonomy, individuation, and exploration as contrasted to the insecure, unhealthy attachment styles characterized by such value-laden terms as clingy, dependent, and indirect. While there has been some acknowledgement of cultural influences, a number of attachment theorists have advocated a universal theory of