Online vs. in-person men's groups: what works better

What the evidence actually says

Start with the good news about screens. A systematic review of 65 studies on therapy delivered by videoconference found it feasible across many formats and populations, with good satisfaction and outcomes [1]. Video conversation is not a degraded fake. Real clinical work, and real connection, happens through it every day.

But groups are a harder case than one-on-one. The leading practice review of online group therapy is blunt about it: the research base for groups specifically is still thin, and the hardest things to build online are exactly the things a men's group lives on, cohesion and the feeling of presence, the sense of being in the room together. The reviewer's advice for online groups is to compensate deliberately, with more active facilitation and more self-disclosure, because the screen gives you less for free [2].

The bond also reads differently through a screen. In a controlled comparison, clinicians who watched an identical therapy session rated the working relationship significantly weaker when it was conducted by videoconference than when it was face to face [3]. The same words, the same people, less felt connection. Anyone who has sat through a year of video meetings already knows this finding in his bones.

And yet online groups demonstrably deliver support. A study of 356 members across 12 online support groups found that participation translated into real perceived support, through two mechanisms: identifying with the group and forming one-to-one bonds with particular members [4]. Notice what that means practically: an online group works when it stops being an audience and becomes particular men who know you. Which is the same thing that makes an in-person group work. The screen doesn't change the goal; it just makes the goal harder to reach.

For men who genuinely can't get to a room, the case is even clearer. A review of video-call programs for older adults in care settings found video contact a valuable complement to visits, while flagging the honest barriers: unfamiliar technology, low confidence, and the need for someone to help with setup [5]. The lesson for a men's group with members in their 70s and 80s: the technology problem is solvable, but somebody has to own solving it.

When to pick which

Pick in person when you can. If 4 to 6 men live within a half hour of the same table, meet at the table. This is the default for a reason, and every step of our guide to building a men's group assumes it. If you're not sure such men exist near you, check our guide to finding a men's group near you before assuming they don't.

Pick online when geography or health decides for you. A rancher forty miles from town. A man who gave up night driving. A caregiver who can't leave the house. Brothers and old friends scattered across four states who want a standing call. For these men the comparison isn't online versus in person. It's online versus nothing, and online wins that contest decisively. Retired men weighing both options will find the full landscape in men's groups for retirees.

If you go online, run it harder, not looser. The research points to exactly where video groups sag, so reinforce those spots:

• Keep it small: 4 to 6 faces. Past that, video turns men into an audience.
• Cameras on, phones away, a door closed. Half-presence is the format's failure mode [3].
• Use a stronger structure than you'd need in person. A named facilitator each week, a go-around where every man speaks, direct questions by name. Online groups need more active leading and more deliberate openness from the leader [2].
• Engineer the one-to-one bonds. Pair men up for a phone call between meetings. The research says bonds with particular members, not just the meeting itself, are what turn attendance into support [4].
• Solve the tech for the least technical man. One member owns helping anyone who struggles with the software, before the meeting, not during it [5].

The hybrid patterns that actually work

Plenty of groups don't choose at all. The combinations we've seen hold up:

• In person with a video seat. The group meets at the table; the member who's traveling, snowed in, or recovering from surgery joins by laptop. The room carries the cohesion; the screen keeps one man from drifting away. The best first hybrid for most groups.
• Monthly in person, weekly online. For groups whose members are spread across a region: a standing weekly video call, plus one longer in-person gathering a month. The monthly meeting does the bonding; the weekly call keeps the thread alive.
• Online first, in person eventually. Some groups form online among scattered men and later add an annual or quarterly gathering. Expect the in-person meetings to change the group: most find the video calls run deeper after the men have shared a meal.
• Winter mode. Northern groups that meet in person spring through fall and switch to video in the dark months, rather than canceling. A planned switch beats an unplanned lapse, because lapses kill groups.

Whatever the format, the fundamentals from the main guide don't change: a standing schedule, the same men, confidentiality, no fixing, every man speaks. The research consistently finds the format matters less than whether those pieces are present, and whether the thing actually meets. And if what you're carrying is heavier than a group can hold, in any format, read our plain-English guide to therapy for men; video has proven itself there too [1].

Common questions

Are paid online men's groups worth the money?

Some are well run, with trained facilitators, and for some men they're the right on-ramp. But know what you're buying: structure and facilitation, not magic. The same elements (small size, a go-around, ground rules, consistent attendance) are free to set up yourself, and this site shows you how. Try building your own first; the kit below is the complete starter set.

Do phone-only groups count?

A standing conference call or a weekly one-to-one phone rotation is far better than nothing, and for men without reliable internet it's the practical choice. You lose faces, which matters, so keep it even smaller (3 to 4 men) and lean harder on the go-around structure.

Can a group that started online become as close as an in-person one?

The honest answer: the research hasn't measured men's peer groups specifically, so nobody can promise it. What the evidence does show is that online participation builds real support when members identify with the group and form individual bonds [4]. Groups that add even occasional in-person gatherings report the calls deepen afterward. If closeness is the goal, build toward meeting at least once.

Sources

1. Backhaus, A., Agha, Z., Maglione, M. L., et al. (2012). Videoconferencing psychotherapy: A systematic review. Psychological Services, 9(2), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027924
2. Weinberg, H. (2020). Online group psychotherapy: Challenges and possibilities during COVID-19. A practice review. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 24(3), 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000140
3. Rees, C. S., & Stone, S. (2005). Therapeutic alliance in face-to-face versus videoconferenced psychotherapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(6), 649-653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.36.6.649
4. Zhu, Y., & Stephens, K. K. (2019). Online support group participation and social support: Incorporating identification and interpersonal bonds. Small Group Research, 50(5), 593-622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496419861743
5. Naudé, B., Rigaud, A.-S., & Pino, M. (2022). Video calls for older adults: A narrative review of experiments involving older adults in elderly care institutions. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 751150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.751150