Hubbry Logo
Group cohesivenessGroup cohesivenessMain
Open search
Group cohesiveness
Community hub
Group cohesiveness
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Group cohesiveness
Group cohesiveness
Group cohesiveness
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Levels of trust are higher in countries with lower economic inequality.
Part of a series on
Community
Academic studies
Key concepts
Community development
See also

Group cohesiveness, also called group cohesion, social harmony or social cohesion, is the degree or strength of bonds linking members of a social group to one another and to the group as a whole.[1][2] Although cohesion is a multi-faceted process, it can be broken down into four main components: social relations, task relations, perceived unity, and emotions.[3] Members of strongly cohesive groups are more inclined to participate readily and to stay with the group.[4]

Definition

[edit]

There are different ways to define group cohesion, depending on how researchers conceptualize this concept. However, most researchers define cohesion to be task commitment and interpersonal attraction to the group.[5][6]

Cohesion can be more specifically defined as the tendency for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members.[6] This definition includes important aspects of cohesiveness, including its multidimensionality, dynamic nature, instrumental basis, and emotional dimension.[6] Its multidimensionality refers to how cohesion is based on many factors. Its dynamic nature refers to how it gradually changes over time in its strength and form from the time a group is formed to when a group is disbanded. Its instrumental basis refers to how people cohere for some purpose, whether it be for a task or for social reasons. Its emotional dimension refers to how cohesion is pleasing to its group members. This definition can be generalized to most groups characterized by the group definition discussed above. These groups include sports teams, work groups, military units, fraternity groups, and social groups.[6] However, it is important to note that other researchers claim that cohesion cannot be generalized across many groups.[7][8]

Antecedents of cohesion

[edit]

The bonds between group members do not develop spontaneously. They develop from a number of components such as attraction, coordination, sense of belonging and shared emotions. The components can be known as antecedents of cohesion.[9] Moreover, they also define the nature of cohesion. Each component is explained in-depth below.

Attraction

[edit]

Festinger and his colleagues in 1950 focused on attraction as a force in comparison to any other forces.[10] In a study, they asked the group members to identify all their good friends and calculated the ratio of ingroup choices to outgroup choices. According to Dion in 2000, the greater the ratio, the greater the cohesiveness of the group.[11] Hogg in 1992 and 2001 noted personal attraction is not a group cohesion even though members of cohesive groups like one another.[12][13] Group cohesion is similar to a type of group-level attraction which, according to Hogg, is known as social attraction.[14] Social attraction is a liking for other group members based on their status as typical group members. Attraction is a basic ingredient for most groups, however, when interpersonal relations between group members intensify, it can transform a conjoined group into a cohesive one.

Sense of belonging

[edit]

In a cohesive group, individuals tend to fuse together to form a whole. Nonmembers who would encounter a group will be convinced that it is a tightly bonded group. Group members would express their sense of belonging to the group by being loyal to the group, identifying with the group and classifying themselves as members. They would also describe their unity by using terms such as family, us, community, team, etc.

Coordination

[edit]

It is believed that cohesion is more about the willingness to work together to accomplish a set of goals than the interpersonal relationships between group members. According to Siebold in 2007, task-oriented groups such as flight crews and military squads share a drive to accomplish their goals.[15]

Shared emotions

[edit]

One of the most obvious features of a cohesive group is a shared positive emotion. Emotional cohesion is a multilevel process as emotions can be collective. For example, a group member may experience emotion when he/she learns that the other group member has been mistreated. An emotion is a collective emotion when all the members of a group experience the same emotional reaction. The intensity of such emotions is high when the members strongly identify with their group.[9]

Factors

[edit]

The forces that push group members together can be positive (group-based rewards) or negative (things lost upon leaving the group). The main factors that influence group cohesiveness are: members' similarity,[16][17] group size,[18] entry difficulty,[19] group success[20][21] and external competition and threats.[22][23] Often, these factors work through enhancing the identification of individuals with the group they belong to as well as their beliefs of how the group can fulfill their personal needs.

Similarity of group members

[edit]

Similarity of group members has different influences on group cohesiveness depending on how to define this concept. Lott and Lott who referred in 1965 to interpersonal attraction as group cohesiveness conducted an extensive review on the literature and found that individuals' similarities in background (e.g., race, ethnicity, occupation, age), attitudes, values and personality traits have generally positive association with group cohesiveness.[24]

On the other hand, from the perspective of social attraction as the basis of group cohesiveness, similarity among group members is the cue for individuals to categorize themselves and others into either an ingroup or outgroup.[25] In this perspective, the more prototypical similarity individuals feel between themselves and other ingroup members, the stronger the group cohesiveness will be.[25]

In addition, similar background makes it more likely that members share similar views on various issues, including group objectives, communication methods and the type of desired leadership. In general, higher agreement among members on group rules and norms results in greater trust and less dysfunctional conflict. This, in turn, strengthens both emotional and task cohesiveness.[26]

Entry difficulty

[edit]

Difficult entry criteria or procedures to a group tend to present it in more exclusive light. The more elite the group is perceived to be, the more prestigious it is to be a member in that group[citation needed]. As shown in dissonance studies conducted by Aronson and Mills in 1959 and confirmed by Gerard and Mathewson in 1966, this effect can be due to dissonance reduction (see cognitive dissonance).[27][28] Dissonance reduction can occur when a person has endured arduous initiation into a group; if some aspects of the group are unpleasant, the person may distort their perception of the group because of the difficulty of entry.[19] Thus, the value of the group increases in the group member's mind.

Group size

[edit]

Small groups are more cohesive than large groups. This is often caused by social loafing, a theory that says individual members of a group will actually put in less effort, because they believe other members will make up for the slack. It has been found that social loafing is eliminated when group members believe their individual performances are identifiable – much more the case in smaller groups.[29]

In primatology and anthropology, the limits to group size are theorized to accord with Dunbar's number.

Consequences

[edit]

Group cohesion has been linked to a range of positive and negative consequences. Its consequences on motivation, performance, member satisfaction, member emotional adjustment, and the pressures felt by the member will be examined in the sections below.

Motivation

[edit]

Cohesion and motivation of team members are key factors that contribute to a team's performance.[30] By adaptability development, self-worth, and personal motivation growth, each member becomes able to feel confident and progress in the team. Social loafing is less frequent when there is cohesion in a team;[31] the motivation of each team member is considerably greater.[5]

Performance

[edit]

Studies have shown that cohesion can cause performance and that performance can cause cohesion.[32][33] Most meta-analyses (studies that have summarized the results of many studies) have shown that there is a relationship between cohesion and performance.[5][6][34][35] This is the case even when cohesion is defined in different ways.[5] When cohesion is defined as attraction, it is better correlated with performance.[5] When it is defined as task commitment, it is also correlated with performance, though to a lesser degree than cohesion as attraction.[5] Not enough studies were performed with cohesion defined as group pride. In general, cohesion defined in all these ways was positively related with performance.[5]

However, some groups may have a stronger cohesion-performance relationship than others. Smaller groups have a better cohesion-performance relationship than larger groups.[33] Carron in 2002 found cohesion-performance relationships to be strongest in sports teams and ranked the strength of the relationship in this order (from strongest to weakest): sports teams, military squads, groups that form for a purpose, groups in experimental settings.[36] There is some evidence that cohesion may be more strongly related to performance for groups that have highly interdependent roles than for groups in which members are independent.[35]

In regards to group productivity, having attraction and group pride may not be enough.[5][35] It is necessary to have task commitment in order to be productive. Furthermore, groups with high performance goals were extremely productive.[6][37][38][39][40]

However, it is important to note that the link between cohesion and performance can differ depending on the nature of the group that is studied. Some studies that have focused on this relationship have led to divergent results. For example, a study conducted on the link between cohesion and performance in a governmental social service department found a low positive association between these two variables, while a separate study on groups in a Danish military unit found a high negative association between these two variables.[41]

Member satisfaction

[edit]

Studies have shown that people in cohesive groups have reported more satisfaction than members of a noncohesive group.[42][43][44] This is the case across many settings, including industrial, athletic, and educational settings. Members in cohesive groups also are more optimistic and suffer less from social problems than those in non-cohesive groups.[45]

One study involved a team of masons and carpenters working on a housing development.[46] For the first five months, their supervisor formed the groups they were to work in. These groups changed over the course of five months. This was to help the men get to know everyone working on this development project and naturally, likes and dislikes for the people around them emerged. The experimenter then formed cohesive groups by grouping people who liked each other. It was found that the masons and carpenters were more satisfied when they worked in cohesive groups. As quoted from one of the workers "the work is more interesting when you've got a buddy working with you. You certainly like it a lot better anyway."[46]: 183 

Emotional adjustment

[edit]

People in cohesive groups experience better emotional adjustment. In particular, people experience less anxiety and tension.[47][48] It was also found that people cope better with stress when they belong to a cohesive group.[49][50]

One study showed that cohesion as task commitment can improve group decision-making when the group is under stress, more than when it is not under stress.[50] The study studied forty-six three-person teams, all of whom were faced with the task of selecting the best oil drilling sites based on information given to them. The study manipulated whether or not the teams had high cohesion or low cohesion and how urgent the task was to be done. The study found that teams with low cohesion and high urgency performed worse than teams with high cohesion and high urgency. This indicates that cohesion can improve group decision-making in times of stress.

Attachment theory has also asserted that adolescents with behavioral problems do not have close interpersonal relationships or have superficial ones.[51] Many studies have found that an individual without close peer relationships are at a higher risk for emotional adjustment problems currently and later in life.[52]

While people may experience better emotional in cohesive groups, they may also face many demands on their emotions, such as those that result from scapegoating and hostility.[53][54]

Conformity pressures

[edit]

People in cohesive groups have greater pressure to conform than people in non-cohesive groups. The theory of groupthink suggests that the pressures hinder the group from critically thinking about the decisions it is making. Giordano in 2003 suggested that this is because people within a group frequently interact with one another and create many opportunities for influence.[55] It is also because a person within a group perceives other members as similar to themselves and is thus more willing to give into conformity pressures. Another reason is that people value the group and are thus, more willing to give into conformity pressures to maintain or enhance their relationships.

Illegal activities have been stemmed from conformity pressures within a group. Haynie in 2001 found that the degree to which a group of friends engaged in illegal activities was a predictor of an individual's participation in the illegal activity.[56] This was even after the individual's prior behavior was controlled for and other controls were set in place. Furthermore, those with friends who all engaged in illegal activities were most likely to engage in illegal activities themselves. Another study found that adolescents with no friends did not engage in as many illegal activities as those with at least one friend.[57] Other studies have found similar results.[58][59][60][61][62]

Learning

[edit]

Albert Lott and Bernice Lott investigated how group cohesiveness influenced individual learning. They wanted to test whether learning would be better if children studied with peers they liked than peers they did not like.[63] The degree of member liking was presumed to indicate group cohesiveness. They found that children with a high IQ performed better on learning tests when they learnt in high cohesive groups than low cohesive groups. For children with a low IQ, however, the cohesiveness factor made little difference. Still, there was a slight tendency for low IQ children to perform better in high cohesive groups. The researchers believed that if children worked with other students whom they liked, they would more likely have a greater drive to learn than if they had neutral or negative attitudes towards the group.

Public policy

[edit]

Social cohesion has become an important theme in British social policy in the period since the disturbances in Britain's Northern mill towns (Oldham, Bradford and Burnley) in the summer of 2001 (see Oldham riots, Bradford riots, Burnley riots[64]). In investigating these, academic Ted Cantle drew heavily on the concept of social cohesion, and the New Labour government (particularly then Home Secretary David Blunkett) in turn widely promoted the notion. As the Runnymede Trust noted in their "The Year of Cohesion" in 2003:

"If there has been a key word added to the Runnymede lexicon in 2002, it is cohesion. A year from publication of the report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain, the Cantle, Denham, Clarke, Ouseley and Ritchie reports moved cohesion to the forefront of the UK race debate."[65]

According to the government-commissioned, State of the English Cities thematic reports, there are five different dimensions of social cohesion: material conditions, passive relationships, active relationships, solidarity, inclusion and equality.

  • The report shows that material conditions are fundamental to social cohesion, particularly employment, income, health, education and housing. Relations between and within communities suffer when people lack work and endure hardship, debt, anxiety, low self-esteem, ill-health, poor skills and bad living conditions. These basic necessities of life are the foundations of a strong social fabric and important indicators of social progress.
  • The second basic tenet of cohesion is social order, safety and freedom from fear, or "passive social relationships". Tolerance and respect for other people, along with peace and security, are hallmarks of a stable and harmonious urban society.
  • The third dimension refers to the positive interactions, exchanges and networks between individuals and communities, or "active social relationships". Such contacts and connections are potential resources for places since they offer people and organisations mutual support, information, trust and credit of various kinds.
  • The fourth dimension is about the extent of social inclusion or integration of people into the mainstream institutions of civil society. It also includes people's sense of belonging to a city and the strength of shared experiences, identities and values between those from different backgrounds.
  • Lastly, social equality refers to the level of fairness or disparity in access to opportunities or material circumstances, such as income, health or quality of life, or in future life chances. In pursuit of social equality amidst the changing nature of work and future uncertainty, the World Bank's 2019 World Development Report calls for governments to increase human capital investments and expand social protection.

On a societal level Albrekt Larsen defines social cohesion 'as the belief—held by citizens in a given nation state—that they share a moral community, which enables them to trust each other'. In a comparative study of the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark he shows that the perceived trustworthiness of fellow citizens is strongly influenced by the level of social inequality and how 'poor' and 'middle classes' are represented in the mass media.[66]

Analysts at the credit rating agency Moody's have also introduced the possibility of adding social cohesion as a formal rating into their sovereign debt indices.[67]

Political scientist George Spelvin argued that the dynamics of collective temporality suggest that any framework of social cohesion must be understood not only through its overt manifestations, but also through the latent oscillations of meaning that circulate between individuals and institutions. In this sense, the very act of participation becomes both the medium and the residue of its own structural articulation.[68]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Group cohesiveness

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Group cohesiveness, also termed group cohesion, denotes the resultant force that binds members to a group through , shared objectives, and , fostering unity and mutual commitment among participants. This construct, rooted in , manifests as multidimensional dynamics including task-oriented bonds (commitment to goals) and social-oriented bonds (interpersonal liking and emotional support), which together enhance group stability and member retention. Empirical studies distinguish it from mere proximity or size, emphasizing attraction to the group as a whole over pairwise dyads. Antecedents of group cohesiveness encompass shared successes, external or threats, homogeneous member backgrounds, and effective that promotes interdependence, all of which amplify bonds via reinforced reciprocity and goal alignment. In organizational and team contexts, additional factors and strategies further promote cohesion, including establishing clear shared purpose and goals, fostering open and transparent communication, building trust and psychological safety, promoting inclusivity and diversity (with empirical findings indicating potential trade-offs depending on context and management), conducting regular team-building activities, defining clear roles and responsibilities, resolving conflicts constructively, empowering team members, celebrating successes, and leadership practices such as modeling desired behaviors, encouraging feedback, and leveraging collaboration tools. Meta-analytic evidence reveals positive outcomes, such as elevated (with cohesive groups outperforming non-cohesive ones by approximately 18 percentile points), heightened satisfaction, and reduced turnover, particularly in task-focused settings where behavioral metrics are prioritized over perceptual ones. In therapeutic contexts, early cohesion predicts superior symptom reduction and formation, underscoring its causal role in efficacy beyond individual factors. However, excessive cohesiveness can engender pressures and diminished , potentially yielding suboptimal decisions akin to , though meta-analyses affirm net benefits for when norms emphasize high . Notable applications span organizational teams, military units, and psychotherapeutic groups, where interventions such as structured goal-setting, team-building activities, fostering psychological safety and open communication, and promoting constructive conflict resolution elevate cohesion to mitigate and bolster collective efficacy. While institutional sources in academia often highlight facilitative effects, scrutiny of selection biases in studies reveals that cohesion's variance is modestly explained by unmeasured confounds like pre-existing member similarity, yet causal links persist in controlled designs. Defining characteristics include its sensitivity to group size—smaller groups typically exhibit stronger cohesion—and its interaction with norms, wherein productivity-oriented norms amplify performance gains.

Definition and Conceptualization

Core Definition and Historical Origins

Group cohesiveness refers to the resultant of all forces acting on members to remain in the group, encompassing interpersonal attractions, task commitments, and perceptions of group unity that bind individuals together. This concept emphasizes the dynamic interplay of motivational factors drawing members toward sustained group membership, rather than mere emotional affinity alone. Early formulations highlighted cohesion as a unidimensional construct measurable through tendencies toward group retention, influenced by both personal attractions to fellow members and instrumental benefits derived from group participation. The historical origins of group cohesiveness trace to mid-20th-century , particularly the empirical work of , , and Kurt Back in their 1950 study of informal groups in two Massachusetts Institute of Technology housing projects, Westgate and Hawthorn, which housed 260 married veteran families. Festinger et al. conceptualized cohesion as a "field of forces" acting to keep members within the group, derived from observations of patterns, communication flows, and social pressures in these residential settings. Their research, published as Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing, employed sociometric techniques and interviews to quantify how spatial proximity and shared experiences fostered binding forces, laying the groundwork for cohesion as an observable group property rather than an abstract ideal. Subsequent developments in the built on this foundation, with Festinger refining the idea to link higher cohesion directly to increased group influence on member behavior, such as to norms, based on controlled experiments demonstrating that cohesive units exert stronger pressures for uniformity. This early prioritized measurable retention forces over subjective sentiments, influencing later multidimensional models while establishing cohesion's role in group dynamics through field-based evidence rather than theoretical speculation.

Multidimensional Models of Cohesion

Multidimensional models of group cohesion emerged in the 1980s to address limitations in earlier unidimensional conceptualizations, which primarily emphasized as the core of cohesion, as initially outlined by Festinger et al. in 1950. These models recognize cohesion as a multifaceted construct influenced by both perceptions and group-level perceptions, as well as distinctions between task-oriented and social-oriented aspects. A seminal framework, developed by Carron et al. in 1985, posits four independent but interrelated dimensions: attractions to the group-task (ATG-T), reflecting personal perceptions of the group's instrumental value for achieving objectives; attractions to the group-social (ATG-S), capturing personal affective bonds and enjoyment derived from group membership; group integration-task (GI-T), denoting the group's collective perception of its task effectiveness; and group integration-social (GI-S), representing the group's sense of unity in interpersonal relations. This 2x2 structure—crossing personal/group orientations with task/social content—has been empirically supported through factor analyses of survey data from athletic teams, where the dimensions demonstrated distinct predictive validities for outcomes like and satisfaction. The model operationalizes cohesion via the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), a 18-item scale validated across diverse samples, including over 1,000 athletes in initial studies, showing acceptable reliability ( > 0.70 for subscales) and factorial invariance over time. Applications extend beyond sports to groups, work s, and military units, where task dimensions often correlate more strongly with (e.g., r = 0.45 for GI-T and in meta-analyses), while social dimensions predict retention and (e.g., ATG-S linked to lower dropout rates in group therapy, with effect sizes around d = 0.30). from longitudinal studies, such as those tracking cohesion in soccer s, confirms bidirectional influences, where initial task cohesion predicts subsequent , but not vice versa, underscoring causal asymmetries grounded in group dynamics. Alternative multidimensional approaches refine or challenge Carron's framework; for instance, Cota et al. (1995) integrated meta-analytic data from 40 studies (N > 5,000 participants) to affirm the task-social distinction while advocating for parsimony, reducing to two primary factors—task cohesion and social cohesion—without the personal/group split, as higher-order analyses revealed overlap (loadings > 0.80). Bollen and Hoyle (1990) proposed a two-dimensional model of (sense of membership) and morale (emotional commitment), validated in community groups with (CFI > 0.95), emphasizing perceptual unity over attractions. These variations highlight debates on dimensionality, with recent reviews (post-2010) noting that context matters—task-heavy environments like project teams prioritize ATG-T and GI-T, while relational settings amplify social facets—yet Carron's model remains dominant due to its comprehensive coverage and adaptability, supported by over 1,000 citations in peer-reviewed literature. Criticisms include potential overcomplexity, as some studies find subscales correlating highly (r > 0.70), suggesting partial redundancy, but proponents argue this captures nuanced variance in real-world groups.

Antecedents and Factors

Individual Psychological Factors

Individual psychological factors, including personality traits, attachment styles, and the innate need for belonging, play a pivotal in fostering or undermining group cohesiveness by influencing members' interpersonal attractions, emotional investments, and behavioral commitments to the group. These factors operate at the intrapersonal level, determining how individuals perceive unity, shared goals, and mutual support within the collective. Empirical studies highlight that variations in these traits can predict differential cohesion experiences, even within the same group context, as they shape cognitions and relational dynamics. Personality traits from the Big Five model, particularly , exhibit consistent positive associations with group cohesion. Agreeable individuals, characterized by and , report higher perceived cohesion due to their propensity for harmonious interactions and . A of 256 healthcare members found that baseline agreeableness predicted subsequent cohesion six months later, with cohesion mediating the trait's effects on reduced burnout and improved thriving at work (β = 0.21 for cohesion path). Extraversion may also enhance social cohesion through increased communication, though meta-analytic evidence suggests its impact is more pronounced on individual-level perceptions than aggregate group bonds. Individual differences in personality traits thus modulate cohesion at the perceptual level, as evidenced in meta-analyses of formation processes where trait variability within teams correlated with heterogeneous cohesion ratings (r = 0.15–0.28). Attachment styles, rooted in early relational experiences, further dictate cohesion by affecting trust and emotional in group settings. Securely attached individuals demonstrate stronger cohesion through adaptive relational behaviors, while insecure styles— anxious or avoidant—often predict lower unity due to heightened fears of rejection or discomfort with interdependence. In a study of 112 participants in therapy groups, attachment anxiety and avoidance negatively predicted post-session cohesion scores (β = -0.24 and -0.19, respectively), with qualitative data revealing that anxious members struggled with vulnerability sharing, impeding collective bonds. This pattern holds across contexts, as attachment moderates cohesion's links to outcomes like interpersonal learning, underscoring its causal influence on group relational quality. The fundamental human need to belong, a core motivator identified in , propels individuals toward cohesive groups as a means of fulfilling affiliation drives and averting isolation's psychological costs. This need manifests in heightened attraction to groups offering acceptance and identity validation, thereby reinforcing cohesion through reciprocal loyalty and participation. Experimental and survey data confirm that satisfaction correlates with elevated cohesion perceptions (r = 0.35), as groups providing relational security buffer against defection and enhance collective resilience. Deficits in this need, conversely, can erode cohesion by prompting withdrawal, highlighting its role as a proximal antecedent in causal models of .

Structural and Demographic Factors

Structural factors, including group size and task interdependence, shape the degree of cohesiveness within groups. Smaller groups, typically those with fewer than six members, foster higher cohesion through more frequent and personal interactions, leading to elevated trust and commitment among members. Larger groups often experience diluted bonds, as individual contributions to collective dynamics diminish, resulting in reduced and unity. Task interdependence, where members rely on one another for goal attainment, strengthens structural ties by necessitating , thereby enhancing both social and task-oriented cohesion in empirical studies of work teams. Demographic factors primarily operate through the principle of similarity-attraction, whereby homogeneity in attributes such as age, , , and promotes interpersonal liking and group unity. Groups with greater demographic similarity report higher entitativity—a measure of perceived group oneness—compared to heterogeneous ones, as shared backgrounds reduce perceived differences and conflicts. In contrast, demographic diversity tends to undermine cohesion by activating intergroup biases and faultlines—alignments of multiple demographic differences—that fragment , though this effect is more pronounced in social cohesion than task-focused variants. Meta-analytic from work groups confirms a negative between diversity indices (e.g., Blau's index for age or racial variance) and cohesion, with heterogeneous teams showing lower unity unless moderated by external facilitators or superordinate goals. In contexts, demographic homogeneity has historically bolstered by aligning values and reducing friction, whereas rapid diversification can challenge social bonds without compensatory training.

Environmental and Situational Influences

Situational threats, such as external dangers or intergroup competition, frequently enhance group cohesiveness by promoting unity and shared purpose among members. Empirical research supports the conflict-cohesion hypothesis, where outgroup threats lead to increased intragroup cooperation and bonding, as observed in cross-cultural studies measuring threat perception and group activity toward resolution. In line with realistic group conflict theory, competition for scarce resources fosters intragroup solidarity, as demonstrated in classic field experiments where introduced rivalries strengthened internal ties before superordinate goals reduced hostility. Intergroup specifically amplifies ingroup cohesion across species; studies reveal heightened affiliation and prosocial behaviors within groups during periods of elevated , reducing internal costs of collective defense. analogs in and field settings confirm that such outcomes, whether or defeat, boost cooperative tendencies and emotional alignment, particularly when threats are social rather than asocial. Environmental factors, including physical proximity and group size, exert causal effects on cohesion by shaping interaction opportunities. Carron's multidimensional model identifies these as key antecedents: smaller groups and closer spatial arrangements correlate with stronger task cohesion due to increased communication frequency, while larger or dispersed setups dilute bonds unless mitigated by other factors. Longitudinal team data during physical distancing protocols showed cohesion stability but underscored proximity's baseline role in sustaining relational ties. Stressful situational contexts further modulate cohesion; groups in high-threat environments exhibit enhanced when internal structures support adaptive processes, whereas non-stressful settings allow looser bonds without penalty. These influences interact dynamically, with empirical meta-analyses affirming their for both social and task dimensions of cohesiveness in applied domains like and organizations.

Measurement and Assessment

Common Methods and Scales

Group cohesiveness is most commonly assessed through self-report questionnaires that capture its multidimensional nature, including interpersonal , task commitment, and group integration, as these instruments allow for standardized, quantifiable from group members. Observational methods, such as behavioral coding of interactions for indicators like mutual support or , are less frequent due to their subjectivity and resource intensity but have been explored in team reviews to complement surveys. Self-reports dominate because they directly probe subjective perceptions central to cohesion definitions, though they risk . The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), developed by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley in 1985, remains one of the most widely validated and utilized scales across contexts like sports teams, work groups, and therapy settings. It consists of 18 items (often shortened to 9 for efficiency) rated on a 9-point Likert scale, factoring into four subscales: Individual Attractions to the Group-Task (IATG-T), Individual Attractions to the Group-Social (IATG-S), Group Integration-Task (GI-T), and Group Integration-Social (GI-S), distinguishing personal and collective dimensions of task-oriented and social cohesion. Confirmatory factor analyses have supported its structure at both individual and group levels, with internal consistency reliabilities typically exceeding 0.70 and evidence of concurrent validity through correlations with performance outcomes and other cohesion proxies. The GEQ's content validity stems from its alignment with theoretical models emphasizing both socio-emotional and instrumental bonds, and it has been adapted and validated in multiple languages, including Spanish and Norwegian versions for specific populations like nursing teams. Other established scales include the Perceived Cohesion Scale (PCS), which uses brief items to measure personal acceptance and sense of oneness, often via simple self-reports of interpersonal closeness portable across studies. In psychotherapy groups, the 16-item Group Therapy Experience Scale assesses perceived cohesion alongside self-disclosure and , showing good reliability in clinical samples. For workplace settings, the Team Cohesion at Work Scale (ETC), validated in 2024, provides an economic 12-item tool with strong psychometrics (Cronbach's α > 0.85) tailored to health care teams, focusing on task interdependence and relational bonds. These instruments vary by context but share Likert-style formats and emphasize reliability through factor validation, though researchers caution that no single scale fully captures cohesion's dynamism without multi-method triangulation.

Challenges in Measuring Cohesion

The absence of a standardized definition of group cohesion has led to inconsistent operationalizations, hindering direct comparisons across empirical studies. Early conceptualizations emphasized , while later models incorporate multidimensional aspects such as task interdependence and collective efficacy, yet researchers often select subsets of these elements based on context-specific priorities, resulting in heterogeneous approaches. For instance, cohesion in teams is frequently assessed via attraction to the group, whereas organizational studies may prioritize shared goals, complicating meta-analytic synthesis. Scales like the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), developed by Carron et al. in 1985, aim to capture four dimensions—individual attractions to the group-task (ATG-T), individual attractions to the group-social (ATG-S), group integration-task (GI-T), and group integration-social (GI-S)—but exhibit variable reliability and validity, particularly for social subscales. Studies report lower for ATG-S and GI-S ( often below 0.70 in non-sport contexts), attributed to negatively worded items inflating perceived inconsistency and weaker for social cohesion relative to task dimensions in performance outcomes. tests confirm ATG-T and GI-T align with behavioral indicators like , but social facets show inconsistent correlations with group functioning, necessitating subscale-specific refinements or alternative instruments. Reliance on self-report surveys introduces response biases, including social desirability and , while aggregating individual perceptions to group-level scores assumes homogeneity that may not hold in diverse teams, yielding low intraclass correlations (ICCs often 0.01–0.35). Objective proxies, such as interaction frequency or turnover rates, are rarely integrated, limiting about cohesion's effects. Contextual variability further exacerbates issues, as measures validated in controlled settings like laboratories underperform in dynamic environments, underscoring the need for hybrid methods combining perceptual and behavioral data for robust assessment.

Effects and Outcomes

Positive Impacts on Group Functioning

High levels of group cohesiveness foster enhanced task , particularly in interdependent settings where coordination is essential. A 2021 meta-analysis synthesizing data from multiple studies across organizational contexts confirmed a positive cohesion- relationship, with stronger effects observed when tasks require high interdependence among members, as cohesive groups better synchronize efforts and reduce coordination losses. Similarly, a meta-analysis focused on sports teams reported a modest but consistent positive (r = 0.23) between cohesion and outcomes, attributing this to increased and adherence to group norms during competition. Cohesiveness promotes member satisfaction, retention, and psychological within the group. In interprofessional teams, empirical evidence from a 2022 study of 1,079 participants demonstrated that cohesiveness indirectly boosts satisfaction, overall team experience satisfaction, and goal attainment through elevated collective , with path coefficients indicating a mediated of β = 0.28 for satisfaction outcomes. Longitudinal analyses in exercise groups further link higher cohesion to sustained participation rates, as members report greater enjoyment and commitment, reducing dropout by up to 20% compared to low-cohesion groups. Improved communication and emerge as direct functional benefits, enabling efficient information sharing and . Agent-based simulations and empirical validations show that cohesive groups exhibit higher levels in dilemmas, as interpersonal bonds incentivize reciprocal behaviors and norm enforcement, leading to outcomes 15-30% superior to those in fragmented groups. This dynamic is evident in settings, where a of 55 studies found cohesion positively associated with therapeutic outcomes (r = 0.25), driven by trust-facilitated openness and mutual support that amplify group process effectiveness. Cohesive groups demonstrate greater resilience to external stressors and disruptions, maintaining stability and adaptability. According to Carron's , validated across domains, elevated cohesion correlates with resistance to membership turnover and enhanced collective efficacy, enabling groups to withstand challenges like resource scarcity or opposition by leveraging unified responses. norms within such groups further amplify effectiveness, as a 2023 study reported that cohesion interacts with norms to predict perceived performance (β = 0.42), fostering sustained effort without reliance on external incentives.

Negative Consequences and Downsides

Excessive group cohesiveness can promote groupthink, a dysfunctional process characterized by concurrence-seeking that suppresses critical evaluation and fosters poor outcomes. Psychologist Irving L. Janis introduced the concept in 1972, linking high cohesion—along with factors like group insulation and biased leadership—to flawed judgments in historical cases, such as the U.S. in 1961 and the oversight in 1941. Empirical analyses by Janis revealed symptoms including illusions of invulnerability, collective rationalization, and pressure on dissenters, which diminished information search and alternative consideration, ultimately yielding suboptimal policies. Cohesive groups often enforce to norms, even when undesirable, amplifying risks of adopting harmful behaviors or ignoring innovative . Research indicates that strong interpersonal bonds reinforce commitment to group standards, potentially sidelining individual creativity or ethical concerns in favor of uniformity. For example, studies on show high cohesion correlates with suppressed minority opinions, reducing adaptive responses to challenges and heightening vulnerability to echo chambers where flawed assumptions persist unchallenged. In organizational contexts, this has manifested as resistance to external feedback, with dense social networks hindering boundary-spanning activities essential for innovation in teams. High cohesion may exacerbate in-group bias and out-group antagonism, channeling collective loyalty toward exclusionary or aggressive actions. Historical extremes, such as the cohesion within the Nazi regime during (1939–1945), illustrate how unified ideologies can justify atrocities through shared identity and norm reinforcement. Experimental evidence further links elevated cohesion to intensified polarization, where groups shift toward more extreme positions post-deliberation, undermining balanced perspectives. These dynamics underscore a causal pathway from interpersonal to diminished critical scrutiny, particularly when cohesion overrides diverse input or environmental adaptability. A by Mullen and Copper encompassing 27 published studies demonstrated a positive relationship between group cohesion and performance, with cohesive groups outperforming noncohesive ones by an average of 18 percentile points. Subsequent reviews, such as Beal et al.'s examination of 58 studies, confirmed this association but identified stronger correlations (r ≈ 0.30) when performance was operationalized as observable rather than subjective judgments, and when task cohesion—defined as commitment to shared goals—was prioritized over social cohesion involving interpersonal bonds. These findings underscore that the link is not uniform but moderated by how constructs are measured, with behavioral outcomes and task-focused unity yielding more robust evidence. In sports contexts, Carron et al.'s meta-analysis of 46 studies reported a moderate positive (r = 0.236) between cohesion and , particularly pronounced for task cohesion in interactive teams where members must coordinate efforts, such as or , compared to individualistic sports like . The effect was weaker for social cohesion alone, suggesting that shared task orientation drives outcomes more than mere liking among members. Gully et al.'s analysis of 25 studies further specified moderators, revealing stronger effects (up to r = 0.40) at the group level of analysis and in high task-interdependence settings, where cohesion facilitates synchronized actions, but negligible links in low-interdependence or individual-level assessments. More recent syntheses, including Grossman et al.'s 2021 of team-level data, affirm the positive tie but highlight variability by proximity: proximal measures like task cohesion and referent-shift consensus (group-level perceptions) correlate more strongly (r > 0.25) with than distal or individually reported social aspects. Experimental interventions, such as team-building exercises, provide limited evidence; while some yield short-term cohesion gains linked to improvements in lab tasks, field applications in organizations and sports show mixed results, with effects often fading without sustained reinforcement. Overall, correlational evidence dominates, with bidirectional — enhancing subsequent cohesion—evident in longitudinal studies, tempering claims of cohesion as a unidirectional driver.

Evolutionary and Biological Foundations

Adaptive Role in Human Evolution

Group cohesiveness conferred significant adaptive advantages in by enabling cooperative behaviors that enhanced survival and reproductive fitness in resource-scarce, predator-rich ancestral environments. Small bands, typical of early Homo sapiens around 300,000 years ago, relied on group unity for collective , defense against threats, and , where non-kin members assisted in child-rearing to offset high rates exceeding 30% in some Pleistocene populations. Without strong interpersonal bonds, individuals faced elevated risks of or injury, as solitary foraging yielded lower caloric returns compared to coordinated group efforts, which could multiply success rates in by factors of 2-3 times. Evolutionary pressures selected for psychological traits fostering cohesion, such as reciprocity norms and emotional , which stabilized alliances and reduced free-riding in public goods scenarios like shared vigilance or tool-making. Models of fitness interdependence demonstrate that socioecologies promoting repeated interactions among non-kin generated positive selection for strategies, as cohesive groups outcompeted fragmented ones in resource acquisition and territorial defense. This is evidenced in simulations where group cohesion elevated levels under conditional dissociation, allowing altruists to cluster and thrive while defectors were excluded, mirroring dynamics in early fission-fusion societies. As human groups scaled beyond immediate kin networks—reaching effective sizes of about 150 individuals by the —adaptive mechanisms like synchronized rituals, , and evolved to sustain cohesion, countering from conflicts or mobility. These traits underpinned the transition to larger, more complex societies, where high cohesion correlated with superior outcomes in intergroup , as seen in archaeological records of fortifications dating to 10,000 BCE. Disruptions in cohesion, such as through or schisms, historically led to group dissolution and fitness costs, underscoring its role as a heritable social adaptation.

Biological Mechanisms Supporting Cohesion

Oxytocin, a , plays a central role in facilitating social bonding and group cohesion by enhancing trust, , and cooperative behaviors within groups. Administered exogenously in studies, oxytocin has been shown to increase within-group coordination during intergroup conflicts, reducing individual contributions to while promoting synchronized group efforts. In nonhuman , such as chimpanzees, elevated urinary oxytocin levels correlate with greater in-group cohesion and participation in collective actions against out-groups, independent of threat levels. Similarly, intranasal oxytocin administration in chimpanzees boosts social affiliation and proximity maintenance among group members, underscoring its conserved function across species in supporting affiliative ties. Testosterone and cortisol interact to influence , with collective hormonal profiles characterized by high testosterone and low predicting superior group performance and cohesion in tasks requiring . High testosterone levels are associated with assertive and for group defense, while low mitigates stress-induced fragmentation, fostering sustained cooperative states. Physiological synchrony in and , observed during joint activities, further predicts subjective experiences of group unity, suggesting hormonal entrainment as a mechanism for aligning members' states. Neural mechanisms underpin these hormonal effects through activation of the social brain network, including the , which processes social signals and values to modulate network structures and cohesion. Mutual cooperation activates reward-related regions such as the ventral , reinforcing prosocial behaviors essential for group maintenance via dopamine-mediated . Genetic factors contribute indirectly, with heritability estimates for traits like (around 30-50% in twin studies) and dimensions influencing social orientation overlapping with cohesion-relevant behaviors. These elements collectively enable adaptive group formation by linking individual neurobiology to emergent stability.

Cohesion in Diverse and Homogeneous Groups

Effects of Demographic Similarity

Demographic similarity among group members, including shared racial, ethnic, , age, or socioeconomic characteristics, tends to enhance group cohesiveness by promoting mutual understanding, reducing interpersonal conflicts, and fostering shared norms and values. Empirical studies indicate that homogeneous groups experience higher levels of trust and compared to diverse ones, as similarity facilitates easier communication and alignment on group goals. For instance, on workgroups has shown that similarities in attitudes and values, often correlated with demographic traits, lead to increased cohesion over time as members perceive greater compatibility. In and societal contexts, Robert Putnam's analysis of the Community Benchmark Survey, involving over 30,000 respondents across 41 U.S. communities, revealed a negative between ethnic diversity and social cohesion metrics such as trust in neighbors and . Specifically, in more demographically similar locales, residents reported higher generalized trust (e.g., 40-50% trusting others in homogeneous areas versus lower in diverse ones) and greater participation in activities, suggesting that similarity bolsters bonding essential for group unity. Putnam attributed this to reduced and conflict in interactions among similar individuals, though he noted potential long-term through intergroup contact. Organizational research further supports these effects, with demographic homogeneity linked to stronger task and social cohesion via mechanisms like , where individuals prefer and bond more readily with similar others. A study of educational teams found that higher cultural similarity predicted elevated cohesion scores, independent of outcomes, due to aligned backgrounds minimizing relational . Similarly, in settings, groups with greater demographic alignment exhibit improved information sharing and cooperative norms, as differences in salient traits like race or can initially impede and coordination. While some interventions, such as prolonged contact, can mitigate cohesion deficits in diverse groups, baseline effects of similarity remain robust across contexts like teams and neighborhoods, with meta-analyses confirming that demographic dissimilarity often correlates with 10-20% lower cohesion ratings. These patterns hold despite potential biases in academic reporting, as replicated findings from large-scale surveys prioritize observable behavioral data over ideological preferences. However, targeted organizational practices—including fostering psychological safety, promoting open communication, and ensuring constructive conflict resolution—can further alleviate these deficits, enabling diverse groups to achieve comparable or even enhanced cohesion levels.

Empirical Findings on Diversity and Cohesion Trade-offs

Empirical studies across and organizational contexts demonstrate a consistent between demographic diversity—particularly ethnic and racial—and measures of group cohesion, such as trust, , and . In residential settings, Robert Putnam's analysis of the 2001 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, involving over 30,000 respondents from 41 U.S. communities, found that higher ethnic diversity correlates with reduced trust in neighbors (by 10-20 percentage points in diverse vs. homogeneous areas), lower , and decreased , affecting residents of all racial backgrounds. This "hunkering down" effect persists even after controlling for socioeconomic factors, with diverse communities exhibiting 25-30% lower participation in group activities compared to similar homogeneous ones. A 2020 meta-analysis of 87 studies from multiple countries confirmed a statistically significant negative association between ethnic diversity and social trust, with an average of r = -0.08 overall, strengthening to r ≈ -0.15 for neighbor-specific trust and when diversity is measured at local scales like neighborhoods or schools. The relationship holds across contexts, including and the U.S., though weaker at national levels; for instance, a 2024 in German schools showed that random ethnic mixing reduced intergroup and trust by 5-10% in subsequent tasks. While some analyses report null effects at aggregate scales or after extended contact, local-level evidence predominantly supports erosion of cohesion, with diversity explaining 5-15% of variance in trust metrics. In organizational teams, demographic diversity similarly impairs cohesion through heightened social categorization and conflict. A 2001 meta-analysis of 39 studies on work groups revealed that less job-related diversity (e.g., race, , age) negatively affects cohesion, with a corrected of r = -0.12 to -0.15, contrasting with positive effects from task-related diversity on . This leads to lower interpersonal bonds and higher turnover intentions, particularly in short-term groups where assimilation is limited. A 2024 of 406 effects from 38,304 teams further linked demographic diversity to increased faultlines and reduced cohesion via categorization processes, with effect sizes indicating 10-20% higher conflict in diverse vs. homogeneous teams. These findings persist after adjusting for group size and tenure, underscoring a causal tension between diversity and unity absent strong integrating mechanisms. Nevertheless, research shows that this tension can be mitigated through intentional promotion of inclusivity and diversity combined with practices such as building psychological safety, open and transparent communication, and constructive conflict resolution. For instance, in teams with high psychological safety, diversity positively associates with performance and member satisfaction, reversing baseline negative effects. Inclusive human resource management practices and employee learning-oriented behaviors have also been found to reduce interpersonal conflict arising from diversity by lowering negative affect and social categorization.

Applications and Criticisms

Contexts in Organizations and Societies

In organizational contexts, group cohesiveness enhances performance through mechanisms such as improved and shared goals, as evidenced by empirical studies in , , and settings. A 2022 study of sports teams found that team cohesiveness predicted collective efficacy, which in turn forecasted outcomes like win percentages and player satisfaction, with path analysis confirming a significant indirect effect (β = 0.45, p < 0.01). Meta-analyses further substantiate a positive cohesion-performance link, with a 2021 review of project teams reporting a corrected of r = 0.22 after accounting for artifacts and task interdependence. However, the strength of this relationship varies by task type; additive tasks (e.g., assembly lines) show stronger benefits from task cohesion, while social cohesion can sometimes hinder in high-interdependence scenarios by fostering over . At the societal level, social cohesion—manifesting as trust, shared norms, and —correlates with political stability and economic resilience, enabling better of public goods and response to shocks. Cross-country analyses using the Bertelsmann Social Cohesion Radar dataset (covering 35 nations from 2013–2021) reveal a positive association between GDP per capita and cohesion indices (r = 0.52, p < 0.01), suggesting affluence supports interpersonal trust and institutional , though reverse may exist via cohesion-driven growth. In diverse societies, cohesion often declines with rapid or inequality spikes; for instance, a 2025 study across European cities linked a 10% urbanization increase to a 0.15 standard deviation drop in trust and metrics. High-cohesion societies, such as those with strong ethnic or cultural homogeneity, exhibit lower crime rates and higher participation, as per World Bank assessments of in 50 developing nations (2010–2020 data). These organizational and societal applications underscore cohesion's role in fostering adaptive behaviors, yet empirical evidence cautions against overgeneralization; for example, forced cohesion initiatives in bureaucracies can amplify groupthink, reducing adaptability, as observed in longitudinal studies of corporate teams where excessive social bonding correlated with a 15% innovation shortfall (2015–2019 data). In nations, cohesion's stability benefits are tempered by external threats, with historical cases like post-WWII Europe showing rapid cohesion recovery tied to economic reconstruction rather than demographic engineering alone.

Key Criticisms and Theoretical Debates

One prominent criticism of high group cohesiveness is its association with , a mode of thinking where cohesive groups prioritize consensus over critical evaluation, leading to flawed . introduced the concept in 1972, identifying antecedent conditions such as high cohesiveness, structural faults like group insulation from external advice, and promotional leader styles that foster concurrence-seeking. Symptoms include illusions of invulnerability, unquestioned beliefs in group morality, and suppression of dissonant viewpoints, culminating in defective processes like incomplete information search and failure to examine alternatives. Empirical illustrations include the U.S. in 1961, where cohesive advisors to President Kennedy overlooked risks due to deference to the leader and mutual reinforcement of optimistic assumptions. Critics note that while cohesiveness alone does not cause groupthink—requiring additional factors like stress and homogeneity—it amplifies pressures, potentially yielding suboptimal outcomes in policy or organizational settings. A central theoretical debate concerns the direction of causality in the cohesion-performance relationship, with evidence suggesting performance more reliably predicts subsequent cohesion than vice versa. Mullen and Copper's 1994 meta-analysis of 49 studies found an overall correlation of r = 0.18 between cohesiveness and productivity, but disaggregated analyses revealed a stronger effect from success to cohesion (reflecting post-hoc bonding after victories) compared to cohesion driving performance. This "success breeds cohesion" pattern holds particularly in field settings over lab experiments, where artificial manipulations inflate perceived causal links from cohesion to outcomes. Subsequent meta-analyses, such as Gully et al. (1995), reinforce that the relationship weakens when controlling for task interdependence and prior performance, challenging unidirectional models and implying that cohesion may function more as a consequence or moderator than a primary antecedent. This ambiguity underscores the need for longitudinal designs to disentangle bidirectional influences, as cross-sectional data often conflate the two. Critics also highlight potential downsides of excessive cohesiveness, proposing a curvilinear rather than linear relationship with , where moderate levels optimize outcomes but extremes diminish returns. indicates that overly cohesive groups resist external input, stifle necessary conflict for , and exhibit reduced adaptability, as seen in studies showing inverse U-shaped patterns in and task execution. For instance, et al. (2017) found cohesion moderates the curvilinear link between and , with high cohesion flattening peaks by limiting critical . In contexts requiring exploration, such as collective induction tasks, heightened cohesion correlates with less idea generation and higher rewards exacerbate decision errors. These findings counter simplistic positive views, emphasizing an optimal threshold beyond which cohesion fosters insularity, as evidenced in organizational where dense networks hinder under dynamic conditions. Theoretical debates further center on the conceptualization and of cohesion, transitioning from unidimensional "field of forces" models to multidimensional constructs amid criticisms of poor inter-measure correlations. Festinger et al.'s 1950 definition as resultant forces toward group maintenance faced scrutiny by the for failing to capture distinct social attraction, task commitment, and personal/group attractions, leading to models like Carron's (1982) four-factor framework: individual attractions to the group (social/task) and group integration (social/task). Detractors argue that conflating dimensions obscures differential impacts—task cohesion often predicts performance more robustly than interpersonal bonds—while over-reliance on self-reports introduces common method bias. This evolution prompts ongoing contention over whether cohesion should be treated as a unitary emergent state or parsed for context-specific facets, with implications for validity in diverse empirical domains like sports versus groups.

References

  1. https://dictionary.apa.org/group-cohesion
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/group-cohesion
  3. https://oxfordre.com/psychology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-742
  4. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/socialpsychology/chpt/group-cohesiveness.pdf
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9706965/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10978621/
  7. https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/understanding-team-effectiveness/steps/introduction/
  8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046496491222002
  9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14640811/
  10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30335452
  11. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16506073.2024.2385906
  12. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20413866211041157
  13. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/13/5/361
  14. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1353944/full
  15. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-64793-001
  16. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00207284.2025.2456020
  17. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1951-02994-000
  18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.2466/pr0.1965.17.2.465
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37630241_A_Multidimensional_Approach_to_the_Group_Cohesion-Group_Performance_Relationship
  20. https://journals.humankinetics.com/downloadpdf/journals/jsep/6/1/article-p103.pdf
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348118560_Group_cohesion_Empirical_evidence_from_group_psychotherapy_for_those_studying_other_areas_of_group_work
  22. https://fitpublishing.com/sites/default/files/geqmanual_exerpt.pdf
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3916931/
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3590828/
  25. https://www.academia.edu/2923977/The_development_of_social_and_task_cohesion_in_computer_mediated_and_face_to_face_task_groups
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1469029225001694
  27. https://www.regent.edu/journal/emerging-leadership-journeys/group-cohesion-dimensions/
  28. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104649640103200401
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9952276/
  30. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/context/etd/article/5609/viewcontent/CFE0005499.pdf
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8785002/
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40477977/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8405711/
  34. https://iro.uiowa.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Group-size-and-the-trust-cohesion/9983777155802771
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263237313001618
  36. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167295216003
  37. https://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/psyifp/aeechterhoff/vorlesungkommunikation/lott_groupcohesattr_psychbull1965.pdf
  38. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11301-022-00313-5
  39. https://www.igbr.org/wp-content/Journals/Articles/GJMM_Vol_2_No_1_2018-pgs-77-86.pdf
  40. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%252Fjob.2040
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558242/
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0149206300000933
  43. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA359547.pdf
  44. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/csls/Unit_Cohesion_and_Military_Performance_Ch5_MacCoun_Hix.pdf
  45. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353379093_Outgroup_threat_and_the_emergence_of_cohesive_groups_A_cross-cultural_examination
  46. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:88f1c52c-ff97-45af-b0ea-c8c41c0e04d0/download_file?safe_filename=Lang_et_al_2021_Outgroup_threat_and.pdf&type_of_work=Journal%2Barticle
  47. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2260&context=theses
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347216000129
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4325911/
  50. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1303372/full
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10427451/
  52. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsep/7/3/article-p244.xml
  53. https://efulhamgroupdynamics.weebly.com/cohesion.html
  54. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23750472.2023.2170268
  55. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167291176006
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232464304_The_Relation_Between_Group_Cohesiveness_and_Performance_An_Integration
  57. https://psycnet.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/t17783-000
  58. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275046100_Measuring_Team_Cohesion_Observations_from_the_Science
  59. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/107/2/539/114758/Measuring-Group-Cohesion-to-Reveal-the-Power-of
  60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1046496413511121
  61. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsep/9/3/article-p275.xml
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12114496/
  63. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1091367X.2021.1917414
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6602077/
  65. https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-024-01583-2
  66. https://www.academia.edu/49255465/Assessing_the_Cohesion_of_Teams_Validity_of_the_Group_Environment_Questionnaire
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5965994_Item_Wording_and_Internal_Consistency_of_a_Measure_of_Cohesion_The_Group_Environment_Questionnaire
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8790679/
  69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232447069_Cohesion_and_Performance_in_Sport_A_Meta_Analysis
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4476063/
  71. https://www.jasss.org/22/3/5.html
  72. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-51673-005
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10215452/
  74. https://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/pedsendo-1/documents/Groupthink_by_Iriving_L_Janis_Summary_pd.pdf
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273109291_Irving_L_Janis%27_Victims_of_Groupthink
  76. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/language-and-linguistics/group-cohesiveness
  77. https://pollution.sustainability-directory.com/question/how-does-group-cohesion-affect-policies/
  78. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-27308-001
  79. https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jsep/24/2/article-p168.xml
  80. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1046496495264003
  81. https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/VanVugtSchaller2008.pdf
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10913362/
  83. https://www.professormarkvanvugt.com/images/files/vanvugtkamedachapterrev.pdf
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5685569/
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X25001320
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328601679_How_group_cohesion_promotes_the_evolution_of_cooperation_in_public_goods_under_conditional_dissociation
  87. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/668207
  88. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11577-023-00919-x
  89. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-25944-012
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6347450/
  91. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616812114
  92. https://www.mpg.de/10873579/oxytocin-chimpanzee-groups
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5024601/
  94. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-65670-1
  95. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626337/full
  96. https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0896-6273%2802%2900755-9
  97. https://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1287.pdf
  98. https://www.ias.edu/sites/default/files/sss/BordersPortes-Diversity-Social-Capital.pdf
  99. https://educationaldatamining.org/edm2024/proceedings/2024.EDM-posters.93/2024.EDM-posters.93.pdf
  100. https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/Chatman/papers/25_DemogCoopNorms.pdf
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27479961_Does_Diversity_Affect_Group_Efficacy_The_Intervening_Role_of_Cohesion_and_Task_Interdependence
  102. https://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/downside-diversity
  103. https://pure.au.dk/portal/files/230771020/Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_Final_version_2020.pdf
  104. https://econweb.ucsd.edu/~gdahl/papers/diversity-and-cooperation.pdf
  105. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/does-ethnic-diversity-erode-trust-putnams-hunkering-down-thesis-reconsidered/DC0DA871517729C51D08C4C7FF34E03B
  106. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014920630102700202
  107. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247570152_Impact_of_Highly_and_Less_Job-Related_Diversity_on_Work_Group_Cohesion_and_Performance_A_Meta-Analysis
  108. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20413866241245312
  109. https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/psychological-safety-unlocks-potential-diverse-teams
  110. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1117690/full
  111. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9686/abdace53a6fd889eb5ae5126b6f35361dec7.pdf
  112. https://www.idos-research.de/uploads/media/DP_18.2022.pdf
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275125001350
  114. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/46fe1edf-f941-4022-8ae1-9d57622b61d3/download
  115. https://www.ijaar.org/articles/v6n3/sms/ijaar-sms-v6n2-feb20-p18.pdf
  116. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
  117. https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Group_Dynamics/Janis_Groupthink.pdf
  118. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6917877/
  119. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-25283-001
  120. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA296297.pdf
  121. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-31194-003
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9905233/
  123. https://kellercenter.hankamer.baylor.edu/news/story/2015/can-team-have-too-much-cohesion
  124. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/gdn/4/1/7.html
  125. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228118684_Sticking_it_All_Together_A_Critical_Assessment_of_the_Group_Cohesion-Performance_Literature
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.