Group Cohesion

Group Cohesion: The Established Findings

The great bulk of the literature on group cohesion or cohesiveness has been based on what Mudrack (1989) has termed "traditional definitions." These definitions, Mudrack states, center around the concept of a bond, a feeling of solidarity, harmony, and/or commitment on the part of group members. In other words, the cohesive group has a sense of connectedness, a feeling of unity that transcends individualistic differences or motives, and there is a force of attraction between the group and its members.

Studies utilizing one or more of these traditional definitions of group cohesion have been associated with several replicable observances. Specifically, it has been observed that interaction among members is smoother, occurs more frequently, and is more pleasant in cohesive groups (Back, 1951: Lott & Lott, 1961; Shaw & Shaw, 1962). Also, conflicts among members are resolved more easily (Shaw, 1981).

Another well-established finding in the group cohesion literature is that when group members like one another, cohesiveness is high; indeed, Crano and Messe (1982) pointed out that based on the consistency of the foregoing finding, researchers have often measured cohesiveness by assessing the amount of mut

. . .
jection and negative definition. In summary then, there are several findings which have been reliably associated with the development and maintenance of group cohesiveness. However, it should be noted that most of the just reviewed findings were obtained from earlier research using traditional "connectedness" or "bonding" definitions of cohesiveness. One of the major research focuses in the more current research on group cohesiveness has been to challenge these traditional definitions. This focus is examined in the next section of the paper. Current Trends In The Group Cohesion Literature Zaccaro (1991) has noted that one of the biggest trends in the current literature on group cohesion has been to challenge traditional formulations of the construct. One such challenge is to argue that cohesion is really a multidimensional construct. For example, Zaccaro points out that there can be either interpersonal cohesiveness in which the members of the group are cohesive because they like or are attracted to one another; or, there can be "task cohesiveness" in which a group stays together because of some desire to complete a joint task or fulfill a joint goal. Zaccaro (1991) reasoned that if there were two different kinds of coh
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Dion Evans, Crano Messe, Literature Zaccaro, According Lauderdale, Smith-Cunnien Parker, Dion Kilik, Established Findings, Zaccaro McCoy, Mulder Stemerding, Social Psychology, social psychology, interpersonal cohesiveness, cohesiveness construct, traditional definitions, multidimensional nature, cohesiveness findings, dion evans, unidimensional multidimensional, task cohesiveness, shaw 1981, structure gross cohesiveness, mulder stemerding 1963, journal social psychology, unidimensional multidimensional nature, journal abnormal social,
Approximate Word count = 2129
Approximate Pages = 9 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Group Cohesion