The Nature of Cohesion

Without atleast some degree of cohesion, groups would disintegrate as each member withdraw from
the group. The group that lacks cohesion is at risk, for if too many members drift away the group may
not survive.

Components of Cohesion

Cohesion is not a simple, unitary process but a multicomponent process with a variety of indicators.

There is no such thing as a typical cohesive group. Nor is there a single theory of cohesion that group
experts agree adequately identifies the core components of cohesion. (Pwede nga may unity, pero hindi
naman cohesive. Ang ibang memebers minsan hindi magkasundo).

The following sections examine four interrelated processes—social relations, task relations, perceived
unity, and emotions—that serve as the glues that hold groups together.

1.Social Cohesion- Lewin used the term cohesion to describe the forces that keep groups intact by
pushing members together as well as the countering forces that push them apart. Leon Festinger and his
colleagues also stressed social forces that bind individuals to groups, for in their studies they defined
group cohesion as “the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group. But when
they measured cohesion, they focused on one force more than all others: attraction.

Attraction between individuals is a basic ingredient for most groups, but when these relations intensify
and proliferate throughout a group they can transform a conjoined group into a cohesive one.

Cohesion, however, is a multi level process as well as a multi component one, so group members may be
bonded to their groups in a number of ways. At the group level, members are attracted to the group
itself rather than specific individuals in the group.
 The hockey team(who beat Russia) was just one team in the entire U.S. Olympic Team for
1980—and the members were bonded to that larger group as well as their specific team. The men were
also playing for their country, and so their affective bonds not only linked them to each other, to their
team, and to their organization but also to their country. These various levels of attraction usually co
vary; for example, friendship among the members of a group tends to generate liking for and pride in
the group as a whole

But forms of attraction need not go hand in hand, particularly if groups focus on work or
performance rather than leisure or socializing. When cohesion is based on group-level attraction, people
remain members even when specific members leave the group.

Michael Hogg draw on social identity theory in their analysis of cohesion in larger group. Hogg
noted that although members of cohesive groups usually like one another, this personal attraction is not
group cohesion. Rather, group cohesion corresponds to a form of group-level attraction that Hogg
labeled social attraction—a liking for other group members that is based on their status as typical group
members. Unlike personal attraction, which is based on relationships between specific members, social
attraction is depersonalized, since it is based on admiration for individuals who possess the kinds of
qualities that typify the group.

2.Task Cohesion

When asked to describe their team’s cohesiveness, stress the quality of their teamwork.

Teamwork- The combined activities of two or more individuals who coordinate their efforts to
make or do something. In many cases, each individual performs a portion of the task, which, when
combined with others’ work, yields a total group product.

A group whose cohesiveness is generated by a shared task focus tends to be high in collective efficacy.
“We are a powerful, successful hockey team,” this conception of the group is not collective efficacy.
Members of a group with collective efficacy think, “We are fast on the ice,” “We can block effectively,”
and “We have an excellent transition game.”

Collective efficacy-The belief, shared among a substantial portion of the group members, that
the group is capable of organizing and executing the actions required to attain the group’s goals and
successfully complete its tasks

3. Perceived Cohesion

When members talk about themselves and their group, they use more plural pronouns than personal
pronouns: “We won that game” or “We got the job done” rather than “I got the job done”

4. Emotional Cohesion

Durkheim was describing the large gatherings of local communities in New Guinea, but he believed that
collective effervescence resulted from the sharing of emotional reactions within a group. As the positive
and elevated mood of one person is picked up by the next, the group members eventually display a
shared emotional experience.

A group with high levels of collective efficacy may expect to succeed, but a group with esprit de corps
has emotional vitality, passion, vim, and vigor. Esprit de corps, or positive affective tone, predicts a
number of positive behaviors in the group, including helping teammates, protecting the organization,
making constructive suggestions, improving one’s personal performance, spreading goodwill, and even
enhancing survival.

Esprit de corps A feeling of unity, commitment, confidence, and enthusiasm for the group
shared by most or all of the members.

In emotional Cohesion, individuals experience emotions even if they personally have not experienced
the emotion provoking event (e.g.,all the members become angry when they learn one of their own has
been mistreated)

Antecedents of Cohesion

Factors that set the stage for the emergence of cohesion in groups:

1. Interpersonal Attraction

Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif documented a study during the summer and the Sherifs would run a camp
for 11 and 12-year-old boys. When first split up, 65% of the boys picked as friends those in the other
group. But when the groups became cohesive, fewer than 10% named boys as friends who were in the
other group.

2. Stability of Membership

Robert Ziller’s open groups and closed groups. In open groups, members are voted out of the group, quit
the group for personal reasons, or join other groups. In contrast, closed groups are often more cohesive,
because competition for membership is irrelevant and group members anticipate future collaborations.
Ziller’s theory suggests that open groups, by their very nature, are less cohesive.
Open group-A group whose boundaries are so permeable that membership varies considerably as
members enter and leave the group. Closed group-A group whose boundaries are closed and fixed; as a
result, membership is relatively unvarying. Ziller’s theory suggests that open groups, by their very
nature, are less cohesive.

3. Group Size

Smaller groups tend to be more unified than larger ones. Studies of classes, for example, find that
students learn more in small classes, in part because these groups are higher in social engagement as
well as academic engagement. As a group increases in size the number of possible relations among
individuals increases so rapidly that members can no longer maintain strong, positive ties with all group
members.

4. Structural Features

Cohesion is related to group structure in two basic ways. First, cohesive groups tend to be relatively
more structured ones. Second, certain types of group structures are associated with higher levels of
cohesion than are others.

5. Initiations

Initiations—formal and informal requirements that must be met before an individual can gain
membership in a group—contribute to a group’s cohesion by strengthening the bond between the
individual and the group. Groups with initiation policies may also be more attractive to members, since
their exclusiveness may make them seem more prestigious.

People who join emotionally involving groups such as fraternities, social movements, or cults may also
become more committed to the group as a result of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance- An adverse psychological state that occurs when an individual

simultaneously holds two conflicting cognitions.

Because the two cognitions, “I have invested in the group” and “The group is loathsome” are dissonant,
these beliefs cause the members psychological discomfort.

Indicators of Cohesion

Cohesion is the strength of the bonds linking individuals to and in the group, but a variety of factors
influence the group’s social, task, perceptual, and emotional unity.

What unifies the members of a work group may not unify the members of a religious congregation, a
classroom, or a military squad.

Some operational definitions of cohesion may correspond more closely to the theoretical definition than
others. A measure that focuses only on group members’ perceptions of their group’s cohesiveness, for
example, may be assessing something very different than a measure that focuses on the actual strength
of the relationships linking individuals to their group.

Cohesion and Commitment over Time

Stages of Group Development

Group development—a pattern of growth and change beginning with initial formation and ending, in
most cases, with dissolution.

Stage models of group development theorize that groups move from one stage to the next in a
predictable, sequential fashion. The U.S. Hockey Team, for example, became unified, but only after
progressing through earlier stages marked by confusion, conflict, and growing group structure.

Bruce Tuckman labeled these five stages forming (orientation), storming (conflict), norming (structure
development), performing (work), and adjourning (dissolution)

 Forming: The Orientation Stage-During this initial forming stage, members monitor their
behavior to avoid any embarrassing lapses of social poise and are tentative when expressing
their personal opinions.
To better understand and relate to the group, individual members gather information about
their leaders’ and comembers’ personality characteristics, interests, and attitudes.
Communication of personal information is termed self-disclosure.
 Storming: The Conflict Stage-Marked by personal conflicts between individual members who
discover that they just do not get along, procedural conflict over the group’s goals and
procedures, and competition between individual members for authority, leadership, and more
prestigious roles. Leader–member conflicts disrupt the group’s functioning.

Low levels of conflict in a group can be an indication of remarkably positive interpersonal

relations, but it is more likely that the group members are simply uninvolved, unmotivated, and
bored. Conflict may settle matters of structure, direction, and performance expectations.
  Norming: The Structure Stage- Groups in the third stage of group development, the norming
stage, become both unified and organized. Mutual trust and support increase, members
cooperate more with each other, and members try to reach decisions through consensus.
 Performing: The Work Stage- Productivity must usually wait until the group matures. The more
“mature” a group, the more likely the group will spend the bulk of its time working rather than
socializing, seeking direction, or arguing.
.Once the group reaches the performing stage “members shift their attention from what the
group is to what the group needs to do.”
These studies and others suggest that time is needed to develop a working relationship, but
time alone is no guarantee that the group will be productive.
 Adjourning: The Dissolution Stage- A group’s entry into the dissolution stage can be either
planned or spontaneous.
In other cases, the group members may no longer find the group and its goals sufficiently
satisfying to warrant their continued membership. As social exchange theory maintains, when
the number of rewards provided by group membership decreases and the costly aspects of
membership escalate, group members become dissatisfied.

Cycles of Group Development

Tuckman’s model is a successive-stage theory. It specifies the usual order of the phases of group
development.

Many theorists believe that groups repeatedly cycle through stages during their lifetime, rather than just
moving through each stage once. These cyclical models agree that certain issues tend to dominate group
interaction during the various phases of a group’s development, but they add that these issues can recur
later in the life of the group.

Robert Bales’s equilibrium model of group development therefore assumes that group members strive
to maintain a balance between accomplishing the task and enhancing the quality of the interpersonal
relationships within the group. In consequence, groups cycle back and forth between what Tuckman
called the norming and performing stages.

punctuated equilibrium model A group development theory that assumes groups change
gradually over time but that the periods of slow growth are punctuated by brief periods of relatively
rapid change.

Consequences of Cohesion
A cohesive group is an intense group, and this intensity affects the members, the group’s dynamics, and
the group’s performance in both positive and negative ways. Cohesion leads to a range of
consequences—not all of them desirable.
Member Satisfaction and Adjustment

A cohesive group creates a healthier workplace, at least at the psychological level.

Cohesive groups can, however, be emotionally demanding. The old sergeant syndrome, for example, is
more common in cohesive military squads. loss of comrades during battle causes severe distress. When
the unit is reinforced with replacements, the original group members are reluctant to establish
emotional ties with the newcomers, partly in fear of the pain produced by separation.

Old sergeant syndrome-Symptoms of psychological disturbance, including depression, anxiety,

and guilt, exhibited by noncommissioned officers in cohesive units that suffer heavy casualities.

Group Dynamics and Influence

As cohesion increases, the internal dynamics of the group intensify. In consequence, the pressure to
conform is greater in cohesive groups, and individuals’ resistance to these pressures is weaker.

Anecdotal accounts of highly cohesive groups— military squads, adolescent peer groups, sports teams,
fraternities and sororities, and cults—often describe the strong pressures that these groups put on their
members

Group Productivity

Do Cohesive Groups Outperform Less Unified Groups? Cohesion– performance relationship was
stronger (1) in bona fide groups than in ad hoc laboratory groups, (2) in correlational studies than in
experimental studies, and (3) in smaller groups than in larger groups.

The relationship between cohesion and performance was also strongest in studies of sports teams,

Are Cohesion and Performance Causally Connected?- When a group performs well at its identified task,
the level of cohesion in the group increases but when some are arbitrarily told they performed well, but
others are told they did not do well, cohesion declines.

*** studies suggest that cohesion is related to performance, not because cohesion causes groups to
perform better, but because groups that perform better become more cohesive ***

Mullen and Copper conclude that the cohesion–performance relationship is bidirectional: Cohesion
makes groups more successful, but groups that succeed also become more cohesive.

What Is It About Cohesive Groups That Makes Them More Effective?- The success of cohesive groups
lies, in part ,in the enhanced coordination of their members. Cohesive groups are particularly likely to
outperform noncohesive. Groups when the group’s task requires high levels of interaction and
interdependence.

social, task, and perceptual (“group pride”) cohesion—were related to performance when one looked
only at grouplevel studies. Without task cohesion and commitment to the group’s goals, a cohesive
group may be surprisingly unproductive.