5
Cohesion and
Development
A group is not just a set of individuals,
but a cohesive whole that joins the
members in interlocking interdependencies. This solidarity or unity is
called group cohesion and is a
necessary, if not sufficient, condition
for a group to exist. A group may begin
as a collection of strangers, but, as
uncertainty gives way to increasing
unity, the members become bound to
their group and its goals. As cohesion
and commitment ebb and flow with
time, the group’s influence over its
members rises and falls.
What is group cohesion, and
what are its sources?
How does cohesion develop
over time?
What are the positive and
negative consequences of
cohesion?
Do initiations increase
cohesion?
Cohesion & Development
The Nature
of Cohesion
Sources
Social
Developing
Cohesion
Theories of
development
Satisfaction and
adjustment
Five Stages
Dynamics and
influence
Task
Collective
Emotional
Structural
Consequences
of Cohesion
Cycles of
development
Productivity
Explaining
Initiations
Cohesion
and
initiations
Hazing
The Nature of
Cohesion
“The total field of forces which act on
members to remain in the group”
Festinger, Schachter, &
Back, 1950, p. 164
Sources
Social
Task
Collective
Emotional
Structural
Origin
•From the
Latin
“haesus,”
which means
“cling to”
(e.g.,
adhesive,
inherit)
Definition
Sources
• The
solidarity,
unity,
integrity of a
group
• A group’s
cohesiveness
derives on a
number of
sources, such
as attraction,
commitment
to a task, and
so on.
• Equifinality: Potential to reach an end state through many paths
• Multifinality: Reaching different endings from the same starting conditions
Sources of Cohesion
Multiple
Components
(e.g., attraction,
shared task focus,
identity…
Multicomponentmultilevel model
Multiple
Levels
(e.g., member to
member, member
to group…)
Social Cohesion
Components
Sources of Cohesion
Levels
Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Attraction
between
members
Attraction
to the
group-asa-whole
Task Cohesion
Sources of Cohesion
Processes
Components
Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Shared
commitment
to group
goals
Collective
efficacy
Group
potency
Collective Cohesion
Sources of Cohesion
Components
Social Cohesion
Group
Unity: WE
Task Cohesion
Belonging
(part of the
group): IN
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Self-group bonding
Identity fusion
Emotional Cohesion
Sources of Cohesion
Components
Social Cohesion
Morale
Task Cohesion
Esprit de
corps
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Relational cohesion theory:
cohesion increases as the group
becomes a source of positive
emotions (e.g., behavioral
syncrony)
Structural Cohesion
Components
Sources of Cohesion
Processes
Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Open groups tend to be less cohesive
than closed ones (e.g., e-groups)
Bulldogs
Red Devils
Sherif & Sherif, 1953, 1956
Sources
The Nature
of Cohesion
Sources
Social
Task
Collective
Emotional
Structural
Developing
Cohesion
Consequences
of Cohesion
Explaining
Initiations
Theories of
development
Five
Stages
Basic
Idea
Stage Models
Cycle Models
•Groups
Cycles ofover
develop:
development
time they
exhibit
predictable
patterns of
change
• Some models
assume
groups move
through a
series of
separable
stages as
they develop
• Some models
assume
groups
repeatedly
cycle
through
periods or
phases
during their
lifetimes
Five Stage Model of Group
Development
Performance and cohesion
Performance
Stabilizing
structure
and
stability
Formation
creating
the group
and setting
goals
dealing with source
Conflict of tension
Time
monitoring,
leading,
feedback
Tuckman’s Five Stage Model
Stage
Orientation:
Forming
Major Processes
Characteristics
Members become familiar with each other
Communications are tentative, polite;
and group; dependency and inclusion issues; concern for ambiguity, group’s goals;
acceptance of leader and group consensus
leader is active; members are compliant
Conflict:
Storming
Disagreement over procedures;
dissatisfaction and tension; antagonism
toward leader
Criticism of ideas; poor attendance;
hostility; coalition formation
Structure:
Norming
Growth of cohesiveness and unity; roles,
standards, and relationships; increased
trust, communication
Agreement on procedures; reduction in
role ambiguity; increased “we-feeling”
Goal achievement; performance and
production
Decision making; problem solving;
mutual cooperation
Termination of roles; completion of tasks;
reduction of dependency
Disintegration and withdrawal;
increased independence and
emotionality; regret
Work:
Performing
Dissolution:
Adjourning
Cyclical vs. Stage Models
 Tuckman: A
successive stage
model
Task
Orientation
 Bale’s Equilibrium
model: a cyclical
model
Relationship
Orientation
 Punctuated
equilibrium model
Cultural differences in development
and time perceptions: polychronic vs.
monochronic
The Nature
of Cohesion
Developing
Cohesion
Consequences
of Cohesion
Explaining
Initiations
Satisfaction and
adjustment
Dynamics and
Most people, if asked to choose between
influence
two groups—one that is cohesive and
another thatProductivity
is not—would likely pick the
cohesive group. But cohesiveness has its
drawbacks. 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.
Satisfaction and
adjustment
Explaining
Initiations
Donald Roy’s (1959) “banana time” case study documented the benefits of
membership in a cohesive workgroup. Roy worked for two months in 12hour shifts lasting from 8AM to 8:30PM with three other men in an isolated
room in a factory. The work was tedious, menial, repetitive, and tiring, but
the cohesive workgroup group filled its workday with jokes, teasing, kidding
around, and horseplay that gave structure and meaning to their day. To
break up the day into smaller segments, the men stopped from time to time
for various refreshments and breaks. There was, of course, lunchtime, but
the men added many others, such as coffee time, peach time, fish time, and
banana time. These rituals and social activities, collectively called “banana
time” by Roy, turned a bad job into a good one.
Satisfaction and
adjustment
Positive
Consequences
 Enhanced member




satisfaction
Reduced tension, stress
Higher group
engagement
Reduced turnover
Longer duration of
membership
Dynamics and
influence
Problematic
Consequences
 Intensification of
emotional and social
processes
 Increased influence,
pressure
 Hostility
 Groupthink
What about productivity?
Do Cohesive Groups Outperform
Less Cohesive Groups?
Sources: Mullen
& Copper, 1994;
Beal et al.,
2003; Gully et
al., 1995
.51
Social
cohesion
.17
.,17
Unity
(Group Pride)
Task Cohesion
(teamwork)
.24
.25
.25
Cohesion
Performance
Task Interdependence
Norms are also critically important
Groups with norms
that stress
productivity
Productivity
Studies suggest
that the
productivity of
cohesive groups
depends on the
norms of that
group: if the
group norms do
not support
hard work, then
cohesive groups
will be strikingly
unproductive!
Groups with norms that
stress low productivity
Low
Cohesion
High
Cohesion
Application:
Explaining
Initiations
Cohesion
and
initiations
Hazing
Festinger’s theory of
cognitive dissonance
predicts that people who
must invest in their
group will become
committed to it.
Festinger, Schachter’s and
Back’s classic study of
the “Seekers” supported
this predictions
Aronson & Mills tested this hypothesis in an
experimental study of initiation and also
found evidence of increased commitment
Application:
Explaining
Initiations
Cohesion
and
initiations
Hazing
200
195
190
185
180
175
170
165
160
155
150
Control
Mild
Severe
Aronson & Mills tested this hypothesis in an
experimental study of initiation and also
found evidence of increased commitment
Hazing
What sustains hazing?
Bonding: Increases dependency
on the group
Dominance: Establishes
hierarchy, status
Commitment: Increases
psychological costs and
commitment
Tradition: Defended as a sacred
tradition
Dangers of hazing
Ineffective: Not as effective a
means of increasing
commitment as other grouplevel activities
Dangerous: Harmful and fatal
in some cases
Illegal: Banded in most
jurisdictions
Cohesion & Development
The Nature
of Cohesion
Sources
Social
Developing
Cohesion
Theories of
development
Satisfaction and
adjustment
Five Stages
Dynamics and
influence
Task
Collective
Emotional
Structural
Consequences
of Cohesion
Cycles of
development
Productivity
Explaining
Initiations
Cohesion
and
initiations
Hazing
Performing
Group
Development
Norming
Tuckman’s 5 stage
model of group
developlment
Task
Storming
 Forming
 Storming
Adjourning
Forming
 Norming
 Performing
 Adjourning
Source: Forsyth, 2010
For images of the 1980 US Hockey team s see
• Sports_Illustrated_Miracle_on_Ice_cover.jpg
• http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/the_golden_goal/
• http://www.usahockey.com/ushhof/default.aspx?NAV=AF_01&id=289718