Cohesiveness in Groups

Definitions and Measures of Cohesiveness

The earliest formal definition of cohesiveness in social psychology was offered by Leon Festinger, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back in their research on the operation of group standards. Writing in 1950, Festinger and colleagues defined cohesiveness as “the total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group” (p. 164). This definition views cohesiveness as a force that binds members to a group. Many later definitions of cohesiveness were offered, but most focused on some form of attraction. According to one view, cohesiveness arises from mutual attraction between interacting group members based on their similarity to one another or ability to satisfy important goals. This has been labeled personal attraction. According to a second view, cohesiveness depends on how much members like the group as a whole rather than how much they like individual members. Finally, a third view combines the above two ideas by suggesting that cohesiveness is based on members' attraction to others who possess prototypical characteristics that differentiate the ingroups from outgroups. In other words, rather than being attracted to people because of their unique personal qualities, group members are attracted to those who embody qualities that make the ingroup distinctive. This has been labeled social attraction. Several techniques have been used to measure cohesiveness. Some of these involve monitoring group members' behavior. For example, researchers have observed various aspects of members' verbal and nonverbal interactions (e.g., use of jargon and plural pronouns, physical proximity to one another, eye contact). Other techniques involve questioning members about their feelings or perceptions regarding one another or the group as a whole. For example, members are sometimes asked how much they like specific others or the entire group, how strong a sense of belonging they feel, how much they want to remain in the group, how close the group is, and so on. Several questionnaires have been developed to measure cohesiveness, some focusing on particular kinds of groups (e.g., sports teams) and others focusing on groups in general. These questionnaires vary widely in the topics they cover and the aspects of cohesiveness they assess. Not surprisingly, controversy exists regarding the best means of measuring cohesiveness.

Antecedents of Cohesiveness

Most of the work on causes of cohesiveness has focused on determinants of personal attraction, as defined above. Research indicates, for example, that physical proximity and interaction between group members enhances cohesiveness, though this is less likely if contact is forced by an external agent and if members are initially hostile toward one another, perhaps because of different racial or ethnic backgrounds. In general, members like one another better when they work cooperatively rather than competitively, feel accepted rather than rejected, and are similar rather than dissimilar on such characteristics as religion, race, and values, particularly when these characteristics are viewed as important. Although it might seem obvious that threat to a group would enhance members' cohe-siveness because members are all in the same (leaky) boat and need to work together, this is not always the case. In fact, threat only increases cohe-siveness under certain conditions—when it is imposed from outside the group, is widely shared among members, is not blamed on particular members, and is seen as something that members cannot escape on their own. Similarly, it might seem obvious that cohesiveness would be higher in successful rather than failing groups because success produces positive feelings toward everything about the group (including other members), but this too is not always the case. Although the reason that failing groups sometimes have high cohe-siveness is not entirely clear, one possibility is that members of such groups need to rationalize their sacrifices. This in turn may motivate them to see their coworkers in a positive light, perhaps by exaggerating their effort on the group task.

...