Group Cohesiveness

The term cohesiveness derives from the Latin word cohaesus, which means “to cleave or stick together.” This may be the one aspect of cohesiveness on which all scholars agree. However, as is the case with many theoretical constructs, it is difficult to reach consensus about the nature of cohesiveness (or cohesion) and its proper measurement.

First scientifically and operationally defined by Leon Festinger and his colleagues in 1950, the scientific concept of cohesiveness has been marked by debate. Indeed, in a 1985 publication, Stuart Drescher and his colleagues suggested that the definition and empirical understanding of cohesion lack both clarity and consistency. And after examining the history of research on cohesion, Peter Mudrack concluded in a 1989 publication that it has been “dominated by confusion, inconsistency, and an almost inexcusable sloppiness in defining the construct.” One promising approach to cohesion is Michael Hogg's 1992 application of John Turner and colleagues' self-categorization theory. Hogg distinguished between two types of attraction/liking that occur in groups (and help bind group members together)—an interpersonal form called personal attraction, and a group-level form called social attraction. The individual group member can experience each of these types of attraction. Further, both may or may not be present at a given time.

Personal attraction varies in strength in different dyadic relationships within a group (e.g., “I like Mary a lot, am ambivalent about George, and actively dislike Bill”). Conversely, social attraction is a “depersonalized” form of liking based on the extent to which you believe that a person is a prototypical member of a group to which you both belong. Prototypical members are those who possess essential defining characteristics of the group (e.g., “We are a hardworking group”).

Another promising theoretical approach to cohesion was published in 1998 by Albert Carron, Lawrence Brawley, and Neil Widmeyer. They defined cohesion as “a dynamic process reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of instrumental objectives and/or the satisfaction of member affective needs.”

Carron and his colleagues identified four major characteristics of cohesiveness. First, cohesion is multidimensional. Although task and social factors are the primary binding properties of most groups, there are numerous reasons for group members to stay united (e.g., the stigma associated with leaving the group, contractual constraints).

Second, cohesion in any group (e.g., sports team, family, work group, army platoon) is dynamic. Cohesion—and the factors that contribute to it—in a group can change over time. In a marriage, for example, the perceptions of unity and closeness that any couple experiences typically do not remain static over a lifetime. Instead, feelings of closeness, unity, and togetherness fluctuate over time.

Third, cohesion is instrumental. Most groups have a raison d'être that includes sticking together, and this represents the instrumental basis of the group. For a book club, for example, the raison d'être may be mostly social or some combination of task (reading the book) and social (being with friends). For a committee, the raison d'être may be exclusively instrumental (achieving committee objectives).

Finally, cohesion is affective. In 1995, Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary proposed that humans have a fundamental need to affiliate—that people need frequent interpersonal contact with others in situations characterized by stability and affective concern. Membership in any group satisfies the affiliation need. Cohesion certainly provides a “feel good” property to groups. Lack of cohesion, in contrast, contributes to feelings of anxiety, depression, and alienation.

...