1. 5 Cohesion and Development
A group is not just a set of individuals, but a cohesive whole that joins the members in interlocking interdepen-dencies. 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?

2. Cohesion & Development Explaining Initiations
The Nature of Cohesion
Sources
Social
Task
Collective
Emotional
Structural
Developing Cohesion
Theories of development
Five Stages
Cycles of development
Consequences
of Cohesion
Satisfaction and adjustment
Dynamics and influence
Productivity
Explaining Initiations
Cohesion and initiations
Hazing

3. The solidarity, unity, integrity of a group Sources
“The total field of forces which act on members to remain in the group”
The Nature of Cohesion
Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950, p. 164
Sources
Origin
From the Latin “haesus,” which means “cling to” (e.g., adhesive, inherit)
Definition
The solidarity, unity, integrity of a group
Sources
A group’s cohesiveness derives on a number of sources, such as attraction, commitment to a task, and so on.
Social
Task
Collective
Emotional
Structural
Equifinality: Potential to reach an end state through many paths
Multifinality: Reaching different endings from the same starting conditions

4. Multicomponent-multilevel model
Sources of Cohesion
Multicomponent-multilevel model
Multiple
Components
Multiple
Levels
(e.g., attraction, shared task focus, identity…
(e.g., member to member, member to group…)

5. Components Levels Social Cohesion Sources of Cohesion Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Attraction
between
members
Attraction
to the
group-as-a-whole

6. Shared commitment to group goals
Task Cohesion
Sources of Cohesion
Components
Processes
Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Shared commitment to group goals
Collective efficacy
Group potency

7. Components Collective Cohesion Sources of Cohesion Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Group Unity: WE
Belonging (part of the group): IN
Self-group bonding
Identity fusion

8. Components Emotional Cohesion Sources of Cohesion Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Morale
Esprit de corps
Relational cohesion theory: cohesion increases as the group becomes a source of positive emotions (e.g., behavioral syncrony)

9. Components Processes Structural Cohesion Sources of Cohesion
Social Cohesion
Task Cohesion
Collective Cohesion
Emotional Cohesion
Structural Cohesion
Open groups tend to be less cohesive than closed ones (e.g., e-groups)

10. Bulldogs
Red Devils
Sherif & Sherif, 1953, 1956

11. Sources

12. Explaining Initiations
The Nature of Cohesion
Sources
Social
Task
Collective
Emotional
Structural
Consequences
of Cohesion
Explaining Initiations
Developing Cohesion
Theories of development
Five Stages
Cycles of development
Basic Idea
Groups develop: over time they exhibit predictable patterns of change
Stage Models
Some models assume groups move through a series of separable stages as they develop
Cycle Models
Some models assume groups repeatedly cycle through periods or phases during their lifetimes

13. Performance Stabilizing Formation Conflict
Five Stage Model of Group Development
Performance
monitoring, leading, feedback
Stabilizing
structure and stability
Formation
Performance and cohesion
creating the group and setting goals
dealing with source of tension
Conflict
Time

14. Stage Tuckman’s Five Stage Model Major Processes Characteristics
Orientation:
Forming
Members become familiar with each other and group; dependency and inclusion issues; acceptance of leader and group consensus
Communications are tentative, polite; concern for ambiguity, group’s goals; 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”
Work:
Performing
Goal achievement; performance and production
Decision making; problem solving; mutual cooperation
Dissolution:
Adjourning
Termination of roles; completion of tasks; reduction of dependency
Disintegration and withdrawal; increased independence and emotionality; regret

15. Cyclical vs. Stage Models
Tuckman: A successive stage model
Bale’s Equilibrium model: a cyclical model
Punctuated equilibrium model
Task Orientation
Relationship Orientation
Cultural differences in development and time perceptions: polychronic vs. monochronic

16. Explaining Initiations
The Nature of Cohesion
Developing Cohesion
Consequences
of Cohesion
Satisfaction and adjustment
Dynamics and influence
Productivity
Explaining Initiations
Most people, if asked to choose between two groups—one that is cohesive and another that 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.

17. Explaining Initiations
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 12-hour 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.

18. Problematic Consequences Positive Consequences
Satisfaction and adjustment
Dynamics and influence
Problematic Consequences
Positive Consequences
Enhanced member satisfaction
Reduced tension, stress
Higher group engagement
Reduced turnover
Longer duration of membership
Intensification of emotional and social processes
Increased influence, pressure
Hostility
Groupthink
What about productivity?

19. Do Cohesive Groups Outperform Less Cohesive Groups?
Sources: Mullen & Copper, 1994; Beal et al., 2003; Gully et al., 1995
.51
Social cohesion
.17
.,17
Cohesion
.25
Unity
(Group Pride)
Performance
.24
.24
.25
Task Cohesion (teamwork)
Task Interdependence
Norms are also critically important

20. 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 productivity
P r o d u c t i v i t y
Groups with norms that stress low productivity
Low Cohesion
High Cohesion

21. Explaining Initiations
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
Application:
Explaining Initiations
Cohesion and initiations
Hazing
Aronson & Mills tested this hypothesis in an experimental study of initiation and also found evidence of increased commitment

22. Explaining Initiations
Application:
Explaining Initiations
Cohesion and initiations
Hazing
Aronson & Mills tested this hypothesis in an experimental study of initiation and also found evidence of increased commitment

23. What sustains hazing? Dangers of hazing Hazing
Bonding: Increases dependency on the group
Dominance: Establishes hierarchy, status
Commitment: Increases psychological costs and commitment
Tradition: Defended as a sacred tradition
Ineffective: Not as effective a means of increasing commitment as other group- level activities
Dangerous: Harmful and fatal in some cases
Illegal: Banded in most jurisdictions

24. Cohesion & Development Explaining Initiations
The Nature of Cohesion
Sources
Social
Task
Collective
Emotional
Structural
Developing Cohesion
Theories of development
Five Stages
Cycles of development
Consequences
of Cohesion
Satisfaction and adjustment
Dynamics and influence
Productivity
Explaining Initiations
Cohesion and initiations
Hazing

25. Group Development Tuckman’s 5 stage model of group developlment
Performing
Group Development
Tuckman’s 5 stage model of group developlment
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing
Adjourning
Task
Norming
Storming
Adjourning
Forming
Source: Forsyth, 2010

26. For images of the 1980 US Hockey team s see
Sports_Illustrated_Miracle_on_Ice_cover.jpg