Group cohesiveness
[3] From Neo-Latin cohaesio and French cohésion, in physics, cohesion means "the force that unites the molecules of a liquid or of a solid".
Thereby, there are different ways to define group cohesion, depending on how researchers conceptualize this concept.
[4][5] Cohesion can be more specifically defined as the tendency for a group to be in unity while working towards a goal or to satisfy the emotional needs of its members.
It is believed that cohesion is more about the willingness to work together to accomplish a set of goals than the interpersonal relationships between group members.
According to Siebold in 2007, task-oriented groups such as flight crews and military squads share a drive to accomplish their goals.
Lott and Lott who referred in 1965 to interpersonal attraction as group cohesiveness conducted an extensive review on the literature and found that individuals' similarities in background (e.g., race, ethnicity, occupation, age), attitudes, values and personality traits have generally positive association with group cohesiveness.
[24] In this perspective, the more prototypical similarity individuals feel between themselves and other ingroup members, the stronger the group cohesiveness will be.
In general, higher agreement among members on group rules and norms results in greater trust and less dysfunctional conflict.
[25] Difficult entry criteria or procedures to a group tend to present it in more exclusive light.
[28] In primatology and anthropology, the limits to group size are theorized to accord with Dunbar's number.
Cohesion and motivation of team members are key factors that contribute to a company's performance.
By adaptability development, self-worth, and personal motivation growth, each member becomes able to feel confident and progress in the team.
[4] When it is defined as task commitment, it is also correlated with performance, though to a lesser degree than cohesion as attraction.
[30] Carron in 2002 found cohesion-performance relationships to be strongest in sports teams and ranked the strength of the relationship in this order (from strongest to weakest): sports teams, military squads, groups that form for a purpose, groups in experimental settings.
[5][34][35][36][37] However, it is important to note that the link between cohesion and performance can differ depending on the nature of the group that is studied.
For example, a study conducted on the link between cohesion and performance in a governmental social service department found a low positive association between these two variables, while a separate study on groups in a Danish military unit found a high negative association between these two variables.
Attachment theory has also asserted that adolescents with behavioral problems do not have close interpersonal relationships or have superficial ones.
[48] Many studies have found that an individual without close peer relationships are at a higher risk for emotional adjustment problems currently and later in life.
The theory of groupthink suggests that the pressures hinder the group from critically thinking about the decisions it is making.
Giordano in 2003 suggested that this is because people within a group frequently interact with one another and create many opportunities for influence.
Another reason is that people value the group and are thus, more willing to give into conformity pressures to maintain or enhance their relationships.
Still, there was a slight tendency for low IQ children to perform better in high cohesive groups.
In investigating these, academic Ted Cantle drew heavily on the concept of social cohesion, and the New Labour government (particularly then Home Secretary David Blunkett) in turn widely promoted the notion.
On a societal level Albrekt Larsen defines social cohesion 'as the belief—held by citizens in a given nation state—that they share a moral community, which enables them to trust each other'.
In a comparative study of the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark he shows that the perceived trustworthiness of fellow citizens is strongly influenced by the level of social inequality and how 'poor' and 'middle classes' are represented in the mass media.
