Group Type Differences and the Dimensions of Group Cohesion

Author(s): Matthew B. Thrift

Journal: Emerging Leadership Journeys

Issue: 1

Volume: 14

Year: 2021

High group cohesion is a vital facet of group success, but group cohesion lacks a broadly accepted definition (Carless & De Paola, 2000, p. 71; Drescher et al., 2002, p. 663). Lewin’s (1943) field theory led early researchers to describe group cohesion as a uni-dimensional construct consisting of the total field of forces that act on members to remain in the group (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 230). Other uni-dimensional group cohesion definitions include Spink and Carron’s (1994) definition of group cohesion as a group member’s potential to remain in, or leave, the group (as cited in Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 238). Carron et al. (1998) defined group cohesion as a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs (p. 213). Casey-Campbell & Martens (2009) defined cohesion as the group members’ inclinations to forge social bonds, resulting in the group sticking together and remaining united (p. 223).

Later conceptual models shifted to treat group cohesion as a multi-dimensional construct. Carron and Brawley (2012) found that group cohesion operates with two distinct components: group integration and individual (p. 727). The group integration component is the individual’s perceptions about what the group believes about its closeness, similarity, and bonding as a whole and the degree of unification of the group field (p. 727). The individual component measures the group member’s desire to remain in the group and how they feel about belonging to the group (p. 727). Groups that more effectively meet the needs of their members have higher group cohesion (p. 727). As researchers who study group cohesion came from many backgrounds, they sometimes failed to consider how other disciplines conceptualize group cohesion (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 224). These varied backgrounds provide a potential explanation for the lack of a consensus on a standard conceptualization of group cohesion (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 224).

Group cohesion is a critical attribute of group success (Abuke et al., 2014, p. 149). While researchers conceptualize group cohesion differently, most found it to have a positive effect on groups. Increased group cohesion led to increased group performance (Durneac, 2012, p. 38). Group members’ alignment with group objectives also comes from group cohesion (Cartwright & Zander, 1968, as cited in Abuke et al., 2014, p. 150). Group cohesion also leads to group members conforming to the group’s norms (Durneac, 2012, p. 33). Group cohesion’s task and social dimensions independently positively correlated with group performance (Casey-Campbell and Martens, 2009, p. 241). Casey-Campbell and Martens’ (2009) meta-analysis found significant group cohesion levels led to increased perceptions of a group’s effectiveness and increased task commitment (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 227). Increased group cohesion also led to lower work-related stress levels and reduced absenteeism (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009, p. 226).

Carron et al. (2002) also developed a validated psychometric instrument, the Group Environment Questionnaire. Carron et al.’s (2002) Group Environment Questionnaire conceptualized group cohesion as a four-construct model (p. 10). They found group integration-task addresses how individual team members felt about how the group bonded as a whole around the group’s task. Group integration-social examined how individuals felt about how the group connected as a whole socially. Individual attractions to the group-task were the individual’s feelings about her involvement in the group’s task, productivity, and goals and objectives (p. 10). Individual attractions to the group-social were the individual’s feelings about her level of personal acceptance and interactions with the group (p. 10).

Arrow et al. (2000) developed a typology that classified group formation based on whether internal or external factors drove the group’s formation. In groups with external drivers, such as work groups, the primary issue is conforming to the external actor’s demands (p. 66). For groups created by internal factors, the primary issue is how members coordinate and integrate their own goals, intentions, and expectations (p. 67). Even so, according to Durneac (2012), a group should promote both the group’s task and the development of the group’s members (p. 34).

Arrow et al. (2000) defined affective integration as the emotional ties which bring people together (p. 71). Groups with internal formation drivers lead to groups with affective integration (Arrow et al., 2000, p. 71). These groups will develop shared values and suppress minority views (Arrow et al., 2008, p. 71). Ultimately those groups become part of their individual members’ social identity (Arrow et al., 2000, p. 72). Arrow et al.’s (2000) typology defines these groups as clubs since their primary purpose is meeting their members’ needs (p. 79). When the group meets the members’ needs, they remain in the group. When the group does not meet the members’ needs, the members leave the group. The projects accomplished by clubs serve as vehicles to meet the members’ needs (Arrow et al., 2008, p. 85).

Externally driven group formation focuses on assembling an appropriate mix of group members to accomplish the group’s tasks (Arrow et al., 2008, p. 72). In task-oriented groups, which specific individual accomplishes the task is not important, as long as they possess the appropriate skills and training to do the tasks (Arrow et al., 2008, p. 73). Arrow et al.’s (2000) typology defines these groups as work groups since their primary purpose is completing collective projects (p. 79).

recommend researchers wishing to use the GEQ in a new setting revise the wording on any item that appears to be useful, but contains language, terminology, or a situational reference not characteristic of the group(s) under focus (pp. 40-41). The revision requires the replacement of references to “sport” and “team” with “group” and words like “game” and “practice” with “events.” For example, Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance becomes Our group is united in trying to reach its goals for performance. These GEQ modifications are consistent with Carron et al.’s guidance.

Request Information

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Online or On Campus

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Online or On Campus Old

Online

On Campus

On Campus Degree Type(Required)

Online Degree Type(Required)

Choose a Program(Required)

This program is designed for registered nurses looking to advance their degree. A valid, unencumbered RN license is required to apply.

RN License Confirmation(Required)

I currently hold a valid RN license

Don't have your RN license yet? Explore other Regent programs.

High School Graduation(Required)

Are you an employee or the spouse/dependent of an employee?(Required)

Employee

Spouse/Dependent

Email Address(Required)

Company(Required)

Agency(Required)

Employee's Company(Required)

Employee's Agency(Required)

Company Email Address(Required)

Agency Email Address(Required)

Employee's Company Email Address(Required)

Employee's Agency Email Address(Required)

Employee's First Name(Required)

Employee's Last Name(Required)

Employee's First Name(Required)

Employee's Last Name(Required)

Your Email Address(Required)

First Name(Required)

Last Name(Required)

I live outside the US

Address(Required)

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Address(Required)

This field is hidden when viewing the form

City(Required)

This field is hidden when viewing the form

State(Required)

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Zip Code(Required)

Phone(Required)

I live in Canada

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Agent's Name(Required)

This field is hidden when viewing the form

Agent GUID

Agent's Notes

I would like to start application process

By entering my first and last name above and clicking “Learn More” below, this shall constitute my electronic signature and I expressly agree that Regent University or its third party service providers may call or text me for marketing purposes at the number I provide above, including through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice or message according to the TCPA Terms & Conditions below. Providing this consent is not required to obtain any good or service.