Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Group cohesiveness reexamined

  • Published:
Group

Abstract

The paradigm through which group cohesiveness is conceptualized and researched is examined. It is found that cohesiveness is typically seen as a positive state necessary for effective therapy. This notion is critiqued at a meta-theoretical level using a dynamic model of process reminiscent of Sartrian and Riegelian dialectics. Cohesiveness, seen in this way, becomes a complex process initially necessary and subsequently defensive in groups. Recommendations for theory, practice and research are made which are based on a concept of cohesiveness as a changing, dialectical process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • BALES, R. F.Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  • COLLINS, B. E. & GUETZKOW, H.A Social Psychology of Group Process for Decision-Making. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  • DAILY, R. C. Relationship between locus of control, perceived group cohesiveness, and satisfaction with co-workers.Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 311–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • DREIKURS, R. & SONSTEGARD, M. The Adlerian or teleoanalytic approach. In G. M. Gazda (Ed.),Basic Aproaches to Group Psychotherapy and Group Counseling. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • DUNPHY, D. C.The Primary Group: A Handbook for Analysis and Field Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • EISMAN, B. Some operational measures of cohesiveness and their interrelation.Human Relations, 1959, 12, 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • FESTINGER, L., SCHACTER, S. & BACK, K.Social Pressures in Informal Groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1950.

    Google Scholar 

  • FLOWERS, M. L. A laboratory test of some implications of Janis's group-think hypothesis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 888–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • GARVIN, C. D., REID, W. & EPSTEIN, L. A task-centered approach. In R. W. Roberts & H. Northen (Eds.),Theories of Social Work with Groups. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • GIBBARD, G. S. Individuation, fusion, and role specialization. In G. S. Gibbard, J. J. Hartman & R. D. Mann (Eds.),Analysis of Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  • KELLY, G. A. The language of hypothesis: Man's psychological instrument.Journal of Individual Psychology, 1964, 20, 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • KIRSHNER, B. J., DIES, R. R. & BROWN, R. A. Effects of experimental manipulation of self-disclosure on group cohesiveness.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46, 1171–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • KLEIN, J.The Study of Groups. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1956.

    Google Scholar 

  • LAKIN, M.Interpersonal Encounter: Theory and Practice in Sensitivity Training. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • LAZARUS, A. A. Behavior therapy in groups. In G. M. Gazda (Ed.),Basic Approaches to Group Psychotherapy and Group Counseling. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • LIBERMAN, R. A behavioral approach to group dynamics.Behavior Therapy, 1970, 1, 141–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • MILLER, J. Objective methods of evaluating process and outcome in psychotherapy.American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 108, 258–263.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • NORTHEN, H.Social Work with Groups. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAMAZ-NIENHUIS, W. & VAN BERGEN, A. Relations between some components of attraction-to-group.Human Relations, 1960, 13, 271–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • RIEGEL, K. F. Toward a dialectical theory of development.Human Development, 1975, 18, 50–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • SARTRE, J.-P.Critique of Dialectical Reason. London: NLB, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCHACTER, S. Deviation, rejection and community.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951, 46, 190–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCHLENKER, B. R. & MILLER, R. S. Group cohesiveness as a determinant of egocentric perception in cooperative groups.Human Relations, 1977, 30, 1039–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • SEASHORE, S.Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  • SHIPLEY, R. H. Effect of a pregroup collective project on the cohesiveness of in-patient groups.Psychological Reports, 1977, 41, 79–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • SLATER, P. E.Microcosm: Structural, Psychological and Religious Evolution in Groups. New York: Wiley, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • TROPP, E. A developmental theory. In R. W. Roberts & H. Northen (Eds.),Theories of Social Work with Groups. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • YALOM, I. D.Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy. New York: Basic Books, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Counseling and Personal Development Services, Pace University, Room 1519, 10038, New York, NY

    Scott Budge M.A.

Authors
  1. Scott Budge M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The author wishes to thank Ronald Janoff and Bernard Katz, both of New York University, for support and criticism essential to the development of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Budge, S. Group cohesiveness reexamined. Group 5, 10–18 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01456511

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01456511

Keywords

Search

Navigation