Factors Influencing Small-Unit Cohesion in Norwegian Navy Officer Cadets

REFERENCES

• Allport, G. W. (1985). The historical background of social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 1–46). New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Bartone, P. T. (1989). Predictors of stress-related illness in city bus drivers. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 31, 657–663.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bartone, P. T. (1995, July). A short hardiness scale. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Society, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Bartone, P. T. (1998). Test—retest reliability of a short hardiness scale. Unpublished manuscript, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Bartone, P. T. (2000). Hardiness as a resiliency factor for United States forces in the Gulf War. In J. M. Violanti, D. Paton, & C. Dunning (Eds.), Posttraumatic stress intervention: Challenges, issues, and perspectives (pp. 115–133). Springfield, IL: Thomas.
   Google Scholar
• Bartone, P. T., & Adler, A. B. (1999). Cohesion over time in a medical peacekeeping task force. Military Psychology, 11, 85–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartone, P. T., & Kirkland, F. R. (1991). Optimal leadership in small Army units. In R. Gal & A. D. Mangelsdorff (Eds.), Handbook of military psychology (pp. 393–409). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bartone, P. T., Marlowe, D. H., Gifford, R. K., & Wright, K. M. (1992). Personality hardiness predicts soldier adjustment to combat stress. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association (pp. 257–262). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
   Google Scholar
• Bartone, P. T., Ursano, R. J., Wright, K. M., & Ingraham, L. H. (1989). The impact of a military air disaster on the health of assistance workers: A prospective study. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 177, 317–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berkowitz, L., Levy, B., & Harvey, A. R. (1957). Effects of performance evaluations on group integration and motivation. Human Relations, 10, 195–208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sports teams: The group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coser, L. (1956). Functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cota, A. A., Dion, K. L., Evans, C. R., Kilik, L., & Longman, R. S. (1995). The structure of group cohesion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 572–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eid, J., Brun, W., Laberg, J. C., & Johnsen, B. H. (1998, May). Participating in a prisoner-of-war exercise: Stress reactions and coping. Paper presented at the 34th International Applied Military Psychology Symposium, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group performance and cohesion: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gal, R. (1983). Courage under stress. In S. Breznitz (Ed.), Stress in Israel (pp. 65–91). New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold.
   Google Scholar
• Gal, R. (1986). Unit morale: From a theoretical puzzle to an empirical illustration—An Israeli example. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 549–564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gal, R., & Manning, F. J. (1987). Morale and its components: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 369–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gill, D. L. (1977). Cohesiveness and performance in sport groups. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 5, 131–155.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Griffith, J. E. (1985). The measurement of “soldier will.” In D. H. Marlowe (Ed.), New Manning System field evaluation (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. ( DTIC No. AD-A162 087)
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. E. (1988). The measurement of group cohesion in U.S. Army units. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 149–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. E. (1989). The army's new unit replacement system and its relation to group cohesion and social support. Military Psychology, 1, 17–34.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. E. (1997). Test of a model incorporating stress, strain, and disintegration in the cohesion-performance relation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1489–1526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. E., & Vaitkus, M. A. (1999). Relating cohesion to stress, strain, disintegration, and performance: An organizing framework. Military Psychology, 11, 27–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Research, 26, 497–520.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, W. D. (1985). Cohesion: The human element in combat. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem, and social identity. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28–47), Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
   Google Scholar
• Hogg, M. A., & Hardie, E. A. (1992). Prototypicality, conformity, and depersonalized attraction: A self-categorization analysis of group cohesiveness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 41–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingraham, L. H., & Manning, F. J. (1981). Cohesion: Who needs it, what is it and how do we get it to them? Military Review, 61 (6), 3–12.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkland, F. R. (1987). Leading in COHORT companies (WRAIR Rep. No. NP-88-13). Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkland, F. R., Bartone, P. T., & Marlowe, D. H. (1993). Commanders' priorities and psychological readiness. Armed Forces and Society, 19, 579–598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kobasa, S. C. (1979). Stressful life events, personality and health: An inquiry into hardiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, S. (1965). The allures of a meaning in modern psychology. In R. E. Farson (Ed.), Science and human affairs (pp. 51–82). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
   Google Scholar
• Laberg, J. C., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., Eriksen, B. S., & Zachariassen, K. K. (2000). Coping with interrogations. In C. McCann & R. Pigeau (Eds.), The human in command: Exploring the modern military experience (pp. 333–344). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maddi, S. R. (1987). Hardiness training at Illinois Bell Telephone. In J. P. Opatz (Ed.), Health promotion evaluation: Measuring the organizational impact (pp. 101–115). Stephens Point, WI: National Wellness Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Maddi, S. R. (1999). The personality construct of hardiness: Effects on experiencing, coping, and strain. Consulting Psychology Journal, 51, 83–94.
   Google Scholar
• Maddi, S. R., Kahn, S., & Maddi, K. L. (1998). The effectiveness of hardiness training. Consulting Psychology Journal, 50, 78–86.
   Google Scholar
• Maddi, S. R., & Kobasa, S. C. (1984). The hardy executive. Homewood, IL: Jones-Irwin.
   Google Scholar
• Mael, F. A., & Alderks, C. E. (1993). Leadership team cohesion and subordinate work unit morale and performance. Military Psychology, 5, 141–158.
   Google Scholar
• Manning, F. J. (1991). Morale, cohesion, and esprit de corps. In R. Gal & A. D. Mangelsdorff (Eds.), Handbook of military psychology (pp. 453–470). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Manning, F. J., & Ingraham, L. H. (1987). An investigation into the value of unit cohesion in peacetime. In G. L. Belenky (Ed.), Contemporary studies in combat psychiatry (pp. 47–68). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
   Google Scholar
• Marlowe, D. H. (1979). Cohesion, anticipated breakdown, and endurance in battle: Considerations for severe and high intensity battle. Unpublished manuscript, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Marlowe, D. H. (Ed.). (1985). New Manning System field evaluation (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. ( DTIC No. AD-A162 087)
   Google Scholar
• Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Group cohesiveness and productivity: A closer look. Human Relations, 42, 771–785.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, L. W., Harman, J., Hoover, E., Hayes, S. M., & Pandhi, N. A. (1999). A quantitative integration of the military cohesion literature. Military Psychology, 11, 57–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piper, W. E., Marrache, M., LaCroix, R., Richardsen, M., & Jones, B. D. (1983). Cohesion as a basic bond in groups. Human Relations, 36, 93–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, R. J., & Bartone, P. T. (1989, September). Unit replacements: Still lost on the road. Military Review, 69, 68–75.
   Google Scholar
• Seashore, S. (1954). Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, M. E., & Gilchrist, J. C. (1955). Repetitive task failure and sociometric choice. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 50, 29–32.
   Google Scholar
• Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1964). Reference groups. Chicago: Henry Regnery.
   Google Scholar
• Shils, F. A., & Janowitz, M. (1948). Cohesion and disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II. Public Opinion Quarterly, 12, 280–315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1987, April). Bonding in Army combat units. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1989, April). Longitudinal patterns in combat platoon cohesion. Paper presented at the Leadership Conference, Center for Army Leadership, Kansas City, MO.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1996). Small unit dynamics: Leadership, cohesion, motivation and morale. In R. H. Phelps & B. J. Farr (Eds.), Reserve component soldiers as peacekeepers (pp. 237–286). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1999). The evolution of the measurement of cohesion. Military Psychology, 11, 5–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988). Development of the Platoon Cohesion Index (Tech. Rep. No. 816). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences. ( DTIC No. AD-A204 917)
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L., & Lindsay, T. J. (1999). The relation between demographic descriptors and soldier-perceived cohesion and motivation. Military Psychology, 11, 109–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon, Z., Mikulincer, M., & Hobfall, S. E. (1986). Effects of social support and battle intensity on loneliness and breakdown during combat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1269–1276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein, A. A. (1976). Conflict and cohesion: A review of the literature. Social Forces, 20, 143–172.
   Google Scholar
• Stouffer, S. A., Lumsdaine, A. A., Lumsdaine, M. H., Williams, R. M., Smith, M. B., Janis, I. L., Star, S. A., & Cottrell, L. S. (1949). The American soldier: Vol. 2. Combat and its aftermath. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tukey, J. W. (1949). Comparing individual means in analysis of variance. Biometrics, 5, 99–114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaitkus, M. A. (1994). Unit Manning System: Human dimensions field evaluation of the COHORT company replacement model (Walter Reed Army Institute of Research Rep. No. TR-94-0017). Heidelberg, Germany: U.S. Army Medical Research Unit-Europe. ( DTIC No. AD-A285 942)
   Google Scholar
• Vaitkus, M. A., & Griffith, J. E. (1990). An evaluation of unit replacement on individual morale and cohesion in the all-volunteer army. Military Psychology, 2, 221–239.
   Google Scholar
• Weik, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Widmeyer, W. N., & Martens, R. (1978). When cohesion determines outcome in sport. Research Quarterly, 49, 372–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox, R. R. (1987). New designs in analysis of variance. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 29–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar