The Evolution of the Measurement of Cohesion

References

• Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
   Google Scholar
• Bradford, E. D. S. (1980). The battle for the west: Thermopylae. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Budman, S. H., Soldz, S., Demby, A., Davis, M. & Merry, J. (1993). What is cohesiveness? An empirical examination. Small Group Research. 24. 199–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caesar, G. J. (1896). Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic War. Philadelphia: McKay. ( Original work from 51 B.C.)
   Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretation and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology. 4, 123–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V. (1988). Group dynamics in sport. London, Canada: Spodym.
   Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). The dynamics of group cohesion in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology. 3, 123–139.
   Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1995). The group size-cohesion relationship in minima] groups. Small Group Research, 26, 86–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics (3rd ed., pp. 91–109). New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Chapple, E. D. (1940). Measuring human relations: An introduction to the study of interaction of individuals. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 22, 3–147.
   Google Scholar
• Cooley, C. H. (1962). Social organization. New York: Schocken. ( Original work published 1909)
   Google Scholar
• Cota, A., Evans, C. R., Dion, K. L., Kilik, L., & Longman, R. S. (1995). The structure of group cohesion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 572–580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dion, K. L., & Evans, C. R. (1992). On cohesiveness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the construct. Small Group Research, 23, 242–250.
   Google Scholar
• Drescher, S., Burlingame, G., & Fuhriman, A. (1985). Cohesion: An odyssey in empirical understanding. Small Group Behavior, 16, 3–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology (G. Simpson, Ed., and J. A. Spaulding & G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free Press. ( Original work published 1897)
   Google Scholar
• Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 22, 175–186.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York: Harper.
   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
• Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. (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, Department of Military Psychiatry.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. (1986, August). Group cohesion in military units: Its measurement and conception. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
   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
• Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hare, A. P. (1976). Handbook of small group research (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
   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: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ingraham, L. H., & Manning, F. J. (1980). Psychiatric battle casualties: The missing column in a war without replacements. Military Review, 60(8), 19–29.
   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), 2–12.
   Google Scholar
• Keegan, J. (1976). The face of battle. Bungay, England: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Le Bon, G. (1960). The crowd. New York: Viking. ( Original work published 1895)
   Google Scholar
• Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 585–634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality (D. K. Adams, & K. E. Zener, Trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Manning, F. J., & Ingraham, L. J. (1983). An investigation into the value of unit cohesion in peacetime ( Rep. No. WRAIR NP-83-5). Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Department of Military Psychiatry.
   Google Scholar
• Marlowe, D. H. (Ed.). (1985). New Manning Systemfield evaluation ( Tech. Rep. No. 1). Washington, DC: Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Department of Military Psychiatry.
   Google Scholar
• Moreno, J. L. (1934). Who shall survive? Beacon, NY: Beacon.
   Google Scholar
• Mudrack, P. E. (1989a). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of confusion? Small Group Behavior, 20, 37–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudrack, P. E. (1989b). 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. (1988). The relationship of group cohesion to group performance: A research integration attempt ( Tech. Rep. No. 807). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ( DT1C No. AD-A199 060)
   Google Scholar
• Shils, E. 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. (1987a, April). Bonding in Army combat units. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Sociological Society, Atlanta, GA.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1987b, August). Conceptualization and definitions of military unit cohesiveness. Paper presented at the 95th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1988). How small unit cohesion affects performance. In A. C. F. Gilbert (Ed.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association (pp. 87–92). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1990). Cohesion in context. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association (pp. 444–449). Pensacola, FL: Naval Education and Training Program-Management Support Activity.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1993, August). The case for unit cohesion. Paper presented at the 101st Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1994). The relation between soldier motivation, leadership, and small unit performance. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 171–190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   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. ( DTIC No. AD-A321-857)
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G., & Kelly, D. R. (1987a). Cohesion as an indicator of command climate. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Leadership Research Conference (Vol. 1, pp. 19–46). Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Center for Army Leadership.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1987b). The impact of unit cohesion on unit performance, morale, and ability to withstand stress: A field exercise example ( Leadership & Management Technical Area Working Paper No. 87-13). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988a). Development of the Combat Platoon Cohesion Questionnaire ( Tech. Rep. No. 817). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ( DTIC No. AD-A204 917)
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988b). Development of the Platoon Cohesion Index ( Tech. Rep. No. 816). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ( DTIC 3 No. AD-A205 478)
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988c). The impact of cohesion on platoon performance at the Joint Readiness Training Center ( Tech. Rep. No. 812). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ( DTIC No. AD-A202 926)
   Google Scholar
• Tremble, T. R. Jr., & Alderks, C. E. 1992). Measures for research on small unit preparedness for combat effectiveness ( Research Note No. 92-03). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ( DTIC No. AD—A242 717)
   Google Scholar
• Tremble, T. R. Jr., Brosvic, G. M., & Mangiardi, A. R. (1986). Attitudes toward the New Manning System (NMS) and NMS system characteristics ( Research Note No. 86-84). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. ( DTIC No. AD-A171 420)
   Google Scholar
• Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399.
   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 Tech. Rep. No. 94-0017). Fort Detrick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. ( DTIC No. AD—A285 942)
   Google Scholar
• Vallacher, R. R., & Nowak, A. (Eds.). (1994). Dynamical systems in social psychology. San Diego, CA: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Wheelan, S. A., & Kaeser, R. M. (1997). The influence of task type and designated leaders on developmental patterns in groups. Small Group Research, 28, 94–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. London, Canada: Sports Dynamics.
   Google Scholar
• Widmeyer, W. N., Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (1993). Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 672–692). New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Zipf, G. K. (1972). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. New York: Hafner.
   Google Scholar