A Quantitative Integration of the Military Cohesion Literature

References

• Allen, N. H. (1986). In search of a “mix” for excellence: An exploratory study of the possible relationship between organizational performance and the psychological type of key group members. Disser tation Abstracts International, 47(10), 3808A. (University Microfilms No. 8700545)
   Google Scholar
• Allen, N. H., & Potter, E. H. (n.d.). Identifying high performing systems in the U. S. Coast Guard. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Blades, J. W. (1976). The influence of intelligence, task ability and motivation on group performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37(03), 1463A. ( University Microfilms No. 76-20, 706)
   Google Scholar
• Blades, J. W. (1986). Rules for leadership: Improving unit performance. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blaufarb, P. N. (1989). Air Force officer cohesion (Air War College Research Report). Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: U.S. Air Force, Air University. ( NTIS No. AD-A217 655)
   Google Scholar
• Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, E. (1957). The effect of members' use of a formal group as a reference group upon group effectiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 307–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datel, W. E. (1978). Final evaluation report on Fort Ord Project Volar. Alexandria, VA: Defense Technical Information Center. (DTIC No. AD-A054 006)
   Google Scholar
• Dickenson, R. A. (1991). Cohesion in military college recruits. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association (pp. 73–78). San Antonio, TX: U.S. Air Force Armstrong Laboratory Human Resources Directorate and the U.S. Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron.
   Google Scholar
• Dobbins, G. H., & Zaccaro, S. J. (1986). The effects of group cohesion and leader behavior on subordinate satisfaction. Group & Organization Studies, II, 203–219.
   Google Scholar
• Downey, R., Duffy, P., & Shiflett, S. (1975). Criterion performance measure of leadership and unit effectiveness in small combat units ( ARI Research Memorandum No. 75). Alexandria, VA: U.S Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Dupuy, H. P. (1978, October). Self-representations of general psychological well-being of American adults. Revision of a paper presented at the meeting of the American Public Health Association, Los Angeles.
   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
• Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Gal, R. & Manning, F. J. (1984, August). Correlates of unit cohesion and morale in the U.S. and Israeli Armies. Paper presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
   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
• Goodacre, D. M. Jr. (1951). The use of a sociometrie testas a predictor of combat unit effectiveness. Sociometry, 14, 148–152.
   Google Scholar
• Goodacre, D. M., Jr. (1953). Group characteristics of good and poor performing combat units. Sociometry, 16, 113–127.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. (1986). The measurement of military unit cohesion: An empirical approach. Unpublished manuscript.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. (1987, April). Group cohesion, training performance, social support and the Army's new, unit replacement system. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Arlington, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, J. (1988). Measurement of group cohesion in U.S. Army units. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 149–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gully, S. M., Whitney, D. J., & Devine, 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
• Hemphill, J. K., & Sechrest, L. B. (1952). A comparison of three criteria of aircrew effectiveness in combat over Korea. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 323–327.
   Web of Science ®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
• Hoiberg, A., & Berry, N. H. (1978). Expectations and perceptions of Navy life. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 130–145.
   Google Scholar
• Hoiberg, A., & Pugh, W. M. (1978). Predicting Navy effectiveness: Expectations, motivation, personality, aptitude, and background variables. Personnel Psychology, 31, 841–852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hom, P. W. & Hulin, C. L. (1981). A competitive test of the prediction of reenlistment by several models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 23–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, J. E. & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Julien, T. D. & Siebold, G. L. (1989). Unit leader assessment of a joint readiness training center rotation ARI Research Rep. No. 1564). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Lott, A., & Lott, B. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manning, F. J., & Fullerton, T. D. (1988). Health and well-being in highly cohesive units of the U.S. Army. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 503–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manning, F. J., & Ingraham, L. H. (1987). An investigation into the value of unit cohesion in peacetime. In G. Belenky (Ed.), Contemporary studies in combat psychiatry (pp. 47–67). New York: Greenwood.
   Google Scholar
• Matt, G. E. & Cook, T. D. (1994). Threats to the validity of research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 503–520). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Moos, R. H. (1973). Military Company Environment Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, Social Ecology Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Moos, R. H. (1986). Military Environment Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
   Google Scholar
• Motowildo, S. J., & Borman, W. C. (1977). Behaviorally anchored scales for measuring morale in military units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 177–183.
   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
• Neff, J., & Husaini, B. (1980). Race, socioeconomic status, and psychiatric impairment: A research note. Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 16–19.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, P. D., & Berry, N. (1968). Cohesion in Marine recruit platoons. Journal of Psychology, 68, 63–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliver, L. W. (1988a). The relationship of group cohesion to group performance: A research integration attempt (ARI Tech. Rep. No. 807). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, L. W. (1988b). The relationship of leader turbulence to platoon cohesion and performance. Unpublished manuscript. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Oliver, L. W. (1990). Cohesion research: Conceptual and methodological issues (ARI Research Note No. 90-133). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Olson, D. M., & Borman, W. C. (1987). Developmental and field tests of Army Work Environment Questionnaire (ARI Tech. Rep. No. 737). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Orwin, R. G. (1994). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. M. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139–162). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Orwin, R. G., & Cordray, D. S. (1985). Effects of deficient reporting on meta-analysis: A conceptual framework and reanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 134–147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pleban, R. Valentine, P. J., & Thompson, T. (1987). Enhancing small group cohesion and effectiveness in long range reconnaissance teams (ARI Research Note No. 30). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Science.
   Google Scholar
• Precidano, M. E. & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: Three validation studies. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 1–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roach, A. J., Frazier, L. P., & Bowden, S. R. (1981). The marital satisfaction scale: Development of a measure for intervention research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 537–546.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. M. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 139–162). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 183–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royle, M. H. (1985). Factors affecting attrition among Marine Corps women (Tech. Rep. No. 86-7). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
   Google Scholar
• Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261–281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Shiron, A. (1976). On some correlates of combat performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 419–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New York: Rinehart.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L. (1990, November). Cohesion in context. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Conference of the Military Testing Association, Orange Beach, AL.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1987, October). The impact of unit cohesion on unit performance, morale, and ability to withstand stress: Afield exercise example (Working Paper No. LM 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 Platoon Cohesion Index (Tech. Rep. No. 816). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988b). 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.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, Z. Mikulincer, M., & Hobfoll, 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
• Sterling, T., & Williams, L. (1982, June). A study of cohesion in Army at units at four unit levels (ARI working paper). Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN: Field Unit, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, J. C, & Bowers, D. G. (1972). Survey of organizations: A machine scored standardized questionnaire instrument. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute of Social Research.
   Google Scholar
• Turney, J. R., & Cohen, S. L. (1976). The development of a Work Environment Questionnaire for the identification of organizational problem areas in specific Army work settings (ARI Tech. Rep. No. 275). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Tziner, A., & Vardi, Y. (1983). Ability as a moderator between cohesiveness and tank crews performance. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 4, 137–143.
   Google Scholar
• Vickers, R. R., Wallick, M. T., & Hervig, L. K.. (1982). The Marine Corps basic training experience: Stresses, leadership, and group cohesion as predictors of attitudes, health, and performance (Rep. No. 82-28). San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Ware, J. E., Johnson, S., Davies-Avery, A., & Brook, R. (1979). Mental health: Vol. 3. Conceptualization and measurement of health in adults in the Health Insurance Study. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
   Google Scholar
• Yagil, D. (1995). A study of cohesion and other factors of major influence on soldiers' and unit effectiveness (ARI Research Note No. 95-11). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Yoest, E. E., & Tremble, T. R. Jr. (1984, August). Impact of cohesion on leader behavior-outcome relationships. Paper presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Zaccaro, S. J. (1991). Nonequivalent association between forms of cohesiveness and group-related outcomes: Evidence for multidimensionality. Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 387–399.
   Google Scholar