Chapter 3 - Cohesiveness

THIS CHAPTER WILL DISCUSS:

1. How cohesiveness is a result of all the forces that attract people to groups. 2. How some of these forces, including liking, identification with the group, and psychological needs, affect maintenance-based cohesiveness. 3. How other forces, such as group and personal goals and attraction to group activities, affect task-based cohesiveness. . How cohesiveness affects diverse group variables, such as group process and productivity. !. "hat groups can to do increase cohesiveness.

INTRODUCTION
#$ohesiveness# is a term that describes one of the maintenance variables of groups. "hat does it mean to say that a group is cohesive% &ike many concepts, cohesiveness is easy to recogni'e but difficult to define. (eople intuitively understand the term. However, it is difficult to define it precisely to everyone)s satisfaction. $ohesive groups have several positive *ualities that we all can recogni'e and agree upon. +or e,ample, cohesive groups have a general perception of #we-ness.# -here is a feeling of friendship and loyalty among group members. -he group also has high morale. However, it is problematic to use these *ualities to describe the concept of cohesiveness. +or e,ample, #morale# is a troublesome term in itself that is difficult to define. .lso, a list of *ualities will not serve as a definition. How, then, can we define cohesiveness% /cientists have suggested several definitions for the term. 0n this book, however, we will adopt only one of these suggestions. -he definition of cohesiveness that we will employ comes from the #group dynamics# school of researchers. -his school flourished in the 11!2s and was a descendant of the work of the great psychologist 3urt &ewin. "e have already described some of his work in $hapter 2, and we will continue to refer to him throughout the book. &ewin suggested a definition of cohesiveness that focuses our attention on the individual within the group. He believed that the term depends on how the individual member perceives his or her relationship with a particular group.

Fiel Theor! &ewin)s hypotheses about groups are part of a more general proposal he called #field theory.# +ield theory e,amines the relationship between a person)s goals and his or her behaviors in pursuit of those goals. +or e,ample, 4d wants to graduate from college with honors. How does he work toward that goal and why does he act the way he does in order to reach it% &ewin proposed a model in order to represent this relationship between goals and behaviors. -he model includes all of the factors that affect a person at a given time. -hese factors are primarily psychological, such as the person)s goals and impressions of the current situation. +or e,ample, a factor for 4d might be that sometimes it is more fun to play basketball than to study. 4d must deal with the conflicting forces of something that he considers fun at the moment and something that he believes is a good long-term goal. 0n addition, &ewin)s model includes those biological and physical factors that significantly influence a person)s psychological state. +or instance, 4d might feel so sick one day that he cannot study as much as he thinks he should.

&ewin called the totality of these factors the person)s life-space. +igure 3.1 represents a possible life-space.

+05674 3.1

+actors e,ist at the centers of #regions# within a person)s life-space. -he factors include the person)s possible goals, as well as other influences. -he areas within the diagram illustrate these regions. -he relative locations of the areas represent the relationship that e,ists between the person 8labeled #(# on the model9 and the various factors in his or her life 8labeled #5#9. 7egions can have the additional *uality of #valences.# -hese are attractive or repulsive characteristics. -he characteristics have #forces.# 0n the diagram the arrows portray the forces at work. -hey affect the person)s movement around his or her lifespace. . region that has a positive valence has the label #:# on the model. 0t #produces# forces that induce the person toward its center. 0n contrast, the negatively valenced region creates forces that impede the person)s progress toward its center. 0t has a #-# label on it. +or e,ample, the diagram could illustrate a day when 4d found that a basketball game was more attractive to him than the idea of studying for an e,am. He might have thought that he already knew the e,am material. "hatever the case, the option to study became the #5-# in the model. 4d wanted to avoid doing it. -he #5:# represented the basketball game. .s you can clearly see, all the arrows point toward the #5:#; 4d)s tendency will be to play basketball that day. 8&ewin)s model is summari'ed well by &evinger, 11!<.9

Fiel Theor! an Cohesiveness . field theorist believes that a #group# has a special place in the life-space model. 0t e,ists at the center of its own region in each group member)s life-space. +or instance, a group called #-he /tudy 5roup# might consist of 4d, =oan, >ike, and 3im. .ll four people have uni*ue life-space situations. +or each of them, #-he /tudy 5roup# has a specific place at the center of one of the areas in his or her life-space. -he area has a valence that depends on the member)s goals and the member)s perception concerning whether or not the group can fulfill those goals. 0f a group member perceives that the group can fulfill his or her goals, the group becomes attractive. 0t has a positive valence. -here can be various degrees of this attraction. However, to the e,tent that the group has any positive valence at all, forces in the member)s life-space will drive the member toward the group)s region. -hese forces increase the member)s attraction toward the group. +or e,ample, 4d may want to study mathematics in a group setting. +urther, 4d wants to talk with 3im, because he is attracted to her. He also wants to get to know more students who are serious about their studies. He sees #-he /tudy 5roup# as something that can fulfill those goals. .ll of his various goals, combined with his perception that the group can fulfill them in some way, act as forces that increase 4d)s attraction to #-he /tudy 5roup.# -he overall cohesiveness of a group is the sum of these positive forces in each member)s life-space. $ohesiveness is #the resultant of all forces acting on all the members to remain in the group# 8$artwright, 11?@, p. 119. -his is the definition that we will be using throughout this book. +or instance, if =oan and >ike have goals that are similar to 4d)s, they probably also have strong forces working on them that attract them to #-he /tudy 5roup.# 0n that case it would be a very cohesive group. However, it may be that 3im is not very interested in studying in a group because she already knows

mathematics very well. /he would prefer to study alone. Ar perhaps she already has a group of friends that she enBoys very much. /he does not want to find a group of similar people, as 4d does. 0n these cases #-he /tudy 5roup# will not be so cohesive as it would have been if all members had strong forces working on them to remain in the group. Cack in $hapter 1 we made distinctions among si, perspectives that theorists take toward groups. "e called one of these the #motivational# approach. >otivational viewpoint theorists see group behavior as a result of factors that prompt individual behavior, such as needs or goals. &ewin)s idea of forces moving people around their life-space is an e,ample of the motivational approach.

"e#$er Co##it#ent 0t is important that we do not become confused about the difference between a group)s overall amount of cohesiveness and each member)s attraction to the group. .fter all, it makes no sense to talk about individual cohesiveness. -o make this distinction clear, we will distinguish between group cohesiveness and member commitment to the group. >oreland and &evine 811@29 have discussed the idea of member commitment to the group in great depth. 0n their view, a member is committed to the group to the e,tent that the member is getting what they want from the group more or less than they would get from other groups. 0f >ike feels that he is getting more from #-he /tudy 5roup# than from any other comparable group, he will remain a member. 0f 3im feels she could get more from another group, she will leave. >oreland and &evine describe how people consider both the present, past, and future when deciding if they want to remain a member of a group. 0n other words, one weighs whether one is presently getting more from the group than from other groups, if one got more from the group than other groups in the past, and if one e,pects to get more from the group than from others in the future when making their decision. -he theorists feel that in general, present e,periences are the most important in determining a person)s commitment to a group, because what is happening at the present is normally what is most salient in people)s minds. /imilarly, past e,periences are usually more important than future e,pectations Bust because they are real e,periences the person had. -here are however e,ceptions to these generalities. "hen a person has Bust Boined a group, there is no past e,perience, so the person must decide based on present e,periences and e,pectations about the future. .nalogously, if a person is ready to leave a group, there is no future, so the decision is based on present and past e,periences only. .lthough >oreland and &evine do not consider this, it follows from their analysis that every member makes these same considerations and, as a result, each member has a certain degree of commitment to the group. -hus group cohesiveness depends on how committed each member is to the group as a whole.

COHESI%ENESS AS AN OUTPUT %ARIA&LE $ohesiveness is a particularly interesting variable to study because it has a dual role in group processes. $learly, it stands as one of the maBor output variables in group process. . group can become cohesive or noncohesive over time. 0n addition, however, cohesiveness acts as an input variable that affects later group activity. >embers of a cohesive group act differently together than members of a noncohesive organi'ation. Hence, cohesiveness has a dual role as both an input and an output variable. "e will first discuss the role of cohesiveness as an output variable. 0n doing this, we will make a distinction between two different aspects of cohesiveness. -he distinction has been made by -'iner 811@29 and is consistent with the task versus maintenance distinction that we use throughout this book. Ane aspect of cohesiveness is based on group members) liking for one another and on their desire to be in the group. "e will call this aspect #maintenance-based# cohesiveness. +or e,ample, several people may form a group because they are attracted to one another. Ane reason =oan might want to be in #-he /tudy 5roup# is

because she likes the other members. Ane reason >ike might want to be in #-he /tudy 5roup# is because he Bust enBoys the e,perience of being with other people. -he other aspect of cohesiveness is based on the e,tent to which the group helps its members reach important goals or participate in desired activities. "e will call this aspect #task-based# cohesiveness. /ometimes many members of the group share the same goal. +or e,ample, 4d, =oan, and >ike find the idea of studying in a group attractive because they think it will help them understand mathematics better. -he group satisfies their desire for this understanding. 0n addition, a member might Boin because the group is a means for satisfying #personal goals.# 0n other words, the person attempts to use the group to satisfy goals that other members may not share. +or instance, 4d wants to meet 3im because he finds her attractive. -hat is not a group goal, but 4d thinks that Boining the group will still satisfy this desire. 0n $hapter 1 we made the claim that cohesiveness is a maintenance variable. 7eaders should not confuse that claim with what we are saying now. "e are saying that there are two aspects of cohesiveness. Ane aspect is caused by task-based factors and the other aspect is caused by maintenance-based factors. -his does not change the fact that cohesiveness itself is a maintenance variable.

"aintenan'e-&ase Cohesiveness .s we have noted, a group)s cohesiveness is measured by the sum total of the forces attracting its members to it. >any scholars have considered the amount of liking among the members to be the most significant of these forces. 0f the members do not enBoy being with one another, it probably would be very difficult for them to be attracted to the group. 0n fact, according to &ott and &ott 811?!9, one would not lose too much by defining #cohesiveness# simply as the e,tent to which each group member likes each other member. 7esearchers have generally acted as if they agreed with this claim. 0n a large maBority of cases, scientists have actually used #liking# among members as the sole measurement of group cohesiveness. -hey have similarly used liking as the main method of manipulating cohesiveness. Hence, in practice, most scientists have acted as if cohesiveness and liking are the same in a group. .lthough we do not agree with this claim, we do recogni'e the central importance of liking in determining group cohesiveness. +or this reason, our discussion regarding liking will be e,tensive.

Li(in) >any researchers have e,amined the processes that may lead one person to find another person likable. Ane of these researchers, Dewcomb 811?29, created a method for classifying the reasons that can lead to one person liking or disliking another person. 0n his system, there are three general #reasons# that (erson . may like or dislike (erson C.

A #iration* +irst, (erson . may perceive certain *ualities in (erson C that (erson . likes. (erson . may also see things that he or she dislikes. -hese *ualities affect whether . likes C. -hey are specific #reasons# for liking, and Dewcomb grouped them together. He labeled this category the degree of admiration that e,ists between the two people.

Re'ipro'ation* /econd, (erson . may like (erson C because . believes, in turn, that C likes .. -his circular effect can also work to make people dislike each other. Dewcomb called this reason reciprocation.

Si#ilarit!* -hird, (erson . may like or dislike (erson C according to how (erson . thinks (erson C feels about the topic under discussion. 0f . thinks they agree, . might like C. 0n contrast, if (erson . thinks they disagree, . may dislike C. 0t is a *uestion of similarity of feelings about E.

Cefore we begin to e,amine these reasons for liking, we must briefly e,plain the idea of contact. .s we all know, (erson . cannot come to like (erson C unless they meet each other in the first place.

Contact (eople come to like only those people they have the opportunity to meet. -his claim is intuitively obvious. 4ven so, we should not ignore its importance. -here have been many studies e,amining the importance of contact as it relates to liking, and they have had some interesting results. Ane thing we know is that the odds that people will come into contact with each other is a function of the e,tent to which they are located near each other. -his physical nearness is significant. >any studies have shown that friendships at school or work are more likely to form among people who sit near each other, as opposed to those who sit far away from each other. -his is also true among people who live near one another. -hese findings are clearly relevant to liking in small groups. (eople in groups are un*uestionably in contact with one another. -herefore the potential is there for group members to come to like one another, increasing the odds of a cohesive group.

Initial #eetin)s an li(a$ilit!* However, contact with other members in a decision-making group is often involuntary. 0t might seem that increased contact, when it is involuntary, would also increase the odds that people will come to dislike one another. Ane could hypothesi'e that group members would resent being forced together. However, scientists have found that dislike is relatively rare among new ac*uaintances. 0ndeed, it appears that people e,pect to like other people they meet. -here seems to be a bias within people toward mutually liking one another until they see a good reason not to do so. Ane could say that people find one another #likable# until proven otherwise. . study by Farley and Cerscheid 811?<9 e,amined this idea. -heir study led some women to anticipate that they would take part in a dyadic discussion. -he topic would be dating behavior. -he researchers then showed the women information about their #fictional# partners. -hey also showed them data concerning an additional fictional participant in the e,periment. -hese two sets of information were identical. -he study then asked the women to evaluate the fictional participants. -he women e,pressed more liking for, as well as a greater desire to work with, their future #partner# than for the other fictional #woman,# despite the fact that the data about the two fictional women had been identical. 0t appears that the anticipation of meeting a person leads to the e,pectation of liking that person. -his works at least until further information about the person comes to light. -he study implies that, when someone assigns us to a group, we generally come to the first meeting e,pecting to like the other members.

Admiration .s we said earlier, one reason why (erson . may like (erson C is that (erson . perceives certain *ualities in (erson C that (erson . likes. .nalogously, (erson . may dislike (erson C because . see *ualities in C that . dislikes. "e call the perceptions we have about another person)s *ualities our personality impression of that other person. (ersonality impressions are probably the biggest factor in long-term liking. -hese impressions are the mental pictures we have of people. -hese mental pictures consist of descriptions of what kind of people they are, what they look like, what kinds of things they do, and so on. .pparently, our beliefs about people)s permanent characteristics--the kind of people they are--have great impact on whether we like them.

-he beliefs that we hold about a person e,ist as a network of traits. -hese traits are mostly adBectives that are meant to describe a person)s personality and character. -here are many trait terms that we use to describe personality. +or e,ample, we might call a person #nice,# #clumsy,# #attractive,# or #weak.# 0t is important to reali'e that traits are abstractions. -hey are generali'ed terms for a set of behaviors, but they are not behaviors themselves. +or e,ample, you cannot see a #clumsy.# "hat you can see is an action that you can classify as #clumsy.# -he classification is a decision of sorts. 0t is not inherent in the behavior 87eeder G Crewer, 11<19. .fter all, conduct that is #clumsy# in most instances may be #smart# in some circumstances. +or e,ample, dropping a glass may seem to be a clumsy behavior, but it is a smart action if the glass is hot enough to burn you badly. "e use the behaviors that we see people to perform in order to form our impressions of them. .t a party, a person might perform a series of behaviors that we consider clumsy. +or e,ample, the person drops a glass, spills popcorn, and dances on his or her partner)s feet. "e might notice this behavior rather than others because it is particularly salient. Cy #salient# behavior, we mean actions that are particularly attention-grabbing. . lot of research has shown that the impression formation begins when someone performs salient behavior that we notice and begin to think about. .fter noticing this behavior, we then Budge whether performing behaviors of that type is an inherent part of the person)s personality. "e could instead decide that the behavior is a momentary lapse caused by circumstance. +or e,ample, when we see the person dropping the glass and spilling the popcorn, we might think that the person is naturally clumsy. 0n contrast, we might believe that the person could be drunk or nervous. 0n other words, we must decide whether the person)s character or the circumstance is responsible for the clumsiness. -heorists have put a lot of thought into determining the conditions under which observers see a person)s character as responsible for his or her actions. =ones and Favis 811?!9 e,amined what happened when observers saw the behavior only once. 0n this case, onlookers assign responsibility for the action to the e,tent that the behavior is une,pected, unusual, or une,plainable by circumstance. +or e,ample, one day people see -ed complaining about standing in a line at the bookstore. 0f -ed is late for an appointment or if the line seems unusually long to everybody in it, observers may say that the circumstance is responsible for -ed being impatient. 0f the line is short and to be e,pected, -ed)s complaints are unusual. 0n that case, onlookers might say that -ed has the personality trait of being an impatient person. 3elley 811?<9 described e,amples of behavior that occurred in different situations. Abservers had more than one e,ample that they could use to form a Budgment. 0n such a circumstance, observers assign responsibility for the behavior to the e,tent that the action is similar across situations, consistent with different people, and different from the norm. +or e,ample, onlookers see -ed in many situations, and he is consistently complaining about having to wait. He complains to many people and in inappropriate situations. Ather people complain far less about waiting than -ed. -his series of behaviors may lead the observers to consider -ed)s character to be that of an impatient person. Ance we Budge that the person)s character is responsible for the behavior, we attribute the relevant trait to the person. +or e,ample, we attribute the trait of impatience to -ed. -hus, we call the work of =ones, 3elley, and their associates attribution theory. &et us return to the e,ample of the clumsy person at the party. 0f the circumstances apply, we could decide that the person has the character trait of clumsiness. Having made this attribution, we tentatively assign other traits to this person to the e,tent that clumsiness implies the new traits. +or e,ample, we could believe that clumsiness is associated with stupidity. 0n that case, we would also e,pect to see #stupid# actions from this person.

7esearchers call this tendency the #halo effect# when it applies to #good# attributes and the #horns effect# when it involves #bad# character traits. +or e,ample, in one study, researchers showed participants photographs and then asked them to make Budgments about the person photographed. -he participants saw more attractive people as being more intelligent and more e,citing to be with than less attractive people. -he #good# characteristic #attractive# led to the assignment of other #good# characteristics to the person. -he halo effect is not all-powerful, however. 0f you later recogni'e #smart# behavior, for e,ample, from the person you Budged #clumsy,# you can change your impression of the person. However, the person you thought clumsy must behave clearly in a way that is #smart,# for it is difficult to alter initial impressions. "e gradually build up a uni*ue impression of a person as time passes. -his impression comes from our own observations of the person and from our interpretations of what we hear about him or her from other people 8Hewes et al., 11@!9. .s we have shown, various factors and situations come into play as this #impression formation# process takes place. "hy is it that we use traits as descriptors for people% "hy do we call people #dull# or #energetic#% "e seem to want to describe a person)s character. "hy% -here appear to be two reasons. +irst, we feel a need to be able to e,plain and predict other people)s behavior. -raits help us e,plain and predict. -hey can give us an intuitively satisfying e,planation for behaviors. +or instance, =acob dropped a glass because he is #clumsy.# "e do not need to worry about a further e,planation. 0n addition, traits are a device we can use to predict later behavior. Cecause =acob is clumsy, we better not invite him into a china shop. /econd, we use traits because they serve as a basis for evaluating a person. -his is crucial to our interest in liking and admiration. +or e,ample, we may think badly of clumsiness. "e believe that =acob is clumsy. 0t follows that we have a reason to think badly of =acob. Af course, we assign *uite a few attributes to a person. -he way that we evaluate one trait may contradict our evaluation of another trait. +or e,ample, we might also think that =acob is #funny.# "e evaluate that trait as being a good attribute. Cecause we like #funny# people, we may think well of =acob because he is funny. -he *uestion is, "hich trait will we value the most% "ill we end up liking =acob or disliking him% 7esearchers have tried to predict our overall #liking# of a person who has several traits that we evaluate differently. Huite a lot of work has gone into developing algebraic formulas to answer those *uestions. -he best-known model holds that whether we like a person depends on the average of the evaluations of the individual traits. 4ach evaluation is weighted according to the importance of the trait 8.nderson, 11< 9. -his model serves fairly well, but a few cases elude it. /ometimes combinations of traits lead to uni*ue situations that do not occur when each attribute occurs separately. +or e,ample, if someone tells you that =ill is #dumb# and #blonde,# the two traits together may create a rather negative picture in your mind. "ithout meeting =ill, you may think her to be #flighty# or #irresponsible.# However, if the person only says that =ill is #blonde,# you might think =ill to be #friendly# and #e,citing# because she is blonde. /imilarly, the combination of #dishonest# and #generous# is another instance in which a uni*ue combination changes things. -hese traits may lead to a picture of a 7obin Hoodtype character with a particularly positive overall evaluation. 0mpressions and evaluations of the personalities of people are very important in a small group. -hey influence the manner in which group members interact. $ertain impressions have considerable significance in the small group setting. Ane type is the attribution of intelligence and competence. /uls and >iller 811<@9 conducted a study concerning this. -hey had their participants take an e,am that tested their #ability# at social psychology. -hey then rated them as either #very good,# #good,# #average,# or#poor# at social psychology skills. -he researchers asked the participants to choose the type of person with whom they would wish to form study groups. Dot surprisingly, 13.1 and @1. percent of the participants in two respective studies wanted partners who were rated either #very good# or #good.#

.s we can see, this study points out that personality impressions play a maBor role in whether we admire a person. -his factor can help determine whether #admiration# will affect liking among small-group members.

Reciprocation .s we have discussed, one of the most important factors in the degree to which $isco, for e,ample, likes 3ristin, is the degree to which 3ristin likes $isco. 7esearchers call this process #reciprocation.# -here are many possible reasons that $isco will tend to reciprocate 3ristin)s liking. -he approval that $isco gets from 3ristin, as a sole factor, should cause $isco to return 3ristin)s liking. 0n addition, $isco can look forward to cooperation and support from 3ristin. -his adds to $isco)s reciprocation. "e can see how this could work in a small group. +or e,ample, the group leader may give compliments or criticisms to a group member. -hese might give the member an impression of the e,tent to which the leader likes or dislikes the member. -he impression will, in turn, influence the member to reciprocate in a similar way. 0ndeed, many studies have used criticisms and compliments in order to support the tendency for degree of liking to be reciprocated. 0n fact, one study showed compliments and criticisms to be directly related to group cohesiveness. Fittes 811!19 asked groups of participants to discuss a problem concerning Buvenile delin*uency, and interrupted the discussion on three occasions to allow members to rate how desirable they found one another as group members. .fter the discussion, each participant was shown what was said to be the other members) ratings of her or him. .ctually, the participants were shown phony ratings that implied they were either accepted or reBected by the other members. .fter a second group discussion, the members were asked how much they wanted to remain in the group. (articipants who thought they had been accepted were more attracted to the group than participants who thought they had been reBected. However, we will not delve into these specific findings in detail. 0nstead, we will describe two instances in which the reciprocation effect does not occur.

In'on)r+en'!* -he incongruency e,ception occurs when (erson . believes that (erson C)s praise or blame is inconsistent with (erson .)s own self-appraisal. +or e,ample, $isco may think poorly of himself. However, he believes that 3ristin likes him. 0n such a situation, $isco may believe that 3ristin)s Budgment is faulty because he believes that she is wrong to like him. He will then dislike her as well as her opinion. Feutsch and /olomon 811!19 performed an e,periment that highlighted the incongruency problem. -hey had their participants perform as #members# of two #teams.# -hey then gave their participants phony evaluations of their performances, rating them either good or bad. 4ach participant ne,t wrote a note to one of his or her #teammates.# -he researchers collected the real notes but gave fake notes back to the participants. -hese phony notes indicated that the #teammate# either did or did not want the participant on their #team# in the future. -he participants ne,t made written evaluations of the #teammates# who they thought had written notes to them. 7esults of the study showed that participants thought a great deal about their own performance rating as they read their fake notes. 4ach participant kept in mind his or her #grade# in the e,periment. (articipants who believed that they had performed well liked their #teammate# the most if the note writer wanted the participant to stay on the #team.# 0n contrast, these #good# performers liked the #teammate# least if he or she wanted the participant off the #team.# -his process did not take place if the participants believed that they had not done well. -hese #bad# performers reported that their liking for the #teammate# was intermediate. 0t was unaffected by the #teammate)s# evaluation of them. Deither liking nor disliking was reciprocated. 0t appears that when somebody knows that he or she has performed a task badly, the process of reciprocation is unaffected. -he tendency to return verbal approval may be offset by the knowledge that the approver is wrong.

However, interpretation of this study does lead to some problems. Cerscheid and "alster 811<@9 point out some of them. 0f (erson C praises (erson . after a bad performance, (erson . may come to think that (erson C is either stupid or insincere. -hese feelings will affect the reciprocation process in a different way from the incongruency e,ception. -he possibility that (erson C is insincere leads us to the second e,ception regarding reciprocation. In)ratiation* -he ingratiation e,ception occurs when (erson . comes to believe that (erson C)s praise is due to some ulterior motive for gaining (erson .)s favor. +or e,ample, $isco believes that 3ristin is praising him in order to get later rewards from him. -he ingratiation e,ception is most likely to occur if $isco has reason to believe that 3ristin)s words are false. -his is most likely to happen when $isco is confident about the degree to which he possesses the characteristic on which 3ristin)s praise is based. +or e,ample, it is useless to compliment people on their looks if they know that they are good-looking. -hey have heard it before and probably do not want to hear it again. 0t is e*ually useless to compliment people on their looks if they know for certain that they are not good-looking. -hey will know that the compliment is a lie. -here are perhaps times when a person can succeed in using false praise to be ingratiating. -he most successful time would be when the person being praised does not know their *ualities well. +or e,ample, perhaps a person does not know whether he or she is really good-looking 8=ones, 11? 9. 0n such a case, ingratiation may create liking. -he person does not perceive that the compliment is false. He or she does not suspect any ulterior motive and liking can occur through reciprocation.

Similarity Dewcomb included #similarity# within his typology system. He believed it was a cause for liking. -he idea refers to the pleasure that one feels when interacting with someone who has similar beliefs and opinions as oneself. .ttitudinal agreement, along with reciprocity of liking, is particularly important in the establishment of casual friendships. .s such, it is e,tremely important in the small-group setting. /mall groups often involve casual relationships. Dewcomb 811?2, 11?19 e,plored this issue in a classic study of the ac*uaintance process. +or the study, Dewcomb obtained the use of a boarding house near the 6niversity of >ichigan campus. An two occasions he invited 1< male transfer students to live there for a semester free of charge. 0n e,change, Dewcomb re*uired them to participate in four to five hours of research a week. He performed various studies with the groups. /ome of the e,periments e,plored the patterns of the friendships that formed and the reasons for the friendships. 4arly in the semester, functional distance and reciprocation of liking were the maBor determinants in liking. -his was e,pected. /tudents were attracted to students who were close to them and who seemed to like them in return. However, attitude similarity became a critical factor as the semester progressed. .s the students got to know one another better, they learned how they all really felt. Apinions came out into the open. .s this happened, the students started to like others who shared their attitudes. -hey also lessened in their liking for those who did not agree with them about topics. -he relationship between the e,tent to which people believe they agree with one another and the e,tent to which they like ne another is e,tremely strong. Cyrne 811<19 and his coworkers conducted a series of studies that showed how strong that relationship can be. Cyrne)s research centered on a basic e,perimental procedure. +or his studies, participants rated their attitudes toward each of 2? political, social, and religious issues. /everal weeks later, the e,perimenters gave the participants a set of ratings for these same issues. -hey told them that the ratings were those of a stranger they were to meet. -he researchers then asked

the participants to rate their liking for the unknown person and their willingness to work with him or her on a proBect. -he participants also rated the stranger on other characteristics, such as intelligence and character. "hat the participants did not know was that there was no actual #stranger.# 0nstead, the researchers had given them a list based upon the participants) own opinions. -he e,perimenters wrote down opinions that agreed or disagreed with the attitudes of the participants in a predetermined way. -he lists ranged from total agreement, through proportions of agreement, to total disagreement. -he study found that the degree of liking of the unknown person was strongly related to the proportion of statements on which the participant and the #stranger# agreed. 0n addition, greater accord led to a halo effect. (articipants also rated an #agreeing# stranger as more intelligent, well informed, moral, and well adBusted than a #disagreeing# person. 0n his later studies, Cyrne found this relationship to hold for people of all ages and socioeconomic groups. 0t also was true for people from different countries and even for hospitali'ed schi'ophrenics. 0n all the cases, perceived agreement led to a liking of the #stranger.# However, as with any such relationship, there are e,ceptions. Ane e,ception is that, if the topic of agreement or disagreement is not important, it has no effect on liking. -his is particularly true if the people interacting talk about other topics that they consider important. +or e,ample, $isco and 3ristin might disagree about their favorite colors, but they agree about the person they should elect president. -he topic of their favorite colors is not important, and it does not figure into whether they like each other. -he topic of the presidential candidate is important to them, however, and because they agree about that, they probably will like each other. .nother e,ception that Cyrne found was that agreement with a person with undesirable *ualities has no effect on liking. +or e,ample, you may agree with a drug addict who says that nuclear disarmament is good. However, if you do not like the life-style of a person dependent on drugs, you will probably not become friends with the drug addict even though you agree with his or her opinion. /imilarity in opinions has been directly related to group cohesiveness. +estinger 811! 9 reported a study he performed with 5erard, Hymovitch, 3elley, and 7aven in which groups studied a labor dispute and then evaluated the union)s decisions in the dispute. .fterwards, each member was asked how much they thought other group member agreed with them about the dispute and how much they attracted they were to the group. -hose members who thought they agreed with the other members were more attracted to the group than hose members who thought they disagreed.

Con'l+sions* &iking is the most important element in maintenance-based group cohesiveness. 0t is a powerful force that influences whether people want to be with one another. .s such, it has an impact on whether a group is drawn together cohesively. 7esearch into the topic of liking has revealed a variety of factors that affect the processes of how and why one person finds another person likable. .ll of these factors come into play in a group setting. -here are other forces, however, that affect maintenance-based cohesiveness.

I enti,i'ation -ith the .ro+p /ometimes, our membership in a group becomes a very important part of our self-identity. +or e,ample, 3arintha is a member of a basketball team called the I/harksJ. "hen she thinks about herself, one of the first things that comes to 3arintha)s mind is #0 am a /hark.# 0n this situation, we can say that 3arintha identifies with the /harks. .ccording to Hogg 811129, when we identify with a group we look favorably upon the other members of the group, even those we do not find particularly likable. -his is particularly true when circumstances make us think about our group membership. Dadine is also a member of the /harks. 3arintha does not find Dadine especially likable. However, if 3arintha hears an outsider critici'ing

Dadine)s performance as a /hark, 3arintha is likely to Bump to Dadine)s defense. .ccording to Hogg, although 3arintha does not like Dadine, 3arintha identifies with Dadine because they are members of the same team. Hogg called 3arintha)s feelings toward Dadine social attraction to distinguish it from regular liking. Hogg claimed that when we identify ourselves with a group, we form in our heads a prototype of the #ideal# member of the group. +or e,ample, 3arintha might see the #ideal# /hark as skilled, hard-working, and supportive. Hogg believed that we become socially attractive to other members of a group we identify ourselves with to the e,tent that we believe these other members appro,imate the #ideal.# 7ecall our recent discussion of personality impressions. "e can imagine that if 3arintha)s impression of Dadine is as a skilled, hard-working, and supportive team member, 3arintha will be socially attracted to Dadine. 0n contrast, if 3arintha sees $ecilee, another /hark, as far from the ideal, 3arintha will not be socially attracted to $ecilee and would be less likely to defend $ecilee from outside criticism as 3arintha defended Dadine. Hogg and associates 8Hogg G Hardie, 1111; Hogg, $ooper-/haw, G Hol'worth, 11139 have done some studies to try to distinguish social attraction from normal liking. -hey have used both real pre-e,isting groups 8a sports team, an educational organi'ation9 and e,perimental groups in these studies. 0n these studies, they have asked group members to list the three group members they thought were closest to the group prototype, the three members they liked the most, and the three members they most wanted to be in their group. .s Hogg e,pected, they generally found that there was more overlap between the members seen as #prototypical# and the members they wanted to be in their group than there was between the members seen as prototypical and the member they liked. -his effect was strongest for those members who particularly identified with the group. Hogg felt that liking and social attraction have separate effects on group cohesiveness. 0t is possible that each is a more important factor than the other in determining group cohesiveness in different circumstances. 0t would follow from Hogg)s claims that when group members identify strongly with their group, cohesiveness would depend more on how much social attraction group members have for one another than on how much they like one another. 0n contrast, when group members do not identify with their group very much, cohesiveness would depend more on mutual liking. 7esearch to evaluate these ideas needs to be performed before we can have confidence in them.

Ps!'holo)i'al Nee s -here has always been speculation that people may be attracted to a group in order to satisfy some deepseated psychological need. .s we discussed in $hapter 1, >c$lelland 811?19 hypothesi'ed that some people have a particular high need for affiliation with others. 0t follows that people high on this need would be likely to want to be a member of a group. -hus the e,tent to which group members have a need for affiliation would be a factor in the amount of maintenance-based cohesiveness in their group. /imilarly, >c$lelland also believed that some people have a particular high need for power. Ane can imagine that a person who has a strong desire to dominate others may Boin a group in order to take a leadership role. Ceing leader would satisfy his or her need to be in charge. -he group will continue to be attractive only as long as the person can successfully dominate the other members. . group member)s desire to satisfy such psychological needs may indirectly affect cohesiveness through its direct effect on group process. 0magine that a group contains a member who has a very strong desire to dominate. (icture what his or her communication would be like. .s you can envision, this communication would probably have a great effect on the other members) attraction to the group. "hat e,actly would this communication be like% "ould the group member who desires to be in charge try to make the other group members feel worthless% Ar would he or she feel secure as leader and try to make the group attractive to the other members%

Co##+ni'ation an stat+s nee s* . study by 3elley 811!19 suggests some answers to these *uestions. He theori'ed that people desire to have high status in their groups. His idea was that most people have the psychological need to have status. 3elley further hypothesi'ed that this desire affects the type of communication that group members e,change. He divided eight-member groups into two four-member subgroups. -he researcher then told the subgroups that one of them would receive a series of patterns of rectangles. He gave them instructions that they were to write messages to the second subgroup that would help the second subgroup reproduce the patterns. -he researcher also said that group members could write notes to one another within their subgroups. -he messages did not have to be limited to technical information. -he members of each subgroup then went into different rooms. -he researcher said he would give them their assignments and take their messages back and forth for them. -he participants thought the e,periment would be as the researcher had described it to them. 0n actuality, he never delivered the real messages. 0nstead, the e,perimenter collected all the participants) notes and gave out phony ones he had written himself. +urther, he assigned both groups the task of reproducing patterns. -here was no #sending# subgroup. >ost important, 3elley told participants about the status and the permanence of their Bobs. He assigned each participant a Bob, as a message translator or a pattern reproducer. He told them that the former was a high-status Bob and that the latter was a low-status task. He also told each member whether the Bob was subBect to change 8mobile9 or permanent 8nonmobile9. 3elley then analy'ed the messages that the participants sent one another. -he notes sent to the fictional #sending# subgroup revealed differences among the group members. -he researcher determined that the high-statusKnonmobile and the low statusKmobile participants sent more #cohesiveness-building# messages than other members. -heir notes contained overtures to friendship, encouragement, and praise and other such statements. 3elley interpreted these results under the assumption that the participants wanted to have high status if they felt they could attain it. -he high-statusKnonmobile participants knew that they would retain their status, and so were comfortable sending cohesiveness-building messages to the other subgroup. -he low-statusKmobile participants probably thought that sending these messages might help them gain high status. 0n contrast, 3elley believed that the high-statusKmobile participants probably felt their status threatened and so refrained from encouraging the other members. +inally, the low-statusKnonmobile participants were resigned to their fate and saw no point in sending cohesiveness-building messages. -hese latter two group members sent far fewer messages that were designed to build cohesiveness. 0nterestingly, within the subgroups these patterns changed. 0n their own groups, the mobile members sent more #cohesiveness-building# messages than the nonmobile members did. -his was true no matter what their status was. 6nfortunately, it is impossible to determine the effect of the members) notes on one another. Cecause no member ever received the actual notes, the study could not e,amine whether the notes affected the receiver)s attraction to the subgroup. However, the study did reveal that group members communicated differently, based on their status and ability to change that status. -hese different types of communication could affect group cohesiveness.

Eval+ation nee s* -here is also some evidence that people want to be with others in order to learn more about themselves. +estinger)s 811! 9 theory of social comparison proposes that people have a desire to evaluate their own abilities. "e will be e,plaining this theory more fully in $hapter ?, #$onformity and Feviance,# but +estinger)s idea has applications for this section also. /inger and /hockley 811?!9 conducted an e,periment to test +estinger)s idea. -hey asked 3@ participants to complete a phony task. -he participants then received a number representing their #score# on the task. -he researchers gave 2 of them an interpretation of the meaning of the score. Aut of these 2 , only 2 chose to wait with other participants while the researchers set up a second part of the e,periment. 0n contrast, ? of the 1 who had not received an interpretation of their scores wanted to wait with other participants. -hey could then talk among themselves. 0t appeared that the people who did not know how well they had done felt the desire to associate with others who had done the task.

Con'l+sion* .s we have discussed, group membership in itself may be attractive to some humans because membership can satisfy various psychological needs. 0n particular, needs for affiliation, power and status, and knowledge about themselves may draw people into groups. -herefore, needs such as these can be a factor in maintenance-based cohesiveness.

Tas(-&ase Cohesiveness .s we mentioned earlier, task-based cohesiveness can be the result of group members) desires to achieve either group or personal goals or the members) attraction to group activities. /tudies have been performed in order to understand the impact of these factors. .ro+p .oals . group might attract a person if the group has an attractive goal. . classic study reported in /herif and /herif 811!39 showed this tendency at work. -he study took place at a summer camp for 12-year-old boys. 4,perimenters first established intergroup hostility between the boys. -he researchers then strove to evaluate various methods for reducing this hostility. -he study divided the boys into two groups, called the #Cull Fogs# and the #7ed Fevils.# 4ach group lived in a different part of the camp and performed its necessary activities, such as food preparation, separately. -o create intergroup hostility, the researchers arranged games, contests, and circumstances in such a way that one group interfered with the activities of the other. -hese methods succeeded in arousing a great deal of animosity. Dame-calling and fights broke out. -he e,perimenters ne,t tried to reduce this hostility by first merely arranging for contact between the groups. -his had no effect upon hostility. -hey then arranged tasks that re*uired intergroup cooperation. -he researchers secretly broke the entire camp)s water system and then arranged for the groups to fi, it together. -hey also had the whole camp raise money to go to the movies. 0n addition, the e,perimenters chose a camp-wide baseball team to play a team from another camp. -hese cooperative tasks eventually led to some reduction in hostility. +urther, there was some identification with the camp as a whole. -his study demonstrates that, even within this atmosphere of hostility, group goals had the power to affect cohesiveness. -he campers had the desire to reach camp goals. -his led, first, to attraction to their own group and, ne,t, to some attraction to the larger group of the whole camp.

Personal .oals . member may also be attracted to a group because it provides the means for satisfying goals unrelated to any of the group)s e,pressed purposes. +or e,ample, +red might decide that he wants to be his college)s class president. He has heard that five out of the last si, class presidents were members of a certain fraternity. -he fraternity)s members are popular and get a lot of e,posure on campus. +red finds the idea of membership in the fraternity very attractive because membership would help him win the election for class president. Feutsch 811!19 performed an e,periment based on this idea. He reasoned that the chance to receive a personal pri'e when the group is successful would increase a person)s attraction to a group. He further believed that the greater chance of success, the greater the attraction would be. Feutsch worked with .ir +orce cadets in his study. -he cadets received personal rewards of money or a three-day pass if their group performed the task successfully. 7esearchers believe that three factors affect a member)s perception of the chance of his or her group succeeding at a task. -hey are

1. the probability that the group can win the pri'e, 2. the motivation of the other group members to succeed, and 3. the group)s ability to perform the task.

Feutsch)s study used these three factors to create various test situations. Feutsch formed three-person groups. -he e,periment consisted of the following se*uence:

1. -he researcher told the cadets that they would have either a 12- or a 12-percent chance of winning the pri'e. -he e,perimenter thus manipulated the factor regarding perceived probability of winning. 2. -he participants wrote brief notes to one another about their feelings concerning working in the group. -he e,perimenter collected these notes. 3. -he cadets took a phony #group intelligence# test. -his supposedly predicted their ability to perform their assigned tasks. . -he researcher gave the cadets phony notes, supposedly written by other members. -hese e,pressed either desire or dislike for working in the group. -he e,perimenter thus manipulated the factor regarding the perception of other members) motivation. !. -he participants received the results of the phony group intelligence test. -he researcher thus manipulated the factor for perceived group ability. ?. -he participants performed five tasks of varying types. <. -he cadets rated their feeling about the group and their performance.

-he results of the study supported Feutsch)s idea. -he participants were attracted to the group if they thought the group could help them win their personal goal. High perceived group motivation and ability, and in some cases perceived probability of winning, led participants to want to stay in their group more often than not. 0n addition, these members felt more team spirit, felt more obligated to the group, believed the group helped their performance, and gave a higher rating to the group)s performance than subBects who felt that they were in less capable groups. -here is a corollary within the idea that a group is more attractive if it helps a person meet a personal goal. -he corollary is that a group will be more cohesive if its members) personal goals coincide. Feutsch 811 1, 11<39 performed an earlier study that highlighted the way this process works. He assigned groups of his students various tasks. De,t, he told the groups that their work would be graded either cooperatively or competitively. 0n the cooperative groups, each member of the group would receive the same grade, based on the entire group)s performance. +or the competitive groups, Feutsch said he would compare the individual performances of each member and grade them against one another.

0n comparison with the competitive groups, the cooperative groups showed more friendliness and helpfulness in group discussion. -hey were also more satisfied with the group as a whole and with each member)s contributions to the organi'ation. 0n addition, cooperative group members felt a greater desire to win one another)s respect, as well as feeling more of an obligation to help one another.

0t is probably not that surprising to find that members are attracted to groups that help them achieve their goals. -he findings of a study by /haw and 5ilchrist 811!!9 may be more surprising. -hey indicate that there is a limit to this effect. 0n the study, one pair of confederates, who were collaborating with the e,perimenters, and one pair of participants worked at a series of four tasks. -hese were rigged so that the confederates would continually #succeed.# 0n contrast, the participants would always #fail.# .fter each task, the researchers asked the participants with whom they wished to perform the subse*uent assignment. .fter the first task, 3? out of @ wanted to work with one of the #successful# confederates. However, this number dropped to 2! after the second assignment, and to 21 for the last two tasks. -here are at least two possible interpretations of this finding. Ane interpretation could be that people who constantly fail may come to prefer working with other consistent failures. .nother e,planation might be that people may still wish to succeed but come to prefer working with people to whom they are accustomed.

Attra'tion to .ro+p A'tivities (eople also Boin groups if the groups do the sorts of things that the prospective members like to do. $ohesiveness increases when people do things that they enBoy in groups. -hibaut 811!29 conducted an e,periment to test if a group)s activity in itself can affect cohesiveness. -hibaut)s study divided pree,isting groups of boys from summer camps and placement houses into two teams. -he teams played a series of four games. -he games re*uired the two teams to perform different activities. 0n all four cases, the researcher gave the same team the more pleasant of the two tasks. +or e,ample, in one game the #privileged# team got to throw beanbags at a target. 0n contrast, the #underprivileged# team had to hold up the target and retrieve the beanbags. -he boys were already in groups, so the e,periment tested the effect of the activity itself upon cohesiveness. -hibaut asked the boys with which members of the entire group they preferred to play. He asked them twice, both before and after the games. 0f they chose more members of their own team after playing the game than before, one could conclude that the cohesiveness of the team had improved. 7esults showed that the #privileged# team increased its cohesiveness markedly. -he #underprivileged# team also became more cohesive, but to a lesser e,tent. -he group activity had affected cohesiveness. To-ar A .eneral Theor! o, Cohesiveness as O+tp+t (utting everything together, we have a start at a general theory of the factors affecting the amount of cohesiveness in a group. +actors such as liking for other members, identification with the group, and the satisfaction of psychological needs serve as input variables affecting member commitment and maintenance-based cohesiveness as output variables. /imilarly, the opportunity to reach group and personal goals and participate in attractive activities serve as input variables affecting member commitment and task-based cohesiveness as output variables. -he problem is that very little research and theori'ing has been performed about the role of process as the intermediary between the input and output factors. $learly there must be certain types of communication that lead to greater or lesser amounts of cohesiveness. -here are a few findings that suggest what these types might be. 0n $hapter 2 we discussed the research Cales and his associates performed using groups discussing #human relations# problems. Cales 811!39 compared the most and the least satisfied among si,teen of these groups, and found that the most satisfied of the groups agreed with one another more, disagreed with one another less, and showed less tension and antagonism than the least satisfied of the groups. >uch more work needs to be done about this issue before we can make any definitive claims about the role of communication as a factor in group cohesiveness. 6ntil then, we cannot propose a true inputprocess-output theory accounting for cohesiveness as an output variable.

Donetheless, we do have some general ideas about how a group can produce cohesiveness as an output variable. 0n addition, cohesiveness can also affect the group as an input variable. "e will discuss this process ne,t.

COHESI%ENESS AS AN INPUT %ARIA&LE -hus far we have conceived of cohesiveness as a result of several factors. .s such it is an output variable. -here is good reason for this. "hen a group first begins, there is little or no cohesiveness. However, once a group has been together for some time, some level of cohesiveness is established. -his level of cohesiveness will then become a factor in subse*uent group discussion. Hence, it will become an input variable. .s such a variable, it will be mediated through group discussion. "hen this takes place, it can affect all of the output variables we have discussed in this book. $ohesiveness can even indirectly affect itself. "e have distinguished between maintenance-based and task-based cohesiveness. .s we shall see, when serving as input variables, these two aspects of cohesiveness have different effects on group process and output.

Cohesiveness/ Co##+ni'ation/ an So'ial In,l+en'e Lott an Lott0s St+ !

0t stands to reason that members of groups that are cohesive are likely to talk with one another more than members of noncohesive groups. 0t also stands to reason that group cohesiveness would affect the process of #social influence.# "e will describe #social influence# further in $hapter <. +or now, we can simply say that #social influence# refers to the ways in which group members influence one another)s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. $ohesiveness should affect attempts at social influence during group discussions, and these attempts should alter group members) attitudes after the discussion is over. &ott and &ott 811?19 presented evidence that seems consistent with these claims. -hey asked 1! ongoing campus group of ? to 12 members to discuss whether or not students are too contented, la'y, and selfcentered. -hey measured how much communication occurred. -hey also asked group members) opinions about this issue both before and after the discussion, to see if the discussion led to the members changing these opinions. +inally, they asked group members how much they liked one another in order to measure group cohesiveness. -hey found that high liking among the members led to greater amounts of talk about the issue under consideration. 0n turn, there was a significant group influence on member opinions concerning the issue. >embers) opinions became closer to one another after the discussion in high liking groups. 6nfortunately, &ott and &ott)s study underestimates the comple,ity of the relationship between cohesiveness, communication, and social influence. .s mentioned earlier in this chapter, &ott and &ott in another article claimed that liking among members is a sufficient measure of group cohesiveness. 6nfortunately, this claim overlooks the distinction between maintenance- and task-based cohesiveness.

&a'(0s St+ !

. classic study by Cack 811!19 illustrates the importance of this distinction. Cack wanted to see if various factors that cause cohesiveness would affect social influence differently. He used three different manipulations to induce cohesiveness in his dyads, or two-member groups. 0n the #liking# manipulation, he told the participants that they would either definitely get along with their dyad partner, that they would probably get along, or that they might irritate one another. -his first manipulation was clearly an attempt to encourage high versus low versus no maintenance-based cohesiveness. 0n the #task# manipulation, he either told the participants that the best individual task performer would receive five dollars for their performance or Bust encouraged them to do the task well. -his second manipulation was clearly an attempt to encourage high versus low task-based maintenance. 0n the #prestige# manipulation, he told the participants that, based on their classwork, they should be the best group of all or Bust a good performing group. 0t is not clear whether this is a task or maintenance-based manipulation. 0n the actual study, Cack gave his participants a series of three photographs. He then told them to write a preliminary draft of a story e,plaining and connecting the photographs. .fter completing the story, the subBects returned the photographs and then met in groups of two, or dyads. -he researcher told the participants that they had written stories about the same pictures and that they were to e,change information so that each could do a better Bob on subse*uent, final stories e,plaining the photographs. 0n actuality, each member of a dyad had seen slightly different pictures. -his meant that some disagreement between the dyad members was likely. Cack analy'ed each dyad)s interaction to see how much the members communicated and how they attempted to influence each other. He then compared each participant)s preliminary and final stories to see whether the partners had actually influenced each other. -he findings depended on the type of cohesiveness manipulation. &et us look at these results for different variables in turn.

A#o+nt o, 'o##+ni'ation. Cack measured amount of communication according to how many seconds the dyads spent talking. -he results can be found in -able 3.1.

-able 3.1 $ohesiveness High &ow Done

-ype of >anipulation &iking 1 12.! 332 -ask 321.! 1!.! (restige 3?2.! 32<

Dot surprisingly, the more maintenance-based cohesion in the group, the more the group members talked to one another. 4ven the dyads told that they would #probably# like one another talked for a relatively long amount of time. -his is consistent with the findings of &ott and &ott)s 811?19 study. However, low taskmaintenance dyads talked more than high. -hese participants seemed to view each other merely as tools for achieving good task performance, and the high task-maintenance dyads seemed to feel they did not need to talk much to perform the task well. -he hi and low #prestige# groups seemed to act like the #liking# groups in this regard, although they talked a lot less as a whole.

So'ial in,l+en'e* Averall, highly cohesive dyads of all three types engaged in more attempted influence than low-cohesive dyads. -he attempts at influence involved stating their own positions, arguing, and reasoning with each other. /imilarly, the high-cohesive dyads had more verbal reactions to these influence

attempts than did the other dyads. -he cohesive partners would agree or disagree with each other, counterargue, and reBect each other)s stories. Coth attempted influence and verbal reactions to these attempts were highest for the #task# manipulation groups, providing more evidence that members of these dyads used each other as tools for achieving good task performance. +inally, there was more actual influence of one another)s stories in the high cohesive dyads than the low for the #liking# and #task# manipulations, although cohesiveness had no effect on actual influence in the #prestige# dyads. I#pli'ations* Cack)s study leads to some interesting further implications involving the effect of cohesiveness on interaction. 0t would seem to be intuitively reasonable to predict that the more cohesive a group is, the more #friendly# its conversation will be. Ane could also e,pect that such a group will have greater cohesiveness in the future. -hese predictions do contain some truth. However, Cack)s results clearly show that they are too simplistic. +irst, this e,pected finding did not occur in the #task# groups. /econd, the high cohesive groups were more argumentative than the less cohesive groups. -heir discussions seemed to arouse a great deal of conflict. "hy would this be so% 0t may be that highly cohesive groups are not afraid to argue. -hey know that they are strongly #glued together,# and that some conflict will not tear them apart. 0n contrast, a noncohesive group may be afraid that a fight will split them apart, and so be hesitant to argue. 0n fact, because of their feeling of being #glued together,# a cohesive group should be more likely to engage in any type of unpleasant communication. . study by (epitone and 7eichling 811!!9 is relevant to this point. >embers of dyads were either told they would or would not like one another. -hen, a person introduced as #the e,perimenter# insulted both participants. "hile subse*uently performing a task, the dyads composed of members who had been told they would like one another spent more time e,pressing hostility about the e,perimenter and their task to one another than the dyads composed of member who had been told they would not like one another. "hat we should e,pect is for communication among members of cohesive groups to be alternatively more friendly and more argumentative and unfriendly than that in noncohesive groups. 0n fact, in $hapter @, #5roup (rocess,# we will be describing work by 7obert +. Cales that provides an e,planation for why this should occur.

Cohesiveness an Satis,a'tion 4,line 811!<9 performed an interesting study regarding the role of cohesiveness as an input variable. His e,periment is problematical, but it does shed more light on the *uestion of how cohesiveness affects a group. 4,line manipulated maintenance-based cohesiveness by telling his participants that, based phony personality measures the subBects had filled out earlier, they would be #congenial# or not be congenial. 4,line ne,t had his participants take part in a #role-play# e,ercise. -his was an improvised dramatic situation in which each participant had a secret role to play. 0n comparison with the less congenial groups, the more congenial groups had members who stated that they had more liking for one another. -hey also had a greater desire to work together. 0n addition, they were more satisfied with their performance and better able to guess one another)s assigned role in the e,ercise. -he findings appeared to reveal that cohesiveness has a positive effect upon group member satisfaction. -here are problems with this study, however. 4,line did not analy'e the group)s e,ercises. -herefore, we cannot get a clear picture of the connection that may have e,isted between the input of cohesiveness and the output of satisfaction. An the one hand, it could be that the more congenial groups actually did do a better Bob of performing the e,ercise than the less #congenial# groups. An the other hand, it may be that the more congenial groups did not actually perform better. (erhaps they were more satisfied only because of their cohesiveness. 4,line)s results do suggest that there is a connection between cohesiveness and satisfaction. However, his study is an e,ample of the ambiguities that result when researchers ignore group

process. "e need to know more before we can make definite statements.

Cohesiveness an Tas( Pro +'tivit! Aur ne,t concern regarding cohesiveness as an input variable involves the relationship between it and task productivity. +or many years, this relationship was considered to be comple, and somewhat unclear. Fo'ens of studies have been performed since the early 11!2s, with contradictory findings. /ometimes cohesive groups were more productive than noncohesive groups, sometimes they were less productive, and sometimes cohesiveness did not seem to affect productivity at all. 7ecently, it has become evident that considering the distinction between task- and maintenance-based cohesiveness clarifies much of this confusion. . study by Laccaro and &owe 811@@9 reflects this new understanding. -he researchers formed four-person groups to perform a productivity task. Cefore the task, the e,perimenters carried out manipulations to induce either high or low maintenance-based and task-based cohesiveness. +irst, half the groups participated in an e,ercise designed to generate maintenance-based cohesiveness. -he group broke up temporarily into dyads who talked to one another, and then all four group members took turns introducing their dyadic partner to the two other members. -he other half of the groups did not perform this e,ercise, leading to lower maintenance-based cohesiveness. /econd, half of the high and half of the low maintenance-based cohesive groups were told about the importance of good performance on their upcoming task and offered e,tra credit if they were the best performing group. -his manipulation was designed to enhance task-based cohesiveness. -he other groups were not told anything, resulting in lower task-based maintenance. .s a conse*uence of these manipulations, the groups were either high or low on task-based cohesiveness and either high or low on maintenance-based cohesiveness. +inally, the group performed the productivity task, which involved folding as many sheets of paper into tent-shaped forms as they could in fifteen minutes. Furing the performance, the researchers measured how much communication occurred. -he researchers also asked the participants how committed they were to performing their task well. -he results showed that groups high on task-based cohesiveness were more committed to task performance and more productive than groups low on task-based cohesiveness. 0n contrast, groups high and low on maintenance-based cohesiveness were e*ual in productivity. 0nterestingly, the groups that were high in maintenance-based cohesiveness were also highly committed to the task. However, consistently with the &ott and &ott 811?19 and Cack 811!19, they were also e,tremely talkative, and the more talkative groups were less productive. -his is Bust one of several studies that have found that talking hurts performance in productivity tasks. -hus the higher talking canceled out the effects of high motivation in the high maintenance-based cohesive groups. . review of literature by >ullen G $opper 8111 9 shows that, in general, cohesive groups are more productive than noncohesive groups, particularly when group si'e is relatively small. However, this relationship is much stronger for task-based cohesiveness than it is for maintenance-based cohesiveness. $learly, when groups are cohesive because their members care about their task, they will usually be more productive than groups that are not cohesive because their members do not care about their task. -his relationship does not hold true when group cohesiveness is determined by liking or disliking. However, groups that are cohesive because of liking may still care about their task. "ould this make them productive% . study by /chachter, 4llertson, >cCride, and 5regory 811!19 addressed this issue. -hey performed a study similar to the study by 3elley that we described earlier. However, in /chachter et al.)s e,periment, the role of cohesiveness changed from an output to an input variable. 0n the study, the researchers asked three-women groups to work on producing cardboard checkerboards. -he study divided

the task into three parts. -he task involved cutting the cardboard, pasting it on heavier stock, and painting the checkerboard pattern on it through a stencil. -he e,perimenters said they would assign each participant in the group one of these tasks. -he e,perimenters said that the participants would work in separate rooms, and they could e,change notes via messengers. 7esearchers also told the participants either that they definitely would or that they might not like their #coworkers.# -his was a successful manipulation of cohesiveness, based on later ratings for liking. 0n actuality, the participants all did the same Bob. 4ach ended up cutting cardboard. -he e,perimenters also intercepted their notes and replaced them with a standardi'ed series of messages that they gave the participants every four minutes. -he first four notes were identical for all the participants. However, starting at 1? minutes into the study, the notes started to re*uest that the women either speed up or slow down the cardboard cutting. -hese notes served as a manipulation to see how the group could influence each member. -he researchers measured productivity by counting the number of checkerboards cut in eight-minute segments. -he results of the study are shown in -able 3.2.

-able 3.2 0nduction +aster +aster /lower /lower $ohesive High &ow High &ow

/egment 8in minutes9 @-1? !.31 ?.1? ?.31 ?. 2 1?-2 @.23 1.2@ !.31 !.@ 2 -32 11.23 11.2! .1! ?.22

0t appears that members in groups high in maintenance-based cohesiveness were susceptible to influence from the other group members. .s a conse*uence, they aimed toward the group)s apparent goal. -hey either speeded up or slowed down when the other members asked them. 0n other words, people in cohesive groups tended to follow the group)s actions even if those actions hurt the task output. 0t was more important to go along with the group than to work productively if the group gave the message to slow down. 0n contrast, members of groups low in maintenance-based did follow the suggestion to speed up, but they did not slow down when other members asked them. -hey did not always do what the rest of the whole group wanted. -he implication of these findings is that groups high on maintenance-based cohesiveness are susceptible to influence from their group. 0f their group cares about task performance, they will be productive, and if their group does not care about the task, they will not be productive. 0n contrast, groups low on maintenancebased cohesiveness are less susceptible to influence from their group, so that whether the group cares about task performance will have little effect.

Cohesiveness/ De'ision A''+ra'! an 1+alit! -he relationship of cohesiveness with decision accuracy and *uality is not entirely clear. .fter reviewing past research, >ullen, .nthony, /alas, and Friskell 8111 9 concluded that task-based cohesiveness led to

better decisions, whereas maintenance-based cohesiveness to worse decisions. 0f true, this finding would be similar to that for cohesiveness and productivity. .s in that case, a group that is cohesive because its members care about the task would work harder and thus make better decisions than a group whose members do not care about the task. 0n contrast, groups that are cohesive because their members like one another may place more emphasis on getting along well with one another than in making a good decision, and as a result make worse decisions than groups whose members do not like one another. 0n fact, there is reason to believe that, under some conditions, getting along well becomes so important to highly cohesive groups that their members become hesitant to freely e,change ideas. 0n this circumstance, groups can make disastrously bad decisions. -his condition is known as groupthink. "e will discuss groupthink in detail in $hapter 12, #Fecision -heory.# -he problem with this general conclusion is that >ullen et al. did not distinguish between accuracy and *uality tasks in their review. 0t is not clear that their conclusion is true for both types of tasks. +or e,ample, Laccaro and >c$oy 811@@9 performed a study in which they manipulated task- and maintenance-based cohesiveness the same way as in the Laccaro and &owe 811@@9 discussed earlier. .fterward, the groups performed a survival game accuracy task such as the ones we discussed in $hapter 2. .ccuracy was highest for groups high in both maintenance- and task-based cohesiveness than in groups low in either or both types of cohesiveness. -his finding suggests that accuracy tasks may be performed better by groups whose members like one another and care about their tasks. 0f so, then >ullen et al.)s generali'ation is false.

To-ar A .eneral Theor! o, Cohesiveness as Inp+t "e are in far better shape to propose a general theory of cohesiveness as an input variable than we were for cohesiveness as an output variable, because we know more about the role of communication as process in this case. "hen cohesiveness is due to task factors, members of highly cohesive groups are more dedicated to their task than members of less cohesive groups. $ommunication is largely task-oriented and, as a conse*uence, task performance is better for highly cohesive groups. 0n contrast, when cohesiveness is due to maintenance factors, members of highly cohesive groups may or may not be dedicated to their task. 0f they are dedicated to their task, they will act like high task-cohesive groups and perform well. 0f they are not dedicated to their task, their communication will be largely maintenance-oriented, and they will perform more poorly on their task than noncohesive groups. "e see that, as an input variable, cohesiveness has an effect on the social influence process and on task performance. .s such, it can be a powerful tool. 0ncreased cohesiveness can lead to more successful groups. $an we influence whether a group is cohesive% 0n the ne,t section we provide some recommendations.

PUTTIN. THEOR2 INTO PRACTICE -here are definite advantages for a group to have members that are attracted to it. $ohesiveness can improve the functioning of the group. >embers of highly cohesive groups tend to trust and have confidence in one another. -his leads to an atmosphere that allows the e,pression of conflicting points of view. /uch free e,pression is necessary for the group to make its best possible decision. $ohesiveness also provides the potential for a group to work at its fastest and most productive levels. +inally, cohesive groups have members who enBoy being together. 0nteraction in a friendly group creates good feelings. -he entire cohesive group e,perience brings satisfaction. -hese are valuable goals in and of themselves. "e should not forget them even in the face of pressing task re*uirements. -here is however a bad side to cohesiveness. $ohesiveness that is solely a result of group members liking one another can lead to poor group performance. 0f the group is more concerned with maintaining good relationships or having a good time with one another, task work will suffer. -herefore, no matter what

factors have led to cohesiveness, the group must be motivated to perform its task. 0f it is, the group should work well together. .s you can see, the cohesive group has a great many good *ualities. 6nfortunately, one cannot force a group to be cohesive. +or e,ample, members may honestly dislike one another, or its members not care about its task. -here is little that can be done about this. However, in most cases, a group can perform specific actions in order to increase its own cohesiveness. -he following recommendations may be helpful:

1. -he group can increase the amount of communication among its members. -he success of this strategy, however, depends on the content of the communication. -he strategy will backfire if the e,tra talk consists mostly of disagreement or e,pressions of dislike. However, keep in mind that once a group achieves cohesiveness, there is a danger of too much concentration on agreement and good feeling among members. -he group must attain a proper balance. 2. -he group can elevate the attractiveness of group interaction. +or e,ample, encourage some humor during group decision making. -his will help counteract the an,ieties and pressures brought on by attention to the task. . little fun at the beginning, and particularly at the end, of a meeting is good. 0n addition, have members perform the less interesting tasks together, as suggested in $hapter 2, even at the e,pense of productivity. 3. -he group can heighten the perceived value of being a member of the group in three ways: a. -he group can accentuate the importance of its goals. >aking it clear that the group goals are important to the individual members can increase the members) commitment to the group and enhance their effort. b. -he group can stress the interdependence among members as they perform tasks. 5ive each member leadership roles to perform 8see $hapter 11, #$ommunication-Cased .pproaches to &eadership#9. (raise and blame the group as a whole for good and bad performance. Fo not focus on the individual members. c. -he group can emphasi'e its identity. Ce sure everyone is aware of the group) s history. -alk about the common e,periences that members have shared. >eet at the same place and time. 5ive the group a name. (erform social activities together. 0f you do not mind being a little e,treme, invite competition with other groups. Mou can also enforce barriers, such as initiation rites, that people must cross in order to become group members. -hese recommendations can help a group become more cohesive. -he members of a highly cohesive group are well adapted to cooperate with one another and to compete with other groups. -his ability to compete is an important aspect of cohesiveness. 0n the ne,t chapter we will shift our attention from the dynamics within a group to the dynamics of conflict between groups.

SU""AR2 0n this chapter, we agree with the theorists who have defined cohesiveness as the result of all the forces that attract members to their groups. .s such a result, it is an output variable. 5roups are more cohesive when their members are committed to the group. -here are two general types of forces that lead to member commitment and group cohesiveness. -hese are maintenance-based factors and task-based factors. Cecause of this distinction, we can talk about maintenance- and task-based cohesiveness separately. -he most important factor in maintenance-based cohesiveness is the amount of liking among group members. +or liking to occur, people must first meet one another. .fter this initial contact, people may like each other for several reasons. -hey may come to like each other because of characteristics they admire in their impressions of one another)s personality. 0n addition, a person may like someone because he or she appears to like the person or because the person agrees with him or her on other important issues. . second factor in maintenance-based cohesiveness is member identification with the group. "hen this occurs, member come to respect those other group members who they feel reflect the ideals of the group. . third factor in maintenance-based cohesiveness are members) psychological needs. -hese include needs for power, affiliation, status, and evaluation of one)s beliefs. -ask-based maintenance is a result of group members) attraction to the group)s goals and activities. -hese factors are shared by group members. 0n addition, there can be personal goals unshared by other group members that may attract people to groups. $ohesiveness also serves as an input variable. .s such, it affects group process and output. -he effect of cohesiveness as an input variable can depend on whether it is task- or maintenance-based. 0n comparison with less cohesive groups, members of cohesive groups attempt to influence one another more often, and they find it more comfortable to disagree with one another. However, whereas groups high in maintenancebased cohesiveness tend to be more talkative overall than groups low in maintenance-based cohesiveness, groups high in task-based cohesiveness often talk less than groups low in task-based maintenance. 0n addition, whereas groups high in task-based cohesiveness perform their tasks better than members low in task-based cohesiveness, the same is true for maintenance-based cohesiveness only when members are motivated to perform their task. "hen group members are not interested in their task performance, maintenance-based cohesive groups are poorer at their task than noncohesive groups.