Cohesion: Conceptual and Measurement Issues

By A. Carron, L. Brawley. 2000

525 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9c32583b9e38550591f50b8551b1838eba59f1f7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Dispersion-Composition Models in Multilevel Research (2011, background): “Group cohesion is the tendency for group members to ‘‘stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of members’ affective needs’’ (Carron & Brawley, 2000, p. 94).”
Facilitating Group Cohesion among Adolescents through Challenge Course Experiences (2002, background): “Carron and Brawley (2000) suggested that to understand the nature of groups we must first gain a better understanding of the nature of group cohesion.”
"Working out for likes": An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification (2015, background): “The process of group cohesion is revealed in the tendency of a group of people to stay together and pursue some instrumental objectives, and thus, reciprocally benefit from the social community (Carron & Brawley, 2000).”
Sport Psychology: Contemporary Themes (2004, background): “To date, not all parts of Carron’s model of team cohesion have been tested empirically, with by far the greatest attention being devoted to the relationship between cohesion and performance (Carron and Brawley, 2000).”
Mapping 50 Years of Small Group Research Through Small Group Research (2020, background): “These terms have been linked to group processes and development over time as well as conceptualizations of groups as social networks (e.g., Aarts et al., 2016; Carron & Brawley, 2012; Rogelberg & Rumery, 1996; Rovio et al., 2009; Van Swol & Kane, 2019).”
The Nature and Consequences of Group Cohesion in a Military Sample (2007, background): “A key question guiding this study is whether the conceptual model of cohesion—originally proposed by Carron et al. (1985) to gain a better understanding of cohesion in sports teams—has validity for groups within the military context. In other words, is cohesion in military units represented by ATG–S”
A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness (2009, result): “…predictions parallel Tuckman’s stage model and have been supported in empirical research linking team cohesion with team-level affective outcomes (e.g., Carless & DePaola, 2000; Carron et al., 1998; Carron & Brawley, 2000; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Copeland & Wida, 1996; Griffin, 1997; Griffith, 1988).”
The Relationships of Perceived Motivational Climate to Cohesion and Collective Efficacy in Elite Female Teams (2006, background): “Carron and Brawley (2000) pointed out that groups form for different reasons which lead them to develop different manifestations of cohesion.”
Transformational Leadership, Cohesion Perceptions, and Employee Cynicism About Organizational Change (2007, background): “Because group cohesion depicts group closeness, similarity, bonding, and individuals’ desire and motivation to maintain their membership in the group (Carron & Brawley, 2000), individuals in cohesive groups tend to comply with the salient attitudes and expectations in the social context.”
A Longitudinal Examination of the Relationship Between Team Leadership and Performance (2010, background): “Cohesion is thus manifested in task and social aspects, and together these two factors contribute to overall cohesion in work teams (Carron & Brawley, 2000).”
A Multidimensional Approach to the Group Cohesion-Group Performance Relationship (2001, background): “In their reply to Carless and DePaola (2000), Carron and Brawley (2000) argued that the dynamic nature of work groups should be taken into consideration when researchers adapt the multidimensional model and GEQ for their research projects.”
Sticking it All Together: A Critical Assessment of the Group Cohesion–Performance Literature (2009, unknown): “Gersick 1988, 1991; Tuckman 1965) and group cohesion is generally assumed to be dynamic and not static in nature (Carron and Brawley 2000).”
Energy at work: A measurement validation and linkage to unit effectiveness. (2012, background): “Productive energy and cohesion are likely to be positively related—in part, because cohesion reflects members’ tendencies to stick together in the pursuit of shared objectives and/or for the satisfaction of members’ affective needs (Carron & Brawley, 2000).”