Measurement of Group Cohesion in U. S. Army Units

James E. Griffith

152 citations0/0 files storedBasic and Applied Social Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Team Dynamics and Performance Military history and social perspectives Social and Intergroup Psychology

Abstract

The degree of social alienation among soldiers and the deterioration of unit identity in U.S. Army units were strongly evident and alarmingly widespread toward the end of the Vietnam War and during the transitional period afterward. The outcome of the Vietnam War underscored, in part, the integral relationship between small-group relations and the combat soldier's motivation. Psychology, however, has given slight recognition to the social characteristics of small groups in military units and to the sustaining function of these characteristics for combat soldiers. The purpose of this study was to clarify the operational and conceptual definitions of military unit cohesion by developing measures of small-unit cohesion. Soldiers (N = 8,869) in 93 companies provided ratings to questionnaire items that underwent factor and reliability analyses. Results showed that small-unit cohesion in U.S. Army units can be represented by four general dimensions: (a) the quality of instrumental and affective relationships among junior enlisted soldiers, (b) the quality of relationships between junior enlisted soldiers and their leaders, (c) soldier internalization of Army values, and (d) soldier confidence in weaponry and leaders. Scales representing these four dimensions of cohesion showed a high degree of internal consistency and a moderate degree of concurrent and predictive validity. The scales bore expected, positive relationships with a more traditional measure of group cohesion—that is, willingness to stay in the unit. Scales also had expected, positive relationships with individual soldier morale and with satisfaction with the Army. In addition, soldiers in units in which personnel had undergone common Basic and Advanced Individual Training or had their personnel stabilized (Unit Replacement units) scored higher on the newly developed scales than did soldiers in units that had no common introductory training and whose personnel had not been stabilized (Individual...

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 152 citations exist upstream.

References

1985Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.1966The Scree Test For The Number Of Factors 2017Human Nature and the Social Order 2003Management and the Worker 1972Victims of Groupthink 1961Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models.1978On Human Nature 1946Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum

Cited by

1999Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues.2002Multilevel Analysis of Cohesion's Relation to Stress, Well-Being, Identification, Disintegration, and Perceived Combat Readiness 1995The Structure of Group Cohesion 2002Factors Influencing Small-Unit Cohesion in Norwegian Navy Officer Cadets 2015When is female leadership an advantage? Coordination requirements, team cohesion, and team interaction norms 1998Does Work Group Cohesiveness Affect Individuals' Performance and Organizational Commitment?

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.