Social Cohesion and Education
SOCIAL COHESION AND EDUCATION
Social cohesion is said to be high when nearly all members of a society voluntarily "play by the rules of the game," and when tolerance for differences is demonstrated in the day-to-day interactions across social groups within that society. But how does social cohesion occur?
Background: Social Cohesion and Development
One principal lesson of history is so obvious that it is sometimes ignored. Economic development is made possible through human cooperation. Cooperation offers the possibility for individuals and nations to accumulate or maximize economic gains that have resulted from creative enterprise and the trade that that enterprise engenders. Because of the complexities of measurement, this branch of economics, institutional economics, is not the most well known, but basically concerns the study of these mechanisms for human cooperation and how they work.
Two elements seem to make cooperation possible. First are the institutional rules that guide all types of organizations. Second are the stabilizing traditions within the organizations themselves.
Institutional rules include codes for public conduct, norms for private behavior, manifest statutes, common law, and contracts among individuals and organizations. An organization consists of groups of individuals bound together for a common purpose. Stabilizing traditions within each organization differ from one another. There are many types of organizations, but, in general, they can be reduced to four basic categories: (1) political organizations (the honesty and transparency of courts, legislatures, and the executive branches of government); (2) social organizations (shared moral principles of church groups and voluntary associations); (3) economic organizations (the quality of corporate governance, the adherence to legal procedures when acquiring and promoting employees); and (4) educational organizations, schools, and universities).
Each type of organization makes its own contribution to social cohesion. Political organizations arrange the debate and establish the means for public policy. Economic organizations arrange entrepreneurial endeavors and generate income. Social organizations sponsor altruistic endeavors that bind people to moral norms. A discussion follows regarding the social function of schools and why nations invest in schools.
Social Functions of Education
Some, such as Robert Bates, suggest that the inability of societies to develop low-cost and effective self-regulating mechanisms for enforcement of social contracts prevents economic development.
The social contract. The concept of a social contract is broader than a legal contract. A social contract includes for instance, a willingness to pay taxes and fulfill other public obligations; it may include the willingness to participate in public affairs, maintain cleanliness of one's property, act responsibly, or be a good citizen. In instances where a society's general philosophy, such as racial tolerance for one's fellow citizens, conflicts with one's private opinion, the social contract of racial tolerance is expected to take precedence, particularly in public forums. Countries that lack economic development are often associated with an environment in which contracts are not enforceable by any mechanism, and most certainly are not self-regulating.
People are more likely to adhere to social contracts under certain conditions. They are more likely to adhere to contracts when they do not consider each other as cultural "strangers"; that is, when they have more understanding of each other as people, as citizens of the same country or as citizens of a "similar" country where it is believed that the same norms and expectations govern social contracts. People are more likely to adhere to social contracts when they have a greater understanding of the reasons for those contracts, and are more knowledgeable about the sanctions that may be expected in the event of noncompliance. The most common mechanism for achieving compliance is through the state, particularly through the state's authority to sanction. But states can become tyrannical. In a tyranny, those who run the state may force compliance in their own interest at the expense of the rest of society. The challenge then is to achieve compliance without tyranny.
The most effective check against tyranny is a public consensus on the definition of tyranny; on the rights of those who believe they are the objects of tyranny; and on the obligations and responsibilities of those who use coercive power. Such a consensus makes it more difficult for tyranny to occur because it can be more easily identified and controlled. How can this public consensus come about, and more importantly, how can it be passed to the young?
The mechanisms of education's social functions. Education should contribute to social cohesion in four ways. First, schools ought to teach the rules of the game: those that govern interpersonal and political action. They consist of the social and legal principles underpinning good citizenship, obligations of political leaders, behavior expected of citizens, and consequences for not adhering to these principles. Schools can also facilitate a student's appreciation for the complexity of issues related to historical and global current events and, in so doing, may increase the likelihood that a student will see a point of view other than his or her own. By teaching the rules of the game in this manner, schools foster tolerance and lay the groundwork for voluntary behavior consistent with social norms.
Second, schools are also expected to provide an experience roughly consistent with those citizenship principles, in effect, decreasing the "distance" between individuals of different origins. The educational experience derives from a wide variety of activities, whether in the classroom, the hallway, schoolyard, playing field, or bus. The degree to which a school may do this well depends on its ability to design the formal curriculum, its culture, and the social capital of its surrounding community. The purpose for providing experiences that are consistent with the principles of citizenship is clear. Both formal and informal social contracts require elements of trust among strangers–to the extent that the socialization of citizens from different social origins allows them to acknowledge and respect each other; that is, decreasing the "distance." If the educational task is done effectively, this allows political institutions to adjudicate differences and economic institutions to operate efficiently.
Third, school systems are expected to provide an equality of opportunity for all students. If the public perceives that the school system is biased and unfair, then the trust that citizens place in various other public institutions is compromised. For instance, the willingness of adults to play by the rules of the game may be compromised if fairness in the system appears suspect.
Fourth, public schools are expected to incorporate the interests and objectives of many different groups and at the same time attempt to provide a common underpinning for citizenship. Often there are disagreements over the balance between these objectives. These disagreements must be adjudicated. Adjudication can be accomplished through many mechanisms–public school boards, professional councils, parent-teacher associations. The success of a school system is based in part on its ability to garner public support and consensus, and hence its ability to adjudicate differences over educational objectives.
Adjucation is not an easy task. Schools vary in the manner by which different groups' interests are accommodated. This is particularly the case when teaching local history. Some teachers avoid areas where problems are likely; some address sensitive areas more fully; others proactively seek out opinions and views to ensure that consensus is reached over what and how to teach. Schools differ also in the success of these efforts. For example, while it is true that the Alamo constitutes an important juncture for Texas and U.S. history, it is also true that motives–on both sides–were multiple and conflicting. And while it is true that civil rights in the American South can be characterized as a struggle for minority inclusion, it is also true that courage on that issue could be found among whites as well as minorities. This ingredient of education's contribution to social cohesion concerns the degree to which schools help students understand and weigh alternative explanations and incorporate the lessons of multiple points of view without losing a common moral rudder.
These four mechanisms constitute the manner by which education might contribute to social cohesion. But given that education is but one of four categories of social organizations that can make a social cohesion contribution, the degree to which education makes a larger or lesser contribution than political, social, or economic institutions has not been calculated. What is known is that social cohesion itself is quite important for the future stability of nations, and the more research available to quantify the constructive mechanisms necessary to effect it, the more likely it is that citizens can live in a harmonious environment.
Education and Social Cohesion in the U.S. Context
Thomas Jefferson first argued for a literate citizenry in America's fledgling democracy: democracies require that citizens understand political institutions and evaluate the claims of politicians–capacities that would protect the democracy from various forms of demagoguery. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, the role of education had expanded. As immigrants began arriving from non-Protestant countries, educator Horace Mann's advocacy for the common school was one among several efforts to build a system of public schools that could create one nation from many peoples–peoples who differed not only in class origins, but also in their ethnic and racial origins, and religious commitments.
In the early twenty-first century, however, the foundations for social cohesion have shifted. Well into the twentieth century, Americans understood social cohesion as the outcome of assimilating peoples of diverse religions, ethnicities, and social groups into a nation with common values and language. That perception has changed. The use of Spanish by both presidential candidates in the year 2000 campaign confirms a new understanding of social cohesion–taking shape since the 1970s–that fosters accommodation, not simply assimilation, of diverse groups. The number of Hispanic and Asian persons in this nation has, according to the most recent U.S. Census, increased by more than 50 percent. Diversity in ethnicity and religion is pervasive in small towns as well as large urban areas. Social cohesion must be built among these increasingly diverse populations: a cohesion that constitutes a pervasive commitment to voluntary compliance to broadly constituted social norms and to active tolerance for differences among social groups.
Paradoxically, American concern with the apparent breakdown of social cohesion is not a simple extension of the growing diversity. Rather, the focus of concern and debate is within schools that on the surface have considerable racial and social homogeneity, but reveal many social fractures that presumably lead to antisocial behavior. Although national statistics show school violence has decreased, its distribution and causes appear different; namely, more suburban and rural incidents occur that are unrelated to gang activity. School violence in Colorado, California, and Arkansas, to name a few states, led to considerable debate in the media regarding the relative effects of school organization, American culture, and parenting practices on the behavior of adolescents. In the early twenty-first century, lawmakers in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon have legislation pending that would require each school district to have a policy directed at student bullying. Similar legislation has already passed in Georgia, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and Delaware. Some states require mediation, others give new powers to schools to discipline students.
Yet antisocial behavior, such as bullying, is not new. It is an ancient phenomenon, and it provided a classic character in much of children's literature. What has changed, though, is the institutional charter accorded to schools in the United States. The discretion in 1932, for instance, that Willard Waller's teachers had to inculcate roles and responsibilities of citizenship has been greatly attenuated by court decisions and the often-adversarial role assumed by parents as documented by Gerald Grant in 1988. The links between community and school have been weakened through different catchment areas for schools and dual-income families. Even the framework for providing welfare benefits has affected how families can be involved in their children's schooling. Other scholars emphasize (usually with different rank orderings) weak parenting skills, fractured school cultures, anomic communities, technological access to hate-group propaganda (such as the Internet), and easy access to weapons. Yet, the level of social cohesion in schools is not manifest simply by presence or absence of antisocial behavior, it is also manifest in positive actions of civility, reflecting trust and tolerance across social groupings of students.
Social cohesion is a desired outcome of schooling, but its significance extends beyond that. Social cohesion can also affect the academic achievement vulnerable students–those whose commitment to schooling is weak and is further compromised by schools with weak social cohesion.
Educators and commentators have argued that schools contribute more to the well-being of children and the larger society than academic achievement, yet the introduction of massive systems of accountability have diminished the value of other contributions. This work will create a measure of social cohesion outcomes, and therefore may broaden the discussion over the contributions of schooling, allowing the national debate, for the first time, to include the other important outcomes, which the public expects from its education system.
International analyses of citizenship in emerging democracies provide a greater appreciation of the role of schooling in building social cohesion. A growing consensus has emerged globally on the nature of the civics education curriculum. With many new nations aspiring to become stable democracies, the varying conditions that challenge social cohesion are more apparent. Thus, the educational contribution to social cohesion and the measure of social cohesion performance must be culturally specific to the challenge at hand. In the United States, heterogeneity, geographic mobility, and impersonal social relations present relatively unique challenges to social cohesion.
In the early twenty-first century school systems face social cohesion challenges that have little historical precedent. Expectations for what students should know and be able to do are not determined simply by economic needs, but also by what it takes to perform the responsibilities of citizenship adequately. Participating in political discourse in the eighteenth century did not require as much understanding of science or statistics. In the twenty-first century citizens need to make judgments about issues with strong statistical underpinnings–the evaluation of competing claims over health and the environmental risk, the use of genetically altered foods, choice of sexual behavior. In essence the citizenship standards for literacy and numeracy have risen.
Also, the foundations for social cohesion have shifted. Well into the twentieth century, social cohesion was understood to be the outcome of assimilating peoples of diverse religions, ethnicities, and social groups into a nation with a common language and values. That has changed. A new understanding of social cohesion fosters accommodation, not simply assimilation. It often requires compromise and redefinition of the "typical citizen" from many sides, including by the majority as well as minority population.
In some parts of the world, challenges to social cohesion are not a simple extension of growing social diversity. Street violence in Rio de Janeiro, corruption in public service in Asia, the provision of social services by drug lords in South America and by mafia figures in Italy and Russia, the egocentric consumerism among suburban youth–these trends pose problems of a different sort. In these instances, the task of the public schools is much broader than forging ethnic harmony.
The twenty-first-century challenge of education in eastern and central Europe and the former Soviet Union might be analogous to that faced by education in Europe and North America in the early nineteenth and twentieth centuries. New nations must be forged, at peace within themselves and tolerant of their often divergent neighbors. But so far the record of success is mixed.
In fact school systems are neutral as to the direction of their influence. They are like a sharp tool–a knife or a saw. School systems can fashion views, which lead to social cohesion, or they can do the opposite. In the case of Sri Lanka, pedagogical materials as early as the 1950s led to the opposite situation. The dominant historical image portrayed in textbooks was that of a glorious but embattled Sinhalese nation repeatedly having to defend itself and its Buddhist traditions against the ravages of Tamil invaders. Tamils were portrayed as historical enemies. National heroes were chosen whose reputations included having vanquished Tamils in ethnic-based wars. Segregated in their own schools, Tamil textbooks emphasized historical figures whose reputations included accommodation and compromise with the Sinhalese. In neither the Tamil nor the Sinhalese texts were there positive illustrations drawn from the other ethnic group. There were few attempts to teach about the contribution of Tamil kings to Buddhist tradition, or the links between Sinhalese kingdoms and Buddhist centers in India. Language texts were largely monocultural with few positive references to other ethnic groups.
Because texts were culturally inflammatory and because there was no effective effort to balance the prejudice stemming from outside the classroom with more positive experiences, the Sri Lankan schools can be said to have achieved the opposite of the intention of good public systems. Instead of laying a foundation for national cooperation and harmony, they helped lay the intellectual foundations for social conflict and civil war.
The former Yugoslavia provides a more recent illustration. Here is a 1994 civics textbook intended for twelve-year-olds in Bosnia:
Horrible crimes committed against the non-Serb population of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Serb-Montenegrin aggressors and domestic chetniks were aimed at creating an ethnically cleansed area where exclusively Serb people would live. In order to carry out this monstrous idea of theirs, they planned to kill or expel hundreds of thousands of Bosniaks and Croats…. Thecriminals began to carry out their plans in the most ferocious way. Horror swept through villages and cities…. Looting, raping, and slaughters … screams and outcries of the people being exposed to such horrendous plights … Europe and the rest of the world did nothing to prevent the criminals from ravaging and slaughtering innocent people. (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, 1994)
Whether the events occurred or not is an issue separate from whether the text is appropriate. The public school experience is intended to mold desired behavior of future citizens; therefore citizens of all different groups must feel comfortable about the content. If one group is uncomfortable then the school system has abrogated its public function. This is an example of where that abrogation of public responsibility occurred.
The lessons could hardly be clearer. Many organizations have taken an interest in the problems of social studies and civics education out of professional concern about the possible implications of interethnic and national tension. These organizations include the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the European Union, the Council of Europe, United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the Soros Foundations, and many others.
So sensitive have been the threats to peace and stability that military organizations have developed a new concern over education on the premise that interethnic tensions expressed through education could well constitute a risk to peace in the region. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for instance, established a High Commissioner on National Minorities, based in The Hague. The High Commissioner has already issued recommendations pertaining to the education of the Greek minority population in Albania, the Albanian population in Macedonia; the Slovak population in Hungary, the Hungarian population in Slovakia, and the Hungarian population in Romania. In 1996, the High Commissioner requested assistance from the Foundation on Inter-Ethnic Relations to work on a possible set of guidelines governing the education rights of national minorities. After considerable discussion and consultation, these guidelines, known as The Hague Recommendations, were published in 1997 and can be added to the many other international conventions and regulations that attempt to identify and to protect the educational rights of children and various subpopulations. These include the Polish Minorities Treaty of 1919; the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948; the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education in 1960; the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child in 1959; the subsequent UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989; the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in 1950; the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1995; the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities in 1992; the Council of Europe Charter on Regional or Minority Languages in 1992; the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice in 1978; the Copenhagen Declaration of the Conference of the Human Dimension in 1990; and the UN Universal Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 1993.
In general these covenants and conventions pertain to the problems of populations that may be subjected to discrimination and prejudice. They concern the right to be educated in one's native tongue, the right of fair access to more selective training in higher and vocational education, freedom from discrimination, cultural bias, and the like. Although these issues are indeed important, effectively they address only one-half of the problem.
The other half of the problem pertains to the rights of the majority or the rights of the national community. Their educational interests are no less compelling: the Kazakhs in Kazakhstan; the Latvians in Latvia; the Romanians in Romania, and so forth. What protects the national community from extremist versions of history as portrayed by curricula designed by minority populations? What are the rights of the national community for having a sense of compromise and historical dignity ascribed to their national culture by minority populations in their own country? What protection does the national community have against the possibility that a minority community within the same country may encourage loyalty to another nation where their ethnic group is more numerous? The problem of civics education has multiple sources, and therefore must involve multiple solutions. Not all solutions can be incorporated under the auspices of the "rights of minorities." None of these conventions address this other side of the equation.
Although the notion of public schooling was established in seventeenth century, it is not true to suggest that the educational challenge in modern era is analogous. The fledgling nation-states of the seventeenth century required social cohesion, but they often used a central authoritarian system to achieve it. The techniques of nation-building in Africa, Latin America, and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union today are not uniform, but for the most part they have emerged from an era of extreme authoritarianism into one more tolerant of divergence and local opinion. This complicates matters considerably. Not only are nations in the early twenty-first century faced with achieving cohesion, they are faced with the difficulties of achieving it, for better or worse, through widespread participation in the rules of engagement and flexibility as to its direction.
See also: Civics and Citizenship Education; International Assessments; Moral Education; Social Organization of Schools; Violence, Children's Exposure to.
Almond, Gabriel Abraham, and Verba, Sidney. 1963. The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Almond, Gabriel Abraham, and Verba, Sidney. 1965. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, an Analytic Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Almond, Gabriel Abraham, and Verba, Sidney. 1989. The Civic Culture Revisited. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bates, Robert H. 1989. Beyond the Miracle of the Market: The Potential Economy of Agrarian Development in Kenya. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports. 1994. Poznavanje Prirodei Drustva (Nature and society). Sarajevo: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.
Bryk, Anthony S. 1988. "Musings on the Moral Life of Schools." American Journal of Education 96 (2):256–290.
Bryk, Anthony S.; Lee, Valerie E.; and Holland, Peter Blakeley. 1993. Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Byani, C., et al. 1994. Education Rights and Minorities. London: Minority Rights Group.
Coleman, James S. 1987. "Families and Schools." Education Researcher 16 (6):32–38.
Coleman, James S. 1988. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology 94:S95–S120.
Dreeben, Robert. 1968. On What Is Learned in School. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Eggertsson, ThrÁinn. 1990. Economic Behavior and Institutions. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Finn, Chester E., Jr.; Ravitch, Diane; and Fancher, Robert T. 1984. Against Mediocrity. New York: Holmes and Meier.
Fogelman, Ken, and Edwards, Janet. 1997. Education for Citizenship: A Pedagogic Dossier. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Giddens, Anthony. 2000. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. New York: Routledge.
Grant, Gerald. 1988. The World We Created at Hamilton High. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heyneman, Stephen P. 2000. "From the Party/State to Multi-Ethnic Democracy: Education and Social Cohesion in the Europe and Central Asia Region." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 22 (2):173–191.
Heyneman, Stephen P., and Todoric-Bebic, Sanja. 2000. "A Renewed Sense of Purpose of Schooling: Education and Social Cohesion in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe and Central Asia." Prospects 30 (2):145–166.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy." American Political Science Review 53:69–105.
Meyer, John W. 1970. "The Charter: Conditions of Diffuse Socialization in Schools." In Social Processes and Social Structure, ed. W. Richard Scott. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.
Mitter, Wolfgang. 1996. "Democracy and Education in Central and Eastern Europe." In Can Democracy be Taught? ed. Andrew Oldenquist. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Nissan, Elizabeth. 1996. Sri Lanka: A Bitter Harvest. London: Minority Rights Group.
North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
Oakes, Jeannie. 1995. "More Than Meets the Eye: Links between Tracking and the Culture of Schools." In Beyond Tracking: Finding Success in Inclusive Schools, ed. Harbison Pool and Jane A. Page. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
Ogbu, John. 1974. "Social Stratification and the Socialization of Competence." Anthropology Educational Quarterly 10 (1):3–20.
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Olson, Mancur. 1977. "The Treatment of Externalities in National Income Statistics." In Public Economics and the Quality of Life, ed. Lowdon Wingo and Alan Evans. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Packer, John. 1996. "On the Content of Minority Rights." In Do We Need Minority Rights? Conceptual Issues, ed. Juha Raikka. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus, Nijhoff.
Powell, Arthur. G.; Farrar, Eleanor; and Cohen, David K. 1985. The Shopping Mall High School. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Shadrikov, Vladimir. 1993. "Ethnic Cultural and National Requirements in the Education Policy of the Former Soviet Union." In Nationalism in Education, ed. Klaus Schleicher. New York:Lang.
Torney-Purta, Judith. 1995. "Psychological Theory as a Basis for Political Socialization Research." Perspectives on Political Science 24:23–33.
Torney-Purta, Judith, and Schwille, John. 1986. "Civic Values Learned in School: Policy and Practice in Industrialized Nations." Comparative Education Review 30:30–49.
Torney-Purta, Judith; Lehmann, Rainer; Oswald, Hans; and Schulz, Wolfram. 2001. Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age 14. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Waller, Willard Walter. 1932. The Sociology of Teaching. New York: Wiley.
Wehlage, Gary G.; Rutter, Robert A.; Smith, Gregory A.; Lesko, Nancy; and Fernandez, Ricardo R. 1989. Reducing the Risk: Schools as Communities of Support. New York: Falmer.
Stephen P. Heyneman
It is a commonplace observation that organisms cluster and seem to be drawn together. It is as if there were a sort of social cement drawing and binding individuals together into groups. The social forces that draw and keep men together may be called cohesion, or cohesiveness.
The formal study of this phenomenon of social clustering probably began with the conception of a “herd” instinct (Trotter 1916), or “gregarious” instinct (McDougall 1908). An attraction to other members of one’s own species was presumed to be a biological given, somehow built into the nervous system. As this instinct mode of thought grew unfashionable, however, the study of cohesion switched to the investigation of the needs and functions satisfied in groups. On the purely biological level numerous studies (see Allee 1938 for an excellent survey) have demonstrated the biological and survival value of clustering to organisms extending through almost the full range of the phylogenetic scale.
Among social scientists an intensive concern with cohesiveness as a research topic developed during the 1940s, largely as an outgrowth of Kurt Lewin’s work on human groups. In contrast to earlier approaches, modern work on cohesion has tended to treat cohesiveness as a variable and has concentrated on two broad classes of questions: What are the consequences of varying degrees of cohesiveness on group or social behavior? What factors determine the degree of cohesiveness of a group? In order to make studies concerned with these questions understandable, let us first consider some purely operational matters: how cohesiveness has been measured and how it has been manipulated.
Measuring cohesiveness. In an attempt to give an intuitive definition of the term, we have referred to cohesion as a sort of social cement binding together the members of a group. In probably the most widely accepted formal statement of the term, Leon Festinger (1950, p. 274) has defined cohesiveness as “the resultant of all the forces acting on the members to remain in the group.” Whatever definition of the concept is favored, virtually all definitions have the clear implication that cohesiveness varies with the attractiveness of the group for its members. Most efforts to devise a measure or an index of the cohesiveness of a group have been guided by this implication and represent largely common-sense attempts to determine how much members of a group like one another or how highly they value their group membership.
The most popular technique for assessing cohesion has been the sociometric questionnaire de-signed to determine the pattern and intensity of friendships within a group. As an example of the use of this technique, Festinger, together with Stanley Schachter and Kurt Back (1950), in attempting to assess the relative cohesiveness of the several subdivisions of a housing project, asked all residents the question, What three people (in the housing project) do you see most of socially? From the answers to this question it was possible to construct various indices of subdivision cohesiveness, all of which were based on some variant of the assumption that the ratio of the number of choices made within a given subdivision of the housing project to the total number of choices made was an index of the cohesiveness of that subdivision. Obviously, it was assumed that the larger this proportion, the greater the cohesion.
In other research contexts, such questions have been asked as: How often do you think this group should meet? And how high would the dues of this club have to be to make you consider resigning? For this sort of question it is, of course, assumed that the more often the members would like to meet or the more they are willing to sacrifice to remain together, the greater the cohesiveness of the group. There have been exotic attempts (e.g., Libo 1953) to assess cohesiveness by such devices as group projective tests, but most studies have employed the common-sense sorts of measures described.
Manipulating cohesion. Although there have been occasional naturalistic field studies of the effects of cohesiveness on social behavior, most systematic studies of the subject have involved laboratory experimentation—a research format which requires that cohesion be experimentally manipulated. Just as the measures described have all focused on the determination of group attractiveness, so the techniques devised to manipulate cohesion have all involved an attempt to vary the attractiveness of experimentally created groups. Such manipulations have been executed by varying any of the following sources of group cohesiveness: the prestige of the group; the attractiveness of group activities; the attractiveness of the members of the group.
As an example of the sort of procedures used, one common technique is a latter-day adaptation of Shakespeare’s device for enamoring Beatrice and Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing. In speeches for recruiting subjects the study is described as concerned with “people who really like one another.” Potential subjects all answer pseudo personality tests ostensibly designed to select compatible people. When volunteer subjects show up for the experiment, they are told, in “high cohesive conditions,” that they will be members of an extremely congenial group and that “there is every reason to expect that the other members of the group will like you and you will like them.” In “low cohesive conditions” subjects are told that it had been im-possible to put together a congenial group and that “there is no reason to think that you will like them or that they will care for you.”
The reader who is unfamiliar with laboratory experimentation in social psychology may be some-what doubtful that such a technique can be successful, but the disconcerting fact is that such techniques can be astonishingly effective. Study after study has demonstrated that these procedures do manipulate the extent to which subjects like one another, the degree to which they are eager to remain members of their groups, and so on.
These, then, are illustrations of the research techniques that have been used in studies of cohesion. Let us turn next to what is known about cohesion from such studies.
Of the many aspects of group behavior that interact with cohesiveness, the most thoroughly studied area is that of communication and social influence. Research in this area was stimulated by the finding of Festinger, Schachter, and Back (1950) that cohesiveness was directly related to the strength of group standards. In their study of a housing project, referred to above, it was found that the more cohesive (as determined by sociometric questionnaire) a subgroup, the fewer the deviates from a group norm. Theorizing about this finding led to a series of laboratory experiments that were guided by the line of thought discussed below, which was most fully developed by Festinger (1954).
Pressures to uniformity
It is hypothesized, first, that a drive exists in man to evaluate his opinions and abilities, that is, to determine the “rightness” or “wrongness” of an opinion and the “goodness” or “badness” of an ability. Second, it is hypothe-sized that when an objective, nonsocial means (e.g., a reality check or reference to an authoritative source) of evaluation is not available, evaluation will be made by comparison with the opinions and abilities of other people. Finally, it is hypothesized that stable and precise evaluation by social comparison is possible only when the opinions and abilities available for comparison are not too diver-gent from one’s own; the tendency to compare oneself with others decreases as the discrepancy in opinion or ability increases.
From these several hypotheses it may be derived that when discrepancies of opinion or abilities exist among the members of a group, pressures will arise to reduce such discrepancies. In interpersonal settings such pressures to uniformity can be manifested in three ways. When discrepancies exist, tendencies will arise to change one’s own opinion or ability in order to bring oneself closer to other group members; change others in the group so as to bring them closer to oneself; and cause one to reject deviates or at least to cease comparing oneself to those in the group who are extremely different from oneself.
Within this schema the reasonable assumption is made that within-group pressures to reduce discrepancy of opinion will be a direct function of the importance of the group to its members—that is, of the group’s cohesiveness. It should be anticipated, then, that each of the postulated tendencies for restoring uniformity will be more strongly manifested in high than in low cohesive groups. And, indeed, experimental work has directly supported this expectation. In a series of laboratory experiments Back (1951) showed that in more cohesive groups there were stronger attempts to influence others than in less cohesive groups. These stronger influence attempts were accompanied by more change of opinion in the highly cohesive groups. Festinger, Harold Gerard, and others (1952) found that deviate members of highly cohesive groups changed their opinions more frequently than did deviate members of less attractive groups and, furthermore, that more influence attempts were made in high than in low cohesive groups. Schachter (1951) demonstrated that highly cohesive groups rejected deviate members significantly more than did less attractive groups.
These findings have all been replicated in a variety of studies, and there appears to be no question that cohesiveness is a major determiner of the expression and acceptance of influence and of tolerance for deviates. This line of thought and these basic findings on cohesiveness and influence processes have been extended and generalized to a large number of problem areas within social science, including group productivity, the formation and maintenance of political attitudes, voting behavior, social determinants of consumer preferences, and the like.
Other research findings
Unrelated to the influence area, other studies of cohesiveness and social behavior have demonstrated that members of highly cohesive groups feel more secure and at ease in group activities than do members of less cohesive groups. A related finding is that members of highly cohesive groups are freer in expressing hostility to an outside troublemaker than are members of less cohesive groups. Furthermore, highly attracted members of a group are more likely to take on responsibilities, to participate in meetings, and to persist in working toward difficult goals.
Clearly, the degree of cohesion has major effects on within-group behavior—a state of affairs that makes the analysis of the determinants and sources of cohesiveness a matter of practical as well as theoretical significance. Why are some groups highly attractive and others relatively unattractive to their members? What conditions will affect the cohesion of groups? A related set of questions is also important: What variables affect the social drives? When do people wish to be alone? and When do they wish to be with others?
To understand the variables that will affect the degree of cohesion of a group, or the magnitude of the desire to affiliate with others, it is necessary to analyze the nature of the needs that can be satisfied in the company of others. Several such analyses have been attempted, most of which have been based on some version of the following somewhat truistic distinction.
People mediate goals for one another, and it may be necessary to associate with other people or be-long to particular groups in order to attain specific individual goals. For example, to play bridge it may be necessary to join a bridge club, and to hold a job it may be necessary to join a union. Not surprisingly, a number of studies have demonstrated that the attractiveness of a group will vary with its promised or proven success in facilitating goal achievement (for a summary of such studies, see Cartwright & Zander  1960, pp. 69-94). Certainly a large, if not major, portion of our associational activities can be subsumed under this general class of affiliative behavior. It is a peculiarly asocial sort of affiliation, however, for people qua people may be considered as irrelevant. In these terms, a nonsocial means of goal attainment may be just as satisfactory and attractive as a social means.
More cogent in regard to present concerns is the substance of the following proposition: people, in and of themselves, represent goals for one another; that is, people have needs that can be satisfied only in interpersonal relations. Approval, support, prestige, and the like have been offered as examples of such needs. It is in the elaboration of this order of needs that one encounters some of the more intriguing, nonobvious speculations and findings on the sources of cohesiveness.
Individuating vs. deindividuating social needs
Leon Festinger, Albert Pepitone, and Theodore Newcomb (1952) suggest that there are two classes of needs that group membership satisfies: needs such as approval, status, and help, which require singling the individual out and necessarily involve high social visibility and individual identifiability; and needs whose satisfaction requires being “submerged in the group,” a condition labeled “deindividuation” and described as a state of personal anonymity in which the individual does not feel singled out or identifiable. It is suggested in the same study that there are many kinds of behavior in which the individual would like to engage that he is prevented from engaging in by the existence of inner restraints. Instances of such behavior might be acting wildly and boisterously, “talking dirty,” or expressing hostilities. The authors put forward the hypothesis that under conditions where the individual is not “individuated” in the group, such restraints will be reduced, and individuals will be able to satisfy needs that might otherwise remain unsatisfied. In an ingenious experiment, these authors demonstrate that the state of deindividuation in the group does occur and is accompanied by reduction of the inner restraints of the members of the group. Further, they demonstrate that groups in which such restraints are reduced are more attractive to their members than groups in which restraints are not reduced.
Evaluative needs as a source of cohesion
The formulation of social influence presented in the above discussion of the effects of cohesiveness on social behavior indicates another order of need that drives people to associate with one another and to seek membership in groups. Given the existence of a drive to evaluate one’s opinions, feelings, and abilities and given the fact that an objective, nonsocial means of evaluation is not available, it should follow that individuals will choose to associate with one another as a means, via social comparison, of evaluating their feelings and ideas. From this line of thought, it should be expected that individuals in a state of uncertainty will choose to affiliate more than will individuals who are sure of their feelings and opinions.
This expectation has been indirectly tested in a series of studies initiated by Schachter (1959). The original experiments involved simply the manipulation of a state of anxiety or fear by informing subjects that they would receive a series of electric shocks. In one condition the shocks were described as intense and extremely painful, while in a comparison condition they were described as very mild and resembling “a tickle or a tingle.” After manipulating fear in this fashion, the experimenter permitted the subjects to choose between being alone or being together with other subjects while they waited for the experiment to begin. The results of a number of such experiments have consistently indicated that the more anxious the subject, the more likely he is to choose to be with other subjects.
In attempting to interpret this finding, Schachter conducted a series of additional experiments, which led to the conclusion that “it appears theoretically rewarding to formulate this body of findings as a manifestation of needs for anxiety reduction and of the need for self-evaluation” (Schachter 1959, p. 132). Although in the original work it is impossible to partial out the independent operation of these two sets of needs, subsequent research by Harold Gerard and Jacob Rabbie (1961) and others indicates that these two sets of needs do operate independently as motivators of affiliative behavior. The more likely it is that a group can satisfy either of these needs, independently manipulated, the more attractive is the group to its members in a state of need arousal.
These studies of deindividuation and of evaluative needs as sources of cohesiveness represent the major systematic research attacks to date on the sources of cohesiveness. However, other studies that were not immediately directed to the subject have indicated other variables affecting the cohesion of a group.
Other factors affecting cohesion
Many of the studies of the relationships of group structure to group functioning have demonstrated that the pattern of within-group relationships can affect cohesiveness. In experimental studies of communication networks it has been repeatedly demonstrated (Glanzer & Glaser 1961) that morale and satisfaction are related to the average degree of centrality of the positions in a group’s communication network. In studies of leadership, Ralph White and Ronald Lippitt (1953) have demonstrated that groups in which leader-member relations are structured democratically have more “friendliness and group-mindedness” than do groups in which leaders play autocratic or laissez-faire roles. Finally, Morton Deutsch (1949) has shown that experimental groups structured so that the members are competitive have lower cohesiveness than groups structured so that the members are cooperative in pursuit of a goal. These are essentially fragmentary findings and by-products of the major interests of these studies, but they do illustrate the obvious fact: that the fashion in which a group is organized and the rules governing the pattern of interrelationships among group members can have profound effects on group cohesiveness.
There is also evidence that initiation severity can affect cohesion. It is a common observation that those who suffer to attain something will value it more highly than those who achieve the same thing easily. The implications of this observation for group cohesiveness have been directly tested in an experiment conducted by Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills (1959). In this study girl students who had indicated an interest in joining discussion groups on the psychology of sex underwent “initiation” before being permitted to join such groups. There were three experimental conditions: severely embarrassing initiation, mildly embarrassing initiation, and a control group that did not go through initiation. Following initiation, the subjects, under the impression that they were listening to an on-going discussion group, listened to a prerecorded tape of a dreary, halting, worthless discussion of sex. They then rated the members of the group and the discussion proper on a variety of evaluative dimensions. Subjects in the severe initiation condition rated both the group members and the discussion as considerably more interesting and attractive than did subjects in either of the other conditions—a finding that suggests a rationale for fraternity-initiation excesses and for the punishing rites of passage of so many primitive tribes.
These, then, are the studies that have been most directly concerned with cohesion—its effects and its sources. Implicitly or explicitly, however, this topic pervades almost the entire social science enterprise, for the desires that draw men together furnish the substance of these sciences, which in large part are devoted to the study of the processes and products of human association.
Allee, Warder C. (1938) 1951 Cooperation Among
Animals, With Human Implications. Rev. & enl. ed. New York: Schuman. → First published as The Social Life of Animals. A paperback edition was published in 1958 by Beacon.
Aronson, Elliot; and Mills, Judson 1959 The Effect of Severity of Initiation on Liking for a Group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 59:177–181.
Back, Kurt W. 1951 Influence Through Social Communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46:9–23.
Cart Wright, Dorwin; and Zander, Alvin (editors) (1953) 1960 Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. 2d ed. Evanston, iii.: Row, Peterson.
Deutsch, Morton 1949 An Experimental Study of the Effects of Co-operation and Competition Upon Group Process. Human Relations 2:199–231.
Festinger, Leon 1950 Informal Social Communication. Psychological Review 57:271–282.
Festinger, Leon 1954 A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations 7:117–140.
Festinger, Leon; Pepitone, A.; and Newcomb, T. 1952 Some Consequences of De-individuation in a Group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47:382–389.
Festinger, Leon Schachter, Stanley; and Back, Kurt W. (1950) 1963 Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. Stan-ford (Calif.) Univ. Press.
Festinger, Leon et al. 1952 The Influence Process in the Presence of Extreme Deviates. Human Relations 5:327–346.
Gerard, Harold; and Rabbie, Jacob M. 1961 Fear and Social Comparison. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62:586–592.
Glanzer, Murray; and Glaser, Robert 1961 Techniques for the Study of Group Structure and Behavior. 2: Empirical Studies of the Effects of Structure in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin 58:1–27.
Libo, Lester 1953 Measuring Group Cohesiveness. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Mcdougall, William (1908) 1936 An Introduction to Social Psychology. 23d ed., enl. London: Methuen. → A paperback edition was published in 1960 by Barnes & Noble.
Schachter, Stanley 1951 Deviation, Rejection and Communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46:190–207.
Schachter, Stanley 1959 The Psychology of Affiliation: Experimental Studies of the Sources of Gregariousness. Stanford Studies in Psychology, No. 1. Stan-ford (Calif.) Univ. Press.
Trotter, Wilfred (1916) 1953 Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War: 1916–1919. Edited by R. W. Chapman. New York: Macmillan.
White, Ralph; and Lippitt, Ronald(1953) 1960 Leader Behavior and Member Reaction in Three “Social Climates.” Pages 527–553 in Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander (editors), Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. 2d ed. Evanston, iii.: Row, Peterson.