3.8 Article

How Group Characteristics Determine the Relationship Between Perceived Group Cohesion and Collective Action Intentions

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/tps0000383

关键词

task cohesion; social cohesion; group characteristics; social identification; collective action

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the relationship between group cohesion and collective action intentions, finding that group characteristics can alter this relationship. Researchers studying the impact of group cohesion on action intentions should consider both the nature of the group and the measurement of cohesion.
We suggest that the relationship between group cohesion and collective action intentions may be affected by the characteristics of the group taking the action. However, understanding this relationship is made difficult by challenges associated with defining and measuring cohesion, and how it differs from social identification. We conducted an online survey (N = 331), in which we asked participants to nominate a group of which they were a member, then answer questions about the characteristics of that group. Then, they completed measures of perceived group cohesion and social identification, read a scenario about their group being told to disband, and then completed a measure of collective action intentions. A factor analysis showed that the measures of group cohesion and social identification were conflated, but that the items could be divided into four constructs that differentiated between in-group bonds, task cohesion, self-and-group commonalities, and in-group centrality-diffusion, respectively. We found that group characteristics changed the relationships between those constructs and collective action intentions. Thus, researchers seeking to study the effect of group cohesion on action intentions should consider both the nature of the group and the measurement of cohesion in the design of their research, as both aspects will affect their findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据