Investigated an ongoing therapy group over a six-month period to see if cohesiveness developed differently during various stages. Subjects were psychiatric outpatients (N=5). Questionnaire results showed cohesiveness continued to increase before reaching a plateau and decreasing, but the loss was not significant. (JAC)

Examined the degree of differentiation between instrumental and expressive leadership roles in two natural groups (N=101). Results showed a relatively high degree of leadership role integration with several members of each group fulfilling both instrumental and expressive leadership roles. (LLL)

The development of cohesion and attraction-to-group and the role these variables play warrants serious consideration. A first step toward more adequate conceptualization is separation of the concepts, with the former viewed as a group phenomenon and the latter as the individual's identification with the group. (Author)

Explored the nature of cohesion in groups formed to affect personal change. Members (N=227) of eight therapy groups completed the Three Factor Group Questionnaire. Results suggested risk-taking, attraction to individual group members, and the instrumental value of the group were all related to group cohesion. (Author/JAC)

Investigated the influence on group formation of feedback provided by potential members. Results indicated choices students made varied according to the pertinence of the feedback to the characteristics of the problem. Suggests a sociometric choice in the form of attraction to the feedback provider could indicate the existence of such pertinence.…

Describes factors affecting the development of mutuality of attraction in natural small groups, and tests the hypothesis of the acquaintance process in 41 female residents of three floors of a university dormitory over the course of a year. Two floors showed definite increases in dyadic mutuality over time. (JAC)

Although the roles of Archie Bunker and Ralph Cramden were quite similar, those of Edith Bunker and Alice Cramden in their reactions to similar strong personalities were quite different. Results suggest that one's role depends on individual personality structure and personality structures of group members. (Author)