Military Psychology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/hmlp20

Longitudinal studies on cohesion in a military context –

A systematic review

Maria Fors Brandebo, Marcus Börjesson & Hilmar Hilmarsson

To cite this article: Maria Fors Brandebo, Marcus Börjesson & Hilmar Hilmarsson (2022)
Longitudinal studies on cohesion in a military context – A systematic review, Military
Psychology, 34:6, 732-741, DOI: 10.1080/08995605.2022.2041995

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2041995

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 02 Mar 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4038

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hmlp20
MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY
2022, VOL. 34, NO. 6, 732–741
https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.2041995

Longitudinal studies on cohesion in a military context – A systematic review

Maria Fors Brandebo, Marcus Börjesson, and Hilmar Hilmarsson
Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, Swedish Defence University, Karlstad, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Cohesion is one of the most studied group phenomena and there is an agreement among Received 9 December 2020
scholars today that cohesion is a key contributor to team functioning and performance. Accepted 9 February 2022
A large body of research has shown that cohesion has several positive effects on psycholo­ KEYWORDS
gical, social, and behavioral outcomes. Since research on cohesion has increased significantly Cohesion; military;
in recent decades there is a need for an updated overview of research regarding antecedents antecedents; outcomes;
and outcomes of cohesion in a military context. In this paper, a systematic literature review is military groups
conducted. The paper adheres to suggestions by scholars, relating the results in accordance
with the dimensionality (i.e. social, task, or general) and organizational level of the construct
(i.e. horizontal, vertical, or organizational) as well as focusing exclusively on studies with
a longitudinal design. The paper highlights gaps in the literature and provides direction for
future research.

What is the public significance of this article?—This Cohesion is one of the most studied group phenom­
paper reviews longitudinal studies on antecedents and ena, and there is an agreement among scholars today that
outcomes of cohesion in a military context. Although cohesion is a key contributor to team functioning and
the popularity of cohesion studies, there are surprisingly performance (Rosh et al., 2012). A large body of research
few longitudinal studies. The need for valid and reliable has shown that cohesion has several positive effects on
measures are highlighted as well as the need for includ­ psychological, social, and behavioral outcomes. For exam­
ing other dimensions than social and horizontal (peer) ple, previous research indicates relationships between
cohesion. There is also a need for studies on long-term cohesion and increased job and team satisfaction
effects of cohesion interventions. (Ahronson & Cameron, 2007), higher motivation (Gully
et al., 1995), lower turnover (Griffith, 2002), reduced
stress (Griffith & Vaitkus, 1999), increased well-being
(Bliese & Halverson, 1996), enhanced team learning
Introduction
(Mullen & Copper, 1994) and group performance
A central part of work in the military is executed by (Evans & Dion, 2012). Several reviews and meta-
individuals working together in groups, whether it is analyses have also been published that further underscore
solving tasks in smaller group units (i.e. squad) or the positive effects of cohesion for team effectiveness (e.g.,
larger cooperative units (i.e. platoon). Therefore, Beal et al., 2003; Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009; Mullen &
knowledge regarding factors and processes that facil­ Copper, 1994; Salas et al., 2015). However, only one
itate effective teamwork, as well as well-being and (Oliver et al., 1999) distinctively focuses on the military
job-satisfaction among team members, is of great context. Oliver and colleagues examined 39 military stu­
importance within the military research. Previous dies and found a significant relationship between group
studies have shown that cohesion represents one cohesion and task performance. Two drawbacks with this
such crucial group factor (e.g., Goodwin et al., study are that it does not apply a peer-review criterion,
2018; Oliver et al., 1999). The purpose of the present and that it was published 20 years ago. Although other
study is to give an overview of antecedents and out­ literature reviews on cohesion include military studies,
comes of group cohesion, specifically based on pre­ the specific characteristics of the military context (for
vious studies conducted in a military context and example, unpredictable, potentially life-threatening,
with a longitudinal design that have undergone stressful) warrant a review of studies only conducted in
a peer-review process. this specific setting.

CONTACT Maria Fors Brandebo [email protected] Department of Security, Strategy and Leadership, Swedish Defence University, Karlstad,
Sweden.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY 733

Despite this extensive amount of research, there is still To summarize, the cohesion research literature sug­
a great deal of inconsistency in the literature regarding gests in general that cohesion should be viewed as
cohesion, and different opinions about how to operatio­ a multidimensional and multilevel construct.
nalize and measure this construct (Severt & Estrada, Therefore, it is important to distinguish between dif­
2015). Grossman et al. (2015) point to a number of ferent dimensions and levels to understand both the
different disagreements. For one thing, should it be con­ theoretical complexity of the construct as well as the
sidered a unidimensional or multidimensional construct? practical implications. Furthermore, research studies
Based on their literature review, Grossman et al. (2015) lean heavily toward the cohesion–performance rela­
state that cohesion should be seen as multidimensional, tionships. Hence, there seems to be a lack of clarity
and that the two most relevant dimensions are task and regarding antecedents and other relevant outcomes.
social cohesion. According to Siebold (2007), social cohe­ Also, only one previous review has been done in the
sion captures the emotional bonds of friendship, liking, military context exclusively (i.e. Oliver et al., 1999), and
caring, and closeness among group members, whereas it was published more than 20 years ago. Military
task cohesion refers to the shared commitment of mem­ groups are particularly interesting as they operate in
bers to achieve a goal that requires the collective efforts of areas with high complexity and they require high coor­
the group. These two dimensions of cohesion are also dination among members to solve tasks. Previous
highlighted in one of the most frequently cited definitions research has shown that cohesion is especially relevant
of cohesion which describes cohesion as “a dynamic pro­ in contexts that demand strong interdependence (Beal
cess that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick et al., 2003; Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009).
together and remain united in the pursuit of its instru­ This brief review suggests that there is a need for an
mental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member updated overview of the research regarding antecedents
affective needs” (Carron et al., 1998, p. 213). and outcomes of cohesion in a military context.
Furthermore, cohesion has been studied on different Therefore, in this paper, a systematic literature review
levels within organizations. The most commonly studied is conducted, with the purpose of identifying important
type of cohesion is what has been termed horizontal antecedents and outcomes, relevant for military person­
cohesion which represents the perceptions of cohesion nel. Furthermore, the paper adheres to suggestions by
on the primary group level (Griffith, 1988). Another type scholars, relating the results in accordance with the
of cohesion is vertical cohesion which refers to the degree dimensionality (i.e. social, task, or general) and organi­
group members identify with and positively relate to their zational level of the construct (i.e. horizontal, vertical, or
leaders (Siebold & Kelly, 1988). Organizational cohesion organizational), as well as focusing exclusively on stu­
is a third form of cohesion and captures the degree which dies with a longitudinal design.
group members identify and are attracted to the larger
organization, such as the army (Siebold & Kelly, 1988).
Method – Literature review process
Santoro and colleagues (Santoro et al., 2015) recog­
nize the extensive support of cohesion being an impor­ A systematic mixed studies review (Polit & Beck,
tant aspect of team effectiveness and group 2012) with an integrated design (Sandelowski et al.,
performance. At the same time, they are surprised by 2006) was undertaken to integrate and synthesize find­
the relatively little knowledge there is about antece­ ings from qualitative, quantitative, and mixed studies.
dents and relationships with other group processes The design was chosen to gain broader knowledge of
and outcomes. Indeed, a dominant part of the cohesion as a phenomenon in military context. The
research, reviews, and meta-analyses has exclusively literature review was based on the principles estab­
focused on the cohesion-performance relationship lished by the Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins &
while less is known about how one can build cohesion Green, 2011) and the Preferred Reporting Items for
in a group (Casey-Campbell & Martens, 2009; Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
Grossman et al., 2015; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). guidelines (Moher et al., 2009). Our review was also
Furthermore, Santoro et al. (2015) attribute the lack methodologically inspired by the reviews of Kennedy
of knowledge partly to the fact that cross-sectional et al. (2014) and Sansdalen et al. (2015).
research designs and retrospective self-reports have We searched the following six databases in
predominated the way of studying cohesion. Thus, to October 2019 and in January 2022 using identical
gain more profound knowledge about the causal rela­ searches: PsychINFO, Academic Search Elite, CINAHL,
tionships between antecedents to and outcomes of ERIC, PubMed, and Sociological abstracts (covering the
cohesion, we should preferably base our understand­ whole time period of each data base). We limited our
ing on longitudinal studies. inclusion criteria to peer-review research articles, journal
734 M. FORS BRANDEBO ET AL.

articles or dissertations, and also only English-medium

articles. The searches were conducted using the descrip­ Title and abstracts received
from the electronic search
tors “cohesion” AND (military OR army OR navy OR (n=1459) and reference lists
marines OR “air force” OR “special forces” OR reserve (n=88) Reference tles and abstracts
(n = 1547) excluded due to duplicates
OR “coast guard” OR “national guard). The strategy also (n=227)
included a manual search of the reference lists in the
Title and abstracts for
studies selected from electronic search. The electronic consideration
database searches identified 1,459 records, with 88 addi­ (n = 1320)
tional records found in the reference lists. This yielded
Titles and abstracts deemed
a total of 1,320 records after duplicates had been removed. not related to research
The selection of studies was conducted by applying question
a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The inclusion (n=1078)
Pontentially appropriate
criteria were (1) longitudinal design, (2) the sample con­ studies related to research
questions
sisted of military personnel only, (3) the participants (n = 242)
could be students, but they had to be in training for
Articles not meeting relevance
a military career. Groups including both military and and/or quality criteria to
civilian personnel did not qualify unless data were research question after reading
reported for each group, (4) the study had the full text
Finally included and analyzed (n=207)
a measurement or description of cohesion as social-, articles
task-, general, horizontal-, vertical- or organizational (n=35)
cohesion. The study reported a quantitative or qualitative
relation between cohesion and an outcome or between Figure 1. Search results.
cohesion and antecedents, and (5) studies can be quanti­
tative, qualitative, mixed, case studies, or experimental.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Six of the studies have created their own measures for
Development of measurement scales, (2) review stu­ the specific study (Anderson et al., 2019; Bartone &
dies or Meta-analysis studies, (3) no clear definition Adler, 1999; Hadid et al., 2008; Johnston et al., 2019;
of cohesion or definition of measurement of cohe­ Vogelaar & Kuipers, 1997). Three studies refers to the
sion, and (4) cohesion as pride, cohesion as social measurement instrument created by Siebold and Kelly
groups, choosing other team members or cohesion in (2002, 2019, 2019, 2015) and three have used a measure
therapeutic settings. (or items) developed by Podsakoff and MacKenzie
Titles and abstracts were screened regarding the inclu­ (2015, 2013, 1994, 2016).
sion and exclusion criteria, and if study aims were met. Our literature review identified social cohesion as
As a result, 1078 records were rejected, leaving 242 arti­ the most studied dimension of cohesion. Nine studies
cles. These were assessed in full text and an additional measure social cohesion, one measures task cohesion
207 were rejected not meeting inclusion criteria. This (Arthur & Hardy, 2014), while one study combines
process rendered 35 papers for inclusion (see, Figure 1). measures of both social and task cohesion in the same
measurement (Anderson et al., 2019). One study gave
no detailed description of the measure, but the sample
Results – A review of longitudinal cohesion item included indicates they measured social cohesion
literature in a military context (Eathough et al., 2015). One study uses a one-item
measure (what is the level of cohesion in your unit at
Antecedents to cohesion this time, Bartone & Adler, 1999).
Our review identified 15 empirical studies that have inves­
tigated antecedents to cohesion in a military context. Ten Individual antecedents to cohesion
of these were conducted in training settings while five took This literature review has identified nine studies that
place during service/deployment. A clear majority, 13 have examined individual-related antecedents to cohe­
studies, studied horizontal (unit) cohesion. Only two stu­ sion. Three of these investigates social cohesion and
dies addressed vertical cohesion (Orme & Kehoe, 2019; gender. Two of the studies did not find any differences
Vaitkus & Griffith, 1990) and one of these also included between men and women (Horizontal cohesion, Hadid
organizational cohesion (Orme & Kehoe, 2019). Two stu­ et al., 2008; Horizontal, vertical and organizational cohe­
dies combined items related to both horizontal and ver­ sion; Orme & Kehoe, 2019) although Hadid et al. (2008)
tical cohesion (Anderson et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2019). discovered that males seemed to prefer males as team
 MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY 735

members and Orme and Kehoe (2019) saw a slight Organizational-related antecedents
decline in vertical cohesion for women when the pro­ This literature review discovered only one longitudinal
portion of women in the unit increased. Kline et al. study that examined organization-related antecedents to
(2013) revealed that women were more likely to rate cohesion. The individual’s ratings of confidence in
cohesion lower than men which the authors suggests is equipment as well as confidence that the family was
related to sexual harassment and occupational bias. taken care of predicted cohesion in late deployment
Two studies examined sociodemographic variables but not pre- or mid deployment (Bartone & Adler,
and cohesion. Bartone and Adler (1999) did not 1999).
specify social or task cohesion, but used a general
term instead. The results from the study show that Leadership-related antecedents
late in deployment, military police, physicians, and In this literature review, six studies were identified
communication workers rated cohesion highest, that investigated leadership-related antecedents to
while administrative personnel and operating room cohesion. Although measuring different aspects of
staff rated cohesion lowest. Volunteers rated cohesion leadership, such as motivating, showing respect, and
higher compared to non-volunteers. The authors did being tough (Foran & Adler, 2013), concerned lea­
not find any racial differences. Anderson et al. (2019) dership (Bartone & Adler, 1999; Vaitkus & Griffith,
discovered that males, individuals with shorter 1990), confidence in leaders (Bartone & Adler, 1999)
tenure, and soldiers with prior deployment rated or transformational leadership (Arthur & Hardy,
cohesion higher. Ratings of cohesion also increased 2014) all but one study point to leadership being
with age. In this study cohesion was measured with important for the development of cohesion.
a factor combining both social and task cohesion as Vogelaar and Kuipers (1997) studied how the per­
well as horizontal and vertical cohesion. ceived effectiveness of four commander levels pre­
Although mental health is one of the most studied dicted social, horizontal cohesion. Their results
phenomena in relation to cohesion in military contexts showed no significant associations except for the
(see, for example, Reed-Fitzke & Lucier-Greer, 2019), effectiveness of the deputy group commander mea­
only one longitudinal study has examined mental health sured 7–8 months into service and cohesion
as an antecedent to social and task horizontal cohesion. 11 months into service.
When adjusting for baseline mental health, cohesion did
not remain significantly associated with mental health Situation-related antecedents
(Thomassen et al., 2015). The authors also included ratings One longitudinal study was found in the literature
of hardiness, and for individuals scoring low on hardiness, review that was related to situation-related antecedents
higher levels of cohesion contributed to lower levels of to cohesion. Bartone et al. (2002) discovered that
mental health complaints. a combined effect of being familiar in the unit and
Bartone et al. (2002) compared familiar teams (cre­ experiencing, as a group, a stressful event led to higher
ated one year before) with unfamiliar teams and discov­ social, horizontal cohesion.
ered that familiar teams rated social, horizontal cohesion
higher than did unfamiliar teams. Vaitkus and Griffith Interventions
(1990) studied unit replacement units (UR) and indivi­ Four studies related to interventions were discovered,
dual replacement units (IR) and found that six months and they are all carried out within the last five years.
after the first measurement occasion UR rated both Most of them studied social and horizontal cohesion.
social, vertical cohesion, as well as social, horizontal Common for the studies is that they take place over
cohesion higher than IR. Six months after the second- a relatively short time interval extending from a few
measurement occasion the only remaining difference hours (ropes course challenge: Eathough et al., 2015),
was related to social, horizontal cohesion. Bartone and a few days (Team training: Johnston et al., 2019) to
Adler (1999) found that, mid-deployment, the indivi­ a few months (Resilience vs. military history training:
dual’s satisfaction with the role of the Joint Task Force Adler et al., 2015; Military resilience intervention:
predicted higher cohesion. Jones et al., 2019). The results from these studies indi­
cate no larger significant differences between the dif­
Group-related antecedents ferent groups in the studies except for the results from
Only one study has addressed group-related antecedents a study examining horizontal cohesion before and after
to cohesion. Bartone and Adler (1999) found that pre, a ropes course challenge that showed significant
mid- and late deployment the individual’s ratings of the changes (Eathough et al., 2015). None of the studies
unit’s ability to perform the mission predicted cohesion. address long-term effects.
736 M. FORS BRANDEBO ET AL.

Outcomes of cohesion Individual outcomes

The review revealed that 16 of the 18 identified long­
The review identified 18 longitudinal and peer-
itudinal studies have examined individual-related out­
reviewed articles that have examined outcomes of
comes of cohesion. The majority (11 articles) of these
cohesion in a military context. Four of these were
articles studies relationships between cohesion and
conducted in training settings and 14 were conducted
mental health issues, especially psychological stress/
during service/deployment. All of the articles studied
symptoms. Three articles examine relationships between
horizontal (unit) cohesion. Six of the articles
cohesion and well-being factors, and an additional five
(Anderson et al., 2019; Breslau et al., 2016; Bury, articles study the association between cohesion and
2018; Campbell-Sills et al., 2022; Orme & Kehoe, work-related behaviors or attitudes.
2020; Steenkamp et al., 2014) also included items Results from the articles show that stronger pre-
reflecting vertical cohesion and three included items deployment cohesion is related to less risk of develop­
of organizational cohesion (Breslau et al., 2016; Bury, ing post-deployment PTSD (Anderson et al., 2019;
2018; Orme & Kehoe, 2020). However, a majority of Breslau et al., 2016; Han et al., 2014; Kline et al., 2013;
the articles that included different types and items of Polusny et al., 2011), depression (Anderson et al., 2019;
cohesion used a combined index (unit cohesion) in Breslau et al., 2016), anxiety (Anderson et al., 2019),
the statistical analyses. Thus, they did not examine distress (Gilbar et al., 2010), alcohol or substance dis­
the separate effect of horizontal, vertical, and organi­ order (Anderson et al., 2019) and negative mental
zational cohesion, respectively. The exceptions are health (Thomassen et al., 2015). Furthermore,
Campbell-Sills et al. (2022), Orme and Kehoe Steenkamp et al. (2014) analyzed results from a multi-
(2020), and Steenkamp et al. (2014), who examined wave longitudinal field cohort study of active duty
outcomes for both horizontal and vertical cohesion. ground-combat Marines who deployed to Iraq or
Three of the studies have used their own measures Afghanistan between 2008 and 2012. The result showed
for the specific study (Anderson et al., 2019; Gilbar that both stronger horizontal and vertical cohesion was
et al., 2010; Maguen & Litz, 2006). Four studies refer associated with less perceived stigma of seeking mental
to the measurement instrument created by King health care. Similarly, Campbell-Sills et al. (2022) ana­
et al., (2006; Breslau et al., 2016; Han et al., 2014; lyzed data from the Pre/Post-Deployment Study
Kline et al., 2013; Polusny et al., 2011), three studies (PPDS), conducted among U.S. soldiers deployed to
use measures (or items) from Podsakoff and Afghanistan. The result showed that, at the individual-
MacKenzie (2005, 1994, 2014, 2016), three studies level, horizontal cohesion had a buffering effect for
refer to Siebold and Kelly (2018, 2020, 1988, 2015), post-deployment (3 months after deployment) PTSD
one study uses measures from Carron et al. (1985; and depressive symptoms, while a buffering effect of
Börjesson et al., 2011), one study refers to Manning vertical cohesion was found for PTSD symptoms only.
and Ingraham (1983; Steenkamp et al., 2014), one At the unit-level horizontal cohesion had a buffering
study refers to Mangelsdorff and Moses (1993, effect for PTSD, depressive symptoms as well as suici­
2013), one study refers to Seers (1989: Jordan et al., dal ideation. However, in regard to alcohol use, a study
2002), one study uses measures from Wright et al. by Breslau et al. (2016) show a contradictory result,
(2017, 2009) and one study (Campbell-Sills et al., showing that higher unit cohesion was related to
2022) uses items from the PDDS panel survey a higher likelihood of alcohol misuse. The authors
(Kessler et al., 2013). suggest that it is likely that an important marker for
Six of the articles in the review measure social cohe­ unit cohesion is drinking together.
sion (Breslau et al., 2016; Han et al., 2014; Jordan et al., Two articles also examine relations between cohesion
2002; Kline et al., 2013; Polusny et al., 2011; Smith et al., and psychological stress symptoms during training.
2013). Nine articles combine measures of both social Smith et al. (2013) studies Marine recruits at the begin­
and task cohesion in the same measurement ning and end of a highly stressful 13-week training
(Anderson et al., 2019; Britt & Dawson, 2005; Bury, program and found that cohesion acted as a buffer,
2018; Campbell-Sills et al., 2022; McAndrew et al., weakening the association between the stressfulness of
2017; Orme & Kehoe, 2020; Steenkamp et al., 2014; the training and Posttraumatic Stress Symptomatology
Thomassen et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2016). Only (PTSS). In a study on soldiers that took part in a 10-week
one article (Börjesson et al., 2011) measures and analyses Basic Combat Training (BCT), it was found that stron­
social and task cohesion separately. Furthermore, two ger cohesion was associated with decreases in psycholo­
studies uses a single item as a measurement of cohesion gical distress, sleep problems, and tolerance of BCT
(Gilbar et al., 2010; Maguen & Litz, 2006). stressors (Williams et al., 2016).
 MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY 737

Three articles have found relationships between ratings of team performance. In a study on British
cohesion, psychological well-being and resilience fac­ Army Reserve logistics soldiers, Bury (2018) found that
tors. Britt and Dawson (2005) studied U.S. soldiers units with higher cohesion reported higher morale and
stationed in Europe and found that unit cohesion military readiness.
was negatively associated with a well-being factor,
as stronger cohesion was related to increased Work-
Discussion
Family conflict. However, this relationship was only
true when soldiers also felt a low sense of job sig­ The aim of this systematic review was to identify impor­
nificance. Studying Army National Guard and reserve tant antecedents and outcomes, relevant for military
personnel after deployment, unit cohesion was asso­ personnel by reviewing longitudinal peer-review papers
ciated with a reduction in avoidant coping. The conducted in military settings. Based on our literature
reduction, in turn, mediated the relationship between review a number of key observations are described
unit cohesion and improvement in mental health below. First, we identified a large number of studies on
functions (McAndrew et al., 2017). Furthermore, cohesion in a military context of which 35 met the
Williams et al. (2016) study on soldiers in a 10- inclusion criteria. This is a relatively low number of
week BCT (mentioned above) also showed that stron­ studies in light of that cohesion is one of the most
ger cohesion was associated with an increase in resi­ studied group phenomenon (Severt & Estrada, 2015).
lience, confidence in managing stress reactions, and Second, regarding antecedents to cohesion very few
positive states of mind. studies seem to be conducted in real-life settings since
In regard to work-related factors, Börjesson et al. most of them are carried out during training or exer­
(2011) conducted a study on Swedish conscripts dur­ cises. Although a large part of the military profession
ing their compulsory military training. They found consists of preparation for operations, there is a lack of
that conscripts who reported higher horizontal task knowledge of which antecedents can contribute to cohe­
cohesion felt to a lesser extent that unnecessary risk sion during service. Especially since previous studies
was taken during their training. The authors argue show that cohesion increases during training conditions
that cohesion has a positive effect on the subjective (see, for example, Bartone et al., 2002). Interesting
sense of feeling in control in risk situations. In enough, the opposite is in evidence regarding outcomes.
a study (Maguen & Litz, 2006) of U.S. military peace­ Of the studies identified related to outcomes of cohe­
keepers deployed in Kosovo, it was found that unit sion, a majority (14 out of 18) are conducted during
cohesion predicted pre-deployment morale while service/deployment. In this regard, we know little about
post-deployment unit cohesion predicted post- cohesion outcomes during training and exercises.
deployment morale. Higher unit cohesion has also Third, our literature review shows that the identified
been related to a lower likelihood of violations of studies use many different construct measures that are
the uniformed conduct of military justice (Breslau not comparable. This means that there is a lack of valid
et al., 2016). Williams et al. (2016) study on BCT and reliable measures. If this field of research should
also revealed that cohesion was indirectly associated advance, researchers need to develop and use the same
with physical performance and Basic Rifle measures. Another limitation in the identified studies is
Marksmanship through cohesion-related improve­ that most of them have only studied social cohesion.
ment in psychological distress, resilience and confi­ Grossman et al. (2015) emphasized that cohesion should
dence in managing stress reactions and tolerance of be divided into and studied based on the dimensions
BCT stressors. Finally, a study (Orme & Kehoe, 2020) social and task-related cohesion. The distinction
on Australian Army soldiers, during their specialty between these two dimensions of cohesion is significant,
training, showed that instructor ratings of horizontal since they have been demonstrated to be differently
cohesion had a positive association with section-level related to various outcomes (e.g., Beal et al., 2003;
performance grades. Carless & De Paola, 2000; Dion, 2000; Mullen &
Copper, 1994). Further, most studies have only investi­
Group-related outcomes gated horizontal cohesion and have neglected vertical
Only two longitudinal studies have examined group- and organizational cohesion. Scholars have pointed to
related outcomes in a military context. Jordan et al. the importance of studying cohesion across hierarchical
(2002) studied military officers working in self- levels as cohesion could exist at different levels within
managed teams during a 5-week period, and found a hierarchy (Griffith, 1988; Severt & Estrada, 2015), for
that social cohesion correlated with mental task perfor­ example, ranging from the individual, unit, leader, and
mance, physical task performance, and commander organizational level within the military (Salo, 2011).
738 M. FORS BRANDEBO ET AL.

Hence, we recommend that further studies within the review shows that there are very few longitudinal studies
military field pay closer attention to and address the with this focus in military contexts. It should be impor­
multidimensionality (i.e. social and task cohesion) tant to gain more knowledge on these aspects since
multi-level concepts of cohesion. many armed forces have all-volunteer forces, making it
Moving on to our fourth key observation, most of the important to retain their personnel. For example,
studies in this literature review use self-reported data. Sweden has experienced that it has been relatively easy
Thus, the relationships between cohesion, antecedents, to recruit all-volunteer soldiers and sailors, but much
and outcomes identified in this study may partly be more difficult to retain them (Jonsson, 2009).
attributable to common method variance (Podsakoff Knowledge about how to increase and maintain cohe­
et al., 2012) and by social desirability (Crowne & sion could lead to higher job satisfaction and lower
Marlowe, 1960). This is a known problem for research­ turnover.
ers that it is difficult to obtain data other than self-
reported data. Nevertheless, challenges for further stu­
dies are to identify objective variables as well as to use Summary and agenda for future research
different methodological approaches, other than survey
This literature review identified a surprisingly small
studies.
number of longitudinal studies focusing on antece­
The next observation is related to long-term effects of
dents to and outcomes of cohesion. It is apparent
interventions and actions to increase cohesion. Few stu­
that this area of research needs and deserves greater
dies have investigated the long-term effects of these kind
attention. In future research, valid and reliable mea­
of efforts. For example, it could be only a few hours
sures need to be used, and studies should include
(Eathough et al., 2015) or a few days (Johnston et al.,
dimensions other than only social and horizontal
2019) between measurement points. The longest time
cohesion. It is also important to study long-term
intervals were a few months (Adler et al., 2015; Jones
effects of cohesion interventions in order to gain infor­
et al., 2019). This shows that we still do not have suffi­
mation regarding which measures are worthwhile.
cient knowledge on what causes cohesion to develop or
Leadership seems to be a significant antecedent to
maintain at a high level over time.
cohesion, although more studies are needed.
Our sixth and final observation is related to what
Research that investigates what kind of behavior of
seems to be favorable for developing and maintaining
leaders has the most favorable and unfavorable effects
cohesion. Starting with antecedents to cohesion, the
on different types of cohesion is important for indivi­
results points to leadership being an important aspect.
duals, teams, and organizations. This knowledge
Due to a small number of studies using different leader­
should be most important in leadership intervention
ship measures it is difficult to draw any conclusions on
and education.
what kind of leadership behaviors are more or less
effective when it comes to increasing and maintaining
cohesion. However, the results point to motivating,
Disclosure statement
showing respect and consideration and transformational
leadership as important. Surprisingly, not one of the No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
identified studies has examined destructive leadership
in relation to cohesion. This is unexpected since the
research field of destructive leadership has increased in Funding
recent decades and researchers have studied this associa­ This research was supported by the Swedish Armed Forces.
tion in the civilian context although mostly related to
passive forms of destructive leadership (Laissez-faire)
(see, for example, Nielsen, 2013). Regarding outcomes Data availability statement
of cohesion it is less surprising that most of the studies
are related to the association between cohesion and The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of
this study are available within the article.
mental health. Mental health in the military context is
well researched (see, for example, Pietrzak et al., 2012)
and this literature review also confirms a significant References
association. In civilian contexts, many researchers have
Adler, A. B., Williams, J., McGurk, D., Moss, A., & Bliese, P. D.
shown interest for the association between cohesion and (2015). Resilience training with soldiers during basic com­
work-related outcomes, such as job satisfaction and bat training: Randomisation by Platoon. Health and Well-
intention to remain in the organization. Our literature Being, 7(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12040
 MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY 739

Ahronson, A., & Cameron, J. (2007). The nature and conse­ Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998).
quences of group cohesion in a military sample. Military The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In
Psychology, 19(1), 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/ J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychol­
08995600701323277 ogy measurement (pp. 213–226). Fitness Information
Anderson, L., Campbell-Sills, L., Ursano, R. J., Technology.
Kessler, R. C., Sun, X., Heeringa, S. G., Nock, M. K., Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The
Bliese, P. D., Gonzalez, G. H. W., Jain, S., & development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport
Stein, M. B. (2019). Prospective associations of per­ teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of
ceived unit cohesion with postdeployment mental Sport Psychology, 7, 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.7.
health outcomes. Depression & Anxiety, 36(6), 3.244
511–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22884 Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all
Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, L. (2014). Transformational lea­ together: A critical assessment of the group
dership: A quasi-experimental study. Leadership & cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of
Organization Development Journal, 35(1), 38–53. Management Reviews, 11(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-03-2012-0033 1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00239.x
Bartone, P. T., & Adler, A. B. (1999). Cohesion over time in Chiocchio, F., & Essiembre, H. (2009). Cohesion and perfor­
a peacekeeping medical task force. Military Psychology, 11 mance: A meta-analytic review of disparities between pro­
(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1101_5 ject teams, production teams, and service teams. Small
Bartone, P. T., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Brun, W., & Group Research, 40(4), 382–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/
Laberg, J. C. (2002). Factors influencing small-unit 1046496409335103
cohesion in Norwegian Navy officer cadets. Military Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social
Psychology, 14(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/ desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of
S15327876MP1401_01 Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354. https://doi.org/10.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. 1037/h0047358
(2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to
meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. The multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004. https://doi. Research, and Practice, 4(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/
org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989 1089-2699.4.1.7
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1996). Individual and nomo­ Eathough, E., Chang, C.-H., & Hall, N. (2015). Getting roped
thetic models of job stress: An examination of work hours, in: Group cohesion, trust, and efficacy following a ropes
cohesion, and well-being. Journal of Applied Social course intervention. Performance Improvement Quarterly,
Psychology, 26(13), 1171–1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 28(2), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21183
1559-1816.1996.tb02291.x Evans, C. R., & Dion, K. L. (2012). Group cohesion and
Börjesson, M., Österberg, J., & Enander, A. (2011). Risk and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 43
safety attitudes among conscripts during compulsory mili­ (6), 690–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412468074
tary training. Military Psychology, 23(6), 659–684. https:// Foran, H. M., & Adler, A. B. (2013). Trainee perceptions of
doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2011.616815 drill sergeant qualities during basic combat training.
Breslau, J., Setodji, C. M., & Vaughan, C. A. (2016). Is cohe­ Military Psychology, 25(6), 577–587. https://doi.org/10.
sion within military units associated with post-deployment 1037/mil0000023
behavioural and mental health outcomes? Journal of Gilbar, O., Ben-Zur, H., & Lubin, G. (2010). Coping, mastery,
Affective Disorders, 198, 102–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. stress appraisals, mental preparation and unit cohesion
jad.2016.03.053 predicting distress and performance: A longitudinal study
Britt, T. W., & Dawson, C. R. (2005). Predicting work-family of soldiers undertaking evacuation tasks. Anxiety, Stress, &
conflict from workload, job attitudes, group attributes, and Coping, 23(5), 547–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/
health; A longitudinal study. Military Psychology, 17(3), 10615801003640023
203–227. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1703_5 Goodwin, G. F., Blacksmith, N., & Coats, M. R. (2018). The
Bury, P. (2018). Future reserves 2020: Perceptions of cohesion, science of teams in the military: Contributions from over 60
readiness and transformation in the British army reserve. years of research. American Psychologist, 73(4), 322–333.
Defence Studies, 18(4), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/ https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000259
14702436.2018.1511373 Griffith, J. (1988). Measurement of group cohesion in U.S.
Campbell-Sills, L., Flynn, P. J., Choi, K. W., Ng, T. H. H., Army units. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9(2),
Aliaga, P. A., Broshek, C., Jain, S., Kessler, R. C., 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0902_6
Stein, M. B., Ursano, R. J., & Bliese, P. D. (2022). Unit Griffith, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis of cohesion’s relation to
cohesion during deployment and post-deployment mental stress, well-being, identification, disintegration, and per­
health: Is cohesion an individual- or unit-level buffer for ceived combat readiness. Military Psychology, 14(3),
combat-exposed soldiers? Psychological Medicine, 52(1), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327876MP1403_3
121–131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720001786 Griffith, J., & Vaitkus, M. (1999). Relating cohesion to stress,
Carless, S. A., & De Paola, C. (2000). The measurement of strain, disintegration, and performance: An organizing
cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31(1), framework. Military Psychology, 11(1), 27–55. https://doi.
71–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100104 org/10.1207/s15327876mp1101_3
740 M. FORS BRANDEBO ET AL.

Grossman, R., Rosch, Z., Mazer, D., & Salas, E. (2015). “What King, L. A., King, D. W., Vogt, D. S., Knight, J., & Samper, R.
matters for team cohesion measurement? A synthesis,” Team E. (2006). Deployment Risk and Resilience Inventory: A
cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and collection of measures for studying deployment-related
practice (Research on managing groups and teams (Vol. experiences of military personnel and veterans. Military
17). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/ Psychology, 18(2), 89–120. https://doi.org/10.1207/
10.1108/S1534-085620150000017007 s15327876mp1802_1
Gully, S. M., Devine, D. J., & Whitney, D. J. (1995). A Kline, A., Ciccone, D. S., Weiner, M., Interian, A., St. Hill, L.,
meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: Effects of Falca-Dodson, M., Black, C. M., & Losonczy, M. (2013).
level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Gender differences in the risk and Pprotective factors asso­
Research, 26(4), 497–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/ ciated with PTSD: A prospective study of national guard
1046496495264003 troops deployed to Iraq. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and
Hadid, A., Evans, R. K., Yanovich, R., Luria, O., & Moran, D. S. Biological Processes, 76(3), 256–272. https://doi.org/10.
(2008). Motivation, cohesion, satisfaction, and their relation 1521/psyc.2013.76.3.256
to stress fracture among female military recruits. European Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the
Journal of Applied Physiology, 104(2), 329–335. https://doi. effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological
org/10.1007/s00421-008-0717-7 Science in the Public Interest, 7(3), 77–124. https://doi.org/
Han, S. C., Castro, F., Lee, L. O., Charney, M. E., Marx, B. P., 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
Brailey, K., Proctor, S. P., & Vasterling, J. J. (2014). Military Maguen, S., & Litz, B. T. (2006). Predictors of morale in U.S.
unit support, postdeployment social support, and PTSD ‘ Peacekeepers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4),
symptoms among active duty and National Guard soldiers 820–836. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00045.x
deployed to Iraq. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 28(5), Mangelsdorff, A. D., & Moses, G. R. (1993). A survey of army
446–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.04.004 medical department reserve personnel mobilized in support
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane hand­ of operation desert storm. Military Medicine, 158(4),
book for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/158.4.254
Collaboration. https://handbook.cochrane.org/ Manning, F. J., & Ingraham, L. H. (1983). An investigation into
Johnston, J. H., Phillips, H. L., Milham, L. M., Riddle, D. L., the value of unit cohesion in peacetime. Walter Reed Army
Townsend, L. N., DeCostanza, A. H., Patton, D. J., Institute of Research.
Cox, K. R., & Fitzhugh, S. M. (2019). A team training field McAndrew, L. M., Markowitz, S., Lu, S.-E., Borders, A.,
research study: Extending a theory of team development. Rothman, D., & Quigley, K. (2017). Resilience during war:
Frontiers in Psychology, 10(1480), 1–13. https://doi.org/10. Better unit cohesion and reductions in avoidant coping are
3389/fpsyg.2019.01480 associated with better mental health function after combat
Jones, N., Whelan, C., Harden, L., Macfarlane, A., Burdett, H., deployment. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
& Greenberg, N. (2019). Resilience-based intervention for Practice, and Policy, 9(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/
UK military recruits: A randomised controlled trail. tra0000152
Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 76(2), 90–96. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G., & the
https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2018-105503 PRISMA group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for sys­
Jonsson, E. (2009). Erfarenheter avseende personalförsörjning tematic reviews and metaanalyses: The PRISMA statement.
från länder som övergått från pliktbaserat till frivilligbaserat Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.
försvar [Experiences regarding staffing from countries that org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
have changed from duty-based to all-volunteer forces] (PM Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group
ILM-K 1-2009). Swedish Defence University. cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological
Jordan, M. H., Field, H. S., & Armenakis, A. A. (2002). The Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.
relationship of group process variables and team perfor­ 115.2.210
mance. A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Nielsen, M. B. (2013). Bullying in work groups: the impact of
Research, 33(1), 121–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/ leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 127–
104649640203300104 136. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12011
Kennedy, C., Brooks-Young, P., Gray, C., Larkin, P., Oliver, L. W., Harman, J., Hoover, E., Hayes, S. M., &
Connolly, M., Wilde-Larsson, B., Larsson, M., Smith, T., Pandhi, N. A. (1999). A quantitative integration of the
& Chater, S. (2014). Diagnosing dying: An integrative lit­ military cohesion literature. Military Psychology, 11(1),
erature review. British Medical Journal of Supportive & 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1101_4
Palliative Care, 4(3), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1136/ Orme, G. J., & Kehoe, E. J. (2019). Development of cohesion in
bmjspcare-2013-000621 mixed-gender recruit training. Military Medicine, 184(7–8).
Kessler, R. C., Colpe, L. J., Fullerton, C. S., Gebler, N., https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usy409
Naifeh, J. A., Nock, M., Sampson, N. A., Schoenbaum, Orme, G. J., & Kehoe, E. J. (2020). Cohesion and performance
M., Zaslavsky, A. M., Stein, M. B., Ursano, R. J., and in military occupation specialty training. Military Medicine,
Heeringa, S. G. (2013). Design of the Army study to assess 185(3–4), 325–330. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz217
risk and resilience in servicemembers (Army STARRS). Pietrzak, E., Pullman, S., Cotea, C., & Nasveld, P. (2012).
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, Effects of deployment on mental health in modern military
22(4), 267–275. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/ forces: A review of longitudinal studies. Journal of Military
10.1002/mpr.1401. and Veteran’s Health, 20(3), 24–36.
 MILITARY PSYCHOLOGY 741

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1994). An examination Seers, A. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new
of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of construct for role-making research. Organizational
some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 702–713. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5
org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.702 Severt, J., & Estrada, A. X. (2015). On the function and struc­
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). ture of group cohesion. E. Salas, A. X. Estrada, and
Sources of method bias in social science research and W. B. Vessey (Eds.), Team cohesion: Advances in psycholo­
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of gical theory, methods and practice (Research on managing
Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/ groups and teams) (Vol. 17, pp. 3–24). Emerald Group
annurev-psych-120710-100452 Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2012). Nursing research: Generating 085620150000017002
and assessing evidence for nursing practice. Wolters Kluwer Siebold, G. L. (2007). The essence of military group cohesion.
Health. Armed Forces & Society, 33(2), 286–295. https://doi.org/10.
Polusny, M. A., Erbes, C. R., Murdoch, M., Arbisi, P. A., 1177/0095327X06294173
Thuras, P., & Rath, M. B. (2011). Prospective risk factors Siebold, G. L., & Kelly, D. R. (1988). Development of the
for new-onset post-traumatic stress disorder in National Platoon cohesion index. Technical report, US Army
Guard soldiers deployed to Iraq. Psychological Medicine, Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
41(4), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Sciences.
S0033291710002047 Smith, B. N., Vaughn, R. A., Vogt, D., King, D. W., King, L. A.,
Reed-Fitzke, K., & Lucier-Greer, M. (2019). The buffering & Shipherd, J. C. (2013). Main and interactive effects of
effect of relationships on combat exposure, military social support in predicting mental health symptoms in
performance, and mental health of U.S. military men and women following military stressor exposure.
soldiers: A vantage point for CFTS. Journal of Marital and Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 26(1), 52–69. https://doi.org/10.
Family Therapy, 46(2), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1080/10615806.2011.634001
jmft.12402 Steenkamp, M. M., Boasso, A. M., Nash, W. P., & Litz, B. T.
Rosh, L., Offerman, L. R., & Van Diest, R. (2012). Too close for (2014). Does mental health stigma change across the
comfort? Distinguishing between team intimacy and team deployment cycle? Military Medicine, 179(12), 1449–1452.
cohesion. Human Resource Management Review, 22(2), https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00188
116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2011.11.004 Thomassen, Å. G., Hystad, S. W., Johnsen, B. H.,
Salas, E., Estrada, A. X., & Vessey, W. B. (2015). Team cohe­ Johnsen, G. E., Laberg, J. C., & Eid, J. (2015). The combined
sion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice influence of hardiness and cohesion on mental health in
(Vol. 17). Emerald Group Publishing. a military peacekeeping mission: A prospective study.
Salo, M. (2011). United we stand-divided we fall: A standard model Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(5), 560–566.
of unit cohesion. Phd. Dissertation, University of Helsinki. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12235
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining Vaitkus, M., & Griffith, J. (1990). An evaluation of unit repla­
and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in cement on unit cohesion and Individual morale in the U.S.
the Schools, 13(1), 29–44. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ Army all-volunteer force. Military Psychology, 2(4),
pmc/articles/PMC2809982/ 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp0204_3
Sansdalen, T., Hov, R., Høye, S., Rystedt, I., & Wilde-Larsson, Vogelaar, A. L. W., & Kuipers, H. (1997). Reciprocal long­
B. (2015). Patients’ preferences in palliative care: itudinal relations between leader and follower effectiveness.
A systematic mixed studies review. Palliative Medicine, 29 Military Psychology, 9(3), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1207/
(5), 399–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216314557882 s15327876mp0903_2
Santoro, J. M., Dixon, A. J., Chang, C. H., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. Williams, A., Hagerty, B. M., Andrei, A.-C., Yousha, S. M.,
(2015). Measuring and monitoring the dynamics of team Hirth, R. A., & Hoyle, K. S. (2016). STARS: Strategies to
cohesion: Methods, emerging tools, and advanced technol­ assist navy recruits’ success. Military Medicine, 172(9),
ogies. E. Salas, A. X. Estrada, and W. B. Vessey (Eds.), Team 942–949. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED.172.9.942
cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and Wright, K. M., Cabrera, O. A., Bliese, P. D., Adler, A. B.,
practice (Research on managing groups and teams) (Vol. Hoge, C. W., & Castro, C. A. (2009). Stigma and barriers
17, pp. 115–145). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. to care in soldiers postcombat. Psychological Services, 6(2),
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-085620150000017006 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012620