This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Carless, S. A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Reply to Carron and Brawley

Monash University

Carron and Brawley have raised questions about the research methodology used by Carless and De Paola. In addressing their comments, the author begins by raising the issues of level of theory, level of data collection, and level of analysis. The author argues that there is increasing evidence that the most appropriate level of conceptualization of cohesion is the group level rather than the individual level. Following is a discussion of methodological issues raised by Carron and Brawley: (a) temporal issues associated with groups, (b) the nature of the group, and (c) statistical analyses. The author concludes the article with a call for the development of a nomological network of relationships with cohesion.

Small Group Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, 107-118 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/104649640003100106


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. Wellen and M. Neale Deviance, Self-Typicality, and Group Cohesion: The Corrosive Effects of the Bad Apples on the Barrel Small Group Research, April 1, 2006; 37(2): 165 - 186. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Chang and P. Bordia A Multidimensional Approach to the Group Cohesion-Group Performance Relationship Small Group Research, August 1, 2001; 32(4): 379 - 405. [Abstract] [PDF]