8 27 2018 Social Cohesion

Delft University of Technology
Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it
Fonseca, Xavier; Lukosch, Stephan; Brazier, Frances
DOI
10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
Publication date
2018
Document Version
Final published version
Published in
Innovation: the European journal of social sciences
Citation (APA)
Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S., & Brazier, F. (2018). Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to
characterize it. Innovation: the European journal of social sciences, 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
Important note
To cite this publication, please use the final published version (if applicable).
Please check the document version above.
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent
of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Takedown policy
Please contact us and provide details if you believe this document breaches copyrights.
We will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to a maximum of 10.
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science
Research
ISSN: 1351-1610 (Print) 1469-8412 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciej20
Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how

to characterize it
Xavier Fonseca, Stephan Lukosch & Frances Brazier
To cite this article: Xavier Fonseca, Stephan Lukosch & Frances Brazier (2018): Social cohesion
revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it, Innovation: The European Journal of Social
Science Research, DOI: 10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 16 Jul 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 115
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ciej20
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480
Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it

Xavier Fonseca *, Stephan Lukosch and Frances Brazier
Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
(Received 22 January 2018; final version received 3 July 2018)
This paper provides a general overview on different perspectives and studies on social
cohesion, offers a definition of social cohesion that is deeply rooted in current literature,
and provides a framework that can be used to characterize social cohesion and help
support resilient cities. The framework highlights the factors that play a substantial
role in enabling social cohesion, and shows from which perspectives it can be fostered.
Keywords: resilient cities; social cohesion; survey; social cohesion framework
Introduction
Many initiatives are dedicated to helping cities around the world become more resilient to
the physical, social and economic challenges that current societies face.1 At least a hundred
of these initiatives are held in major cities,2 and many of them consider social cohesion as
one of the key characteristics of a resilient city (e.g. Resilient Rotterdam3).
Cities are organized in ways that both produce and reflect underlying socio-economic
disparities, and that weakens the resilience of some parts as compared to others (Vale
2014). There is growing evidence that social infrastructure, as opposed to physical infra-
structure, drives social resilience, and resilience can only remain useful as a concept and as
progressive practice, if social dimensions are taken into account. This process of under-
standing what makes a city resilient is in its infancy, and highlights how often resilience
is unclear (Sellberg, Wilkinson, and Peterson 2015). This fact renders the process of under-
standing to be delicate, as the failure of shaping fitting resilience threatens the ability of
cities as a whole to function economically, socially and politically (Vale 2014). Multiple
understandings may result in organizations cherry picking specific aspects and leaving
other unaddressed, polemic turf-wars that will not result in action, and, most challenging,
a lack of cohesion in attempts to achieve meaningful resilience in and across cities
(Sanchez, van der Heijden, and Osmond 2018). The opposite is true as well, as interven-
tions based on such understandings can promote crisis on social cohesion at various levels
(Kearns and Forrest 2000). Social cohesion is an important construct that is at the heart of
what humanity currently needs, for which there is not one universal definition or sets of
tools and methods with which it can be measured (Pahl 1991; Friedkin 2004). It is a
complex social construct due to the fact that different societies have different geographies,
political representations, economics, and problems (Bruhn 2009b). On the one hand,
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
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.
2 X. Fonseca et al.
fostering social cohesion in cities means creating societies where people have the oppor-
tunity to live together with all their differences, and, on the other hand, the way to approach
unity and diversity, and the thresholds involved, is unknown to specialists (Novy, Swiatek,
and Moulaert 2012).
To further understanding of social resilience and its social dimensions, and to design
interventions for more sustainable resilient systems, this article explores the concept of
social cohesion and factors that influence social cohesion to this purpose. This article con-
tributes to the state of the art on social cohesion by summarizing how social cohesion has
been defined over time, by discussing the different points of view on social cohesion and
how they are linked together, and by highlighting which approaches would benefit from
further research. Adding to these contributions, this paper updates current definitions of
social cohesion with one that better matches the multicultural nature of current societies
and their multiplicity of values. This paper also offers a framework to characterize
social cohesion and help promote resilient cities, i.e. to help identify levels and possible
factors related to cohesion, which need to be taken into account to help design interven-
tions for cities to become more sustainable and resilient.
A short explanation on the method used to search for studies follows in the next
section. Next, different perspectives on social cohesion (theoretical and empirical, exper-
imental, and social network analysis) are presented, followed by a discussion on the litera-
ture where three levels emerge. The definition of social cohesion is revisited, and a
framework with which to characterize social cohesion is introduced. Finally, the con-
clusion summarizes the major findings and provides an outlook of future work.
Method used to search for studies

The method deployed in this paper for the review of the literature on social cohesion is a
two-step approach. The first step consists of reviewing top cited books on social cohesion
at the time of this review to provide insights in the current state of art in the field. The
second step complemented the first step by reviewing research articles relevant to the
field using a fixed query as described below.
By using the Google™ search engine and searching for “books on social cohesion”,
and by considering the first most cited 10, the result is a fairly up-to-date starting point
(ranging from the years of publication between 1999 and 2016) (Gough and Olofsson
1999; Vertovec 2003; Reitz et al. 2009; Bruhn 2009c; Jenson 2010; Hickman, Mai, and
Crowley 2012; Larsen 2013; Dobbernack 2014; Dragolov et al. 2016; Mizukami 2016).
The books were then studied one by one, and the references lists of all of them were
screened for a further in-depth analysis of relevant articles on the concept of social cohe-
sion alone. This approach also indicated a relevant period from late nineteenth century and
today.
The analysis done in the first step was complemented with further research on the
experimental studies on social cohesion in the same period and that were not already men-
tioned using the previous method. This was done by searching on Google™ Scholar for
experimental studies on social cohesion with the criteria “experimental” AND “studies”
AND “social cohesion”. This paper considers the first relevant 100 results (from today
backwards), where relevant means that the whole experiment was motivated by social
cohesion and applied to humans, which discards publications that briefly mention social
cohesion, study social cohesion in species other than humans, had some analysis to
offer in populated areas of the world (excluding the poles), or that do not even use
“social cohesion” as a term in neither the title, the abstract, or as keyword.
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 3
Perspectives on social cohesion

The books selected in the first step of the adopted method showed that research on social
cohesion started from late nineteenth century, has been pursued from many different disci-
plinary perspectives (within Psychology, Social Psychology, Sociology, Mental Health, and
Public Health), and cover different scopes (from smaller groups, to larger societal groups).
Three methodological approaches have been deployed throughout the centuries: on theoreti-
cal findings and empirical research, experimental studies, and more recently social network
analysis (SNA) for societies, communities, neighbourhoods, and their levels of resilience
(Bruhn 2009a, 2009b). This distinction is used to structure the literature reviews chronologi-
cally for each of the approaches, as it facilitates the understanding of the level of contribution
that the vast literature on social cohesion can have in the field of resilient societies.
Theoretical and empirical studies

This section develops a timeline with theoretical and empirical studies. Information is pre-
sented in a way to convey three messages to the reader: (1) which researchers are, and
were, prominent to the development of social cohesion as a construct, (2) how social cohe-
sion has been defined over the centuries, both in general and specific terms, and (3) which
topics/factors on social cohesion have been associated over time. This timeline is visually
represented in Figure 1, sums up points (1) in black, (2) in green and (3) in blue, and is
developed thereafter.
Major research in social cohesion starts with Le Bon with the theory of collective be-
haviour and contagion (Le Bon 1897). He distinguishes different types of crowds/commu-
nities, and that these have a multiplicity of characteristics, opinions and beliefs that impact
the individuals in a crowd. In 1897, Durkheim defines social cohesion as a characteristic of
society that shows the interdependence in between individuals of that society (Berkman
and Kawachi 2000), and coins to social cohesion (1) the absence of latent social conflict
(any conflict based on for e.g. wealth, ethnicity, race, and gender) and (2) the presence
of strong social bonds (e.g. civic society, responsive democracy, and impartial law enfor-
cement) (Durkheim 1897). Cooley presents in 1909 the idea of primary groups, as groups
having intimate face-to-face communications, dynamics of cooperation and conflict in
between elements, and high numbers of friendships stemming from a substantial time
spent together, which, when absent, can foster social disorganization (Cooley 1909). In
1921, Freud supports Le Bon’s opinion about the unconscious identification of individuals,
and defines social cohesion as the identification of one individual with others that share the
same characteristics and provide intense emotional ties (Freud 1921). At the same time,
McDougall defines group cohesion as the intrinsic collective mentality with levels of reci-
procity and a common way of feeling and thinking (Schneider and Mcdougall 1921).
Further ahead, Lewin defines a group as a dynamic whole with its own size, organization,
and intimacy (Lewin 1946), and argues that individual behaviour is a product of both the
person and the social environment, relating therefore agency of the individual to what the
surrounding social context affords him/her.
In 1950, Festinger et al. come up with a definition of group cohesiveness that many
researchers use thereafter (Festinger, Back, and Schachter 1950). For them, group cohesion
is the desire of individuals to maintain their affiliation with a group, and this drive is
measured by influence and initiative, task competence, and especially like-dislike. Cart-
wright endorses Lewin’s theory of power field by arguing that power is not a trait of an
individual alone, but from bilateral relationships that mediate formal or informal control
(Cartwright and Zander 1953). Homans argues in 1958 that the higher the value of the
4 X. Fonseca et al.
Figure 1. Theoretical and empirical studies.
rewards coming from the set of negotiated exchanges in people’s friendships, the bigger the
group’s cohesion (Homans 1958). French and Raven also follow Lewin’s field theory, and
define seven sources of social power that affect groups’ dynamics and cohesion (connec-
tion, expertise, information, legitimacy, reference, reward, and coerciveness) (French
1959). Lott and Lott discover that the degree of liking is an indicator of group cohesion
(Lott and Lott 1966), and advance a new definition of social cohesion as a group property
that is induced from the amount and strength of reciprocal positive attitudes among
individuals of a group (Lott and Lott 1961). Janis describes pressures for conformity in col-
lective decisions observed in cohesive groups, even when these are wrong (Janis 1972).
Granovetter complements the theory of primary groups by looking at the strength of
weak ties. Social cohesion is affected by how much the friendship networks of individuals
of different groups overlap (Granovetter 1973). In 1983, Stokes supports previous studies
on the degree of cohesion and quality of information disclosed to other members, by
defending that group cohesion is enhanced whenever intimate topics are shared in
between individuals of the group, and whenever individuals adopt a balanced risk-
taking behaviour (Stokes 1983). Braaten defines group cohesion as the equivalent of
good relationship for an individual, which, when present, can help an individual to
become the person h/she strives to be. He researches factors like group cohesion and its
role in a good relationship, and creates a multidimensional model that supports the estab-
lishment, support, and achievement of a high level of cohesion (Braaten 1991).
Maxwell suggests a first definition for social cohesion for the Canadian Policy
Research Networks:
Social cohesion involves building shared values and communities of interpretation, reducing
disparities in wealth and income, and generally enabling people to have a sense that they are
engaged in a common enterprise, facing shared challenges, and that they are members of the
same community. (Maxwell 1996)
Alaluf defends that cohesion is promoted by the social system delimited by the nation, and
defines it as a sense of a nation (identity) as a whole (unified), as represented by distinctive
traditions, culture, and language4 (Alaluf 1999). Lockwood defines social cohesion as the
strength of primary and secondary networks, which adds to the studies of Cooley (primary
groups) and Granovetter (weak ties) (Lockwood 1999). He defends that social cohesion
manifests in voluntary associations and family organization, in the absence of traditional
crime, and that civic society and social cohesion are linked via secondary associations.
Beauvais defines social cohesion as an on-going process, with known group structures,
levels of solidarity and shared values between individuals, and with mechanisms to
solve conflict, while arguing that it is comprised of five different dimensions (belonging,
inclusion, participation, recognition, and legitimacy) (Beauvais and Jenson 2002).
Jeannotte updates the definition of Maxwell in 2003 (and still in use today): “the ongoing
process of developing a community of shared values, shared challenges and equal opportu-
nity within Canada, based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity among all Canadians”
(Jeannotte 2003). The Council of Europe defines social cohesion as “the capacity of a
society to ensure the well-being of all its members, minimizing disparities and avoiding mar-
ginalization” (Europe 2008) with the following characteristics: (1) reciprocal loyalty and
solidarity, (2) strength of social relations and shared values, (3) sense of belonging, (4)
trust among individuals of society (the community), and (5) reduction of inequalities and
exclusion. The Council of Europe still uses this definition today.5 The OECD presents its
concise definition that relies on three independent pillars: social inclusion, social capital,
and social mobility: “A cohesive society works towards the well-being of all its members,
fights exclusion and marginalization, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and
offers its members the opportunity of upward mobility” (OECD 2011). Parsons researches
how politics, religion, family, education, and economics are functional for a society, and con-
siders social cohesion as levels of order and stability put together by shared norms and values
in society (Parsons 2013). These enable individuals to identify and contribute to common
goals, and share moral and behavioural norms that function as a base for interpersonal
6 X. Fonseca et al.
relationships. Larsen defines cohesion as the belief that citizens have on a given nation that
shares a moral compass, which in turn provides a common ground for trust (Larsen 2013). It
is then defined and measured by the amount of individuals trusting each other in some degree
(national identification and belief).
Experimental studies
Experimental studies on social cohesion have an exploratory approach and can be categor-
ized into three general types of experiments: (1) observational, (2) manipulation of group
cohesion or test of its resilience, and (3) experiments fostering social cohesion. Exper-
iments in the observational category regard measurements through observation of
certain group conditions that are recorded via some quantitative method (either a scale,
a questionnaire, or other form of annotation). Experiments in the manipulation of group
cohesion or test of its resilience are experiments in which experimenters directly influence
the cohesiveness of a group (or challenged it). Lastly, the experiments on fostering social
cohesion fall into the third category, by mainly changing initial test conditions and then
letting the group change its level of cohesion without further influence of the researchers.
This section develops each of the three types of experiments in subsections, each with a
respective timeline and chronological presentation of studies. These timelines on exper-
imental studies have two messages for the reader: (1) to show what the mentioned research-
ers consider to be relevant in social cohesion, and what they researched/measured, and (2)
what researchers find. Each timeline presents a colour scheme to help the reader understand
the nature of the research covered, and how often it was covered.
Observational measurement
Moreno researches the existent structures of social groups and their group dynamics based
on forces of attraction and repulsion (Moreno 1934). He discovers in 1934 that group
dynamics are shaped by the choices and patterns individuals take in regard to their relation-
ships. Lippitt researches the impact of different leadership styles in group cohesion, and
argues that group cohesion is higher when the leader is democratic, as it is highly influenced
by whether individuals have their expectations met (Lippitt 1943; Lippitt and White 1943).
Polansky looks at how social behaviour/interaction is influenced by other individuals, and
finds out that the status in a group is an important determinant of both susceptibility and
actual instigation of contagion behaviour in others (Polansky, Lippitt, and Redl 1950).
Carron studies the theory of group dynamics, and defines a multidimensional model with
several aspects linked to cohesion and the relationship between the group and the individual
(Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley 1985; Carron, Hausenblas, and Eys 2005). He defines
group cohesion as a process of remaining together and united, with all the individuals’
needs met. Silbergeld researches the psychosocial atmosphere of different therapy
groups, and creates a scale that measures group environment and several indicators of
both group cohesion and conformity (Silbergeld et al. 1975; Harpine 2011). Mackenzie ana-
lyses both the leaders’ skills and groups’ climates, and develops a questionnaire to measure
group cohesion via the individual’s engagement, conflict, and avoidance (MacKenzie 1981;
MacKenzie et al. 1987). Piper focuses on the perceptions that individuals have from other
members of the group, the leader, and the group as a whole, and uses these to define group
cohesion as the result of the set of bonds that exist in a group (Piper et al. 1983).
Budman relates group cohesion with individuals’ perceptions of outcome in the group,
and defines three metrics to quantify social cohesion: (1) individuals acting together
Figure 2. Timeline experimental studies, observational measurement approach.
towards a common goal, (2) positive engagement around common goals, and (3) a vulner-
able and trusting attitude that fosters the sharing of private materials (Budman et al. 1987;
Fuhriman and Burlingame 1994). Brawley researches the relationship between cohesion
and the behaviour of athletic teams and their individuals, and designs a questionnaire to
measure multiple aspects of perceived cohesion in groups. He manages to validate both
the group integration and individual attractions to the group as predictors of group cohe-
sion (Brawley, Carron, and Widmeyer 1987). Meyer compares scores of two question-
naires (group environment and sport orientation) on group cohesion and attitude
towards competition of athletes (Meyer 2000). She finds out that cohesion of co-acting
teams is more strongly related to individual or social factors than it is the overall focus
or goal of a team. Vianen examines the relationship between personality composition
and team performance, and defends that (1) conscientiousness and agreeableness contrib-
ute to task cohesion, (2) levels of extraversion and emotional stability fostered social cohe-
sion, and (3) task characteristics are a substantial factor influencing group personality,
group dynamics, and group performance (van Vianen and De Dreu 2001). In 2002,
Carron analyses the relationship between task cohesiveness and group success, while
looking also at individuals’ perceptions of the group’s cohesion and how these relate to
group consistency (Carron, Bray, and Eys 2002). His analysis reveal that cohesiveness
is a shared perception, and that there is a strong relationship between cohesion and success.
Peterson defines social cohesion as a construct linked to community participation with
notions of trust, shared emotional commitment and reciprocity (Peterson and Hughey
2004). While furthering this notion, he investigates whether gender interacts with social
cohesion to predict intrapersonal empowerment. He shows that the effects of social cohe-
sion on intrapersonal empowerment are different for females and males, due to different
participatory experiences related to social connectedness. Groenewegen studies health,
8 X. Fonseca et al.
well-being, and feelings of social safety, and looks at how social cohesion is affected by
local green areas (Groenewegen et al. 2006). He argues that attractive green areas in the
neighbourhood may serve as a focal point of tacit coordination for positive informal social
interaction, which strengthens social ties and social cohesion. Høigaard looks at the
relationship between group cohesion, group norms, and perceived social loafing, and dis-
covers that the combination of high social cohesion, low task cohesion, and low team
norms seems to underlie perceptions of social loafing (Høigaard, Säfvenbom, and
Tønnessen 2006). Echeverría examines the association between social cohesion and
several mental health and health behaviour problems (Echeverría et al. 2008). She associ-
ates less socially cohesive neighbourhoods with increased mental health problems and
poorer health habits, regardless of race/ethnicity. Kim researches the relationship
between social capital and health (public, mental, physical, health-related behaviours,
and aging outcomes), and conceptualizes social capital as an attribute of a cohesive
group (Kim, Subramanian, and Kawachi 2008). He points out that social relationships
have, and produce, valued resources (capital), which exist in cohesive groups. Ball exam-
ines the associations between social participation of individuals, the neighbourhood’s
interpersonal trust, and physical activity among women, and argues that women are
more likely to participate in leisure-time physical activity when they participate in local
groups or events taking place in neighbourhoods where residents trust one another
(Ball et al. 2010).
Mair analyses associations of neighbourhood stressors (perceived violence and disorder,
and physical decay and disorder) and social support (residential stability, family structure,
social cohesion, reciprocal exchange, social ties) with depressive symptoms, and argues
that depressive symptoms are both positively and negatively associated with, respectively,
neighbourhood stressors, and social support factors (Mair, Diez Roux, and Morenoff 2010).
Verkuyten studies in 2010 whether assimilation of information affects the relationship
between ethnic self-esteem and situational well-being (Verkuyten 2010). He shows that
ethnic self-esteem is positively related to feelings of global self-worth and general life-sat-
isfaction, particularly when information undermines the individual’s ability to live their
ethnic identity and threatens their group’s positive distinctiveness. De Vries furthers the
work of Groenewegen by focusing on greenspaces and in three particular mechanisms
through which greenery might exert its positive effect on health: stress reduction, stimulating
physical activity and facilitating social cohesion (De Vries et al. 2013). His study confirms
that green spaces of quality reduce stress and facilitate social cohesion.
Gilligan studies in 2014 the effects of wartime violence on social cohesion, and dis-
covers that violence-affected communities exhibit higher levels of prosocial motivation,
measured by altruistic giving, public good contributions, investment in trust-based trans-
actions, and willingness to reciprocate trust-based investments (Gilligan, Pasquale, and
Samii 2014). At the same time, Whitton makes further analysis on the group environment
questionnaire by accounting for the hierarchical nature of group data collected, and her
analysis suggests that cohesion is a group-level construct (Whitton and Fletcher 2014).
Aletta investigates an open public space used mainly as a pedestrian crossing to analyse
the relationship between the audio stimuli and peoples’ behaviours (Aletta et al. 2016).
The results support the idea that the acoustical manipulation of the existing sound environ-
ment could provide soundscape strategies capable of promoting social cohesion in public
spaces. Ohmer argues that low-income communities can prevent violence and its extensive
consequences by developing collective efficacy (the sharing of norms and values, trust one
another, and willingness to intervene to address common problems) (Ohmer 2016). She
proves that the increase of collective efficacy includes social capital and social cohesion.
Manipulation of group cohesion or its resilience

Festinger investigates the way that face-to-face interactions in small groups impose
pressure upon individuals to follow group norms (Festinger, Back, and Schachter 1950).
He argues that individuals have a drive to be accurately self-evaluated, and this affects
group formation and group structure. In the following year, Schachter researches pro-
ductivity in a group, and finds out that more cohesive groups are more successful at influ-
encing their members (Schachter et al. 1951). Asch argues that people want to be liked, and
therefore conform more or less depending on the forces opposing them in the group (Asch
1952). He finds out that 75% of the participants in his experiments change opinions at least
once, especially when they are the only ones with a contrary judgement.
Figure 3. Timeline experimental studies, manipulation of experimental studies approach.
Milgram experiments on both the theory of pressures of conformity and on resilience of

the cohesiveness of the group, and finds out that individuals go almost to any length in
harming others in order to conform to given orders (Milgram 1965). Lott researches how
different individuals’ agencies in a group affect their positive attitudes towards other
members (Lott and Lott 1969). He also researches interpersonal attitudes that involve
people who evoke attitudes, and supports the hypothesis that liked individuals can function
as effective positive reinforcers and disliked individuals the opposite. Grieve examines the
cohesion-performance relationship, and his results indicate that performance has more
impact on cohesion than cohesion has on performance (Grieve, Whelan, and Meyers
2000). Blanchard researches intrinsic and extrinsic motivations’ impact on group cohesion,
and finds out that individual perceptions of cohesiveness positively predict the satisfaction
of the basic psychological needs of individuals (Blanchard et al. 2009).
Fostering of group cohesion (manipulation of initial variables)

Deutsch researches the influence of rewards on social cohesion based on cooperation and
competition (Deutsch 1949). He finds that these have a substantial impact on social cohe-
sion: (1) groups that are rewarded on a cooperative basis are more cohesive than those on a
competition basis, and (2) group dynamics play a bigger role than the goal of the group
when it comes to member’s motivation to stay in the group. Sherif researches conflict,
and how common tasks can mitigate conflicts and promote social cohesion (Sherif and
Figure 4. Timeline experimental studies, fostering of group cohesion approach.

10 X. Fonseca et al.
Sherif 1969). He learns that common activities, both in between different groups and with
all members together, result, respectively, in intergroup hostility, and intergroup
cooperation (both with high in-group bonds). Hogg discusses psychological group for-
mation, and whether this is linked to social cohesion (interpersonal attraction) or social
identity (personal identification), and his findings prove that groups are formed due to
motives of personal identity and not for existent social cohesion (Hogg and Turner 1985).
Social network analysis’ studies

Social Network Analysis (SNA) attempts to bridge the gap between different scopes of the
several scientific disciplines by looking at all network levels of society – individual, micro,
meso and macro (Persell 1990; Phillips 2006) – through the theories of networks and
graphs. SNA characterizes network structures through individuals and the ties connecting
them that represent the relationships or interactions (D’Andrea, Ferri, and Grifoni 2010).
This section develops a timeline with studies on SNA. Information is presented in a
way to convey two messages to the reader: (1) the researchers responsible for furthering
the comprehension on social cohesion through SNA, and (2) the researched topics/
factors that these studies focused on. This timeline is visually represented in Figure 2,
sums up points (1) in green and (2) in black, and is developed thereafter.
With the foundation of Sociometry in 1934, Moreno introduces basic analytical
methods, and, twenty years later, Barnes studies social organization of class and commit-
tees while pinning SNA to explain patterns of ties, primary groups and social groups
(Barnes 1954). Rapoport and Horvath are also among the early developers of SNA by
showing that it is possible to measure higher-level networks by studying relationships’
dynamics through them (Sociometry) (Rapoport and Horvath 1961). Laumann creates
social network surveys to display ethnographic and religious structures of different
classes of social networks at higher levels than the individual (Laumann 1973), and, at
around the same time, Granovetter contributes with his theory of the strength of weak
Figure 5. Timeline SNA’s studies.

ties, in which SNA is a central piece to link society at both micro and macro levels (Gran-
ovetter 1973).
White contributes in the 1960s to a well-developed methodology for SNA by develop-
ing models that combines patterns of relationships into descriptions of social structures
(White, Boorman, and Breiger 1976). Burt describes social differentiation in terms of inter-
personal patterns among individuals in a system (Burt 1980), i.e. some network models
treat relationships among all individuals whilst others describe the relations in which an
individual is involved. Krackhardt uses SNA to affirm that a better perception of the
shape of informal networks can in itself be a base of power (Krackhardt 1990), which is
perceived to be well above the power attributable by formal structural hierarchies. At
the same period, Wellman and Wortley advance the definition of communities as personal
networks no longer confined to geographical areas and with the capability to provide with
different kinds of supportive resources (Wellman and Wortley 1990). Still in 1990, Bollen
and Hoyle look at the same time at the perceptions of cohesion of members of a group at
both the individual level (perceived cohesion is the role of the group in the life of the
member) and group level (the role of members in the life of the group) (Bollen and
Hoyle 1990).
Ahuja and Carley use SNA to develop a simulation model for individual behaviour that
analyses how groups keep their distinctiveness throughout the intake of new members and
ideas (Ahuja and Carley 1998). Moody and White define (1) the structural cohesion of a
network as the minimum number of individuals that needed to be in the group for it not
to become disconnected, and (2) the structural dimension of embeddedness as the tiered
nesting of cohesive structures in the network (Moody and White 2003).
Discussion
This chapter analyses how consistently social cohesion has been defined over time, and dis-
cusses the different points of view on social cohesion and how they all link together, while
arguing about the points of view that benefit from further research. Adding to this, this work
updates current definitions of social cohesion with one that better matches the multicultural
nature of current societies. At the end of this discussion, this paper also proposes a frame-
work to help identify what impacts social cohesion and can thus be used to foster it.
Analysis
How social cohesion is defined
Literature shows that there is a fragmented view of what social cohesion is. It is best
defined by the absence of conflict or crime (Durkheim 1897), a characteristic of society
(Europe 2008), a desire for affiliation (Festinger, Back, and Schachter 1950), a group prop-
erty (Lott and Lott 1966), a degree of stability (Parsons 2013), the strength of connections
(Braaten 1991), as a transient state/process (Jeannotte 2003), and the same as good
relationships or a national identity (Alaluf 1999) (which might not be true in current multi-
cultural societies). Note, however, lack of consensus on defining values and factors related
to the construct of social cohesion. A number of definitions that relate to economic aspects
of society, such as general well-being and equal representation/opportunities in society
(Jeannotte 2003; OECD 2011) have been adopted worldwide (e.g. in European Union,
Canada and Australia). Such definitions have commonalities such as well-being of the
members of the group, shared values such as trust, and equal opportunities in society.
Three levels in social cohesion

There are certain perspectives that are consistently used to study social cohesion, and these
are seen to be levels that should be considered to acquire comprehensive understanding on
the complex construct that is social cohesion. The three levels (the individual, community,
and institutions) are described hereunder, and coined to the respective research(ers) and
existing literature as well.
Level of the Community. The level of community is, for e.g. the shared loyalties,
mutual moral support, social capital, strong social bonds, trust, social environment,
formal/informal control, overlap of individuals’ friendship networks, pressures for confor-
mity and caring, civic society, reciprocal loyalty and solidarity, strength of social relations,
shared values, common goals, moral behaviour and norms, values of rewards in groups,
and process performance and goal attainment.
In theoretical and empirical studies (e.g. from Durkheim (Durkheim 1897)), cohesion
started initially to be studied through the level of the community/society. Research on the
topic starts off with collective behaviour and group contagion, different groups and their
characteristics/beliefs, the interdependence between individuals and the importance of
other people for the individual (primary or secondary social ties to the individual and
how much these overlap), the collective mentality of groups, the agency or power of the
individual that is highly affected by others in the community, the errors made by groups
and not by individuals alone, and the quality/intimacy of the topics shared in group. Cohe-
sion is studied in groups of individuals, and even understood as the quantity/quality/type of
social capital coming from the social relationships. The definition of social cohesion from
the Council of Europe (Europe 2008) is linked to this level of the community through the
shared values of reciprocity, loyalty, and solidarity, and the quality of social relations that
includes the value of trust, a definition that is extended by Maxwell and Jeannote (Maxwell
1996; Jeannotte 2003). Adding to this level of the community are also the values of moral
compass, national identification and belief.
On to experimental studies, a sizable amount of research done gives strength to the per-
spective on the community. Researchers focused for e.g. on the different group dynamics,
group goals, and all the processes that occur in between individuals. Carron (Carron, Wid-
meyer, and Brawley 1985) and Deutsch (Deutsch 1949) focus on group dynamics like
competition vs. collaboration towards group goals, which relates to both Mackenzie’s
work on group climate and Budman’s experiments on individuals acting together
towards common goals. Also covered are the in-group processes of group influence and
leadership styles of Lippit (Lippitt 1943), which relates to Polansky work on the status
an individual has in a group and the susceptibility and instigation of contagion behaviour
in others (Polansky, Lippitt, and Redl 1950). These studies also relate to the group pro-
cesses studied by Lott and Sherif (Lott and Lott 1969; Sherif and Sherif 1969), which
looked at individuals as positive and negative reinforcers for the group, alongside inter-
group processes of hostility and cooperation.
Level of the Individual. The level of the individual is, for e.g. the individuals’ intimate
face-to-face communication, task competence, degree of like-dislike, initiative, individual
behaviour, quality of intimate topics shared, sense of belonging, inclusion, individual par-
ticipation, recognition and legitimacy.
Theoretical and empirical studies on social cohesion often take the point of view at the
level of the individual. This level was first brought by Freud’s work (Freud 1921), with the
individual’s identification with the group, which focuses more on the motives of the
individual to be part of a group. Festinger, Back and Schachter’s definition on social cohe-
sion also strengthens Freud’s argument on the role of the individual in cohesion and his/her
desires to belong to a group and stay in it (Festinger, Back, and Schachter 1950). This level
of the individual is also furthered through the importance of the degree of liking as a per-
sonal reward to belong and maintain affiliation with a group – the amount of personal
reward. Braaten adds to the studies of these researchers by arguing that groups, when
capable of bringing a good relationship to individuals, help them become who they
desire to be (Braaten 1991). This desire of the individual also goes along with the argument
from Beauvais (Beauvais and Jenson 2002) and the definition of social cohesion from the
Council of Europe (Europe 2008), which mention the degree of belonging of the individ-
ual, and how much it affects the degree of participation in the group.
On experimental studies, researchers also cover this level well by for e.g. measuring
personal feelings and general attitudes towards other individuals. Researchers like
Moreno (Moreno 1934), Asch (Asch 1952) and Milgram (Milgram 1965) study levels
of liking and disliking, degrees of likability and conformity in the group, which relate to
the work of Piper on the individuals’ perceptions from other members of a group (Piper
et al. 1983), and the work of Lott on positive attitudes towards other members (Lott and
Lott 1969). Many of these works also precede the study on individual engagement
(namely from Mackenzie and Budman – (MacKenzie et al. 1987; Budman et al. 1989)),
which also consider aspects like conflict and avoidance, positive participation in group’s
activities, vulnerable and trusting attitudes, and the sharing of personal data in between
individuals.
Level of the Institutions. The level of institutions consists of, for e.g. social disorgan-
ization, lack of social conflict, life satisfaction, voting, social behaviour, suicide rates, civic
society, trust and multiculturalism, and reduction of inequalities and exclusion.
In theoretical and empirical studies, research identifies several relevant factors that play
a role in social cohesion and that consistently point out the need for a balanced society with
equal opportunities and rights for all citizens. Factors like impartial law enforcement, civic
society, and responsive democracy are mentioned now and then by researchers like Dur-
kheim and Lockwood, which underline the importance of social contexts and different
styles of governance in variables such as wealth, ethnicity, race, and gender. Durkheim
shed light on the role of the “formal” context of societies for cohesion, implying that
the unequal or ill-structured context of societies (affected by, for e.g. law-making)
hinders cohesion (Durkheim 1897). Lockwood added a distinction of social integration
(actors) and system integration (structure), which covers the absence of traditional
crime, voluntary associations and family organizations (civic society) (Lockwood 1999).
This highlights the need to account for the role of formal institutions or societal bodies
(that can aid citizens and intervene for them) in the debate on social cohesion. This is
also coherent with the need for inclusion mentioned by Beauvais (Beauvais and Jenson
2002), the reduction of inequalities and exclusion mentioned by the Council of Europe
(Europe 2008), and the equal opportunities and upward mobility from the definition of
the OECD (OECD 2011), which can be provided by governments and formal institutions
(e.g. NGO’s) best.
To the best of our knowledge, the perspective formal institutions is not taken in
experimental studies on social cohesion, or merely not coined to the literature on
social cohesion. This means that future studies designed to research social cohesion
should consider the perspective of institutions, as it does not seem to have been
covered in a substantial way.
Abundancy of studies and the three levels

Theoretical and empirical studies are abundant, and so are most of the experimental ones. On
experimental studies, there is a lack of research that manipulate group cohesion or its resi-
lience (Figure 3), and also research that seeks to foster social cohesion by altering initial con-
ditions and testing these out (Figure 4). The majority of the experimental studies focus on
observing group dynamics and individual behaviour in regard to a group (and collecting
data through scales or questionnaires), as shown in Figure 5. These focus on observation
of group dynamics from a distance (without disturbing the pre-existent in-group processes),
and do not focus on manipulation of group cohesion or test of its resilience, or on trialling
different group configurations or initial variables (and assess whether these foster or
hinder cohesion). Particularly on experimental studies that aim at fostering group cohesion
by manipulating initial variables only, the last recorded study is in 1985, and while this is not
a scientific finding, it might be interesting to understand why this might be the case. In terms
of SNA’s studies, they focus on different levels and topologies of groups in society. They
focus on how well or loosely coupled individual links are connected to the overall group,
and on how these different topologies affect group characteristics like the overall cohesion
or connectedness of that group. Studies through SNA prove to enhance the understanding of
social cohesion in a way that experimental studies are not able to (for e.g. the strength of
weak ties (Granovetter 1973) and overall ethnographic/religious social structures
(Laumann 1973) that focus on the boundaries of groups at meso/macro levels).
As discussed in the following, it is not common to see research on social cohesion cov-
ering all three levels. Most of the studies cover the individual and the community, but they
mostly miss the role of governance and formal institutions in society that are responsible
for, for e.g. the social environment (and its structures, norms and values), for decision
making, conflict management, social upward mobility, or human rights like voting or
access to basic commodities. Researchers like Parsons consider the level of institutions
in his definition (Parsons 2013), but do not cover the level of the individual, while
others like Larsen focus on the levels of individual and community, but fail to mention
the role of formal institutions (Larsen 2013). The three levels do appear in some research.
They can be observed in several of the definitions of social cohesion widely used today,
and, particularly, in those from the Council of Europe (Europe 2008), Jeannotte – used
by the Canadian government (Jeannotte 2003), and from the OECD (OECD 2011).
Cohesion happens in the intersection of the three mentioned levels, and therefore all
three levels need to be considered to understand social cohesion. An individual might
have the motivation to belong to a group and the drive to participate and perform in
it, but if the formal structure of the country does not allow citizens to act, then social
cohesion is hampered. This means that the environment of individuals dictates their
agency, i.e. the individual’s freedom to act and choose that is directly conducive to the
wellbeing of the individual (Ibrahim and Alkire 2007). For individuals to act, they
need favourable communities (climate with compatible sets of norms and values) and
institutions (formal structures, norms and values) that do not forbid or limit the individ-
ual’s actions and choices. Further research is necessary though, in order to understand
how these are linked.
Redefining social cohesion

Current definitions of social cohesion do not cover the multiplicity of values and cultures
found in current societies, and, as a result, current societies might be governed and shaped
around a construct that can also contribute to substantial/chronic conflict.
Table 1. Definitions of social cohesion widely in use today.

Canadian Government
Council of Europe (Europe 2008) (Jeannotte 2003) OECD (OECD 2011)
“ … the capacity of a society to “ … the ongoing process of “A cohesive society works
ensure the well-being of all its developing a community towards the well-being of all
members, minimizing of shared values, shared its members, fights exclusion
disparities and avoiding challenges and equal and marginalization, creates a
marginalization” opportunity within sense of belonging, promotes
Canada, based on a sense trust, and offers its members
of trust, hope and the opportunity of upward
reciprocity among all mobility”
Canadians”
Larsen made a pertinent argumentation about the globalized multiculturalism and how
it might go against the idea of similarity of mind and the shared values required to establish
trust (and cohesion to a bigger extent) (Larsen 2013). He defended that heterogeneity of
society and all its diversity goes against social cohesion because a cohesive society
shares a moral compass (ground for trust). This implies that there cannot be generalized
trust among different clusters of individuals with different cultures and values.6 Failure
to achieve acceptance towards all forms of human kind and their diverse expressions
leads through the course of time to a fragmented and negative cohesion (Cheong et al.
2007). Mixed neighbourhoods are better than separated clusters of highly cohesive com-
munities (negative cohesion), as they offer a more open-ended engagement, vibrant oppo-
sition, and strike a balance between cultural autonomy and social solidarity (Amin 2002;
Cheong et al. 2007).
Table 1 shows three current definitions widely in use today, which, however, do not fit
current societies with their shifting conceptions (Bulmer and Solomos 2017). For e.g. these
definitions mention the well-being of all its members, but while referring to the “shared
values”, they do not stress the diversified nature these can have (i.e. regardless of the back-
ground of the individual), along with the tolerance required from individuals to cohabit
with others fundamentally different from them; “fights exclusion and marginalization”
can happen simply within “local” ethnicities as well, “reciprocity” is mentioned without
stressing the agency and personal motivation of the individual to belong and act (voluntary
social participation), and none of the three definitions addresses or stresses the diversity of
values that determine social cohesion today (Bulmer and Solomos 2017).
An argument towards the need for an updated definition comes from the need to set
more mature resilient societies in place (Sellberg, Wilkinson, and Peterson 2015). Accord-
ing to the City Resilience Framework (ARUP 2014), four dimensions are essential for
future resilient cities: Health & Wellbeing; Economy & Society; Infrastructure & Environ-
ment; and Leadership & Strategy. Each dimension contains “drivers”, which reflect the
actions cities can take to improve their resilience. One of the drivers of the City Resilience
Framework is to “Promote Cohesive and Engaged Communities”:
Create a sense of collective identity and mutual support. This includes building a sense of local
identity, social networks, and safe space; promoting features of an inclusive local cultural heri-
tage; and encouraging cultural diversity while promoting tolerance and a willingness to accept
other cultures.
This driver relates to the previously mentioned definitions. The sense of identity and
support, safe space, and social networks link to the sense of belonging (OECD 2011)
and well-being (Europe 2008; OECD 2011). The definition of OECD (OECD 2011) is the
only definition that refers to the sense of belonging, that, according to literature (ELAC
2007), has been associated with social mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, the devel-
opment of people’s education (on perceptions and attitudes), and that are important for the
expansion of inclusive protection systems against vulnerabilities and social risks.
However, the inclusion of cultural heritage, tolerance and willingness to accept other cul-
tures does not strongly link to the definitions cited above.
As existing definitions fail to address this multicultural component of resilient
societies, and the need for the identification and understanding of the factors that can influ-
ence means to achieve resilience in and across cities (ARUP 2014), this paper proposes a
new definition of social cohesion. This definition is (1) based on what is overlapping in the
three definitions presented in Table 1, (2) adds the role of multiculturalism, values of tol-
erance, voluntary participation, and diversity in societies that embellish the construct of
cohesion for resilient societies of the future, and (3) associates the factor “sense of belong-
ing” with resilient societies, as one of the factors correlated to social mechanisms of
inclusion and expansion of systems built against social risk … The definition is thus:
The ongoing process of developing well-being, sense of belonging, and voluntary social par-
ticipation of the members of society, while developing communities that tolerate and promote
a multiplicity of values and cultures, and granting at the same time equal rights and opportu-
nities in society.
Social cohesion framework

This section proposes a framework with which to analyse the levels and aspects that are not
always accounted for, regardless of the perspective taken (theoretical and empirical, exper-
imental, or SNA). This open generic framework is used to characterize social cohesion (as a
complex and dynamic concept), made up of multiple and smaller levels that can help to quan-
tify it. Figure 6 presents the generic social cohesion framework with the same three different
but intertwined levels identified in the literature (and accounted for in the definition).
Figure 6. Framework to characterize social cohesion.

The framework shows the connections and interdependencies between the individual,
the community and institutions, needed to be taken into account to better comprehend and
study social cohesion in the future. For social cohesion to exist, individuals need to have
motives to want to belong to a group/society, which stem from the cognitive beliefs (norms
and values) they have. Perceptions of the environment and cognitive beliefs of an individ-
ual are directly linked to the informal and formal environments individuals experience and
are able to experience. An individual can only feel in cohesion with the group and with the
ability to participate and perform in it if the rest of the group provides with a proper
environment with compatible norms and values. Equally, individuals can only take
active part in a group if public laws, regulations, norms and values allow them to. If the
person faces inequality, lack of representation and support of her position within a
group or any deeply rooted conflict, then her personal drive to stay in the group is
likely to fade away. It is therefore difficult to impact one of the three identified levels
without ending up impacting one or more factors of any other level, and as such, the frame-
work depicts this intersection.
Each factor shown in the framework, and belonging to a different level, is important to
social cohesion and is inferred from the literature. At the level of the community, the factor
of social environment is related to the social climate that a group has, and can be associated
with the research done on for e.g. shared norms and values (Jeannotte 2003), formal/infor-
mal control (Cartwright and Zander 1953), friendship networks (Granovetter 1973), press-
ures for conformity and caring (Janis 1972), or civic society (Lockwood 1999). The factor
of relationships and ties (community) regards the capital that the members of a group get,
and is linked to for e.g. social capital, trust (Larsen 2013), reciprocal loyalties and solidar-
ity (Europe 2008), moral support (Durkheim 1897), or value of rewards in the group
(Homans 1958). The third factor defined at the community level (process performance
and goal attainment) regards the performance of the group and its common objectives,
being thus linked to common goals and moral behaviours/norms (Parsons 2013).
On the level of the individual, the mentioned factors (self-motivation, perceptions,
norms and values, and participation and performance) are also linked to what is done so
far. The factor of self-motivation relates to the reasons that lead the individual to be in a
group, and links to the researched topics of for e.g. intimate face-to-face communication
(Cooley 1909), quality of intimate topics shared (Stokes 1983), and recognition and legiti-
macy (Beauvais and Jenson 2002). The factor of perceptions, norms and values regards the
individual view the individual has over the group he is in and his own belief system, being
thus pinned to the research done on for e.g. degree of like-dislike (Lott and Lott 1966), and
sense of belonging (Europe 2008). The last factor on the level of the individual is partici-
pation and performance, regards the drive that the individual has to act and take responsi-
bility in the group, and can be linked to the research done on for e.g. initiative (Lockwood
1999), individual participation (Braaten 1991), task competence (Festinger, Back, and
Schachter 1950), and individual behaviour (Cartwright and Zander 1953).
The last level, the one on institutions, defines the factors of conflict management and
decision making, human rights, and environment (structures, norms and values). The factor
of conflict management and decision making is considered as the governance of formal
institutions in society, and can be associated with for e.g. social disorganization or conflict
(Cooley 1909), and the reduction of inequalities and exclusion (Maxwell 1996; Europe
2008). The factor on human rights regards the agency, access and freedom of the individual
while in a group/society, and research done in this direction is for e.g. voting (OECD
2011). Lastly, the factor of environment (structures, norms and values) regards the
formal institutions and actors in society that are responsible for its upkeep, and can be
coined to the research done on for e.g. social stability (Parsons 2013), suicide rates (OECD
2011), trust and multiculturalism (Larsen 2013), and civic society (Lockwood 1999).
The factors included in each of the three levels propose measures to impact and
measure cohesion, while being at the same time generic enough to be extended by other
factors not currently mentioned for clarity purposes.
Conclusion
This paper explores the social construct of social cohesion in relation to its potential to
influence developments within the context of resilient cities and the social systems respon-
sible for the formation of the resilient societies of the future. It presents a comprehensive
survey of studies on social cohesion, while highlighting different perspectives of social
cohesion, the aspects they study, their findings, and how researchers have defined social
cohesion over time.
The construct social cohesion has been studied extensively over centuries, particularly
through the perspective of theoretical and empirical studies, but also through experimental
studies that measure social cohesion through observation. Different approaches in exper-
imental studies (to observe and measure, influence group cohesion or its resilience, and
fostering social cohesion) also point to a plurality of ways to study social cohesion.
More recently SNA has added new insights to this construct.
This paper identifies a gap between definitions for social cohesion currently in use in
societies and the current goal for resilient cities on the promotion of cohesive and engaged
communities. This paper introduces a new definition of social cohesion, and a framework,
to identify levels and possible factors related to cohesion in the context of resilient cities.
The open framework is based on the literature and distinguishes three levels that should be
taken into account in future studies to design and explore the impact of interventions on
social cohesion. Note that the framework is not presented with an extensive list of all poss-
ible relevant factors, but is designed to be extensible.
Future research will address the influence of and between each of the levels on the
design and implementation of interventions for social cohesion.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. http://www.100resilientcities.org/about-us/, 100 Resilient Cities – Rockefeller Foundation
(100RC).
2. http://www.100resilientcities.org/cities/, Member cities in the 100 Resilient Cities network.
3. https://www.resilientrotterdam.nl/en/rotterdam-resilient-city/, Main focus areas of Resilient
Rotterdam.
4. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/national_identity, definition of national identity, last
visited on 22 January 2018.
5. http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/, last visited on 22 January 2018.
6. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality, definition of morality, last visited on 22
January 2018.
Notes on contributors
Xavier Fonseca is a researcher and PhD candidate at Delft University of Technology. He addresses
sociotechnical challenges in societies in The Netherlands and Portugal via serious games. He is
researching serious game design as a way to test whether meaningful social interaction can be fos-
tered with implications for social cohesion. Current interests are on serious game design, game devel-
opment, and research on HCI. Professional and academic experiences also include IoT and high-
performance computing (e.g. embedded programming, multi-threaded highly optimized applications,
multi-processor architectures, and GPGPU applications). His professional experience abroad covers
Portugal, India, Germany and the Netherlands, as a result of which he has an extensive professional
network.
Stephan Lukosch is associate professor at the Delft University of Technology. His current
research focuses on designing engaging environments for participatory systems. In participatory
systems’ new social structures, communication and coordination networks are emerging. New
types of interaction emerge that require new types of governance and participation. Enabled
by technology, these structures span physical, temporal and relational distance in merging reali-
ties. Using augmented reality, he researches environments for virtual co-location in which indi-
viduals can virtually be at any place in the world and coordinate their activities with others and
exchange their experiences. Using serious games, he researches on how to create effective train-
ing or assessment environments.
Frances Brazier is a full professor in Engineering Systems Foundations at the Delft University of
Technology, as of September 2009, before which she chaired the Intelligent Interactive Distributed
Systems Group for 10 years within the Department of Computer Science at the VU University
Amsterdam. She holds an MSc in Mathematics and a doctorate in Cognitive Ergonomics from the
VU Amsterdam. Parallel to her academic career, she co-founded the first ISP in the Netherlands:
NLnet and later NLnet Labs. She is currently a board member of the NLnetLabs Foundation. She
has over 200 refereed papers, has served on many programme committees, and is currently a
member of 3 editorial boards – Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manu-
facturing (Cambridge University Press), the Requirements Engineering Journal (Springer), and Bir-
kenhauser’s Autonomic Computing series.
ORCID
Xavier Fonseca http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0558-3172
Stephan Lukosch http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7203-2034
References
Ahuja, Manju K., and Kathleen M. Carley. 1998. “Network Structure in Virtual Organizations.”
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3: 0–0. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.1998.
tb00079.x.
Alaluf, Mateo. 1999. “Séminaire: ‘Evolutions démographiques et rôle de la protection sociale: le
concept de cohésion sociale’”.
Aletta, Francesco, Federica Lepore, Eirini Kostara-Konstantinou, Jian Kang, and Arianna Astolfi.
2016. “An Experimental Study on the Influence of Soundscapes on People’s Behaviour in an
Open Public Space.” Applied Sciences 6: 1–12.
Amin, Ash. 2002. “Ethnicity and the Multicultural City: Living with Diversity.” Environment and
Planning A: Economy and Space 34 (6): 959–980.
Asch, Solomon E. 1952. “Group Forces in the Modification and Distortion of Judgments.” In Social
Psychology, 450–501. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Ball, Kylie, Verity J. Cleland, Anna F. Timperio, Jo Salmon, Billie Giles-Corti, and David A.
Crawford. 2010. “Love Thy Neighbour? Associations of Social Capital and Crime with
Physical Activity Amongst Women.” Social Science & Medicine 71: 807–814. doi:10.1016/j.
socscimed.2010.04.041.
Barnes, John Arundel. 1954. Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. New York:
Plenum.
Beauvais, Caroline, and Jane Jenson. 2002. Social Cohesion: Updating the State of the Research.
Ottawa, ON: CPRN.
Berkman, Lisa F., and Ichiro Kawachi. 2000. Social Epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Blanchard, Céline M., Catherine E. Amiot, Stéphane Perreault, Robert J. Vallerand, and Pierre
Provencher. 2009. “Cohesiveness, Coach’s Interpersonal Style and Psychological Needs:
Their Effects on Self-Determination and Athletes’ Subjective Well-Being.” Psychology of
Sport and Exercise 10: 545–551.
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Rick H. Hoyle. 1990. “Perceived Cohesion: A Conceptual and Empirical
Examination.” Social Forces 69: 479–504. doi:10.1093/sf/69.2.479.
Braaten, Leif J. 1991. “Group Cohesion: A New Multidimensional Model.” Group 15: 39–55.
Brawley, Lawrence R., Albert V. Carron, and W. Neil Widmeyer. 1987. “Assessing the Cohesion of
Teams: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire.” Journal of Sport Psychology 9: 275–
294.
Bruhn, John. 2009a. “Cohesive Communities.” In The Group Effect: Social Cohesion and Health
Outcomes, 79–101. Arizona: Springer.
Bruhn, John. 2009b. “The Concept of Social Cohesion.” In The Group Effect, 31–48. Arizona:
Springer.
Bruhn, John. 2009c. The Group Effect. Boston, MA: Springer US.
Budman, Simon H., Annette Demby, Michael Feldstein, Jose Redondo, Bruno Scherz, Michael J.
Bennett, Geraldine Koppenaal, Barbara Sabin Daley, Mary Hunter, and Jane Ellis. 1987.
“Preliminary Findings on a New Instrument to Measure Cohesion in Group Psychotherapy.”
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 37: 75–94. doi:10.1080/00207284.1987.
11491042.
Budman, S. H., S. Soldz, A. Demby, M. Feldstein, T. Springer, and M. S. Davis. 1989. “Cohesion,
Alliance and Outcome in Group Psychotherapy.” Psychiatry 52: 339–350.
Bulmer, Martin, and John Solomos. 2017. Multiculturalism, Social Cohesion and Immigration:
Shifting Conceptions in the UK, Ethnic and Racial Studies. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Burt, Ronald S. 1980. “Models of Network Structure.” Annual Review of Sociology 6: 79–141.
Carron, Albert V., Steven R. Bray, and Mark A. Eys. 2002. “Team Cohesion and Team Success in
Sport.” Journal of Sports Sciences 20: 119–126. doi:10.1080/026404102317200828.
Carron, Albert V., Heather A. Hausenblas, and Mark A. Eys. 2005. Group Dynamics in Sport.
Glenview, IL: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, Albert V., W. Neil Widmeyer, and Lawrence R. Brawley. 1985. “The Development of an
Instrument to Assess Cohesion in Sport Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire.”
Journal of Sport Psychology 7: 244–266.
Cartwright, Dorwin, and Alvin Zander. 1953. Group Dynamics Research and Theory. Vol. xiii.
Oxford, England: Row, Peterson.
Cheong, Pauline Hope, Rosalind Edwards, Harry Goulbourne, and John Solomos. 2007.
“Immigration, Social Cohesion and Social Capital: A Critical Review.” Critical Social Policy
27: 24–49. doi:10.1177/0261018307072206.
Cooley, Charles Horton. 1909. “Primary Groups.” In Social Organization: A Study of the Larger
Mind, 23–31. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Council of Europe. 2008. Report of High-Level Task Force on Social Cohesion: Towards an Active,
Fair and Socially Cohesive Europe.
D’Andrea, Alessia, Fernando Ferri, and Patrizia Grifoni. 2010. “An Overview of Methods for Virtual
Social Networks Analysis.” In Computational Social Network Analysis, 3–25. London: Springer.
Deutsch, Morton. 1949. “An Experimental Study of the Effects of Cooperation and Competition
upon Group Process.” Human Relations 2: 199–231.
De Vries, Sjerp, Sonja M. E. van Dillen, Peter P. Groenewegen, and Peter Spreeuwenberg. 2013.
“Streetscape Greenery and Health: Stress, Social Cohesion and Physical Activity as
Mediators.” Social Science & Medicine 94: 26–33.
Dobbernack, Jan. 2014. The Politics of Social Cohesion in Germany, France and the United
Kingdom. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Dragolov, Georgi, Zsófia S. Ignácz, Jan Lorenz, Jan Delhey, Klaus Boehnke, and Kai Unzicker. 2016.
Social Cohesion in the Western World: What Holds Societies Together: Insights from the Social
Cohesion Radar. AG Switzerland: Springer.
Durkheim, Emile. 1897. Le suicide: étude de sociologie. New York, NY: F. Alcan.
Echeverría, Sandra, Ana V. Diez-Roux, Steven Shea, Luisa N. Borrell, and Sharon Jackson. 2008.
“Associations of Neighborhood Problems and Neighborhood Social Cohesion with Mental
Health and Health Behaviors: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.” Health & Place
14: 853–865.
ELAC. 2007. Social Cohesion: Inclusion and a Sense of Belonging in Latin America and the
Caribbean. New York: United Nations.
Festinger, Leon, Kurt W. Back, and Stanley Schachter. 1950. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A
Study of Human Factors in Housing. Lincoln: Stanford University Press.
French, John R. P. 1959. Classics of Organization Theory, Chapter 6. Oslo: Institute for Social
Research.
Freud, Sigmund. 1921. Massenpsychologie und Ich-Analyse. Wien: Internationaler
Psychoanalytischer Verlag.
Friedkin, Noah E. 2004. “Social Cohesion.” Annual Review of Sociology 30: 409–425.
Fuhriman, Addie, and Gary M. Burlingame. 1994. Handbook of Group Psychotherapy: An Empirical
and Clinical Synthesis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Gilligan, Michael J., Benjamin J. Pasquale, and Cyrus Samii. 2014. “Civil War and Social Cohesion:
Lab-in-the-Field Evidence from Nepal.” American Journal of Political Science 58: 604–619.
doi:10.1111/ajps.12067.
Gough, I., and G. Olofsson. 1999. Capitalism and Social Cohesion: Essays on Exclusion and
Integration. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360–
1380.
Grieve, Frederick, James Whelan, and Andrew Meyers. 2000. “An Experimental Examination of the
Cohesion-Performance Relationship in an Interactive Team Sport.” Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology 12 (2): 219–235.
Groenewegen, Peter P., Agnes E. van den Berg, Sjerp de Vries, and Robert A. Verheij. 2006.
“Vitamin G: Effects of Green Space on Health, Well-Being, and Social Safety.” BMC Public
Health 6: 149.
Harpine, Elaine Clanton. 2011. “Group Cohesion: The Therapeutic Factor in Groups.” In Group-
Centered Prevention Programs for At-Risk Students, 117–140. New York: Springer.
Hickman, Mary J., Nicola Mai, and Helen Crowley. 2012. Migration and Social Cohesion in the UK.
York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Hogg, Michael A., and John C. Turner. 1985. “Interpersonal Attraction, Social Identification and
Psychological Group Formation.” European Journal of Social Psychology 15: 51–66. doi:10.
1002/ejsp.2420150105.
Høigaard, Rune, Reidar Säfvenbom, and Finn Egil Tønnessen. 2006. “The Relationship Between
Group Cohesion, Group Norms, and Perceived Social Loafing in Soccer Teams.” Small
Group Research 37: 217–232.
Homans, George C. 1958. “Social Behavior as Exchange.” American Journal of Sociology 63: 597–606.
Ibrahim, Solava, and Sabina Alkire. 2007. “Agency and Empowerment: A Proposal for
Internationally Comparable Indicators.” Oxford Development Studies 35: 379–403. doi:10.
1080/13600810701701897.
Janis, Irving L. 1972. Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and
Fiascoes. Vol. viii. Oxford, England: Houghton Mifflin.
Jeannotte, M. Sharon. 2003. “Singing Alone? The Contribution of Cultural Capital to Social
Cohesion and Sustainable Communities.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 9: 35–49.
Jenson, Jane. 2010. Defining and Measuring Social Cohesion. Hampshire: Commonwealth
Secretariat.
Kearns, Ade, and Ray Forrest. 2000. “Social Cohesion and Multilevel Urban Governance.” Urban
Studies 37 (5-6): 995–1017.
Kim, Daniel, S. V. Subramanian, and Ichiro Kawachi. 2008. “Social Capital and Physical Health.” In
Social Capital and Health, edited by Ichiro Kawachi, S. V. Subramanian, and Daniel Kim, 139–
190. New York: Springer.
Krackhardt, David. 1990. “Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure, Cognition, and Power in
Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 342–369. doi:10.2307/2393394.
Larsen, Christian Albrekt. 2013. The Rise and Fall of Social Cohesion: The Construction and De-
construction of Social Trust in the US, UK, Sweden and Denmark. Oxford: OUP.
Laumann, Edward O. 1973. Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks.
New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Le Bon, Gustave. 1897. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. London: Fischer.
Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Behavior and Development as a Function of the Total Situation.” In Manual of
Child Psychology, 791–844. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lippitt, Ronald. 1943. “The Psychodrama in Leadership Training.” Sociometry 6: 286–292.

Lippitt, Ronald, and Ralph K. White. 1943. “The “Social Climate” of Children’s Groups.” In Child
Behavior and Development: A Course of Representative Studies, edited by Roger G. Barker,
Jacob S. Kounin, and Herbert F. Wright, 485–508. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lockwood, David. 1999. “Civic Integration and Social Cohesion.” In Capitalism and Social
Cohesion, edited by Ian Gough, and Gunnar Olofsson, 63–84. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lott, Albert J., and Bernice E. Lott. 1961. “Group Cohesiveness, Communication Level, and
Conformity.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 62: 408–412. doi:10.1037/
h0041109.
Lott, Albert J., and Bernice E. Lott. 1966. “Group Cohesiveness and Individual Learning.” Journal of
Educational Psychology 57: 61–73. doi:10.1037/h0023038.
Lott, Albert J., and Bernice E. Lott. 1969. “Liked and Disliked Persons as Reinforcing Stimuli.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11: 129–137. doi:10.1037/h0027036.
MacKenzie, K. Roy. 1981. “Measurement of Group Climate.” International Journal of Group
Psychotherapy 31: 287–295.
MacKenzie, K. Roy, Robert R. Dies, Erich Coché, J. Scott Rutan, and Walter N. Stone. 1987. “An
Analysis of AGPA Institute Groups.” International Journal of Group Psychotherapy 37: 55–74.
Mair, Christina, Ana V. Diez Roux, and Jeffrey D. Morenoff. 2010. “Neighborhood Stressors and
Social Support as Predictors of Depressive Symptoms in the Chicago Community Adult
Health Study.” Health & Place 16: 811–819.
Maxwell, Judith. 1996. “Social Dimensions of Economic Growth”.
Meyer, Barbara B. 2000. “The Ropes and Challenge Course: A Quasi-Experimental Examination.”
Perceptual and Motor Skills 90: 1249–1257. doi:10.2466/pms.2000.90.3c.1249.
Milgram, Stanley. 1965. “Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority.” Human
Relations 18: 57–76.
Mizukami, Tetsuo. 2016. Creating Social Cohesion in an Interdependent World: Experiences of
Australia and Japan. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Moody, James, and Douglas R. White. 2003. “Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A
Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups.” American Sociological Review 68: 103–127. doi:10.
2307/3088904.
Moreno, Jacob. 1934. Who Shall Survive?: A New Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations.
Vol. xvi (Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series, no. 58). Washington, DC: Nervous and
Mental Disease Publishing Co.
Novy, Andreas, Daniela Coimbra Swiatek, and Frank Moulaert. 2012. “Social Cohesion: A
Conceptual and Political Elucidation.” Urban Studies 49 (9): 1873–1889.
OECD. 2011. Perspectives on Global Development 2012, Perspectives on Global Development.
OECD Publishing.
Ohmer, Mary L. 2016. “Strategies for Preventing Youth Violence: Facilitating Collective Efficacy
among Youth and Adults.” Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 7 (4): 681–705.
Pahl, R. E. 1991. “The Search for Social Cohesion: From Durkheim to the European Commission.”
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie 32: 345–360.
Parsons, Talcott. 2013. Social System. London: Routledge.
Persell, Caroline Hodges. 1990. Understanding Society: An Introduction to Sociology. New York,
NY: Harper & Row.
Peterson, N. Andrew, and Joseph Hughey. 2004. “Social Cohesion and Intrapersonal Empowerment:
Gender as Moderator.” Health Education Research 19: 533–542. doi:10.1093/her/cyg057.
Phillips, David. 2006. Quality of Life: Concept, Policy and Practice. Oxon: Routledge.
Piper, William E., Myriam Marrache, Renee Lacroix, Astrid M. Richardsen, and Barry D. Jones.
1983. “Cohesion as a Basic Bond in Groups.” Human Relations 36: 93–108. doi:10.1177/
001872678303600201.
Polansky, Norman, Ronald Lippitt, and Fritz Redl. 1950. “An Investigation of Behavioral Contagion
in Groups.” Human Relations 3: 319–348. doi:10.1177/001872675000300401.
Rapoport, Anatol, and William J. Horvath. 1961. “A Study of a Large Sociogram.” Behavioral
Science 6: 279–291.
Reitz, Jeffrey G., Raymond Breton, Karen Kisiel Dion, and Kenneth L. Dion. 2009. Multiculturalism
and Social Cohesion: Potentials and Challenges of Diversity. Toronto: Springer.
The Rockefeller Foundation and ARUP. 2014. City Resilience Framework. In City Resilience Index,
edited by Jo da Silva. All4energy.org.
Sanchez, Adriana X, Jeroen van der Heijden, and Paul Osmond. 2018. “The City Politics of an Urban
Age: Urban Resilience Conceptualisations and Policies.” Palgrave Communications 4 (25):
1–12.
Schachter, Stanley, Norris Ellertson, Dorothy McBride, and Doris Gregory. 1951. “An Experimental
Study of Cohesiveness and Productivity.” Human Relations 4: 229–238. doi:10.1177/
001872675100400303.
Schneider, Herbert W., and William Mcdougall. 1921. “The Group Mind.” Journal of Philosophy 18:
690–697.
Sellberg, My M., Cathy Wilkinson, and Garry D. Peterson. 2015. “Resilience Assessment: A Useful
Approach to Navigate Urban Sustainability Challenges.” Ecology and Society 20 (1). doi:10.
5751/ES-07258-20014.
Sherif, Muzafer, and Carolyn W. Sherif. 1969. “Introduction to Psychology.” In Social Psychology,
edited by James O. Whittaker, 221–266. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Silbergeld, Sam, Gail R. Koenig, Ronald W. Manderscheid, Barbara F. Meeker, and Carlton A.
Hornung. 1975. “Assessment of Environment-Therapy Systems: The Group Atmosphere
Scale.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 43: 460–469. doi:10.1037/h0076897.
Stokes, Joseph Powell. 1983. “Components of Group Cohesion Intermember Attraction,
Instrumental Value, and Risk Taking.” Small Group Behavior 14: 163–173. doi:10.1177/
104649648301400203.
Vale, Lawrence J. 2014. “The Politics of Resilient Cities: Whose Resilience and Whose City?”
Building Research & Information 42 (2): 191–201.
van Vianen, Annelies E. M., and Carsten K. W. De Dreu. 2001. “Personality in Teams: Its
Relationship to Social Cohesion, Task Cohesion, and Team Performance.” European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology 10: 97–120.
Verkuyten, Maykel. 2010. “Assimilation Ideology and Situational Well-Being among Ethnic
Minority Members.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46: 269–275. doi:10.1016/j.
jesp.2009.11.007.
Vertovec, Steven. 2003. Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Wellman, Barry, and Scot Wortley. 1990. “Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties
and Social Support.” American Journal of Sociology 96: 558–588.
White, Harrison C., Scott A. Boorman, and Ronald L. Breiger. 1976. “Social Structure from Multiple
Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions.” American Journal of Sociology 81: 730–780.
Whitton, Sarah M., and Richard B. Fletcher. 2014. “The Group Environment Questionnaire: A
Multilevel Confirmatory Factor Analysis.” Small Group Research 45: 68–88. doi:10.1177/
1046496413511121.

8 27 2018 Social Cohesion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 27 2018 Social Cohesion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 27 2018 Social Cohesion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delft University of Technology

Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it

Fonseca, Xavier; Lukosch, Stephan; Brazier, Frances

This work is downloaded from Delft University of Technology.

ISSN: 1351-1610 (Print) 1469-8412 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciej20

Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how

Xavier Fonseca, Stephan Lukosch & Frances Brazier

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1497480

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 16 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 115

View Crossmark data

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

Social cohesion revisited: a new deﬁnition and how to characterize it

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Method used to search for studies

Perspectives on social cohesion

Theoretical and empirical studies

Figure 1. Theoretical and empirical studies.

Figure 2. Timeline experimental studies, observational measurement approach.

Manipulation of group cohesion or its resilience

Figure 3. Timeline experimental studies, manipulation of experimental studies approach.

Milgram experiments on both the theory of pressures of conformity and on resilience of

Fostering of group cohesion (manipulation of initial variables)

Figure 4. Timeline experimental studies, fostering of group cohesion approach.

Social network analysis’ studies

Figure 5. Timeline SNA’s studies.

Three levels in social cohesion

Abundancy of studies and the three levels

Redeﬁning social cohesion

Table 1. Deﬁnitions of social cohesion widely in use today.

Social cohesion framework

Figure 6. Framework to characterize social cohesion.

Lippitt, Ronald. 1943. “The Psychodrama in Leadership Training.” Sociometry 6: 286–292.

You might also like