Past research examining group cohesion and performance was reviewed using metaanalysis. The results indicated a positive relationship with the average cohesive group performing 18 percentile points above the average noncohesive group. Given the nature of the studies used here (all studies had been previously published), caution is suggested in generalizing these results to "real" work groups.

Psychological research on cohesion stems from contributions in the 1940s and 1950s by Festinger and his colleagues, who defined cohesion as a "field of forces" acting on individuals to remain in the group. In the 1950s, critics of this definition noted that different cohesion measures often failed to intercorrelate. By the mid-1960s, A. J. Lott and B. E. Lott (1965) conceptualized cohesion as interpersonal attraction because researchers mainly focused on this "force." Multidimensional models of cohesion predominated in the 1980s and 1990s, the debate now focused on defining those dimensions. In addition to A. V. Carron's (1988) hierarchical model, several bidimensional models are summarized, including task and social cohesion, vertical and horizontal cohesion, belongingness and morale, and personal versus social attraction. Cohesion will continue to be a vital construct in research on groups and organizations into the 21st century, with important challenges to be addressed.

The study of immigration and immigrants’ experiences benefits from examining the contribution of gender. In this article, we focus on the importance of gender for understanding different aspects of family functioning. Conditions associated with immigration and settlement in the receiving society may challenge expectations about gender‐related roles, resulting in the renegotiation of these roles in immigrant families. Also, there is evidence of different socialization demands on daughters compared to sons in immigrant families, a difference that has potential implications not only for parent‐child relationships, but also for the development of ethnocultural identity among adolescents and young adults.

Individualism and collectivism help explain culture‐related differences in romantic love and in the importance of emotional intimacy in marriage. Three propositions are suggested: (a) Romantic love is more likely to be an important basis for marriage in individualistic than in collectivistic societies; (b) psychological intimacy in marriage is more important for marital satisfaction and personal well‐being in individualistic than in collectivistic societies; and (c) although individualism fosters the valuing of romantic love, certain aspects of individualism at the psychological level make developing intimacy problematic. Evidence pertaining to these propositions is considered based on conceptual and empirical accounts of romantic love and psychological intimacy in marriage in two individualistic societies (Canada and the United States) and three collectivistic societies (China, India, and Japan). In addition, we suggest that consideration of individualism and collectivism as these constructs pertain to gender provides a framework for interpreting gender differences in the reported experience of love and intimacy in North American society.