| Course | PSYC 405 Group Dynamics (PSYC405) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 3 |
| Assignment | DB Forum 2 |
| Paper type | Discussion thread and replies |
| Length | about 546 words (thread and replies). Course guide: per the course guide, a 300-word thread answering the forum topic and 100-word replies to 2 classmates' threads |
| Format | APA 7 citations and reference list |
| Points | 50 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 3 in Liberty's published PSYC 405 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSYC 405 Week 3
Discussion Board Forum 2: Thread and Two Replies
PSYC 405 Group Dynamics, Discussion Board Forum 2 (thread and two replies)
Thread by [Student Name]
The prompt and the classmates' posts are composites standing in for the course's own forum; the textbook and the journal articles are real and described from their published sources; the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for PSYC 405.
Thread
Last fall I helped coach a high school girls' soccer team whose eleven starters had played together since elementary school. They spent weekends at each other's houses, had a group chat that never went quiet and called themselves a family. They also lost eight of their first ten games. If cohesion leads to performance, this team should have been winning. Instead, players hesitated to criticize one another's mistakes, and the coach noticed that no one wanted to take a teammate's spot.
Forsyth (2017) treats cohesion as the integrity and solidarity of a group, the ties that hold members to each other and to the group as a whole, and he distinguishes several forms, including social cohesion, based on attraction among members, and task cohesion, based on shared commitment to the group's goals. That distinction matters for my team. Their social cohesion was extraordinary; their task cohesion was weaker, since practices often turned into social time.
Mullen and Copper (1994) integrated research on cohesion and performance in a meta-analysis. They found that the relationship was statistically significant but small, and that commitment to the task, not interpersonal attraction or group pride, carried most of the effect. The effect was stronger in real groups, such as sports teams, than in groups formed in laboratories, and stronger when cohesion was measured by members' perceptions. Perhaps most interesting, the evidence suggested that performance may influence cohesion more directly than cohesion influences performance. Winning teams grow closer; close teams do not necessarily win.
For my team, the research suggests that building more friendship was not the answer. Clearer shared goals, such as specific targets for each practice, and roles that made each player responsible for part of the team's success might have strengthened task cohesion. By late season, after the coach introduced weekly goals, the team won four of its last six games.
Classmates: is your research group's cohesion mainly social or mainly task-based so far?
Reply to Jasmine
Jasmine, your description of the early weeks of a work project team, polite at first and then tense when members disagreed about deadlines, fits the sequence Tuckman and Jensen (1977) described: forming, storming, norming, performing and, when the work ends, adjourning. The conflict you found frustrating may have been a normal storming stage, in which members test one another and work out roles. Forsyth (2017) notes that groups do not always move through the stages in order, but groups that work through storming often develop clearer norms. If your team agreed on how decisions would be made after that conflict, it may have moved into norming, which would explain why the later work went more smoothly.
Reply to Caleb
Caleb, you raised a good concern: that very cohesive groups may pressure members to agree, which can hurt decisions. Forsyth (2017) discusses that risk, and it fits your example of a church committee in which no one wanted to question a popular proposal. Still, the meta-analysis by Mullen and Copper (1994) suggests the problem may depend on the kind of cohesion. A group bound mainly by friendship may avoid conflict to protect relationships, while a group bound mainly by commitment to a task may welcome disagreement that improves the work. Your committee might benefit from naming the goal clearly and asking one member to raise objections at each meeting.
References
Forsyth, D. R. (2017). Group dynamics (7th ed.). Cengage.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210-227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
What the PSYC 405 Week 3 instructions ask
In Module/Week 3 of PSYC 405 the 50-point Forum 2 is written after chapter 5 of Forsyth and two presentations, in the week each research group turns in its 50-point outline. The guide's pattern for every forum holds: about 300 words in a thread that takes up the module's topic, then roughly 100 words in response to each of two classmates. Because the research groups have just started working together, the chapter's material on how groups develop and hold together applies directly to students' own experience in the course, and threads that connect the research to that experience tend to produce the liveliest replies from classmates, who are living through the same early stages with their own groups.
How this PSYC 405 Week 3 example is built
A soccer team of close friends with a losing record opens the post and poses the question in concrete form. The thread then defines cohesion with Forsyth, noting that it has social, task, perceived and emotional forms. The meta-analysis by Mullen and Copper follows, with its overall finding, the conditions under which the effect was stronger and its evidence about direction. A short paragraph applies the findings to the team and suggests what a coach might change. A question about classmates' research groups ends the thread. One reply uses the stages of group development, and the other takes up a classmate's concern about pressure in tight groups.
PSYC 405 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
Faculty grade Forum 2 on whether the thread addresses the topic with accurate use of chapter 5, reaches about 300 words and supports its claims, and on whether each reply reaches about 100 words with substance. Strong threads distinguish types of cohesion and explain what research shows about their relation to performance, including the question of causal direction. Faculty value applications to real groups, especially when the writer uses the research to suggest a change. Applications that stay vague, such as saying a group should simply bond more, earn less. Replies are strongest when they add a concept from the chapter, such as the stages of development, or test the classmate's claim against evidence.
PSYC 405 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Threads on cohesion often assume that a group that likes itself will perform well. Separate social cohesion, members' liking for one another, from task cohesion, their shared commitment to the group's goals, because research treats them differently. When citing the meta-analysis, report what it found about direction, since many readers miss that point. Apply the findings to a group you know and suggest what might change its performance. In replies, consider stages of development and the risks of very cohesive groups, such as pressure to agree, which the course returns to later in the discussion of groupthink and which may fit your research group's topic.
Related PSYC 405 sample papers
Other PSYC 405 weeks
- PSYC 405 Week 1: Forum 1: What Makes a Group a Group
- PSYC 405 Week 2: Concept Paper: Ostracism
- PSYC 405 Week 4: Forum 3: Roles and the Prison Study
- PSYC 405 Week 5: Forum 4: Conformity Across Cultures
- PSYC 405 Week 6: Forum 5: Social Loafing in Teams
- PSYC 405 Week 7: Group Paper: Hidden Profiles
- PSYC 405 Week 8: Forum 6: Servant or Transformational
More BS in Psychology sample papers
- PSYC 320 Week 3: BMP Research Paper: Study Time
- PSYC 336 Week 3: Forum 1: Smaller Circles Later
- PSYC 345 Week 3: Forum 3: Early Autism Intervention
- PSYC 380 Week 3: Forum 2: What Brain Scans Can Show
PSYC 405 Week 3 questions, answered
What is PSYC 405 DB Forum 2?
The second 50-point PSYC 405 forum, written after the chapter on cohesion and group development submitted alongside the Group Research Paper outline that week.
Where can I find a free PSYC 405 Week 3 sample paper?
A complete PSYC 405 Week 3 forum on whether cohesive groups perform better, using Mullen and Copper's meta-analysis, with two replies on group development and on pressure in close groups, is on this page.
Does group cohesion improve performance?
Mullen and Copper's meta-analysis found a significant but small relationship, stronger in real groups than in laboratory ones, with shared dedication to the work, not friendship, doing most of the work.
What are the stages of group development?
Tuckman's 1965 sequence ran from forming through storming and norming to performing, and his 1977 revision with Jensen appended adjourning, the stage in which a group completes its work and disbands.
What else is due in PSYC 405 Module/Week 3?
The 50-point Group Research Paper outline, in which each group shows how its leader has divided the approved topic into subtopics assigned to members.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom PSYC 405 Week 3 sample · All PSYC 405 weeks · All courses