Studying cohesion in a military collective as a structure-forming component of collective mental models of interaction among military personnel

   Introduction. This article examines military team cohesion as a structural component of collective mental models of military personnel interaction. It is noted that group cohesion and leadership style influence the effectiveness of actions, as well as the satisfactory morale and psychological state of personnel. A definition of military team cohesion is provided, which is understood as the overall relationship between personnel within a unit that enables them to perform combat missions in their daily lives.

   Materials and methods. Using the r-Spearman test, the relationship between the parameters of the collective mental model of military personnel interaction and the individual mental model of military personnel interaction was studied, depending on the place of service.

   Results. As a result of the study, it was found that the cohesion in the cadet group is positively related to the effective performance of the role in the collective mental model of military personnel interaction, while in the group of special forces military personnel, this component is positively correlated with the effectiveness of the model.

   Discussion and conclusions. It is concluded that the effectiveness of the formation of a mental model among special forces personnel is determined by such parameters as the atmosphere and commonality, while among cadets it is determined only by the cohesion and moral and psychological atmosphere within the military unit. Therefore, among military personnel with military and professional combat experience, the effectiveness of the formation of a collective mental model of military personnel interaction is directly related to its characteristics: cohesion, moral and psychological atmosphere, and commonality. At the same time, the lack of combat experience among cadets does not allow for direct correlation with these components, but rather forms a sequential correlation through the effectiveness of role performance.

1. Andronov A. V., Andronova A. G., Fedorishin M. I. Possibilities of Using Information Technologies to Develop Self-Regulation of Cadets of Military Educational Institutions of Higher Education of the Troops of the National Guard of the Russian Federation. Barnaul, 2018. Pp. 1261-1264. (In Russ.)

2. Bol'shunova N. Ya., Chaporgin A. G., Fedorishin M. I. The Structure of Psychological Readiness to Perform Service and Combat Missions among Servicemen of the Troops of the National Guard of the Russian Federation. Voenno-pravovye i gumanitarnye nauki Sibiri, 2019, no. 1 (1), pp. 23-27. (In Russ.)

3. Mekebaev N. S., Perevozkina YU. M., Fedorishin M. I. Configurations of collective mental models in solving service-combat tasks by cadets of the Russian National Guard. Rossijskij psihologicheskij zhurnal, 2022, no. 19 (2), pp. 50-59. (In Russ.)

4. Mekebaev N. S., Perevozkina YU. M., Fedorishin M. I. Mental models of social interaction of military personnel. Smal'ta, 2021, no. 3, pp. 65-76. (In Russ.)

5. Perevozkina YU. M., Perevozkin S. B., Fedorishin M. I. Mental models of social interaction in service activities : electronic. textbook. Novosibirsk, NGPU Publ., 2023. (In Russ.)

6. Perevozkina Yu. M., Fedorishin M. I. A systems approach to the psychology of individuality. Yaroslavskij psihologicheskij vestnik, 2019, no. 3 (45), pp. 12-13. (In Russ.)

7. Smolencev I. O., Fedorishin M. I., Zhabbarov V. A. Self-regulation and critical thinking in the process of professional development of cadets of the Military-National Guard of the Russian Federation. Problemy sovremennogo pedagogicheskogo obrazovaniya, 2020, no. 66, pp. 332-336. (In Russ.)

8. Spirin A. V., Perevozkina Yu. M., Fedorishin M. I. Specifics of the structure of personality traits depending on the type of temperament in cadets of the Military-National Guard of the Russian Federation. Chelovecheskij faktor: Social'nyj psiholog, 2020, no. 2 (40), pp. 295-303. (In Russ.)

9. Fedorishin M. I., Perevozkina Yu. M. Features of the structural organization of the metacognitive subsystem of mental models of interaction of servicemen of the Russian National Guard. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Akmeologiya obrazovaniya. Psihologiya razvitiya, 2025, vol. 14, no. 1 (53), pp. 62-76. (In Russ.)

10. Fedorishin M. I. The relationship between self-regulation and individualization in the learning process of cadets of the All-Russian Military Military District. Yaroslavskij psihologicheskij vestnik, 2018, no. 2 (41), pp. 86-90. (In Russ.)

11. Fedorishin M. I., Andronov A. V. Individual characteristics of self-regulation of cadets of a military university. Yaroslavskij psihologicheskij vestnik, 2018, no. 1 (40), pp. 76-83. (In Russ.)

12. Fedorishin M. I., Perevozkina Yu. M. Specificity of the Expression of Abilities and Cognitive Processes Depending on the Dominant Role Model of Cadets in Solving Service-Combat Tasks. Aktual'nye problemy professional'no-prakticheskoj psihologii (D'yachenkovskie chteniya – 2022) : sbornik nauchnyj trudov I Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii. Moscow, 2022. Pp. 513-520. (In Russ.)

13. Fedorishin M. I., Spirin A. V., CHajkovskij P. V. Features of the Individuality of Cadets with a High Level of Self-Regulation: The Human Factor. Chelovecheskij faktor: Social'nyj psiholog, 2019, no. 1 (37), pp. 423-435. (In Russ.)

14. Frolova L. V., Fedorishin M. I. Problems of social adaptation of graduates of military universities. Napravleniya i perspektivy razvitiya obrazovaniya v voennyh institutah vojsk nacional'noj gvardii Rossijskoj Federacii : sb. nauch. st. VIII Mezhvuz. nauch.-prakt. konf. s mezhdunar. uch. Novosibirsk, NVI VNG RF Publ., 2017. Pp. 271-276. (In Russ.)

15. Ben-Ari E. Compositional and operational flexibility in the “new wars”: Military mission formations and collective action. Strategic Assessment, 2020, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 69-85.

16. Breslau J., Setodji C. M., Vaughan C. A. Is cohesion within military units associated with post-deployment behavioral and mental health outcomes? Journal of Affective Disorders, 2016, vol. 198, pp. 102-107.

17. Dwyer G., Hardy C., Tsoukas H. Struggling to make sense of it all: The emotional process of sensemaking following an extreme incident. Human Relations, 2023, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 420-451.

18. Floren L. C., Donesky D., Whitaker E., Irby D. M., Cate O., O'Brien B. C. Are we on the same page? Shared mental models to support clinical teamwork among health professions learners. Academic Medicine, 2018, vol. 93, no. 3, pp. 498-509.

19. Foddy M., Platow M. J., Yamagishi T. Group-based trust in strangers. Psychological Science, 2009, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 419-422.

20. Grossman R., Nolan K., Rosch Z., Mazer D., Salas E. The team cohesion performance relationship: A meta-analysis exploring measurement approaches and the changing team landscape. Organizational Psychology Review, 2022, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 181-238.

21. Jansen M. M., Delahaij R. Leadership acceptance through the lens of social identity theory: A case study of military leadership in Afghanistan. Armed Forces & Society, 2020, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 657-676.

22. King A. C. Broadening the perspective on military cohesion? A reply. Armed Forces & Society, 2021, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 586-595.

23. King A. C. The female combat soldiers. European Journal of International Relations, 2016, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 122-143.

24. MacCoun R. J., Kier E., Belkin A. Does social cohesion determine motivation in combat? An old question with an old answer. Armed Forces & Society, 2006, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 646-654.

25. Platow M. J., Foddy M., Yamagishi T., Lim L., Chow A. Two experimental tests of trust in in-group strangers: The moderating role of common knowledge of group membership. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2012, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 30-35.

26. Salas E., Sims D. E., Burke C. S. Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 2005, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 555-599.

27. Segal D. R., Kestnbaum M. Professional closure in the military labor market: A critique of pure cohesion. The future of the army profession. New York, 2002. Pp. 441-458.

28. Siebold G. L., Crabb T., Woodward R., King, A. C. Combat, Cohesion, and Controversy: Disputatio Sine Fine. Armed Forces & Society, 2016, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 449-462.

29. Siebold G. L. Key questions and challenges to the standard model of military group cohesion. Armed Forces & Society, 2011, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 448-468.

30. Smith P., Haslam S. A., Nielsen J. F. In search of identity leadership: An ethnographic study of emergent influence in an interorganizational R&D team. Organization Studies, 2018, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 1425-1447.