Download The Dynamics of Group Cohesion in Sport and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Dynamics in PDF only on Docsity!
JOURNAL
(^) OF (^) SPORT
(^) PSYCHOLOGY,
(^) 1981,
(^) 3, (^) 123-
The Dynamics
of
Group Cohesion in Sport
Albert
V.
Carron and
P.
Chelladurai
University of Western Ontario
Because cohesion isThese represented the dependent variables in the multiple regression design.ment) and group-as-a-unit cohesion (composed of teamwork and closeness).cohesion (composed of sense of belonging, value of membership, and enjoy-used were factor analyzed and two factors were identified: individual-to-group-tion of cohesivenessin individual and team sports. The five measures of cohesionThis study attempted to identify the factors correlated with the athlete's percep-
(^) a (^) group construct, the independent variables were chosen to
athlete and coach and between the athlete and team in task motivation.perception of cohesiveness in sport teams are the discrepancies between thenature of the sport task. Finally, the most important factors contributing to thesional construct. Further, the perception of cohesiveness is moderated by theThe results supported a conclusion that cohesiveness in sport is a multidimen-participation orientation between the coach and athlete and the team and athlete.and athlete and the team and athlete as well as.measures of the discrepancy inreflect this aspect. They included measures of compatibility between the coach
The term dynamics, which represents the concepts of activity, energy, force, and
change, was originally
introduced by Kurt Lewin to represent two principal processes
terrelated-theit has been implicitly assumed that in the context of sport they are sequential and in-tion to the achievement of its objectives). Although the two processes are different,ment and maintenance of the group), and locomotion (activity of the group in rela-associated with group involvement: cohesion (activity concerned with the develop-
more cohesive the team becomes, the more effective it will be in
terms of performance. Zander
(^) (1974)
(^) illustrated this viewpoint when he pointed out
(P.and professionals generally feel that a team can't become a winner without it"themselves, team spirit is the rule rather than the exception. In fact, both amateursthat "in spite of the individual athletes who make headlines when they strike off for Because cohesion and locomotion are assumed to be sequential and interrelated, (^) 64).
research strategy has been to assess the impact of cohesiveness upon performance,variables in research analyses of sport cohesiveness. Thus, for example, one generalboth have been used interchangeably as either the dependent or independent Reprint requests should be sent to Albert
(^) V. (^) Carron, Faculty of Physical Education, Univer-
sity of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, N6A
(^) 3K7,
(^) Canada.
124
CARRON AND CHELLADURAI
whereas
another
has
involved
determining
the
effect
of
performance
upon
the perception of cohesiveness among athletes on sport teams.To date, we have no direct information on the question of what factors contribute tocohesiveness. Unfortunately, however, a fundamental first step has been omitted. Conclusions from
recent
research do lend
support to the suggestions that
cohesiveness
in sport is
(^) an (^) exceedingly complex construct and that a number of fac-
moderating factors proposed to date include the nature of the task (Landerstors may have a strong moderating influence upon it. For example, some of the
(^) &
ability level of the participants (Widmeyer Lueschen, 1974); the nature of the leader-subordinate relationship (Bird, 1977); the
(^) & (^) Martens, 1978); the participation
motivation of the participants (Arnold
(^) & (^) Straub, 1972; Ball
(^) & (^) Carron, 1976); and
the assessment of cohesion utilized (Carron, 1980; Widmeyer
(^) & (^) Martens, 1978).
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the nature of cohesion on sport
in the sections which follow.definitions of the dependent and independent variables. These issues are introducedgeneral or primary purpose, a number of secondary issues related to the operationalvariable and a series of group factors being the independent variables. Within thission analysis design was used for this purpose, with cohesion being the dependentteams with specific reference to identifying its primary correlates. A multiple regres-
The Assessment of Cohesion
in
Sport
Group cohesion has been defined in two principal ways. Festinger, Schachter, and
sion as the resistance by the group to disruptive forces.vidual as the unit of analysis rather than on the group, preferred to consider cohe-the group. Gross and Martin (1952), noting that this definition focuses on the indi-Back (1950) proposed that it is the total field of forces causing members to remain in In sport research, cohesion generally has been operationalized via the Festinger et
al. (1950) definition with the primary assessment device (inventory) being the
(^) Sport
Cohesiveness
(^) Questionnaire
by Martens, Landers, and Loy (Note 1). This question-
friendship or interpersonal attraction among group members,naire includes seven aspects of cohesiveness in sport: cohesiveness assessed as (a)
(^) (b) (^) the relative power
degree of enjoyment the individual derives from participating with the group,group, (d) the value that the individual attaches to membership in the group, (e) theor influence of group members, (c) the sense of belonging the individual feels to the
(^) (f)
(^) the
degree of closeness the individual feels is present within the group.level of teamwork the individual perceives is present within the group, and (g) the The actual way in which the questions are worded in the inventory has led to a sug-
ship,measures of individual-to-group relationships (sense of belonging, value of member-measure of individual-to-individual relationships (friendship and influence/power);gestion (Carron, 1980) that the seven measures actually form into three categories:
and
enjoyment);
and
measures of
the
group-as-a-unit
(teamwork
and
closeness). Because cohesion is a group property, the latter category
(^) most clearly
(^) reflects what
a m i ~ n gis meant by cohesion in sport. And, in fact, when studies have been carried out ex-
the relationship of cohesion to sport performance, both teamwork and
cessful teams. Table 1 contains a summary of these findings.closeness have repeatedly been found to discriminate between successful and unsuc- Most researchers have examined the impact of each of the seven cohesion
126
CARRON AND CHELLADURAI
cohesivenessstudy by Widmeyer and Martens (1978). They factor analyzed eight measures ofmeasures in a series of multivariate or univariate analyses. The sole exception was the
(^) to determine if any formed together into common factors. It was found
is related to better performance.work, and closeness did their results support a conclusions that greater cohesivenessfactor composed of sense of belonging, value of membership, enjoyment, team-which evolved from the analyses. Further, only when cohesion was assessed with thethat interpersonal attraction (friendship) did not load on either of the two factors Given the general pattern of results in Table
(^) the first question or problem of in-
Martens (1978) as being related to performance success-sensestrategies were adopted. First, only those five measures identified by Widmeyer andSport Cohesiveness Questionnaire is utilized. To explore this issue, two principalterest in this investigation was how cohesion should be operationally defined if the
of belonging, value
of membership, enjoyment, teamwork, and closeness-were
included in the study.
The friendship and power/influence assessments of cohesion were not used. Second, based upon an apparent inconsistency between the results of Widmeyer
pattern of results from Table 1 (where the teamwork and closenessand Martens (where all five of these measures formed a single factor) and the general
(^) measures were the
construct?(as assessed by the Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire) a single or multidimensionalrepresented the first specific question of interest in the study; namely, is cohesivenessto determine if the five individual measures form more than one factor. Thus thisteams), a decision was made to initially factor analyze the cohesion measures in orderonly ones to consistently discriminate between successful and unsuccessful sport
Factors
Influencing Perceived Cohesiveness
Given a satisfactory resolution of this question, the main thrust in this investiga-
dependentwould be no point of departure. On the basis of previous research, a number of in-this question must be initiated with some preconceived assumptions; otherwise, therecohesiveness within sport groups. Obviously, any research analysis concerned withtion, then, centered on determining what factors contribute to the perception of
variables
can
be
advanced
logically
as
probable
correlates
of
Task cohesiveness.
One of the more obvious factors thought to be associated with sport cohesion is
the nature of the task.
In a review of research dealing with task structure and
tragroup competition was most effective over 77% of the time.dividual group members carried out their tasks independently of each other, in-terdependence was a requisite. On the other hand, in those experiments in which in-most effective with intragroup cooperation in all experiments in which high task in-cooperation vs. competition, Miller and Hamblin (1963) noted that performance was In a study of bowling teams, Landers and Lueschen (1974) found that lower levels
Lenk's (1969) often-cited study with the German rowing eights team, ultimate per-presence of rivalry within the group may produce the best performance. Similarly, inTable 1). They suggested that when athletes are engaged in independent tasks, theof cohesiveness were associated with more effective performance outcomes (see
GROUP
(^) COHESION
IN SPORT
127
formance success was achieved despite excessive intrateam conflict. On the basis of these findings, it was assumed that the nature of the sport task can
have a moderating
(^) effect upon the development
of cohesiveness. Thus, athletes from
on the other type of team, are involved in what is referred toteam, are involved in what is referred to here as an interdependent task. Wrestlers,two different types of sport teams were tested. Basketball players, on one type of
(^) as (^) an independent task.
to the athlete's perception of team cohesivenessrepresented the second question of interest in the study: Do the factors contributingIn summary, the moderating impact of the task variable upon team cohesiveness
vary in sports involving independent
vs. (^) interdependent tasks?
Coach-athlete Relationship
To fully understand the dynamics of cohesiveness,
(^) it seems imperative to take into
poorly or contrary to the organization's goals (Schachter, Ellertson, McBride,rebellion could be highly cohesive but would also be strongly oriented to performdinates, cohesiveness, and performance. Certainly, a group in mutiny or openrevealed that there is a complex interrelationship between the leader, the subor-account the nature of the leader-subordinate relationship. A number of studies have
(^) &
Gregory, 1951). Similarly, the cohesiveness of the group can also influence the type of leader
behavior which is most effective with subordinates. For example, Schreisheim
behavior is most critical in high cohesive groups.leader is most critical in low cohesive groups but interpersonal-oriented leaderthe effective achievement of these three criteria, task-oriented behavior from thesatisfaction, and perceived role clarity within the group. She found that in terms ofanalyzed three criteria of subordinate effectiveness: self-reported performance, A (^) number of authors (Foder, 1976;
(^) Lowin
(^) & (^) Craig, 1968;
(^) Oaklander
(^) & (^) Fleishman,
1964; Schreisheim
(^) & (^) Murphy, 1976) have also noted that the degree of stress in a
styles and task-oriented behavior is superior to interpersonal-oriented behavior.with another group), autocratic decision styles are superior to democratic decisionand preferred by subordinates. In highly stressful situations (such as competitionsituation influences both the decision style and leader behavior adopted by leaders obvious, little empirical study has been undertaken to illuminate this effect. (p.success or failure. Although the coach's potential for influence may appear intuitivelythe formal leader can affect both team cohesion and performance outcome in terms of It would certainly appear defensible to assume that in competitive sport, the coach, as Thus, as Bird (1977) has noted:
(^) 218)
One approach which has been taken, however, has been to examine the nature of
the coach-athlete
(^) interpersonal
relationship (Carron, 1978; Carron
(^) & (^) Bennett, 1977)
and its impact upon athletic performance (Carron &'~arvie,
1978). Schutz's (1958,
- three-dimensional
(^) theory of interpersonal behavior (also called Fundamental
Interpersonal
(^) Relations Orientation-FIRO)
was the theoretical model used.
Schutz's theory is founded on the axiom that "people need people," that people
control, and affection. As Schutz (1966) defined it, compatibility is the following:others. These needs are expressed behaviorally in three principal areas: inclusion,have social needs which must be satisfied through compatible relationships with
GROUP COHESION
(^) IN (^) SPORT
129
Martens et al. (Note 1) originally included a modified version of the Bass Orienta-
(e.g., Arnoldhave subsequently,included measures of these motives in studies of cohesivenesstion Inventory in the Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire. A number of researchers
(^) & (^) Straub, 1972; Ball
(^) & (^) Carron, 1976) and satisfaction (e.g., Carron,
Ball,
(^) & (^) Chelladurai, 1977; Martens, 1970), thereby acknowledging that the predomi-
fluence the "climate"nant type of motivation underlying individual involvement with the group may in-
(group morale or cohesiveness) that develops.
In previous research, when the participation motives have been incorporated, only
rest of the team.pletely out of synchrony with the predominant orientation of the coach and/or thethat the group is not very cohesive because that high affiliation motivation is com-ple, an athlete could have an exceptionally high affiliation motivation and perceiveindividual possesses in relation to that held by teammates and the coach. For exam-motivation may not be as important as the type and intensity of motivation that thebecause cohesiveness is a group construct, the absolute value of participationdetermine just how (if at all) these individual motives relate to cohesiveness. Also,the absolute value for the athlete has been used and no attempt has been made to On the basis of this line of reasoning, another question of interest in the study
ter-themethods of assessing task-, self-, and affiliation-participation motivation is bet-the coach and the team. Thus, the fifth question of interest was which of two generalgroup situation. Two classes of important referent others are available, of course:in participation motivation between the athlete and important referent others in theabsolute values the athlete possesses, or a relative measure reflecting the discrepancyrelated to which assessment of motivation is a better predictor of cohesiveness-the
athlete's absolute values considered alone (independently), or the athlete's
participation motivation considered in relation to the team and to the coach? When the preliminary issue was resolved, it was then possible to determine
self, and affiliation) influence the perception of cohesiveness in sport groups?sixth and final question of interest: Does the level of participation motivation (task,sidered) influences the athlete's perception of cohesiveness. This represented thewhether any of the three participation motivations (in whatever way they are con- In summary, then, the general purpose of this study was to determine what
moderating factors are associated with the perception
of cohesiveness in sport
affiliation motivation).affection); and, the participation orientations of the athlete and the coach (task, self,the athlete-team relationship (athlete-team compatibility for inclusion, control, andtionship (athlete-coach compatibility for inclusion, control, and affection behavior);(interdependentkern sport, independent/individual sport); the athlete-coach rela-The various independent measures utilized included the nature of the sport groupfactor analysis represented the dependent variable(s) in a multiple regression design.groups. Within this general framework, the cohesion measure(s) derived through
Method
Subjects
Male athletes
(^) (n (^) = (^) 99) (^) and their coaches (n
(^) = (^) 10) from two different sports in five
high schools were tested. Of these 99 athletes,
(^) were basketball players (the in-
terdependentheam sport) and
(^41)
(^) were wrestlers (the independent/individual sport).
130
CARRON AND CHELLADURAI
Assessment their season.Each individual was tested on two occasions: early in their season and at the end of
of
Dependent and Independent Variables
Cohesion.
(^) As indicated previously, cohesion was assessed using five of the seven
items from the Martens et al. (Note
(^) Sport CohesivenessQuestionnaire.
(^) These five
cohesion measures were enjoyment, value of membership,
sense of belonging,
format for the cohesion questions:alternative anchored between two polarities. The following illustrates the generalcloseness, and teamwork. Each question was constructed in the form of a 9-choice
you enjoy competing with this particular team.about the team you are playing on. In reference to the scale below, how much d oThe purpose of the following question is t o better understand the way you feel
MuchveryEnjoy
Enjoy LittleVery
Participation motivation. Similar questions were used for the other four measures of cohesion.
(^) The participation orientations of the athletes and their
each of the three participation motives (task, self, and affiliation). The followingalternative anchored between two polarities. A separate question was used to assesscoaches were also assessed using a question constructed in the form of a 9-choice
(^) il-
lustrates the format for these questions.
There are many specific reasons for competing with athletic teams. These
1. reasons have been classified in three general categories: (^) to associate with people that you like [Affiliation];
2. (^) to participate and contribute t o the team's success [Task]; and
3. (^) to obtain the personal rewards associated with athletics [Self].
Every athlete has a different level or amount of each of these three. Using the scale provided, indicate how important
(^) each
(^) of these reasons is for
To be with the guys:you.
(^1) (^2) (^3) (^4) (^5) (^6) (^7) (^8)
9
Important Very
ImportantNot at all
To compute a relative measure of participation motivation-measures
reflecting
thethe discrepancy in participation motivation between the athlete and the coach and
athlete
and
the
team-two
different
computations
were
necessary.
The
This same type of computation was also used for affiliation and self-motivation.assessed by subtracting the athlete's task motivation score from that of the coach.discrepancy between each athlete and his coach in task motivation, for example, was Insofar as the discrepancy between the athlete and the team was concerned, a
dividual athlete was then subtracted from this. This type of computation was usedmean motivation score for the team was initially calculated. The value for each in-
132
CARRON
(^) AND
(^) CHELLADURAI
mosphere' in which a relationship exists
(^)....
(^) For example, high affection inter-
tional behavior and feelings, such as in a close family situation"change refers to a situation in which all participants exchange a good deal of affec-
(p. (^) 110).
In the area of control, for example, interchange compatibility was assessed by first
expressed and wanted control.These values were then added together and subtracted from the sum of the athlete'sobtaining an average value for the group for expressed control and wanted control. Absolute values were used, with the smaller the value, the greater the interchange
Procedure and affection.terchange compatibility measures were calculated: one each for inclusion, control,compatibility. As was the case with reciprocal and originator compatibility, three in-
Initial contact was made with the coaches at the five target high schools. With
petitive season. All testing was carried out in classroom environment.selected but prior to the first competition, and just prior to the end of the com-participate were tested on two occasions: early in the season after the team had beenprotocol were submitted to all coaches and their athletes. The subjects who agreed totheir willingness to participate secured, informed consent forms outlining the general In the initial test period,
FIRO-B,
(^) the
(^) Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire,
(^) and the
In the final test, theparticipation motivation questions were administered to both coaches and athletes.
(^) Sport
(^) CohesivenessQuestionnaire
(^) and the participation motiva-
whereas the participation motivation andof cohesiveness secured in the final test represented the dependent variable used,tion questions were again administered to all athletes and coaches. The assessments
FIRO-B
(^) measures secured in the initial test
represented the independent variables analyzed.
Results
Cohesion
The first analysis undertaken in the study was to determine whether cohesion is a
single or multidimensional
construct.
The five cohesion items secured in the
tion of cohesivenessstruct of cohesion. This two-factor solution is also consistent with the bilevel descrip-83.5% of the variance in the data seemed to provide the best description of the con-rotation. Of the various solutions examined, a two-factor solution accounting forpostseason were factor analyzed using principal factoring with iteration and varimax
(^) reflected by the findings presented in Table
(^) A summary of the
factor loadings is outlined in Table
The items assessing enjoyment, sense of belonging, and value of membership had
perceived a sense of association with the total group.volved, the athlete was asked to indicate the degree to which he, as an individual,sion." The underlying rationale for this label is that with each of the three items in-their largest loading on the first factor which was labeled "individual-to-group cohe- The items assessing teamwork and closeness had their greater loading o n the se-
sion."the group as a total unit, the label attached to this factor was "group-as-a-unit cohe-cond factor. Because these two items require the athlete to assess the properties of
These two independent factors were the measures of cohesion used as the
GROUP COHESION
(^) IN (^) SPORT
133
Table
Orthogonally Rotated Factor Matrix For The Five Cohesion Items
From
The Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire
Factor loadings
Individual-to-group
Group-as-a-unit
Cohesion item
cohesion
cohesion
Percent variance.EigenvalueClosenessTeamworkValue of membershipSense of belongingEnjoyment
Participation Motivation dependent variables in all subsequent analyses.
Prior to pursuing the main focus of the study, it was necessary to resolve the issue
(a) the athlete's absolute values, orof which of the two general methods of utilizing participation motivation is better:
(^) (b) (^) the athlete's participation motivation relative
Factors Influencing Perceived Cohesiveness values. Thus, the former were used in all subsequent analyses.scores consistently accounted for a greater proportion of variance than the absoluteperformed using both sets of measures. The results indicated that the discrepancyteam discrepancy). To resolve this issue, different multiple regression analyses wereto that possessed by the coach (athlete-coach discrepancy) and by the team (athlete-
Because there was a large number of independent variables relative to the number
the first stage, the compatibility and task variables were used in a stepwiseof subjects, the analysis was carried out in two stages. In one preliminary analysis in
(^) regression
analysis using all
(^) subjects. This involved a hierarchical analysis in which the main
regression prior to the interaction terms (the compatibilityterms (the compatibility variables and task variables) were ordered into the multiple
x
task variables). The
significant predictors of cohesivenesspurpose of this analysis was to determine if any of the compatibility measures were
and if wrestlers and basketball players differed
in the factors contributing to perception of cohesiveness. In a second preliminary analysis in the first stage, the participation motivation and
task variables were used in a stepwise regression analysis using data from the
(^) sub-
measures was a significant predictor of cohesiveness and if differences existed be-terms. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if any of the participationjects. Again, this involved a hierarchical analysis involving main and interaction
GROUP COHESION IN SPORT
135
ships. Further, athletes who indicated the least cohesivenesstion for control expressed greater cohesiveness than athletes in compatible relation-creased. Also, those athletes in coach-athlete relationships characterized by competi-of task motivation decreased, the perception of the degree of cohesiveness de-motivation relative to their coaches perceived the most cohesiveness. As the amount
(^) were those who were in
coach-athlete relationships in which there was apathy for control. In the case of the independent (individual) sport athletes, two variables-the
tween athlete and coach in affiliation motivation-significantlydiscrepancy between athlete and coach in task motivation and the discrepancy be-
predicted individual-
to-group cohesiveness, overall
F(2,
(^) = (^) 3.44,
(^) p (^) 4 (^) .04.
(^) The multiple R was
which accounted for only
(^) of the variance. The interpretation for these results
cohesiveness.filiation orientation relative to their coach perceived the greatest amount of teamvariable selected. That is, those individuals who possessed the lowest degrees of af-generally and wrestling teams specifically appeared to be highlighted by the secondto their coaches perceived the most cohesion. The task-oriented nature of sportis that those athletes who possessed the greatest amounts of task motivation relative A (^) summary of the group-as-a-unit measure of cohesiveness
is presented in Table
sion-significantlybetween athlete and team in task motivation and originator compatibility for inclu-In the case of the interdependent (team sport) athletes, two variables-discrepancy
predicted group-as-a-unit cohesiveness, overall
F(2,51)
(^) = (^) 6.19,
(^) p
<. O l.
The multiple R was
(^) which accounted for 19.5% of the variance. These
ceived the highest cohesion.letes in coach-athlete relationships characterized by apathy in inclusion behavior per-tion relative to their teammates perceived the most cohesion. Similarly, those ath-results indicate that those athletes who possessed the greatest amount of task motiva-
Conversely, athletes in coach-athlete relationships
cohesiveness.characterized by competition in inclusion behavior had the lowest perception of team I n
the
case
of
the
independent
(individual)
sport
athletes,
three
variables-originator
compatibility for affection, the discrepancy in athlete and
motivation-significantlycoach in task motivation, and the discrepancy between athlete and team in task
predicted
group-as-a-unit
cohesiveness,
overall F(3,
(^) = 9.61,
(^) p < (^) .001. The multiple R was .652 which accounted for
of the
behavior had the highest perception of cohesiveness.hand, athletes in coach-athlete relationships characterized by apathy in affectionpressions of affection behavior perceived the lowest cohesiveness. On the otherAlso, those athletes in coach-athlete relationships characterized by the greatest ex-coach and relative to teammates), the greater the perception of team cohesiveness.variance. The higher the task motivation on the part of the athlete (relative to the
Discussion
Overall, the results support the view that cohesion is a multidimensional construct.
dividual measures from theThere are two basic reasons for this suggestion. First, a factor analysis of the five in-
(^) Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire
(^) revealed the presence
of
two
specific factors:
individual-to-group cohesiveness and
group-to-a-unit
andcohesiveness. The former is composed of sense of belonging, value of membership,
enjoyment.
The latter is composed
of teamwork, and closeness, the two
CARRON
(^) AND CHELLADURAI Table
(^4)
Summary of the Regression Analyses For Group-As-A-Unit
TY Cohesiveness With Interdependent and Independent Sport Teams ofPe
sDort
Variable
Beta
Simple
r
Discrepancy in athlete
(^) vs. (^) team
in (^) task motivation
(^).
(^).
c^ -is
r
Originator compatibility for
O
inclusion
.
.
r^ zc
R (^) = (^).
Adjusted
(^) ff
= (^) .I
ff (^) = (^) .I
Overall
(^) F(2.51)
(^) 6.19,
p (^) < (^) .O
affection Originator compatibility for
c^ -
Discrepancy in athlete
(^) vs.
(^) coach
In ,^
in task motivation
(^) 1.
(^).
a 5 (^) a
Discrepancy
(^) in (^) athlete vs. team
In
in (^) task motivation
c u
1.
(^).
R (^) = (^).
Adjusted
(^) R (^) = (^).
RZ
(^).
Overall
(^) F(3.39)
(^) = (^) 9.61,
p c
.
sport teams (Table measures which most consistently discriminate between successful and unsuccessful
(^) 1). (^) A (^) question which does remain unanswered by this investiga-
mance success of the team (as the Widmeyer and Martenstion is whether both of these factors are associated with differences in the perfor-
[I
(^) findings would sug-
majority of the studies summarized in Tablegest) or whether the group-as-a-unit factor simply is associated with success (as the
(^) 1 (^) would suggest).
A
(^) second reason for the suggestion that cohesion is a multidimensional construct
is (^) that the perception of team cohesiveness is moderated by the type of group
(where the athletes are engaged in an interdependent task).dividual sport (where the athletes carry out independent tasks) and a team sportmembership. The variables which contribute to cohesion are different in an in- The one variable which did show remarkable consistency in its contribution to the
ly, this reflects the strong goal-oriented norm characteristic of interscholastic sportvalue) also possessed the highest perception of the team's cohesiveness. Undoubted-motivation relative to their coach and the team (the normative or average groupwas task motivation. Specifically, those athletes who had the highest levels of taskperception of cohesiveness in both cohesion factors and across the two sport types
138
CARRON AND CHELLADURAI
highest perception of cohesion.neither the coach nor the athlete were originators of inclusion behavior expressed the
Conclusion
On the basis of the results, three conclusions appear warranted. First, cohesion in
fluence the perception of cohesivenessthe context of sport is a multidimensional construct. Secondly, the factors which in-
(^) on sport teams are moderated by the nature of
most important factors contributing to perceived cohesiveness in sport teams.athlete and the general team norm in terms of task motivation are the two singlethe task. Finally, the discrepancies between the athlete and coach and between the
Reference Note
- Martens,
(^) R., (^) Landers, D.M.,
(^) & (^) Loy, J.W.
(^) Sport CohesivenessQuestionnaire.
(^) Unpublished
instrument, 1972.
References
Arnold, G.E.,
(^) & (^) Straub, W.B. Personality and group cohesiveness as determinants of success
among interscholastic basketball teams.
(^) Proceedings-Fourth
Canadian Symposium on
Psycho-Motor Learning and Sport Psychology.
(^) Ottawa: Health and Welfare, Canada, 1972.
Ball, J.R.,
(^) & (^) Carron, A.V. The influence
(^) of team cohesion and participation motivation upon
performance success in intercollegiate ice hockey.
Canadian Journal of Applied Sport
Sciences,
(^) 1976,
(^) 1, (^27) 1-275.
Bass, B.M.
(^) The orientation inventory.
(^) Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1962.
Bird, A.M. Team structure and success
(^) as (^) related to cohesiveness and leadership.
(^) Journal of
Social Psychology,
(^) 1977,
(^) 103,
(^) 217-223.
Carron, A.V. Role behavior and coach-athlete interaction.
(^) International Review of Sport
Sociology.
(^) 1978,
(^) 12, (^) 51-65.
Carron, A.V.
(^) Social psychology of sport.
(^) Ithaca: Mouvement Publications, 1980.
Carron, A.V., Ball, J.R.,
(^) & (^) Chelladurai, P. Motivation for participation, success in perfor-
mance and their relationship to individual and group satisfaction.
(^) Perceptual and Motor
Skills,
(^) 1977,
(^) 45, (^) 835-841.
Carron, A.V.,
(^) & (^) Bennett, B.B. Compatibility in the coach-athlete dyad.
(^) Research Quarterly,
1977,
(^) 48, (^) 671-679.
Carron, A.V.,
& (^) Garvie, G.T. Compatibility and successful performance.
(^) Perceptual and
Motor Skills,
(^) 1978,
(^) 46, (^) 1121-1122.
Festinger, L., Schachter,
(^) S., (^) & (^) Back,
K. Social pressures in informal groups.
(^) New York:
Harper, 1950.
Foder, E.M. Group stress, authoritarian style
(^) of control, and use of power.
(^) Journalof Applied
Psychology,
(^) 1976,
(^) 61, (^) 313-318.
Gill, D.L. Cohesiveness and performance in sport groups. In R. S. Hutton (Ed.),
(^) Exercise and
sport science reviews
(^) (Vol. 5). Santa Barbara, CA: Journal Publishing Affiliates, 1977.
Gross, N.,
(^) & (^) Martin, W. On group cohesiveness.
(^) American Journal of Sociology,
(^) 1951,
(^) 57,
533-546.
Hackman, J.R. Group influences on individuals. In
(^) M. (^) D. Dunnette (Ed.),
(^) Handbook of in-
dustrial and
(^) organizationalpsychology.
(^) Skokie, IL: Rand-McNally, 1976.
Landers, D.M.,
(^) & (^) Crum, T. The effects of team success and formal structure on interpersonal
relations and cohesiveness on baseball teams.
(^) International Journal of Sport Psychology.
GROUP COHESION IN SPORT
139
1971,
(^) 2, (^) 88-96.
Landers, D.M.,
& (^) Lueschen,
(^) G. (^) Team performance outcome and the cohesiveness of com-
petitive coacting groups.
(^) International Review of Sport Sociology,
(^) 1974,
(^) 9, (^) 57-71.
Lenk, H. Top performance despite internal conflict: An antithesis to a functionalistic proposi- tion. In J. W. Loy
(^) & (^) G. S. Kenyon (Eds.),
Sport, culture and society.
(^) New York: Mac-
Millan,
(^) 1969.
Lowin, A.,
& (^) Craig, J. The influence of level of performance on managerial style: An ex-
perimental object lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data.
(^) Organizational
(^) Behavior and
Human Performance,
(^) 1968, 3, 440-458.
Martens, R. Influence of participation motivation on success and satisfaction in team perfor- mance.
(^) Research Quarterly,
(^) 1970,
(^) 41, (^) 510-518.
Martens,
(^) R., (^) & (^) Peterson, J.A. Group cohesiveness as a determinant of success and member
satisfaction in team performance.
(^) International Review of Sport Sociology,
(^) 1971,6,49-61.
Melnick, M.
(^) J., (^) & (^) Chemers, M.M. Effects of group social structure on the success of basketball
teams.
(^) Research Quarterly,
(^) 1974,
(^) 45, (^) 1-8.
\
Miller, L.K.,
& (^) Hamblin, R.L.
Interdependence,
differential rewarding, and productivity.
American Sociological Review,
(^) 1963,
(^) 28, (^) 768-777.
Oaklander,
(^) H.,
(^) & (^) Fleishman, E.A. Patterns of leadership related to organizational stress in
hospital settings.
(^) Administrative Science Quarterly,
(^) 1964, 8, 520-532.
Raven, B.H.,
& (^) Rietsema, J. The effect of varied clarity of group goal and group path upon
the individual and his relation to this group.
(^) Human Relations,
(^) 1957,
(^) 10, (^) 29-44.
Schachter,
S.,
Ellertson,
N.,
McBride,
D.,
& (^) Gregory,
D. An
experimental study
of
cohesiveness and productivity.
(^) Human Relations,
(^) 1951,
(^) 4, (^) 229-238.
Schreisheim, C.A.,
(^) & (^) Murphy, C.J. Relationship between leader behavior and subordinate
satisfaction and performance: A test of some situational moderators.
(^) Journal of Applied
P S Y C ~ O ~ O ~ Y ,
1976, 61,634-641.
Schreisheim, J.F. The social context of leader-subordinate relations:
(^) An
(^) investigation of the
effects of group cohesiveness.
(^) Journal of Applied Psychology,
(^) 1980, 65, 183-194.
Schutz, W.C.
(^) FZRO: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior.
(^) New York: Holt,
Rinehart
(^) & (^) Winston,
(^) 1958.
Schutz, W.C.
The interpersonal underground
(^) (5th ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior
Books,
(^) 1966.
Sherif, M.
(^) Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology.
(^) London: Routledge
(^) &
Kegan Paul,
(^) 1967.
Widmeyer, W.N.,
& (^) Martens, R. When cohesion predicts performance outcome in sport.
Reseach Quarterly,
(^) 1978,
(^) 49, (^) 372-380.
Zander,
A.
Productivity
and
group
success: Team
spirit
vs.
the
individual
achiever.
Psychology Today,
(^) 1974, 8(6), 64-68.
Revision received: 4/2/81 Manuscript submitted: 1/13/
