Search results

The characteristic role behaviors for both coaches and athletes in the athletic situation in the need areas of inclusion, control and affection were defined by coaches (N=40). Two modified versions of Schutz's FIRO-B were utilized. The results indicated that coaches and athletes were in complete agreement concerning the perceived role behaviors for both coaches and athletes. Coaches were perceived as the initiators of control; athletes, the recipients. Both coaches and athletes were perceived as being relatively passive in regards to initiating interactions (inclusion behavior) and de veloping warm personal relations (affection behavior). These latter two characteristics could contribute naturally to an incompatibility in the coach-athlete interaction.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between role ambiguity and both task cohesion (group integration-task and attractions to the group-task) and task efficacy (for offence and defense) in basketball. Ambiguity was operationalized as a multidimensional construct comprising a lack of clear understanding about (a) scope of role responsibilities, (b) behaviors to carry out role responsibilities, (c) how role performance will be evaluated, and (d) the consequences of a failure to discharge role responsibilities. The results showed a high degree of relationship among the four manifestations of role ambiguity. Also, ambiguity concerning scope of responsibilities was inversely related to both measures of task cohesion as well as task efficacy for defense. Task efficacy for offence was predicted for female athletes by ambiguity associated with evaluation of performance and for male athletes by ambiguity associated with evaluation of performance and consequences of not fulfilling responsibilities. Implications of findings and future research are discussed.

This study examined the relationship of group cohesion to attitude and control beliefs toward exercise in a sample of older adults within the broader framework of the theory of planned behavior (N = 179, 27% male, average age = 67 years, SD = 7.77). Perceptions of task and social cohesion were assessed as well as attitude toward exercise, perceptions of control over attendance, and exercise intention. Following the assessment of the cognitive variables, exercise attendance was monitored for 4 weeks. Results revealed that task cohesion was related to perceptions of control (p < .05), whereas social cohesion was related to attitude toward exercise (p < .05). In turn, perceptions of control were related to intention to exercise (p < .01), and intention to exercise and perceptions of control were related to exercise class attendance (p < .01). Contrary to predictions, task cohesion did add to the prediction of attitude, but attitude was not related to exercise intentions.

The purpose of this study was to compare the social anxiety of individuals differing in the personality trait of social physique anxiety across three social conditions that varied in degree of group support present. A 2 (high vs. low social physique anxiety) x 3 (alone, with a bestfriend, with a group offriends)factorial design was used with a sample of undergraduate university students (N = 161). The results showed that in comparison with individuals higher in the trait of social physique anxiety, individuals lower in the trait perceived less social anxiety relative to their physique independent of the social condition. Further, group presence served to reduce the social anxiety associated with self-presentation. Progressively less social anxiety was experienced in the company of a best friend and the company of a group offriends than when alone. No interaction was found between the personality trait of social physique anxiety and the three social conditions.

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between group cohesion and individual work output (effort) in sport teams. Results showed that athletes who scored high on the Individual Attractions to the Group Task (AGT-T) Scale from the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) worked harder (predicted from a bag of expired air at the end of training and expressed as apercentage relative to the maximal volume of oxygen consumption) than athletes who scored low on the ATG-T The results extend previous research that has shown that cohesion is positively associated with individual adherence in sport teams and exercise classes. Recommendations forfuture research are discussed.

The factors influencing the effects that cohesiveness has upon performance success in athletic situations were examined. Two principal issues were discussed: the nature of the sport task (i.e., inherent differences among various sports in terms of task demands influence the type of coordinative activity required of group mem bers and this, in turn, is related to cohesiveness); and, the construct of cohesiveness itself with specific reference to those factors which contribute to improved coor dinative activity. It was proposed that only in those sports which are comprised of tasks characterized by interactive dependence (where maximum coordination can only be obtained through mutual adjustment by individual team members) that cohesiveness is related to team success. It was also proposed that cohesiveness, as a multidimensional construct, is comprised of three general categories of forces: normative, task and social. The normative forces (which arise as a result of tra ditional, cultural and practical considerations) prevent group dissolution and/or maintain individual participation within the team. Since these normative forces are constant across teams, they are unrelated to performance effectiveness. Task forces (resulting from task and self needs) lead to the development of coalitions while the social forces (arising from affiliative needs) are manifested in clique formation. The enhanced coordination contributing to performance success is a result of coalitions formed on the basis of maximum resources.

The constitutive and operational definitions of group cohesion have varied across various disciplines in group dynamics. Recently, it has been suggested that a conceptualization of cohesion proposed by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley could have broad research applicability for different types of groups. However, results from a few studies have raised questions about the validity of this suggestion. One reason that these studies did not support the suggestion is that they failed to take into account the varied nature of groups and group cohesiveness. To clarify issues associated with measuring cohesion and testing various research questions, this article provides a general definition of cohesiveness, a discussion of the theoretical implications of that definition, and some suggestions for the conditions and procedures necessary to examine the structure of group cohesion in a variety of group contexts.

It has been suggested that the salience and legitimacy of norms for performance excellence are universal in all sport teams. However, the different task structures within sport influence the nature of interactions, which in turn, may influence the development of team norms. Thus, one purpose of this study was to examine the strength of group norms in individual sport teams. A second purpose was to determine the relationship between those norms and self-reported behaviors reflective of the norms. Participants (N = 97) of university-level individual sport teams completed a questionnaire, which assessed performance norms and behaviors for practice, competition, off-season, and team social functions. The results provided support for the conclusion that normative expectations in individual sport teams exert a weak influence. Also, generally, individual perceptions of the strength of team norms were unrelated to self-reported behaviors. The results were discussed in terms of the dynamics of the group task.

The constitutive and operational definitions of group cohesion have varied across various disciplines in group dynamics. Recently, it has been suggested that a conceptualization of cohesion proposed by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley could have broad research applicability for different types of groups. However, results from a few studies have raised questions about the validity of this suggestion. One reason that these studies did not support the suggestion is that they failed to take into account the varied nature of groups and group cohesiveness. To clarify issues associated with measuring cohesion and testing various research questions, this article provides a general definition of cohesiveness, a discussion of the theoretical implications of that definition, and some suggestions for the conditions and procedures necessary to examine the structure of group cohesion in a variety of group contexts.

Four studies were undertaken to investigate the relationship between cohesion and group size in exercise groups. Study 1 compared the perceptions of cohesiveness of members of small and large exercise classes assessed in the eighth week of group development in a 13-week session. Study 2 compared the perceptions of cohesiveness of members of small and large exercise classes assessed in the third week of group development in a 13-week session. Study 3 used a longitudinal design to assess the possible changes in perceptions of cohesiveness of members of small and large groups over time. The purpose of Study 4 was to determine how an intervention program focusing on team-building principles would influence perceptions of cohesiveness in small and large exercise classes. It was concluded that perceptions of task and social cohesion are greater in smaller groups, and that a team-building program can offset the negative impact of increased group size.

Membership in cohesive groups has a powerful influence on individual behaviors such as adherence and conformity. Although the psychological andphysiological benefits of exercise have been well documented, individual adherence has proven to be problematic. Given that exercise classes are minimal groups at best, the purpose of the present study was to determine whether measures of cohesion secured during the early stages of group development could be used to predictsubsequent drop-out behavior In Study 1, participants in universityfitness classes were administered the Group Environment Questionnaire after the third week of a 13-week session. Adherence behavior, as measured by absenteeism, was monitored for 4 weeks and used to form two extreme groups-regular attenders and drop-outs. The regular attenders (n = 20) were those individuals who attended at least 66% of the monitored classes; drop-outs (n = 17) were those individuals who were absent for all classes in the monitored period. Discriminant function analysis showed that regular attenders held significantly greater perceptions of task cohesion than the drop-outs. Study 2 was a replication with exercise participants in private fitness clubs. A protocol identical to Study 1 was used to measure cohesion, operationalize adherence and analyze the data. Perceptions of cohesion again were a reliable predictor of adherence in the private club setting. However, it was measures of social cohesion that significantly discriminated between regular attenders (n = 30) and drop-outs (n = 16). The results were discussed in terms of their implications for (a) the dynamics of minimal groups, (b) the generality of the cohesion-adherence relationship in exercise groups, (c) the importance of considering the setting, and (d) health behavior change intervention programs.

The purpose of the study was to examine the direction of causality of both cohesion and participation motivation with performance in intercollegiate hockey. The results supported the conclusion that successful performance results in in creased team cohesiveness; team cohesiveness does not produce more successful performance. The findings for participation motivation were equivocal. There was no indication that high self, task and/or affiliation motivation led to more successful performance or that successful performance increased the level of self, task and/or affiliation motivation.

In the present study, a heterogeneous sample of 105 athletes (mean age = 21.4 years) was used to gain insight into the potential negative consequences of high team cohesion. Athletes were asked open-ended questions relating to the potential disadvantages of high task and high social cohesion. It was found that 56% of athletes reported possible disadvantages to high social cohesion, whereas 31% of athletes reported possible disadvantages to high task cohesion. Furthermore, data analyses revealed multiple dimensions of negative consequences for both high task and social cohesion. More specifically, analysis of responses revealed both group- and personal-level consequences. The findings contrast with the popularly held view that high cohesion is always beneficial for teams and team members. It was suggested that future research assess the prevalence and importance of the disadvantages of high cohesion.

This study investigated the potential moderating effects of productivity norms and identifiability of effort on the cohesion-performance relationship in team sports. The design was a 2 (high cohesion, low cohesion)× 2 (high productivity norm, low productivity norm)× 2 (high identifiability of an individual's effort, low identifiability of an individual's effort) factorial. Each participant (n = 324) read one of eight scenarios, with cohesion, norms, and identifiability systematically rotated, and indicated the probability that the individual would train during the off-season. An ANOVA showed a main effect for cohesion, F( 1, 316) = 113.44, p < .0001, and norms, F( 1, 316) = 19.61, p < .0001), and an interaction between cohesion and norms, F( 1, 316) = 7.35, p = .007. The probability of off-season training was significantly higher for the high-cohesion-high-norms scenario than for the high-cohesion-low-norms scenario, with no differences under conditions of low cohesion. Directions for future research are discussed.