Suchergebnisse

The purpose of the study was to determine if perceptions of cohesion in exercise classes demonstrated sufficiently high consensus and between-group variance to support a conclusion that exercise classes are groups. Participants (N = 1,700) in 130classes were tested on either the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) or the Physical Activity Group Environment Questionnaire (PAGEQ). Results showed that exercise classes satisfied the statistical criteria necessary to support a conclusion that they are true groups; that is, they exhibited acceptable levels of consensus about cohesion within classes and acceptable differences in cohesion between classes. In addition, index-of-agreement values were significantly greater for participants completing the PAGEQ than for participants completing the GEQ. Finally, consensus was greatest when participants evaluated how the exercise class satisfied their own personal task needs (i.e., individual attractions to the group-task), and second greatest when participants evaluated the collective unity around the task objectives (i.e., group integration-task).

This study's primary purpose was to examine the degree to which individual perceptions of cohesiveness reflect shared beliefs in sport teams. The secondary purposes were to examine how the type of cohesion, the task interactive nature of the group, and the absolute level of cohesion relate to the index of agreement. Teams (n = 192 containing 2,107 athletes) were tested on the Group Environment Questionnaire. Index of agreement values were greater for the group integration (GI) manifestations of cohesiveness (GI-task, rwg(j) = .721; GI-social,rwg(j) = .694) than for the individual attractions to the group (ATG) manifestations (ATG-task, rwg(j) = .621; ATG-social, rwg(j) = .563). No differences were found for interactive versus coactive/independent sport teams. A positive relationship was observed between the absolute level of cohesiveness and the index of agreement. Results were discussed in terms of their implication for the aggregation of individual perceptions of cohesion to represent the group construct.

The purpose of the study was to examine how the exclusion of teams failing to meet varying statistical criteria for consensus on cohesiveness influences the magnitude of the cohesion– team success relationship. The index of agreement was calculated for 78 teams (N = 1,000 athletes) that had completed the Group Environment Questionnaire. Results showed that excluding teams because they fail to satisfy various criteria for consensus leads to changes in the magnitude of the cohesion–team success relationship. The magnitude of the relationship between team success and the individual attractions to group-task manifestation of cohesion showed progressive decreases as criteria required to demonstrate consensus became more stringent. Conversely, the magnitude of the relationship between team success and the group integration–task and group integration–social manifestations of cohesion showed progressive increases as criteria required to demonstrate consensus became more stringent. The results are discussed in terms of their relationship to group dynamics theory and practice.