Suchergebnisse

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.

Of numerous studies conducted over the years examining cohesion in the sport setting, very few have acknowledged that participants are nested within teams, which has resulted in analysis of data at the individual level. Given that members of sport teams are interdependent, valuable information might be lost if constructs such as cohesion are examined only at an individual level. The purpose of this study was to illustrate how multilevel modeling could be used to handle this interdependence among observations within teams when examining the relationship between task cohesion and team satisfaction. Male ice hockey players (N = 194) on 10 teams completed the cohesion and satisfaction measures near the end of the regular season. Using multilevel analysis, task cohesion predicted variance in team task satisfaction at the individual (33%) and group (55%) levels. Results highlight the value of multilevel models as well as extend research finding a relationship between cohesion and individual satisfaction to team satisfaction.

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.