Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Sports Science > Group dynamics > Flashcards

Group dynamics Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Sports Trivia flashcards Biology 101 flashcards
1
Q

Group

A

A collection of individuals who have a sense of shared goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Team

A

Have a sense of ‘we-ness”, with distinctive individual roles, structured of communincation and unique norms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Group formation theory stages
(FSNP)

A
  1. Forming
  2. Storming
  3. Norming
  4. Performing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Group formation Theory: Forming

A

Group Members familiarise themselves with each other & set ground rule

Engage in social comperison with the assesing each others strengths and weakness

Looks at belonging on different roles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Coaches role in Forming

A

Give directions

Clarify the roles of the positions

Encourages participation to not befriend the athlete due to the need to become apart of the team

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Group formation Theory: Storming

A

Members resist control by group leaders and show hostility

Individuals/cliqques questions the position of authority of the coach

Resist the control of the group

Some may try to aquire impartant roles such as head coach

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Coaches role in Storming

A

to embrace the storm of chaos as the athletes do want to be coached

Providing emotional support to help manage the athletes emotions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Group formation Theory: Norming

A

Members work together developing close relationships and feelings of camaraderie

It switches the hostility to cooperation and solidarity

the team works together towards a common goal than their individual agenda

Group Cohesion behins to develop

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Coaches role in Norming

A

Coach needs to continue with emotional support

Aim to empower athletes

Be a medium for conflict resolution

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Group formation Theory: Performing

A

Team members work towards getting the job done

Work without conflict to achieve shared goals and little objectives

Little need for external supervision

Group is more motivated
Structual issues are resolved
Interpersonal relationships stabilise

Roles are well defined

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Coaches role in performing

A

Delegates responsibility to athletes

Empower athletes to lead

Encourage group to be facilitating

aims at no over coaching

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Antecedents: Team / Squad Size (Widmeyer et al., 1990): focus

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Antecedents: Team / Squad Size (Widmeyer et al., 1990): results

A

Found
Social cohesion was highest for 6 person team size
ATG-Task decreased from 3 to 6 to 9
Performance was best with 6 team size for 9 team size

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Further Evidence (r value) for team sports (Brawley et al., 1987)

RC, RA, RP

A

Role Clarity
.38
Role Acceptance
.49
Role Performance
.43
* Cohesiveness predicted role clarity and acceptance in ice hockey teams (Dawe & Carron, 1990)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

The cohesion performance relationship

A

Causation – one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event.

In this case – is it that levels of cohesion effect performance OR performance effects the levels of cohesion

Team cohesion = better performance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The cohesion performance relationship: statistics

A

Meta analysis of 46 studies in sport
164 effect sizes
9988 athletes
1044 teams

Overall relationship between cohesion and performance in sport was “moderate to large”

17
Q

How to develop team cohesion

CC & ID

A

Increase social Cohesiveness
Improve team communication

Developing Team Cohesion requires creating identity and distinctiveness

18
Q

Team goals Selection

A

Athletes are provided with a list of performance indicies

from the list athletes indentify the ost important areas to establish their team goals

Subunits of athletes agree on the four most important indicies to be set as goals

19
Q

Establishing the target for the team goals

A

Each athlete independently identifies the target levels for each of the four teams outcomes

Subunits of five athletes agree on the target levels

the team as a whole then agrees on the target levls

20
Q

Coaches remind players of the teams goals

A

The goals are posted in the teams locker room

21
Q

Evaluation, feedback, and revaluation are essential for team goal-setting effectiveness

A

The sport psychology consultant meets with the team to review and discuss the team’s goals after each block of three games.

Modifications to the team’s goals or target levels were made if
deemed necessary.

22
Q

Group Cohesion & Effectiveness Carron Brawley & Widmeyer (1988, p.213)

stick together/goals

A

“A dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs”

23
Q

Conceptual Framework of Group Effectiveness (Steiner, 1972)

people and resources

A

The relationship between individual abilities or resources on a team and how team members interact

24
Q

Actual Productivity

A

Actual Productivity
= Potential Productivity - Group Process Losses

Actually Productivity:

the team performance at a given time and refers to the extent of successful interaction

25
Q

Potential Productivity

A

maximum capability of the group when cohesiveness appears at it s strongest.

26
Q

Group Process Losses

faulty

A

Faulty Group Processes
the factors which can go wrong with team performance.

This can detract and impede cohesion and possibly detract from the potential of the team.

27
Q

Group Process losses: Motivation Losses

A

occurs when team members do not give 100% effort.

Could let others carry the team.

28
Q

Group Process losses: Co-ordination Losses

A

occurs when the timing between teammates is off or when ineffective strategies are used

29
Q

Ringleman Effect

size

A

As group size increases there may be a decline of individual effort and eventual productivity caused by social loafing

30
Q

Social Loafing

reduction

A

Reduction in an individual’s efforts when working in a group setting

31
Q

Causes of Social Loafing

A

Free riders, mininimising and Allocation

32
Q

Free riders

A

perception that their effort is (relatively) unimportant for the outcome

33
Q

Minimising Strategy

A

motivated to get by doing as little as possible

34
Q

Allocation Strategy

A

save best efforts for when most beneficial to self

35
Q

Antecendanctd for conceptual modal of Cohesion (PELT)

A

Personal factors
-individual orietation
- individual differences

Environmental factors
0 organizational climat of the team
- contractional responsibility

Leeadership factors
- leadership style
- coach/athlete personalities

Team factors
- Group size
- Role clarity

36
Q

Consequences for conceptual modal of Cohesion (GI

A

Group Outcomes
- Team Stability
- Performance effectiveness

Individual Outcomes
- Behavioural & emotional consequences

  • Performance effictiveness

Sports Science (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions