Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Group Sport Psych > Lecture 9 - Cohesion > Flashcards

Lecture 9 - Cohesion Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Sports Trivia flashcards
1
Q

What are some words associated with Cohesion?

- introduction

A
  • Unity
  • Communication
  • Shared Goals
  • Success
  • Teamwork
  • Closeness
  • Camaraderie
  • in-sync
  • team culture
  • high performance environment
  • positive coaching
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Outline Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer (1998) definition of team cohesion
- introduction

A

Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer (1998) (p .213)
“A dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/ or for the satisfaction of member affect needs”

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

What are the 4 key characteristics of Team Cohesion

- introduction

A
  1. Multidimensional
    - numerous factors cause team to stay together
    - people all have different reasons for being in a team
  2. Dynamic
    - can change over time (over course of season, with success and failure)
    - Changes often
  3. Instrumental
    - what is the groups purpose
  4. Affective
    - does it feel good to belong or not
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Whats a limitation of research into Team Cohesion

- Paragraph 5: critical evaluations - limitations & ways forward

A

X – We know cohesion is dynamic, it changes a lot

  • but research only ever takes a snapshot of cohesion, at a particular moment of time; what is cohesion like within this group
  • If you come back in like 3 weeks or 6 weeks later, cohesion might have changed
  • we need to remember that it changes a lot
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are Carron et al (1998) 2 components of team cohesion

- Paragraph 1: introduction

A
  1. Group integration(GI)
    - how close or united is the group
  2. Individual Attraction to the group (ATG)
    - personal motivation/ reasons for either joining or remaining in the group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

How is task cohesion conceptualised

- Paragraph 1: introduction

A
  1. Task Cohesion
    - The degree to which members of a group work together to achieve common goals
  2. Social Cohesion
    - The degree to which members of a group lie each other and enjoy each others company
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Outline Carron et al (1985) Conceptual Model of Team cohesion
- Paragraph 2: theory

A

Suggests that Team Cohesion is made up of:

  1. Group integration:
    a) Task Orientation
    b) Social Orientation
  2. Individual Attraction
    a) Task Orientation
    b) social orientation

Results in 4 combinations: ways to measure cohesion

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

Outline Limitations of Carron et al (1985) conceptual model of team cohesion
- paragraph 5: critical evaluations - limitations & ways forward

A

X – limitation – remember Cohesion is multidimensional

  • so is it bad to base research and describe cohesion just by these 4 things?
  • are there other things this model forgets – like influences from outside sport
  • or are these the extent of the multidimensionality?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Outline how team cohesion is measured

- paragraph 2: theory or paragraph 4: practice

A

Using the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)- Carron et al (1985)

•Measures:
- Individual vs Group attraction
&
- Task & Social Cohesion

Measures the 4 combinations:

  1. Group integration-task (GI-T) (5 items): “Our team is united in trying to achieve its goal for performance”
  2. Group Integration-social (GI-S) (4 items): “Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a team:
  3. Attraction To Group-task (ATG-T) (4 items): “I do not like the style of play on this team”
  4. Attraction to Group-social (ATG-S) (5 Items): “Some of my friends are on this team”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Outline evaluation of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)
- paragraph 5: evaluation

A

√- It is a reliable and valid measure – measures each individuals mean perception of cohesion

– but not used in the research to its full extent:
X – Dont get mean scores for each component of the team, you just get mean scores for each person
X – research doesn’t really look at these as group intergration vs Task
X – only looks at individuals scores, not as a team

Although its quite a reliable measure, could do a lot more than this

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

Outline what has been found in the research about the relationship between GEQ and performance
- Paragraph 3: Research (and maybe some limitation)

A
  1. Significant relationships between levels of cohesion and performance
    - as cohesion increases, performance does too
    - makes sense if the group works together and likes each other – performance would be improved
    - having a common goal, and people who like each other – increases performance

X - Unclear about cause and effect- what comes first?- Do we perform well because we are cohesive? Or do we have cohesion because we have performed well?

X - Perhaps we should do an intervention study, not just cross-sectional designs

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

Outline Carron, Colman, Wheeler & Stevens (2002)

  • research into the links between Cohesion and success
  • Paragraph 3: Research
A

Methods:
- They conducted a meta-analysis of 46 studies - looking at cohesion and success

Findings:

  • Overall found a moderate positive relationshipbetween cohesion and success- for both task and social cohesion
  • Definitely a relationship, just don’t know the direction or causality

They then added 3 moderators, to see if the relationship was changed at all:

  1. Gender
  2. Competition Level
  3. Sport Type- does the relationship between cohesion and performance hold under all circumstances?
    - and this stuff will crop up later as research has looked into this stuff too
    - just need to know that they did this too so they have an input in the next few slides
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Outline research into the influence of gender and how that impacts the relationship between cohesion and success
- the first moderator that Carron et al (2002) looked at by the way, but others have researched this - Like Carron & Hausenblas (2005)

  • Paragraph 3: Research
A
  1. Carron & Hausenblas (2005):
    - Gender effects a number of group-related relationships
  2. Carron et al (2002) meta analysis:
    - Cohesion-success link was significantly stronger for female teams than for male teams

!!!!*- Why is this the case – answer is in the reading!!!!

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

Outline research into the influence of sport type and how that impacts the relationship between cohesion and success

  • the second moderator that Carron et al (2002) looked at by the way,
  • but others have researched this: Landers & Luchen (1974), Carron & Chelladruai (1981)
  • evaluation
  • Paragraph 3: Research
A
  1. Landers & Luchen (1974)
    - Negative cohesion-success link in bowling (coactive)
    - this is not what you would expect, especially as of Carron et al (2002) meta analysis
  2. Carron & Chelladurai (1981)- argue this is because cohesion is actually detrimental for coactive sports
  3. BUT THEN- Carron et al (2002)(meta-analysis)- they then said actually this is not true, actually: both types of sports rely on cohesion

X – need more research here: is it different for task and social stuff?

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

Just for recap, what is the difference between interactive and coactive sports

A

•Interactive sports: everyone performs together, you depend on each others performance for your own success
- e.g. football

•Co-active sport: You are in team/ panel, but when it comes to performing, it is individual
- e.g. golf masters, combined gymnastic points teams

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

Outline research into the influence of competitive level and how that impacts the relationship between cohesion and success

  • the third and last moderator that Carron et al (2002)
  • evaluation
  • Paragraph 3: Research
A

Carron et al (2002 - meta analysis):
- Cohesion-success link greater in high school and intercollegiate teams than professional teams

•Surely cohesion should be just as important in professional teams, after all it is their job to be successful – you’re not going to stay in your high school team for ever are you?

  • well, elite athletes don’t really have time to worry about cohesion, they’re just brought in and paid to do this job, so they just get on with it- sometimes people just click and it works very well, some take a bit longer to click, or never do in fact – but in elite sport, the social aspect doesn’t have to be sorted, they just get on with the task

X – massive lack of research looking at professional teams, need many more teams

17
Q

Outline the 3 other potential correlates for team cohesion

  • Paragraph 3: Research
A
  1. Personal Factors
  2. Leadership Factors
  3. Environmental factors
18
Q

Outline research into Personal factors as another potential correlates for team cohesion:

  1. Prapavessis & Carron (1997)
  2. Carron et al (1998)
  • Paragraph 3: Research
A
  1. Prapavessis & Carron (1997) - looked at cricketers
    - found that behaviours exhibited by individuals as showing sacrifice and conformity were positively associated with cohesion
    - showing sacrifice and conformity – demonstrates they would sacrifice things for the goal (task) or for other people (Social) and that they conform to group goal
  2. Carron et al (1998)
    - when you see absenteeism and lateness - these are negatively associated with team cohesion
    - this is bad for cohesion as you are not thinking of the group as a whole
19
Q

Outline research into leadership factors as another potential correlates for team cohesion:

  1. Westre & Weiss (1991)
  2. Gardner et al (1996)
  • paragraph 3: research
A 
1. Westre & Weiss (1991) – task cohesion linked to coaches leadership behaviours:
•Training & instruction behaviours
•Social support
•positive feedback
•democratic decision making process
  1. Gardner et al (1996)- social cohesion linked to:•Training/ instruction
    •Social support
  2. Jowett & Chaundy (2004)
    - found an association between CA relationship quality and team cohesion- higher correlate for task than social
    - looked at CA relationship, Direct Relationship and meta-relationship – for all 3, correlation was strongest on Task than social
20
Q

Outline research into environmental factors as another potential correlates for team cohesion:

  1. Carron (2005)
  2. Ringelmann effect
  3. Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer (1990)
  4. Widmeyer, Brawley & Carron (1990)
  • paragraph 3: research
A
  1. Carron (2005)
    - Geneally, cohesion decreases as group size increases
  2. Ringelmann effect
    - increased group size leads to social loafing
    - optimal group size of 6-8 people
  3. Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer (1990)
    - Retention & attendance and Satisfaction
  4. Widmeyer, Brawley & Carron (1990)
    - experiment using a 3-on-3 Basketball league and teams of 3, 6 or 9
    - task cohesion increased with group size
    - social cohesion highest for teams of 6

When you put a group together, communication builds cohesion effectively- up until around 10 people

21
Q

Outline Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer (1990) research into environmental factors (mentioned above)

A

Looked at group size and task cohesion

  1. Group size
    - either small (5-7 people), medium (18-26), moderately large (27-31), large groups (32-46)
  2. Retention & attendance
    - drops off when group gets too big - they wont notice im not here
    - absenteeism and lateness is bad for cohesion – as retention and attendance drops due to increased group size – this can have a knock on effect for the cohesion of the group
    - inverted u shape (curvillinear)
  3. Satisfaction
    - big groups – trying to work together towards a goal – can lead to role ambiguity, power struggles, not establishing group goals and individual roles can lead to conflict within the group
    - could contribute to satisfaction going down, social part of cohesion might be bad
    - negative correlation
22
Q

What are the benefits for individuals that cohesion can bring?

  • paragraph 4 - practice
  • paragraph 5 - implications/ way forward
A
  1. Cognitive
    •Reduced role ambiguity (Beauchamp, 2007)
    - people know what there job is, what they should do, expectations of them, theres less uncertainty
    •Lower anxiety (Prapavessis & Carron, 1996)- everyones getting along, know why they are there, what the groups goal is. Not as anxious about being around the group or performing with the group
  2. Affective
    •Depression and Anger (Terry et al (2001)- less common in highly cohesive teams
    •Positive emotions (including satisfaction – Blanchard et al (2009)- associated with the group, more positive in themselves – whilst in cohesive groups
  3. Behavioural
    •Increased self-determined motivation (Blanchard et al (2009)
    •Reduced occurances of Social Loafing (McKnight et al (1991)
    •Increase effort (Bray & Whaley (2001) – everyones there for each other, happy to be there, know why they are there so will put in effort
23
Q

But what are the negative aspects of cohesion?

  1. Self-handicapping (Hausenblas & Carron (1996)
  2. Competitive state anxiety (Prapavessis & Carron, 1996)
  • paragraph 4 - practice
  • paragraph 5 - implications/ way forward
A

-> If we have highly cohesive teams (everyone perceives the group is getting along), can lead to:

  1. Self-handicapping (Hausenblas & Carron, 1996)
    - might have a tendency to self-handicap because they don’t want to let the team down, they don’t want to be blamed if the team fails, so they put themselves in situation where they wont be the one that is lets the team that gets on really well- e.g. faking injury to get off the pitch, take longer on rolling substitutes – so they don’t stand out in anyway
    -> so dont want to let team down
    OR
    I don’t want to put in maxmimum effort, become the star of the team and stand out – because its all about the team as a whole, not me as an individual member -
    -> dont want let the team look worse than you/ bad
  2. Competitive State Anxiety (Prapavessis & Carron,
    1996) - in the situations,
    - might be afraid of doing something wrong – making a wrong decision that is detrimental for the teams performance, the whole team is going to be let down – anxiety around that
    - anxiety around letting team down - could this then lead to self-handicapping???
24
Q

Recap: Just outline Kolditz & Arkin (1982) definition of self-handicapping

A

Self-handicapping is described as an action or choice which prevents a person from being responsible for failure (Kolditz & Arkin, 1982).

25
Q

What are barriers to developing and maintaining a cohesive team?
- paragraph 5 - implications/ way forward

A
  1. Clash of group personalities – just don’t get along- nobodys fault in particular, it just happens
  2. Conflict of task or social roles among group members
    - not quite sure of what they’re doing, feeling that others are taking their role away from them
  3. Breakdown of communication between team, or between player and coach
  4. Members Struggling for power
    - e.g. trying to be captain of the team – competing to be the leader, which side of the argument the other players chose
  5. Frequent turnover of group members – e.g. during transfer window
  6. Disagreement on group goals and objectives
26
Q

What are potential ways to overcome these barriers?

  • paragraph 5 - implications/ way forward
  • IMPORTANT - THIS WOULD BE HOW A SPORT PSYCHOLOGIST COULD COME IN AND THEN HELP
A
  1. Get to know the members of the group
    - find out about them, why are they there, what attracted you to the group in the first place- get members to get to know other members, e.g. new players
  2. Help group members whenever possible
    - is it anxiety with being in this group? or is it something else?
  3. Give members reinforcement - feedback etc
  4. Be responsible (don’t blame others for poor performances)
    - take responsibility for actions; it was my fault, that was my poor performance
    - could also be the coaches fault, or the whole team taking responsibility etc
    - better for the person to admit it was them, not just blame others
  5. Communicate honestly and openly with the coach and the other members
  6. Resolve conflicts immediately
    - e.g. don’t just walk off as people might hold onto it and bring it up again
    - get them to resolve it straight away – nip it in the bud, don’t leave it festering
  7. Give 100% effort at all times (commitment is contagious – set a good example)
    - coach, coaching staff, all members of team needs to give 100%- set that as the precedent for new players joining
27
Q

What were the team building principles that Stevens (2002) said most interventions are based off?

  • paragraph 5 - implications/ way forward
  • IMPORTANT - THIS WOULD BE HOW A SPORT PSYCHOLOGIST COULD COME IN AND THEN HELP
A

Stevens (2002) noted that team building protocols are typically designed to improve:

  1. Goal-setting
  2. Roleclarity
  3. Interpersonal relationships
  4. Leadership
  5. Problem-solving

These are 5 things to address or start to look at with problems with cohesion in the group

28
Q

Outline future research

- paragraph 5 - implications/ way forward

A
  1. Need to start explaining the link between cohesion and performance
    - why is cohesion linked to success
    - which way round is the relationship, and how can we effect and improve cohesion?
  2. Conduct research with different samples
    - young athletes, different cultures
    - need more elite teams
    - huge amount around college teams – need more diversity
    - different age levels and cultures and sports
  3. Develop and evaluate interventions
    - e.g. team building programs
    - develop and test them
  4. Need to get away from the 4 things of the GEQ- remember that this is multidimensional and we need to look at more than just those 4 dimensions

Group Sport Psych (9 decks)

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