Lecture 4 - Cohesion

Question 1

Define Carron, Brawley & Windmeyer’s (1998) defintion of group cohesions

Answer 1

“a dynamic processes that is relfected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in pursuit of its intsrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member effective needs”

Question 2

Who came up with the conceptual model of cohesion?

Answer 2

Carron et al (1982)

Question 3

OUtline Carron et al (1982)’s conceputual model of cohesion

Answer 3

Precuroses to cohesion:

• Environmental factors,
• personal factors
• leadership factors
• these all lead into team factors

Cohesion

Consequences:

• individual outcomes
• group outcomes

Question 4

Outlline Carron et al (1982)’s precurors to cohesions

Answer 4

• env factors - contractual responsiblity, organisational cimate
• Leadership factors - Leadership style, coach/ athlete personalities
• Personal factors - individual orientation and differences
  Lead into:
• Team factors: distincitveness, grup size, productivity norm, stability, communication, role clarity/acceptance

Question 5

Define group

Answer 5

Collection of interacting individuals, with:

• Sense of shared purpose/common goals
• Mutual influence

Question 6

Define team

Answer 6

• we-ness - collective identity
• Distinctive roles
• Structured communication
• Norms (guide members)
• Task interdependence/ team work

Question 7

Who came up with the linear perspective of becoming a team?

Answer 7

Tuckman & Jenkins (1977)

Question 8

Outline Tuckman & Jenkins (1977)

Answer 8

Forming (familiarisation, comparisons, do i belong?)

Storming (infighting, establishing roles/status)

Norming (resolutions, co-operation, unity)

Performing (Togetherness, team sucess, defined new roles- how can we move forward)

Question 9

what are the 2 types of cohesion?

Answer 9

1. Task cohesion - the extent to which they work together to achieve a common goal
2. Social cohesion - Degree to which members like each other and enjoy their company

A group can be low social and high task, or vice versa

Question 10

What are the 3 charactiristics of cohesion?

Answer 10

Dynamic (changes over time, with sucess/failure)

Multi-dimensional (numerous factors involved)

Instrumental (different reasons for each person)

Question 11

Who explored team size as an atecedent?

Answer 11

Widmeyer er al (1990)

Question 12

outline Widmeyer er al (1990) - 3 on 3

Answer 12

3-on-3 recrational basketball
144p’s
Teams of 3,6 or 9
Found best cohesions in groups of 6, worst performance in 9,
Attraction to group at task level decreased from 3 to 6 to 9

Question 13

Who came up with the conceptual framework of group effectiveness?

Answer 13

Steiner (1972)

Question 14

outline Steiner (1972)

Answer 14

conceptual framework of group effectiveness
Actual productivitiy = potential productivity - group process losses
- like motivation/ co-ordination losses

Question 15

Outline the Ringelmann effect

Answer 15

Individual members get increasingly less productive as size of group increases

Question 16

who investigated the ringelmann effect and how?

Answer 16

INGHAM ET AL (1974)
- in pseudo groups it was motivation loss
- in real groups it was motation and co-ordination loss
2 people =93% of individual potential
3 = 85%
8 = 49%

Question 17

What are the causes of social loafing?

Answer 17

‘Free rider’
- my effort isnt important for the outcome, i dont need to bother

Minimising strategy
- want to get by doing as little as possible

Allocation strategy

• Save best efforts for when its important for the self
• doing better in front of audience

False perception
- that increased effort wount be recognise, coach wont reward me so why bother

Question 18

Who Discussed how to counteract social loafing?

Answer 18

Carron (1988)

Question 19

Outline Carron (1988)

Answer 19

• Emphasise importance of individual contributions

- INcrease accountability - make athletes accountable for their performances, wear those vests in training

Question 20

Who did the group environment questionnaire to measure cohesion?

Answer 20

windmeyer, Brawley & Carron (1985)

Question 21

outline windmeyer, Brawley & Carron (1985)

Answer 21

Group environment questionnaire
Assesses:
- individual vs group
- task and social cohesion
- Reliable, valid measure

Question 22

What do questions into cohesion measure?

Answer 22

• attraction to group at social level and task level

- Group intergation at task and social level

Question 23

Outline widmeyer et al (1990) - exercise groups

Answer 23

Exercise groups were:
- small (5-17 people)
- Medium (18-26)
- Large (32-46)
•Attendance + retention better in small and large classes
- made friendship groups in small classes and better relationship with teacher
- in large group, formed sub groups of friends
•Perceived experience was best in small classes

Question 24

Who investigated role clarity and acceptance as an aticident?

Answer 24

Brawley et al (1987)

Question 25

Outline Brawley et al (1987)

Answer 25

Argued role clarity/ acceptance is strongly related to task cohesion in team sports Role clarity .38 ROle acceptance .49 Role performance .43

Question 26

What are the 2 types of roles

Answer 26

1. formal roles - dictated by nature/ structure of the organisation. Specific team and tactical roles - need to be clear on our roles, regardless of confusing general tactics 2. Informal roles - evolves from group dynamics/ interacting

Question 27

What did Dawe & Carron (1990) say?

Answer 27

Cohesiveness predicted role clarity and acceptance in ice hockey teams

Question 28

Who investigated team stability?

Answer 28

Logo-Penas (2011) Theberge & Loy (1978) Ter weel (2011)

Question 29

OUtline Logo-penas (2011)

Answer 29

In dutch premier league 1986 - 2004, 81 sackings and 212 performance dips Teams that have low manager turnover are more stable Should we sack manager or accept that performance worsens/ improves

Question 30

What did Theberge & Loy (1978) say?

Answer 30

Baseball league position and team stability: | r = -.55

Question 31

What did Ter weel (2011) say?

Answer 31

Does manager turnover improve performance: Theres a regression to the mean Regardless of if manager: - voluntarily leaves - is sacked - or isnt sacked, but endures performance dip

Question 32

Who looked at the relationship between cohesion and performance?

Answer 32

Carron et al (2002)

Question 33

Outline Carron et al (2002) meta analysis

Answer 33

meta analysis of 46 studies, 164 effect sizes, 9988 athletes, 1044 teams Found a stronger effect for task cohesion (.577) over social cohesion (.410) Suggesting task cohesion is more important Overall, relationship between cohesion and performance in sport was moderate to large = 0.66

Question 34

How does sport type moderate sport in carron et al (2002) research?

Answer 34

``` Coacting teams (archery, fiflery, golf) - low task cohesion required ``` Mixed coacting - interacting (baseball, american football) - moderate task cohesion required ``` Interacting teams (football, ice hockey, relays) - high task cohesion required ``` Largest cohesion-performance effect was in coactive sports, not interactive sports (1.042 vs .451)

Question 35

What direction of performance cohesion relationship did Carron argue?

Answer 35

Its circuluar, its a bit of both Team cohesion -> better performance Better performance -> team cohesion

Question 36

who came up with how to develop team cohesion

Answer 36

Carron (1977,2007)

Question 37

Outline Carron (1977,2007) way of developing team cohesion

Answer 37

1. increase team distinctiveness 2. Increase social cohesiveness 3. clarify team goals 4. improve team communication

Question 38

Who looked at building team cohesion with team goal setting

Answer 38

Senécal et al (2008)

Question 39

outline Senécal et al (2008)

Answer 39

Conduceted a team goal setting intervention in high school baskebtall players, assessing how it affected tea cohesion Participants identified: most important performance outcomes individually, then decided as groups of 5, then as a whole team

Question 40

outine Senécal et al (2008) findings

Answer 40

68% it helped us play better as a team 42% more focused on common goals 27% enabled us to work together to reach goals

Question 41

Who looked at using personal-disclousre mutual sharing (PDMS)

Answer 41

Windsor & Barker (2011)

Question 42

Outline Windsor & Barker (2011) - speeches

Answer 42

Lots of foreign players had joined = lack of togertherness/ effective communication Night before league-cup semi final match, players had to deliver a 5 minute speech: - 1. why i play football, what i bring to the team 2. Describe a personal story to help teammates understand you, you'd want them to know that defines you, can be personal/ sport related, what sacrifices youve made, what you bring to team

Question 43

outline Windsor & Barker (2011) findings

Answer 43

- very emotional as foreign players had often sacrificed a lot - No significant results, but interview data revealed that players thought it was worthwhile and beneficial - it increased cohesiveneess, closeness, understanding of team mates, communication - these were all maintaing in a follow up next month - Lost game on pens, but won it next year and said it was down to understanding, honesty and cohesion