Sport psych chapter 10

comparing cohesion development theories

- all similar in describing change in cohesion as occurring over time as groups evolve. Models differ in describing how change occurs pendular: cohesion continually increases and decreases over time life cylce: cohesion increases over time until group ends or changes linear: more specific in stages over time with coehsion highest at culmination of the four stages

the downside of social cohesion

-gettnig on players nerves when spending too much time toghe, pressure by teammates to do well-) indicate cohesion is not always benefical social cohesion can also have detrimental effects: more negative experiences linkd to comm probs and isolation High social cohesion led team members to be unwilling to openly express concerns sbout the quality of team play and hold an unrealistically positive view of team's preparation and performance-) deterioration in group performance

Mechanisms explaining the cohesion-performance link

-team stability: teams with high cohesion stay together longer and this leads to improved performance, stabiliy leads to greater trust allowing for bettter coordination -collective efficacy: higher cohesion=higher efficacy, belief that team members will act together to reach performance goals this motivate sathletes to exert more effort and reduces social loafing -communication: high cohesion-communication effective among group memberss nonverbal communcation indicates cooperation and trust and leads to predict better play ability to engage in constructive conflict resolution-higher levels of cohesion constructive conflict-positively related to cohesion negative conflict-inversely related to team unity

Factors influencing team cohesion

Carron's model of cohesion describes how environmental, personal, leadership and team influence development of team coheson.

Measuring cohesion

Direct measurement: team members are asked various questions about their feelings toward the team and team members -earliest was SPorts cohesiveness questionare with five questions on soical cohesion and 2 on task cohesion -also youth sport enviornment questionare Most commonly used measure today: Group Environment questionare: measures team member attraction in four ways (individual attraction: I or my) and (group integration: we or our)across 2 dimesnions. (taks and social cohesion) COhesion can be assessed with indirect measures: sociogram: describes interperosnal relationships within formal or informal groups -examines social netowrks or particular relationships within a team to see which members are connected to each other and whether some are isolated and whether cliques are present Athletes are asked to respond to questions: Who would you most like to invite to a part and least like to invite? Name three people you would most like to room with and three you would least like to room with name three people you would most like practice with duing off seasona dn three you would least like to practice with Researchers then assess which individuals are chosen the most etc to draw a sociogram

Strategies for building team cohesion

For coahces and team leaders: Treat all athletes equally encourage team unity encourage open communication (consturctive comm for feedback) -create team building programs: help teams develop a clear identity, establish goals and increase communication -create a task focused climate: emphasis on playing well as ateam and on making progress toward team goals, rather than winning-) lead to increased internal motivation and better performance, help maintainmoderate level of arousal (ego-focused climates emphasize winning at all costs and decrease motivation, effort, and performance) For team members: -get to know all team members: older players make effort to know new members -stay positive and constructive: positive reinforcement-offcering suggestions for changes when team isn't doign well, can also help e/o learn new skills, should avoid team conflicts -avoid hazing

Team cohesion

a dynamic and social process which its reflected in the tendency of a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of gals and objectives -in cohesive teams, members share beliefs, goals and identities and work together to staisfy group needs

Environmental factors

are broadest and most general forces influencing cohesion -include contractual obligations group members might have specific organizational orientation (orgnaization distinct goals and strategies)

Explaining the cohesion performance link

belief that cohesion predicts better performance team cohesion is positively linked to perofrmance

Factors moderating the cohesion-performance link

cohesion performance link is larger for female teams than male teams and for small teams than big teams -Type of measurement: whether task or social cohesion is assessed (studies measuring social cohesion are less liely to show cohesion-performance link) -type of sport: nature of sport and level of interaction required between members INteractive sports: require players to coordinate their acctions Coactive sports: require relatively little interaction between teammates Dyadic sports require two players to coordinate their actions Research demonstrates that cohesion is a more important predictor of perofrmance for sports that require considerable interaction than for those that require independent performance. Towo metanalyses suggest that cohesion predicts performance in both interactive and coactive sports becuas ei tpredicts stronger effort and motivation

Personal factors

demographic factors (age, gender), personality traits and motivations influence cohesion -securely attahced athletes=more cohesion -higher intrinsic motivation- high levels of both task and social cohesion -athletes satisfaction with their involvement on team** -mindset atletesbring to their experience predicts cohesion

Leadership factors

describe style and behaviors that coaches and captians demonstrate toward team members -leaders influence cohesion Leaders who provide clear, consistent, and unambiguous commincation about team goals and task and each member's role, create a stronge sense of cohesion Athletes compatible with their coahces have higher taskcohesion levels The leadership style used by coaches impacts communication and leads to greater cohesion Transofmratoional leadership styles-higher task cohesion levels

conceptual model of team cohesion

describes the importance of also distinguishing between athlete's own individual attraction to the group and their feelings about the group as a whole -Athletes who feel an individual attraction to the group want to remain in teh group because of their feelings about the group and their connection to its members. -Those with high indiviidual attraction to the group enjoy spending time with team members (individual attraction to the group-social cohesion) and like the team's style of player (individual attraction to the group-task cohesion). -Athletes have feelings about group as a whole: the closeness, similarity, and unity within the group These group integration feelings can focus on social or task cohesion -social cohesion: athletes who feel team members are integrated with one another believe they can hang out even in the off season )social coehsion) and that members have shaared goals and take responsibility together for losses (task cohesion)

Development of cohesion

linear model of cohesion describes all groups as going through four distinct developmental stages as they develop and prepare to carry out the particular goals of the group -these stages start with forming (members come together and assess each others strengths and weaknesses -stage 2 : storming: involves managing conflict )individual roles try to be established in group, resisting leader directions) stage 3- norming: involves team members developing strategies of managing conflict and working cooperatively together as a team stage 4-performing - team members all pull together to achieve group goals and achieve success pendular model of cohesion: describes cohesion as changing over time -intially cohesion may be low because team members aren't acquianted with one another but they become cohesive over time -yet coehsion may also decrease due to cliques or compeition among members for playing time and then cohesion amy increase again to pull through for playoffs **cohesion varies over time within a given team** Life cycle model of cohesion: describes cohesion as changing over time within a group -group members first come together for a particular reason (to try a new sport) and then cohesion naturally develops over time -this model describes cohesion as ending at end of seasons

Direction of causality

not clear whether cohesion leads to better performance, whether perofrmance leads to better cohesion or whether a third variable (good coaching) leads to high elvels of both coheson and performance one meta-analysis showed impact of performance on cohesion is stronger than impact of cohesion on performance Longitudinal studies compared strenght of link between cohesion early in the season and performance later in season versus performance earily and season and cohesion alter, suggesting cohesion may over time lead to better performance *research remains inconclusive, most likely circular -Experiments manipulate coesion so its effect on performance can be evaluated

Types of cohesion

task cohesion : the degree to which group members work together to achieve common goals and objectives social cohesion: describes the degree to which members of a group like each other and enjoy each other's company teams with high cohesion spend time together even when its not required

Team factors

various team characteristics: team stability, size of team, type of sport, and athletes' position on team -long term teams=high cohesion levels since players know each other and have established trust and have stronger group identity (predicts cohesion) focus on neuroscience: shows that group identity is a core part of our identity even as a fan and influences how we feel bout successes and failures more time spent together=greater cohesion size of team: small teams are more cohesive than large teams large teams have reduced effort and slack off: social loafing that occurs becuase people feel their individual efforts will not have an impact feeling less motivated Cohesion is higher for starters who contribute more to goal attainment and get more recogntion and devote more time leading them to feel more bonded