1
TEAM COHESION DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN
INTERACTING and COACTING TEAM SPORTS
BY
CHAN SIN MAN
10010890
AN HONOURS PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF ARTS
IN
PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT (HONOURS)
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
APRIL 2013
2
HONG KONG BAPTIST UNIVERSITY
30th APRIL, 2013
We hereby recommend that the Honours Project by Miss Chan Sin
Man entitled “TEAM COHESION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTERACTING
and COACTING TEAM SPORTS”
be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Bachelor of Arts Honours
Degree in Physical Education And Recreation Management.
_______________________ ________________________
Chief Adviser Second Reader
3
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this honors project “TEAM COHESION
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTERACTING and COACTING TEAM SPORTS”
represents my own work and had not been previously submitted
to this or other institution for a degree,
diploma or other qualification. Citations from the other
authors were listed in the references.
________________________
Chan Sin Man
30th APRIL, 2013
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor,
Prof. Lena Fung, she is so supportive throughout this long
journey and she gave me the best guidance of every single step
of the way. Thank you for your time and effort!
Secondly, I would like to thank my friends for helping me out
during the process, giving me advise and helping me contact
the teams.
Thirdly, I would like to thank the Hong Kong Baptist University
Physical Education and Recreation Management Program, for
everything!
_____________________________
Student’s signature
Department of Physical Education
Hong Kong Baptist University
Date: 30th APRIL, 2013
5
ABSTRACT
The study attempted to investigate whether there are
differences in cohesion between interacting and co-acting
sport teams. The instrument used was the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ) developed by Carron, Widmeyer, and
Brawley in 1985. The GEQ was administered to 99 members of
university representing co-acting as well as interacting
sports teams who has regular team training and annual
competition. No significant difference of cohesion level was
found between male and female teams, however, significant
difference was found between interacting sport teams and
co-acting sport teams in level of cohesion where interacting
teams has a higher level of cohesion than the co-acting teams.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9-19
Statement of Problem ………………………………………………………………………… 13
Hypothesis …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13-16
Delimitations ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 16-17
Limitations ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………………………. 17-19
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………………………………………….. 20-36
Definitions of Cohesion……………………………………………………………………… 20-23
Multidimensional of Cohesion……………………………………………………….23-25
Dynamic Nature of Cohesion……………………………………………………………….25-26
Factor Affecting Cohesion……………………………………………………………..26-30
Effect of Cohesion in Sports………………………………………………………..31-33
Instrument of Cohesion Measurement……………………………………..33-35
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..35-36
3. METHOD………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..37-41
The Research Participants……………………………………………………………..37-38
Test Instrument ……………………………………………………………………………………..38-40
7
Collection of Data ………………………………………………………………………………..40-41
4. ANALYSIS OF DATA………………………………………………………………………………………..42-58
Demographic Data …………………………………………………………………………………..42-45
Statistical Analysis………………………………………………………………………..45-51
Discussion of Findings…………………………………………………………………..51-58
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………………………..58-61
Summary of Results………………………………………………………………………………..58-59
Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………..59
Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………..59-61
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..62-63
APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 64-74
A. Group Environment Questionnaire ……………………………………………..64-70
B. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………………..71-74
_________________________________________________________
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Distribution of participant
in interacting teams ………………………………………………………………..43
Table 2. Distribution of participant
in co-acting teams………………………………………………………………………..44
8
Table 3. 2X2 ANOVA Results on 4 Variables…………………………………..46
Table 4. Descriptive Statistics
of Dependent Variable ATG-T ……………………………………………..71
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics
of Dependent Variable ATG-S…………………………………………………..72
Table 6.Descriptive Statistics
of Dependent Variable GI-T …………………………………………………..73
Table 7.Descriptive Statistics
of Dependent Variable GI-S…………………………………………………..74
9
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
It is said that ‘two or more individuals who possess a
common identity, have common goals and objectives, share a
common fate, exhibit structured patterns of interaction and
modes of communication, hold common perceptions about group
structure, are personally and instrumentally interdependent,
reciprocate interpersonal attraction and consider themselves
to be a group’(Carron & Hausenblas, 1998, pp.13-14) are
defined as group. We are all, to some extent, being born in
a group, and it is also inevitable for us to be involved in
groups throughout our entire life.
For groups to exist and last, the most fundamental yet
essential element is group cohesiveness.
Cohesion can be defined as “a dynamic process that 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 affective needs”(Carron
10
et al.,1998,p.213)The definition emphasize that cohesion is
a dynamic process, it changes and this definition also
included most of the existing groups, group with instrumental
objective, for example, sports teams and workforce, and group
for satisfying members affective needs, for example, the
friendship group.
Positive feelings may bind people together to form groups,
however, there is no guarantee that a high initial cohesion
will last all the way. Cohesion is dynamic in nature; it changes
over time and situation. ”Cohesion is not a trait. Cohesion
in a group can (and most likely does) changes over time in
both its extent and various forms throughout the process of
group formation, group development, group maintenance, and
group dissolution.” (Carron and Brawley, 2012,p.732). It is
important for group to find ways to maintain and improve its
cohesiveness it order to keep the group strong.
Cohesion is also multidimensional in nature. Groups are
cohesive not just for one reasons, there may be a several
hundred reasons for a group to have high coherence, some group
11
maybe form for economical good, some group may form because
of affective needs, some group maybe formed for both
economical good and affective need.(Carron &
Brawley,2012,p.733) Reasons for group to stick together and
be united may not be equally presented in different group and
at the same stage of group development. For a example, a
shopping group may be formed for affective need, however, a
business project group may not be formed because of affective
needs.
Moreover, reasons for group to be cohesive may vary even
for similar type of groups. For example, Basketball team A
maybe highly united outside the court when players were
playing with their teammate but not united when they are in
competition; and team B may have the exact opposite situation
where players are highly united when it comes to competition
but not united in social aspect.
The importance for group to be united may also change
throughout the group’s development. For example, having fun
with your teammate and have the time to joke around and messing
12
around maybe important in the initial stage of group
development, however when the group grows, having common
targets to achieve maybe more important in uniting member.
Although cohesion is dynamic and multi-dimensional in
nature, one stationary fact of cohesion is that, cohesion
affect team performance and successiveness to some extend.
Zander (1974) stated the importance of cohesion by saying “ in
spite of the individual athletes who make headlines when they
strike off for themselves, team spirit is the rule rather than
the exception. In fact, both amateurs and professionals
generally feel that a team can’t become a winner without it”.
Cohesion impacts most type of groups, however, researchers
believe that the impact of cohesion varies with type of group,
some may be positive and some maybe negative.
With reference to Carron (1988), Cox (1990) and Gill (1986),
cohesion-performance relationship is positive in interacting
teams, where high level of cohesion leads to better
performance; and negative in co-acting teams, where high level
of cohesion leads to bad performance.
13
As different level of cohesion brings different effect to
interacting teams and co-acting teams on their performance,
the question remains that, does cohesion really varies in
interacting teams and co-acting teams? The purpose of the
study was to investigate whether there are differences in
cohesion between interacting team and co-acting team in
sports.
The purpose of the study was to investigate whether there
are differences in cohesion between interacting and co-acting
sport teams.
(1) There would be no significant difference between
interacting sport players and co-acting sport players
in the Interpersonal Attractions to Group-Task (ATG-T)
sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ).
Statement of Problem
Hypotheses
14
(2) There would be no significant difference between male
and female team players in Interpersonal Attractions to
Group-Task (ATG-T) sub-scale mean score of the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
(3) There would be no significant interaction between type
of team sport and gender in the Interpersonal Attractions
to Group-Task (ATG-T) sub-scale mean score of the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
(4) There would be no significant difference between
interacting sport players and co-acting sport players
in the Interpersonal Attractions to Group-social (ATG-S)
sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ).
(5) There would be no significant difference between male
and female team players in Interpersonal Attractions to
Group-social (ATG-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
(6) There would be no significant interaction between type
of team sport and gender in the Interpersonal Attractions
15
to Group-social (ATG-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
(7) There would be no significant difference between
interacting sport players and co-acting sport players
in the Group Integration-Task (GI-T) sub-scale mean
score of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
(8) There would be no significant difference between male
and female team players in Group Integration-Task (GI-T)
sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ).
(9) There would be no significant interaction between type
of team sport and gender in the Group Integration-Task
(GI-T) sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ).
(10) There would be no significant difference between
interacting sport players and co-acting sport players
in the Group Integration-Social (GI-S) sub-scale mean
score of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
(11) There would be no significant difference between male
16
and female team players in Group Integration-Social
(GI-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ).
(12) There would be no significant interaction between type
of team sport and gender in the Group Integration-Social
(GI-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ).
(1) Four naturally formed interacting team with regular
training sessions.
(2) Five naturally formed co-acting team with regular
training sessions.
(3) The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) developed by
Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley in 1985 was used to measure
team cohesion in the study.
(4) The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) used in the
study contains only 18 questions.
(5) The administration of data collection instrument held
Delimitations
17
immediately after the team’s training session.
(1) The sample size was too small.
(2) The sample’s background is homogeneous.
(3) The time of instrument administration are too random,
some teams are still in their competition preparation
period but some teams’ competition period past long ago.
(4) The translation of specific word of the instrument from
English to Cantonese may causes a deviation from the
translated meaning to the original meaning.
(5) Perceived answer of athletes may affect by their
teammates since Questionnaires were administrated at the
same time and in same venue for the same team.
“a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a
group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of
Limitations
Definition of terms
Team Cohesion
18
its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of
member affective needs” (Carron et al.,1998,p.213)
‘two or more individuals who possess a common identity, have
common goals and objectives, share a common fate, exhibit
structured patterns of interaction and modes of communication,
hold common perceptions about group structure, are personally
and instrumentally interdependent, reciprocate interpersonal
attraction and consider themselves to be a group’(Carron &
Hausenblas, 1998, pp.13-14)
Success depends upon appropriately combining each player’s
divese skills in an interdependent pattern of
teamwork.(Williams & Widmeyer, 1991, p.364) The teams have
regular training and gathering together which include
of the team member.
Teams
Interacting Team
19
Co-acting Team
Group Environment Questionnaire
Players independently perform the same skills, and team
success is determined by the sum of individual performances.
(Williams & Widmeyer, 1991, p.364) Team member may have
training together, but training may focus on individual skill
instead of intra-personal cooperation and the team member play
their own separate match.
The 18 Likert Scaled Question developed by Carron, Widmeyer
and Brawley in 1985 which aim to understand and measure
cohesion in sport teams.
The GEQ is based on the conceptual model which sees cohesion
as a multi-dimensional construct that address both group and
individual beliefs of group members (Carron & Brawley, 2012).
The conceptual model include four element, Group Integration –
Task (GI – T), Group Integration – Social (GI – S), Individual
Attractions to the Group – Task (ATG - T) and Individual
Attractions to the Group – Social (ATG – S).
20
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Definitions of Cohesion
As a popular topic in sport research, numerous of
literature has been published over the years, the literature
related to topic of cohesion is reported in this chapter. For
organization purpose, the literature will be presented under
the following topics : (1) Definitions of Cohesion, (2)Dynamic
Nature of Cohesion, (3)Multidimensional of Cohesion,
(4)Factor Affecting Cohesion, (5)Effect of Cohesion in Sports,
(6)Instrument of Cohesion Measurement, and (7)Summary.
The word cohesion has been defined in various ways
throughout the year, among the most popular and important
definition of group cohesion, the evolution of definition of
cohesion starts from the idea that group cohesion is related
to factors that influence situations by Kurt Lewin(1943). The
idea suggested two forces, the helping forces, which drive
21
movement toward a goal; and the hindering forces, which block
movement toward a goal.
Inspired by Kurt Lewin, Festinger, Schacter, and Back
defined cohesion as “The total field of forces which act upon
members to remain in the group”(p.164) in 1950. This
definition suggested two forces that act on members to remain
in the group, the attractiveness of the group, which
represents the extent to which the group has positive
for its members, and the means control, which refers to the
extent to which the group mediates goals that are deemed
important for its members.
Gross and Martin also define cohesion as the “resistance
of a group to disruptive forces in 1950 and Goodman, Ravlin
and Schminke continues the evolution by defining cohesion as
“the commitment of member to group task”(p.149) in 1987.
However, for this study, using the definition proposed by
Carron in 1982 ,Cohesion is defined as “a dynamic process that
is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together
and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental
22
objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective
needs”(Carron et al.,1998,p.213). This definition of cohesion
suggested four special feature of cohesion where cohesion is
multidimensional, dynamic, it has an instrumental basis and
it has an affective dimension.
Cohesion is multidimensional as it is not cause solely by
a single factor, consideration, or motive.(Carron &
Brawley,2012,p.732).Moreover, it is dynamic in
nature, ”Cohesion is not a trait. Cohesion in a group can (and
most likely does)change over time in both its extent and
various forms throughout the process of group formation, group
development, group maintenance, and group dissolution. On the
other hand, cohesion is not as transitory as a
situation-specific state.” (Carron and Brawley, 2012,p.732).
Cohesion also has an instrumental basis as it stated that all
groups, even groups that consider itself as “purely social
in nature” are form for a purpose. with Baumeister and Leary
(1995) pointing out that “The formation of social bond is
associated with positive affect”(Baumeister & Leary,
23
1995,p.505),it also suggest the affective dimension of
cohesion where the social bonding develops in group is
pleasing to members(Carron & Brawley, 2012,p.732).
Cohesion has initial being assessed uni-dimensionally,
usually either by interpersonal attraction or attraction to
the group, however, according to Yukelson, Weinberg & Jackson
(1984), group cohesion is thought to contain at least two
component parts (bi-dimensional), the social related
processes, processes that associated with the development and
maintenance of harmonious interpersonal relationships ; and
task-related processes, processes associated with the
activity of the group in relation to the achievement of task
objectives. (Anderson, 1975; Carron, 1982;Enoch & McLemore,
1967; Hagstrom & Selvin, 1965; Homans, 1951; Lewin, 1948).
However, researcher have noticed that cohesion is not
uni-dimensional in nature and it might not be bi-dimensional
too. “Citing the work of Collins and Raven(1969), Carron point
Multidimensional of Cohesion
24
out that this emphasis on bi-dimensionality connotes
membership in a cohesive group as both a source of rewards
as well as a means to rewards for the particular individuals
who belong to the group.”(Yukelson, Weinberg & Jackson, 1984,
p.104). Besides the social related processes and
task-related processes, Carron and Chelladurai (1981) suggest
the normative force which restrains an individual with the
group, independent of the group properties. An year later,
Carron (1982) proposed that both goals and task objective,
and interpersonal attraction and attraction to the group
should all be considered and reflected in the measurement of
group cohesion in sports.
Carron emphasize the multidimensionality of cohesion
throughout his study in cohesion. From his own work
cooperating with Brawley in 2012, he stated that “there is
more than one factor that could cause any group to stick
together and remain united” (Carron & Brawley , 2012, p.733).
Carron later on suggested a Conceptual Model of Cohesion
which included two main component in the model labeled Group
25
Integration(GI),the individual’s perceptions about what the
group believes about its closeness, similarity, and bonding
as a whole and the degree of unification of the group ;and
Individual Attractions to the Group(ATG),the individual’s
personal motivations to remain in the group. The model contain
four sub-scale in total, labeled Integration – Task
(GI-T) ,Group Integration – Social(GI-S), Individual
Attractions to the Group – Task(ATG - T) and Individual
Attractions to the Group – Social(ATG - S) which the model
helps to measure cohesion in a multidimensional way.
The definition of cohesion used in the study, “a dynamic
process that is reflected in the tendency for a group stick
together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental
objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective
needs”(Carron et al.,1998,p.213), emphasize the dynamic
nature of cohesion. Carron and Brawley (2012) point out that
cohesion is dynamic in nature, ”Cohesion is not a trait.
Dynamic Nature of Cohesion
26
Cohesion in a group can (and most likely does) changes over
time in both its extent and various forms throughout the
process of group formation, group development, group
maintenance, and group dissolution.” (Carron and Brawley,
2012,p.732). As cohesion can be affected by numerous of
factors, Carron and Brawley (2012) also stated that cohesion
is not a situation-specific state, groups that in the same
group development stage and in the same situation may have
the same level of team cohesion, also, the change is cohesion
is likely to be gradual.
Cohesion is affected by numerous of factors, Cartwright
(1968) made one of the first attempt to analyze cohesion.
Cartwright(1968) point out the four main determinants
cohesion included the individual’s motive base for attraction,
the incentive properties of the group, the individual’s
expectancy that the group membership will have beneficial or
detrimental consequences, and the individual’s comparison
Factor Affecting Cohesion
27
level or conception of the level of outcomes that should accrue
from group membership. In the four main determinants,
Individual’s motive base for attraction stands for, for
example, needs for affiliation, recognition, security, money,
or other values that can be mediated by the group ; where the
incentive properties of the group stands for the group’s goals,
programs, style of operation, prestige, or other properties
which are of significance to the individual.
Besides the model presented by Cartwright which is a
relatively more from the general theoretical perspective, the
sport researchers have started to examine the cohesion, and
its impact to sports performance.
Carron & Chelladurai (1981) examined nature of task,
coach-athlete relationship, athlete-team relationship,
participation motivation and their attribution to cohesion,
but it turns out coach-athlete relationship and athlete-team
relationship were not a important factor affecting team
cohesion.
Carron (1982) tried to develop a general conceptual system
28
for cohesion in sport on the basis of previous research and
theoretical viewpoints. Carron concluded that the moderating
factors fall into four categories, environmental, personal,
leadership and team.
Carron suggest that the four categories present a hierarchy
of moderators, which the four categories, starting from
environmental, which is a more general, remote, less important
categories, to the team, which is a more specific, direct and
important category.
The environmental category stand for factors that “exist
within the general organization system and serve as a
constraining force, dependent of the properties of the team”
(Carron, 1982, p.130). And under the environmental category
were (i)Contractual responsibility (the eligibility and
transfer rules) and (ii)Organizational orientation
(organization differ in their goals, strategies for achieving
these goals, age, sex and maturity of their members).
The personal categories included (i)Individual’s
orientation , Stated by Bass (1962), individual group member
29
is oriented in task motivation, affiliation motivation and
self motivation; (ii)Satisfaction, Proposed by Martens and
Peterson in 1971, cohesion , performance and satisfaction are
related in a circular fashion, as a result, a cohesion
contributes to performance and success and in turn, success
produce satisfaction which will develop a stronger cohesion
and the cycle runs over again. And (iii)Individual differences,
which include sex, race, religion and socioeconomic status
of the participants.
The Leadership categories consist of the (i)Leader
behavior, (ii) Leadership style, (iii) Coach-athlete
interpersonal relationship and (iv) Coach-team relationship.
Affecting by all of the above three categories was the
most specific, direct and important category among the four ,
the team category. And under this category were the (i)Group
task, (ii) Desire for group success, (iii)Group
orientation ,(iv)Group productivity norm, (v)Team ability and
(vi)Team stability.
30
Some more recent research about factors affecting cohesion
include cognitive variables (Prapavessis and Carron,1996;
Cogan and Petrie,1995),mood (Terry et al., 2000) and role
ambiguity (Beauchamp et al., 2003).
31
Effect of Cohesion in Sports
With reference to Carron et al. (1998), the perception of
high level of cohesion is highly related to the sensation of
the group unit, the collective and interdependence with the
team members. However, the most tempting part for sport
enthusiast of cohesion is its relationship with sports
performance.
Cohesion’s contribution to sports performance is
controversy in the early stage of research, Arnold and
Straub(1972), Ball and Carron(1976), Landers and Crum(1971) ,
Martens and Peterson(1971) and Widmeyer and Martens(1978),
Carron and Chelladurai(1981) and Shangi and Carron(1987)
found that cohesion and performance are positively related,
that means greater level of team cohesion lead to a better
performance. However, Lenk(1969) and Lander and Lueschen(1974)
seem to found the relationship in a reverse way, their research
show that cohesion and performance are negatively related,
that means, high cohesion leads to bad performance. Melnick
and Chemers (1974) and Williams and Hacker (1982) even found
32
that cohesion has, in fact, no relationship with performance.
With all these inconsistence research about relationship
between cohesion and performance, Mullen and Carron (1994)
carried out a meta-analysis on cohesion-performance question
and they concluded that cohesion-performance relationship is
no longer “controversial”, cohesion should be a small but
significant effect on performance.
And within all dimension of cohesion, David & Nutter (1988)
stated that the task cohesion would have more impact on
cohesion-performance relationship than social cohesion.
Moreover, Carron (1988), Cox (1990) and Gill (1986) stated
that cohesion-performance outcome relationship is positive
in interacting teams but negative in co-acting teams. One of
the explanation suggested by Lueschen(1974) about the
positive cohesion-performance relationship interacting teams
have is that, cooperative tasks with means-interdependence
among team members facilitate interaction, and leads to
greater cohesiveness, and Carron (1988) further explain it
by saying rivalry produce best performance, and members of
33
interacting teams are too concerned with the welfare and
feelings of coactors and it affect one’s own performance.
Cohesion has long been operationalized by the definition
proposed by Kurt Lewin, Festinger, Schacter, and Back in 1950
as “The total field of forces which act upon members to remain
in the group” and the most commonly used instrument to measure
cohesion was the Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire(SCQ) by
Martens, Landers & Loy in 1972.
The Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire(SCQ) contains seven
questions related to group cohesion, the questions includes
friendship or interpersonal attraction among group members,
the relative power or influence of group members, the
of belonging the individual feels to the group, the value that
the individual attaches to membership in the group, the degree
of enjoyment the individual derives from participating with
the group, the level of teamwork the individual perceives is
present within the group and the degree of closeness the
Instrument of Cohesion Measurement
34
individual feels is present within the group.(Carron &
Chelladural, 1981, p.124).
Since the definition of cohesion at that time was still
unidimensional, where it only stressed the dimension of
attractiveness of the group and the means control, Carron
suggested that the seven questions in Sport Cohesiveness
Questionnaire(SCQ) were in fact only measuring individual to
individual relationship, individual to group relationship and
measures of group as a unit.
By taking the multi-dimensional nature of cohesion into
consideration, Carron defined Cohesion as “a dynamic process
that 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 affective
needs”(Carron et al.,1998,p.213)in 1982 and developed the
Group Environment Questionnaire(GEQ).
The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) is a
conceptually driven, multidimensional instrument developed
to measure cohesion(Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer, 1988). It
35
consist of 18 Likert scaled questions and it measures cohesion
based on the conceptual model suggested by Carron in 1982.The
Group Environment Questionnaire measures cohesion in a
multidimensional ways, includes Group Integration – Task (GI –
T), Group Integration – Social (GI – S), Individual
Attractions to the Group – Task (ATG - T) and Individual
Attractions to the Group – Social (ATG – S). As the validity
and the reliability has been proved, the Group Environment
Questionnaire has become a widely used instrument in measuring
group cohesion nowadays.
We are all involved in groups, and for group to be formed
and exist, cohesion is needed.
Cohesion is the force that binds group members together
and keeps the group strong. Cohesion is dynamic and
multi-dimension in nature, it changes over time, varies in
different situation and is being affected by millions of
factors, and the most commonly used factors in measuring
Summary
36
cohesion nowadays are Group Integration – Task, Group
Integration – Social, Individual Attractions to the Group –
Task and Individual Attractions to the Group – Social
suggested by Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer in 1985
Literatures have shown different result in exploring the
relationship between cohesion and sports performance,
stated cohesion affects performance, some found cohesion will
not affect performance. Carron(1988),Cox(1990) and Gill(1986)
suggest that performance and cohesion relationship varies in
type of team where in interacting sports is positive and is
negative in co-acting sports.
To measure cohesion, the Group Environment
Questionnaire, a 18 Likert Scaled Question developed by Carron,
Widmeyer and Brawley in 1985 aim at understanding and
measuring cohesion in sport teams.
37
Chapter 3
METHOD
The Research Participants
The purpose of the study was to investigate whether there
are differences in cohesion between interacting and co-acting
sports teams. The research participants, test instrument,
collection of data and the treatment of data will be included
in this chapter.
Members from university sports team of universities in Hong
Kong were recruited. For getting data for interacting teams
sports, members of the basketball team, soccer team rugby team
and volleyball team were invited to participant in the study;
and to get data of the co-acting team sports, members of the
table-tennis team, wood ball team, badminton team, and the
4X100m and the 4X400m relay team were being invited.
Both female team and male team of teams were being invited.
As female team and the male team have there own competition,
38
practice and team cohesion, data will be treated separately
for specific team in specific sex, for example, female
basketball team will be consider as one team and male
basketball team will be consider as another team.
All teams are natural formed team where all members were
chosen from the screening of the coach in the beginning of
each semester.
The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)(Carron,
Widmeyer,& Brawley,1985) (Appendix 1) was used to measure team
cohesion in this study. The GEQ contains 18 questions in total,
all questions were Likert scaled from ‘1’ to ‘9’ where ‘1’
represent strongly disagree and ‘9’ represent strongly agree.
The GEQ was based on the conceptual model Carron developed
in 1982.There are two main component in the model which labeled
Group Integration(GI),the individual’s perceptions about
what the group believes about its closeness, similarity, and
bonding as a whole and the degree of unification of the group
Test Instrument
39
field ;and Individual Attractions to the Group(ATG),the
individual’s personal motivations to remain in the group.
Under these two main components were the fundamental foci
for Group Integration and Individual Attractions to the Group,
Task(T)which included collective performance, goals, and
objectives and social(S) which represent the relationship
within the group.
The four scales have been more clearly defined by Carron,
Brawley, and Widmeyer in 1985. The group define Group
Integration – Task (GI-T) as individual team member’s feelings
about the similarity, closeness, and bonding within the team
as a whole around the group’s task ; Group Integration – Social
(GI-S) as individual team member’s feelings about the
similarity, closeness, and bonding within the team as whole
around the group as a social unit ; Individual Attractions
to the Group – Task (ATG - T) as individual team member’s
feeling about his or her personal involvement with the group
task, productivity, and goals and objectives ; Individual
Attractions to the Group – Social (ATG - S) as individual team
40
member’s feeling about his or her personal acceptance, and
social interaction within the group.
Initial contact was made with the coaches of all team to
explain the nature, purpose, details of the study and to ask
for the willingness of the coaches and the team players for
participating in the study. After permission was obtained,
a meeting was planned after one session of the team’s usual
practice.
Before the administration of the questionnaire, the nature
and of the study was explained again and the athletes were
asked once again about their willingness of participating in
the study, the participation was completely voluntary.
Instruction was given verbally after the explanation,
athletes were told that no discussion is require for the
questionnaire, everyone might have different point of view,
the questionnaire contains no right or wrong answer and they
should answer the questions honestly according to their own
Collection of Data
41
personal feeling. No name was required for the questionnaire
and it is completely confidential, no other players or coach
will be able to read the questionnaire again afterwards.
Instructions of the questionnaire were printed on the front
page of the questionnaire, specific instructions on how to
fill in the questionnaire was printed on top of the questions.
The questionnaire was being collected one by one with front
page facing to the ground, athlete can leave the venue whenever
they like after they completed the questionnaire.
42
Chapter 4
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Demographic data
The purpose of the study was to determine whether there
are differences on team cohesion between interacting sports
teams and co-acting sports teams. Analysis of data in this
chapter is presented in the following manner :(1) demographic
data,(2)Statistical Analysis ,(3)Discussion of findings.
The population of subject consists of 99 individual who
was a member of the university representative team of
different university in Hong Kong. And the backgrounds of the
participant are presented in Table 1 and 2.
43
Table 1
INTERACTING TEAMS
Male Female Total
Basketball 10 6 16
Volleyball 8 3 11
Soccer 6 5 11
Rugby 4 1 5
Total 43
Distribution of participant in interacting teams
44
Table 2
CO-ACTING TEAMS
Male Female Total
Badminton 9 5 14
Wood ball 8 4 12
Table-tennis 8 4 12
4X400 Relay 9 6 15
4X100 Relay 3 3
Total 56
Members of four teams were recruited to complete the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) in interacting teams category.
The four team are Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer and rugby.
In the interacting teams category, a total of 28 male and were
recruited and 15 female were recruited and the total
participant under this category were 43.
Members of five teams were recruited to complete the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) in co-acting teams’ category.
Distribution of participant in co-acting teams
45
The five teams are Badminton, woodball, Table-tennis, 4X100
relay and 4X400 relay. In the co-acting teams category, a total
of 37 male and were recruited and 19 female were recruited
and the total participant under this category were 56.
For this study, the 4 sub-scales of the Group Environment
Questionnaire were tested with four 2X2 ANOVAs. Results are
presented in table 3. And the descriptive results of the 4
sub-scales are presented in table 4, table 5, table 6 and table
7.
Statistical Analysis
46
Table 3.
2X2 ANOVA Results on 4 Variables
Souce
Mean
square Sig.
Partial eta
squared
Sport 1 41.873 23.006 0 0.195
Gender 1 3.149 1.73 0.192 0.018
Sport * Gender 1 0.51 0.28 0.598 0.003
ATG - S
Sport 1 20.326 10.287 0.002 0.098
Gender 1 0.98 0.496 0.483 0.005
Sport * Gender 1 3.646 1.845 0.178 0.019
GI-T
Sport 1 26.192 21.526 0 0.185
Gender 1 3.094 2.543 0.114 0.026
Sport * Gender 1 0.011 0.009 0.926 0
GI-S
Sport 1 7.482 5.337 0.023 0.053
Gender 1 0.118 0.084 0.773 0.001
Sport * Gender 1 1.239 0.884 0.349 0.009
Df F
ATG - T
47
Based on the 2X2 ANOVA results, the answer to each
hypotheses is presented below:
Hypothesis #1 There would be no significant difference
between interacting sport players and co-acting sport players
in the Interpersonal Attractions to Group-Task (ATG-T)
sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment Questionnaire
(GEQ).
This hypothesis was rejected because the F value was 23.00
(p < .05).
Hypothesis #2 There would be no significant difference
between male and female team players in Interpersonal
Attractions to Group-Task (ATG-T) sub-scale mean score of the
Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was accepted because the F value was 1.73
(p > .05).
Hypothesis #3 There would be no significant interaction
between type of team sport and gender in the Interpersonal
48
Attractions to Group-Task (ATG-T) sub-scale mean score of the
Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was accepted because the F value was .280
(p > .05).
Hypothesis #4 There would be no significant difference
between interacting sport players and co-acting sport players
in the Interpersonal Attractions to Group-social (ATG-S)
sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment Questionnaire
(GEQ).
This hypothesis was rejected because the F value was 10.28
(p < .05).
Hypothesis #5 There would be no significant difference
between male and female team players in Interpersonal
Attractions to Group-social (ATG-S) sub-scale mean score of
the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was accepted because the F value was .496
(p > .05).
49
Hypothesis #6 There would be no significant interaction
between type of team sport and gender in the Interpersonal
Attractions to Group-social (ATG-S) sub-scale mean score of
the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was accepted because the F value was 1.845
(p > .05).
Hypothesis #7 There would be no significant difference
between interacting sport players and co-acting sport players
in the Group Integration-Task (GI-T) sub-scale mean score of
the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was rejected because the F value was 21.526
(p < .05).
Hypothesis #8 There would be no significant difference
between male and female team players in Group Integration-Task
(GI-T) sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was accepted because the F value was 2.54
50
(p > .05).
Hypothesis #9 There would be no significant interaction
between type of team sport and gender in the Group
Integration-Task (GI-T) sub-scale mean score of the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was accepted because the F value was .009
(p > .05).
Hypothesis #10 There would be no significant difference
between interacting sport players and co-acting sport players
in the Group Integration-Social (GI-S) sub-scale mean score
of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was rejected because the F value was 5.337
(p < .05).
Hypothesis #11 There would be no significant difference
between male and female team players in Group
Integration-Social (GI-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group
51
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was accepted because the F value was .084
(p > .05).
Hypothesis #12 There would be no significant interaction
between type of team sport and gender in the Group
Integration-Social (GI-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).
This hypothesis was accepted because the F value was .884
(p > .05).
The purpose of the study was to explore whether there are
differences in cohesion between interacting sports teams and
co-acting sports teams. Support was found for the hypothesis
of the study and results show that the cohesion level of
interacting teams are higher than co-acting teams. No
relationship was found between gender of players and team
cohesion and interaction between type of team sport and
Discussion of Findings
52
gender.
To account for the difference in the level of cohesion,
first of all, it might be the rivalry issue.
Williams and Widmeyer (1991) stated that rivalry was
thought to produce the best performance in independent tasks.
And Carron (1988) further explain this by saying becoming too
concerned with the welfare and feelings of co-actors detracts
from one’s own performances.
In co-acting sports, players come in a “whole package” as
he/she has to know all skills and be all-rounded in both
psychological and physical aspect to play an individual game,
however, in interacting sports, players is only part of the
package, each player has their own role and duties so together
they can form a team, and each role have to rely on one another
to make good performance, for an example, centre and point
guard of basketball team, centre and point guard have their
own separate role and duties in the game.
As a result, players in interacting sports in fact have
little ground for individual comparison within a team as their
53
nature of duties are different, such as the performance of
a postman and a fireman can hardly be compared together, they
can only complete with the player in the same role in
team, or together with his/her team, complete with another
team as a team. Moreover as players in interacting teams have
to rely on each other to produce good performance like a good
shooter need a good pass, the rivalry in interacting sport
teams are therefore lower.
However, in co-acting sports, players are completing with
their teammate directly as they have the same role in the team.
Just like the unit of the world ranking of table-tennis is
individual but for basketball is team. And as rivalry was
thought to produce the best performance in independent tasks,
coaches of the co-acting teams often introduce intra-team
competition to check the skill level of the players, decide
the appearing sequence and boost players’ performance. The
rivalry in co-acting teams is therefore high. It might explain
the higher cohesion level in interacting teams and lower
cohesion level in co-acting teams.
54
Another possible explanation for the difference is the
team-building strategy. Suggested by Carron, Colman and
wheeler (2002):
In interactive sports, coaches inevitably and explicitly
introduce many of the team-building strategies associated
with increased cohesiveness: ensuring role clarity and
acceptance, establishing team performance goals,
improving athlete-athlete and coach-athlete
communication, and so on. On the other hand, the nature
of coactive sports means there are fewer natural or
inevitable opportunities for groupness or ‘entitativity’
to develop. (p.182)
The difference in practice may also attribute to the
cohesion difference. As co-acting sports are usually a
‘one-man game’, the player is completing all by himself, so
during practice, they may practice separately for different
skills; however in interacting sports, inter-dependent tasks
and tactics are required to produce good performance,
usually practice together for a single tactics or skill like
55
pick and roll in basketball.
It is also said that interacting sports are more
task-coordinated than co-acting sports. Carron, Colman and
Wheeler (2002) point out that cohesion would be a catalyst
for increased coordination in sports where task interactions
are essential for group success, whereas its absence would
serve to increase interpersonal competition in sports
task interactions are not required. Since players in
interacting sports work together for a task and players in
co-acting teams work on their separate task, this causes a
low level of task-coordination in co-acting team. As task
oriented Group cohesion are typically reported to be stronger,
this may cause interactive sport teams to have a higher level
of cohesion than co-acting team as they are more
task-oriented.
Consistent with other studies (e.g. Widmeyer and Martens,
1978), the study failed to find any difference in cohesion
among male and female players. Although Reis and Jelsma (1978)
have shown the basic orientation of males and females are
56
different where male most strongly endorsed competition,
winning and beating one’s opponent and female most strongly
endorsed participating in the game, interacting with
teammates and opponents, and everyday socializing, Widmeyer
and Martens (1978) the sex difference were essentially dealing
with social cohesion only.
Cohesion is multi-dimensional and dynamic after all, as
it changes overtime and it can be affected by billions of
factors. Since the sample size of the study was too small,
the possibility that all co-acting teams in the study happened
to have a poor coach-athlete relationship or just suffered
from a social conflict or was being affected by some other
issue can not be ruled out.
People always assume that interacting sport teams will have
a higher level of cohesion than co-acting sport teams, however,
it maybe more an assumption than a statement since little
effort was made in the field to support this concept and to
explore the reasons behind. It is said that performance,
cohesion and satisfaction are related in a circular fashion
57
(Martens & Peterson,1971) where cohesion help boost
performance and satisfaction, and the increased performance
and satisfaction raise cohesion again. And it is also
that the performance and cohesion relationship in interacting
sports is positive and is negative in co-acting sports.
(Carron ,1988 ; Cox,1990; Gill,1986)
So, people will usually ‘process’ the cohesion difference in
interacting sports teams and co-acting sports team in this
way, ‘high cohesion in interacting sport will leads to better
performance, lower cohesion in co-acting sport will leads to
better performance, so, as teams are there for a better
performance, interacting sports team will have a higher
cohesion level than co-acting teams’, but the took for granted
concept of interacting teams have a higher level of cohesion
than co-acting teams is still yet to be further proved.
58
Chapter 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary of Results
The purpose of the study was to explore whether there are
differences in cohesion between interacting sports teams and
co-acting sports teams. To achieve the goal, 99 university
representing athletes from different teams and different
universities in Hong Kong were invited to complete the Group
Environment Questionnaire (GEQ). This chapter summarizes and
concludes the results from the study and makes recommendations
for future research.
The study was aim at investigating whether there is
difference in cohesion between interacting and co-acting
sport team. To achieve the goal, 99 athletes from different
sport representing teams in different universities in
Kong including both members from interacting teams and
co-acting teams were being recruited. Each of the members was
59
asked to complete the Group Environment Questionnaire. A 2X2
ANOVA was used for analysis the data collected. It was found
that there was a significant difference in cohesion between
interacting teams and co-acting teams in all 4 sub-scale of
the GEQ, however, no significant difference was found in
cohesion in players of different gender.
On the basis of the result, three conclusions appeared
warranted. First, level of cohesion is different between
interacting team and co-acting. Second, level of cohesion in
interacting team is higher than co-acting team. Finally, no
significance difference was there in level of cohesion between
male and female.
There are several challenges in the data collection part
of the study. First of all, as most of the teams will stop
their regular practice right after the University Sports
Conclusions
Recommendations
60
Competition, teams may stop their practice on early-March and
it will be extremely hard to administrate the questionnaire
to the whole team again. So, the administration of
questionnaire should be done on mid-February if university
sports representation were the target participants.
Secondly, in order to ensure the validity of the
questionnaire, the original English version of the
questionnaire was used in the study, however, the question
may cause confusion to some athlete due to the different in
athletes’ language abilities, and some athlete were not
willing to complete this English questionnaire. So, the
questionnaires should be translated into a Chinese Version
in future study to ensure the accuracy of the data collected.
Thirdly, as some of the question are in a ‘double negative’
format, it may confused the athlete and some of them may give
a answer that different from what they intend to give
they did not read the questions carefully and the format of
the question mislead them. The ‘double negative’ word such
as ‘not’, ’unhappy’ should be bolded to minimize the possible
61
confusion.
Another problem that may affect the result is that, since
different teams has their own schedule in the University
Sports Competition, due to the time concentration of the data
collection stage, there are teams that may ended their season
long ago, and teams that still waiting for their competition
to come, the researcher believed that if the questionnaire
can be administrated right after the last competition the
team, the result could be more consistent and accurate.
62
REFERENCES
Carron, A. V., & Chelladuari, P. P. (1981). The Dynamics of
Group Cohesion in Sport. Journal Of Sport Psychology, 3(2),
123-139.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in Sport Groups:
Interpretations and Considerations. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 4(2), 123-138. Human Kinetics.
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1990). The
effects of group size in sport.
, (2), 177-190. Human Kinetics.
Yukelson, D. P., Weinberg, R. S., & Jackson, A. A. (1984).
A Multidimensional Group Cohesion Instrument for
Intercollegiate Basketball Teams. Journal Of Sport
Psychology, 6(1), 103-117.
Spink, K. S. (1990). Group Cohesion and Collective Efficacy
of Volleyball Teams. Journal Of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
12(3), 301-311.
Williams, J. M., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1991). The
Cohesion-Performance Outcome Relationship in a Coacting
Sport. , (4),
364-371. Human Kinetics.
Schutz, R. W., Eom, H. J., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1994).
Examination of the factorial validity of the Group
Environment Questionnaire.
, (3), 226-236. American Alliance for
Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.
Grieve, F. G., Whelan, J. P., & Meyes, A. W. (2000). An
experimental examination of the cohesion-performance
relationship in an interactive team sport. Journal Of
Applied Sport Psychology, 12(2), 219-235.
Journal of Sport Exercise
Psychology 12
Journal of Sport Exercise Psychology 13
Research quarterly for
exercise and sport 65
63
Murphy, J. (2001).
. (Unpublished master's thesis,
North Carolina State University).
Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team
and team success in sport. / Cohesion et succes d ’ une
equipe sportive. , (2),
119-126.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, (2002).
Cohesion and Performance in Sport: A Meta Analysis.
, (2), 168-188. Human
Kinetics.
Ou, S., & Fu, M. (2007). A Review of the Research on Group
Cohesion for Sports Teams. Journal Of Capital Institute
Of Physical Education, 19(6), 43-46.
.
Borrego, C., Cid, L., & Silva, C. (2012). Relationship Between
Group Cohesion and Anxiety in Soccer. Journal Of Human
Kinetics, 34119-127.
Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2012). Cohesion: Conceptual
and Measurement Issues. Small Group Research, 43(6),
726-743.doi:10.1177/1046496412468072
Greer, L. L. (2012). Group Cohesion: Then and Now. Small Group
Research, 43(6), 655-661. doi:10.1177/1046496412461532
Pescosolido, A. T., & Saavedra, R. (2012). Cohesion and Sports
Teams: A Review. Small Group Research, 43(6), 744-758.
doi:10.1177/1046496412465020
Baumgartner, T., & Hensley, L. (2006).
. (4 ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Effect of a one-time team building exercise
on team coheison when working with a ncaa division i
women's basketball team.
Journal of Sports Sciences 20
Journal
of Sport Exercise Psychology 24
Conducting and reading
research in health and human performance
64
APPENDIX A
THE GROUP ENVIRONMENT
QUESTIONNAIRE
Albert V. Carron
School Of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario N6A 3K7
Lawrence R. Brawley
Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1
W. Neil Widmeyer
Department of Kinesiology, University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1
© 1985 by Albert V. Carron, Lawrence, R. Brawley, & W. Neil Widmeyer
65
The purpose of The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) is to assess the
cohesiveness of the group as reflected through the perceptions of individual members.
There are two versions, a sport team version and an exercise class version. The GEQ
is composed of 18 items in four scales:
a) 4 items in Individual Attractions to the Group-Task
b) 5 items in Individual Attractions to the Group-Social
c) 5 items in Group Integration-Task
d) 4 items in Group Integration-Social
The definition of each scale is presented is as follows:
Group Integration-Task (GI-T) Individual team member's feelings about the
similarity, closeness, and bonding within the team
as a whole around the group's task.
Group Integration-Social (GI-S) Individual team member's feelings about the
similarity, closeness, and bonding within the team
as a whole around the group as a social unit.
Interpersonal Attractions to Individual team member's feelings about his
Group-Task (ATG-T) or her personal involvement with the group
task, productivity, and goals and objectives.
Interpersonal Attractions to Individual team member's feelings about his
Group-social (ATG-S) or her personal acceptance, and social interaction
with the group.
Members are required to respond to the 18 statements about their team on a 9 point
scale which is anchored at the two extremes by “ ” and “
”. The score on each specific scale is computed by summing the scores from
the pertinent items.
It should be noted that some of the items on the GEQ are negatively worded. As a
consequence, the items must be reversed scored-- stronger disagreement represents
greater perceptions of cohesion. Also, of the items on the GEQ are positively worded.
Introduction
Scoring Key
strongly agree strongly
disagree
66
As a consequence, the items are scored according to the response on the scale itself—
stronger agreement represents greater perceptions of cohesion.
For , items 2, 4, 6, and 8 are scored
from = to =
For , items 5 and 9 are scored
= to = . Items 1, 3, and 7 are scored from
= to =
For , items 10, 12, and 16 are scored from
= to = . Items 14 and 18 are scored from
= to =
For , item 15 is scored from = to
= . Items 11, 13 and 17 are scored from = to
=
Discussions on the development of the GEQ and/or its psychometric properties are
available in the following articles.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987). Assessing the
cohesion of teams: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 9, 275-294.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1988). Exploring the
relationship between cohesion and group resistance to disruption. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 10, 199-213.
Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1992). Internal consistency of the Group
Environment Questionnaire modified for an exercise setting. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 74, 1-3.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1997). The maesurement of
cohesiveness in sport groups. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sport and exercise
psychology measurement. Morgantown, WV, Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of
an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment
Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
Individual Attractions to the Group-Task
9 1.
Individual Attractions to the Group-Social from
1 9
9 1.
Group Integration-Task
1 9
9 1.
Group Integration-Social 1
9 9
1.
References
strongly disagree strongly agree
strongly disagree strongly agree strongly
disagree strongly agree
strongly
disagree strongly agree strongly disagree
strongly agree
strongly disagree
strongly agree strongly disagree
strongly agree
67
Team : Gender :
This questionnaire is designed to assess your perceptions of your athletic team. There
are no right or wrong answers so please give your immediate reaction. Some of the
questions may seem repetitive but please answer ALL questions. Your candid
responses are very important to us. Your responses wil kept in strict confidence.
Neither your coach nor anyone other than the researcher will see your responses.
[The instructions and information relating to informed consent and question
pertaining to any relevant demographic data such as age, gender, and so on also may
be included on the front cover page]
The following questions are designed to assess your feelings about
with this team. Please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 9 to indicate your
level of agreement with each of the statements.
1. I do not enjoy being a part of the social activities of this team.
2. I am not happy with the amount of playing time I get.
3. I am not going to miss the members of this team when the season ends.
Sport Group Version
Instructions to Respondents (front cover)
YOUR PERSONAL
INVOLVEM ENT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
68
4. I am unhappy with my team’s level of desire to win.
5. Some of my best friends are on this team.
6. This team does not give me enough opportunities to nal
performance.
7. I enjoy other parties more than team parties.
8. I do not like the style of play on this team.
9. For me, this team is one of the most important social groups to which I belong.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
69
The following questions are designed to assess your perceptions of
Please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 9 that best indicates your level of agreement
with each of the statements.
10. Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance
11. Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a
team.
12. We all take responsibility for any loss or poor performance by our team.
13. Our team members rarely party together.
14. Our team members have conflicting aspirations for the team’s performance.
15. Our team would like to spend time together in the off season.
YOUR TEAM AS A
WHOLE.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
70
16. If members of our team have problems in practice, everyone wants to help them so
we can get back together again.
17. Members of our team do not stick together outside of practices and games.
18. Members of our team do not communicate freely about each athlete’s
responsibilities during competition or practice.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
71
Table 4
APPENDIX B
Sport Gender Mean
Std.
deviation N
Male 4.3571 1.48047 28
Female 4.5833 1.54014 15
Traditional
team
Total 4.436 1.48714 43
Male 2.8243 1.23444 37
Female 3.3553 1.19407 19
Non-traditional
team
Total 3.0045 1.23628 56
Male 3.4846 1.53849 65
Female 3.8971 1.47211 34
total
Total 3.6263 1.52127 99
Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variable ATG-T
72
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variable ATG-S
Sport Gender Mean
Std.
deviation N
Male 4.0571 1.4574 28
Female 4.2533 1.4352 15
Traditional team
Total 4.1256 1.43562 43
Male 3.5027 1.40445 37
Female 2.8842 1.30182 19
Non-traditional
team
Total 3.2929 1.39034 56
Male 3.7415 1.44297 65
Female 3.4882 1.50811 34
Total
Total 3.6545 1.46296 99
73
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variable GI-T
Sport Gender Mean
Std.
deviation N
Male 4.2429 0.93231 28
Female 4.64 1.29659 15
Traditional team
Total 4.3814 1.0751 43
Male 3.173 1.26065 37
Female 3.5263 0.79501 19
Non-traditional
team
Total 3.2929 1.12942 56
Male 3.6338 1.24327 65
Female 4.0176 1.17176 34
Total
Total 3.7657 1.22692 99
74
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variable GI-S
Sport Gender Mean
Std.
deviation N
Male 4.5893 0.96036 28
Female 4.9 1.17944 15
Traditional team
Total 4.6977 1.03877 43
Male 4.2432 1.34821 37
Female 4.0789 1.13973 19
Non-traditional
team
Total 4.1875 1.27319 56
Male 4.3923 1.20056 65
Female 4.4412 1.2124 34
Total
Total 4.4091 1.19867 99