SPORTS PSYCHOLOGY GROUP COHESION

What is cohesion? Tendency of a group to stick together SYNERGY Whole is greater than sum of parts DISPOSITIONAL view – complimentary or clashing personalities SITUATIONAL view – groups go through stages and people conform

1

Tajfel’s Minimal Group Theory Tajfel (1970) showed our behaviour is affected by being in a group – even a MINIMAL GROUP Over-value ingroup products Under-value outgroup products This is the basis for teammentality But where do groups come from?

Group Formation Bruce Tuckman studied groups in education & business Theorised that groups go through distinct stages when they form The FORMING – STORMING – NORMING – PERFORMING model (1965)

2

1. FORMING High dependence on leader for guidance and direction Little agreement on team aims other than received from leader Individual roles and responsibilities are unclear leader must be prepared to answer lots of questions Leader directs

2. STORMING Team members vie for position Leader might receive challenges Cliques and factions form and there may be power struggles Compromises may be required to enable progress Leader coaches

3

3. NORMING Agreement and consensus Roles and responsibilities are clear and accepted Commitment and unity is strong Team may engage in fun and social activities General respect for the leader and some of leadership is more shared by the team

4. PERFORMING Team knows clearly why it is doing what it is doing A shared vision and is able to stand on its own feet Focus on over-achieving goals Team members look after each other Team does not need to be instructed or assisted Leader delegates and oversees

4

Tuckman’s Model Dynamic  groups can advance a stage or fall back Circular  performing groups can enter a new storm Non-judgemental  storm is necessary & vital EG if coaches suppress storms, they will simmer & norming cannot take place

Evaluating Tuckman’s Model Based on reviewing other studies – may reflect Tuckman’s own outlook Does storming always happen? (VALIDITY) Developed in business setting – can it be generalised to sport? Useful if it helps coaches recognise & manage stages Ethnocentric? Ignores role of charismatic leaders

5

The Ringelmann Effect Max Ringelmann set up tug-o’-war teams to pull a rope attached to a strain gauge Three contestants pulled only 2½ times the average individual performance Eight contestants pulled at less than 4 times the average individual performance

Social Loafing 1 Bibb Latané coined SOCIAL LOAFING (1979) When people put in less effort as part of a group than they would as individuals Criticism of Ringelmann: coordination errors New task not suffering from this: clapping & cheering Measure sound pressure using a microphone Controls: P’s in separate cubicles with headphones

6

Social Loafing 2 CONDITIONS (1) told they were shouting alone (2) told they were part of a group In fact, all were shouting alone When people believed one other person was shouting with them, they yelled 82% as intensely as when alone If they thought five others were joining in, yelling was at 74% With 7 others, effort dropped to 50%

Reducing Social Loafing 1

7

Reducing Social Loafing 2 Latané et al (1980) A simulated swim meet with individual and relay events (realistic = crowds, trophies, etc) Laps were timed If the lap times were not announced, contestants swam slower in relay When lap times were announced, they swam faster in relay Monitoring individual effort reduces social loafing.

Social Striving Social Loafing may be a Western phenomenon Christopher Earley (1989) reports effort IMPROVES with group size with Asian samples Collectivist vs Individualist cultures? Note: this research was in business, not sport

8

Group Cohesion 1 To what extent does the group “stick together”? Group size: small groups more cohesive External threats: together-ness in face of adversity Homogeneity: members have similar skill, age, experience, etc. Stability: it takes time for relationships to develop in a group Success: winners bond together

Group Cohesion 2 Albert Carron (1982) Task cohesion vs social cohesion Task cohesion = commitment to shared goals Social cohesion = liking each other Task cohesion most important in sports performance

9

Measuring Group Cohesion Sports Cohesiveness Questionnaire (SCQ) Rainer Martens (1971) Focus on social cohesion Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) Albert Carron (1985) 18 Likert-scale items Individual and group scores for task and social cohesiveness GEQ has strong reliability and validity.

Effect on Performance Performance high at PERFORMING stage Performance high when TASK COHESION is high How does just being in a group affect performance? What about SOCIAL LOAFING? Does personality matter? (DISPOSITIONS???)

10

A Dispositional View British researcher Meredith Belbin (1981) 8 ROLES people fill in a team SHAPERS challenge the team to improve MONITORS analyse the options CO-ORDINATORS act as an umpire during decisionmaking

Building a Balanced Team Understanding your team role  develop your strengths and manage your weaknesses Teams unbalanced if all team members have similar roles Similar weakness  team as a whole may have that weakness Similar strengths  they tend to compete (rather than cooperate)

11