Great Expectations: How Role Expectations and Role Experiences Relate to Perceptions of Group Cohesion

2016 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex J. Benson ◽  
Mark A. Eys ◽  
P. Gregory Irving
Keyword(s):  
Response Surface ◽  
Social Cohesion ◽  
Group Cohesion ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Role Expectations ◽  
Great Expectations ◽  
Group Environment ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
Surface Patterns ◽  
Met Expectations

Many athletes experience a discrepancy between the roles they expect to fulfill and the roles they eventually occupy. Drawing from met expectations theory, we applied response surface methodology to examine how role expectations, in relation to role experiences, influence perceptions of group cohesion among Canadian Interuniversity Sport athletes (N = 153). On the basis of data from two time points, as athletes approached and exceeded their role contribution expectations, they reported higher perceptions of task cohesion. Furthermore, as athletes approached and exceeded their social involvement expectations, they reported higher perceptions of social cohesion. These response surface patterns—pertaining to task and social cohesion—were driven by the positive influence of role experiences. On the basis of the interplay between athletes’ role experiences and their perception of the group environment, efforts to improve team dynamics may benefit from focusing on improving the quality of role experiences, in conjunction with developing realistic role expectations.

Cohesion Predicts Success in Junior Ice Hockey

1998 ◽  
Vol 87 (2) ◽  
pp. 649-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simo Salminen ◽  
Pekka Luhtanen
Keyword(s):  
Social Cohesion ◽  
Ice Hockey ◽  
Predictors Of Success ◽  
Winning Percentage ◽  
Hockey Players ◽  
Group Environment ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
Group Environment Questionnaire ◽  
The Relationship

This study examined the relationship between cohesion measured by the Group Environment Questionnaire and success measured by winning percentage with over 200 junior ice hockey players. The cohesion explained 29% of the variance of the success. Scores on task cohesion were better predictors of success than social cohesion.

The Effect of Group Cohesion on Competitive State Anxiety

1996 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harry Prapavessis ◽  
Albert V. Carron
Keyword(s):  
State Anxiety ◽  
Group Cohesion ◽  
Psychological Benefits ◽  
Sport Team ◽  
Group Environment ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
Group Environment Questionnaire ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Benefits And Costs ◽  
State Responses

One purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between cohesion and competitive state anxiety (A-state). If a cohesion-competition A-state relationship was obtained, the second purpose was to determine whether the perceived psychological benefits and/or psychological costs of cohesiveness mediate that relationship. In order to examine these issues, a sample of interactive sport-team athletes (N = 110) completed the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) and items related to the perceived psychological benefits and costs of membership in cohesive groups. In addition, athletes completed the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory–2 (CSAI-2; Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990) prior to competition. Results showed that cohesion was related to A-state responses (p < .004). Specifically, individuals holding higher perceptions of task cohesion reported less cognitive A-state. Results also showed that psychological costs associated with membership on cohesive teams mediates the cohesion–A-state relationship.

scholarly journals The Evaluation of Cohesion in the Sports Groups within a Romanian City

2020 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Oana Rusu
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Social Cohesion ◽  
Space Variable ◽  
Sports Teams ◽  
Independent Variables ◽  
Group Environment ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
Biological Gender ◽  
The One

AbstractWe propose to conduct an analysis, by studying the influences exercised by certain variables (the biological gender, the ranking and the sociomotor space) on the level of cohesion among the sports teams in the municipality of Iaşi, Romania, evolving in the first leagues. A questionnaire was conducted on a number of 158 athletes (55 females, 103 males) who practice basketball, soccer, handball, rugby, volleyball. The responders answered the questionnaire regarding the group environment (GEQ). Factor analysis groups the items on two factors at the level of the Romanian subjects. The homogeneity of the instrument was evaluated for the entire scale, as well as independently for each of the two factors. The gender variable does not influence the level of social cohesion and the one of task cohesion among the sports teams taken into account. The ranking does not influence task cohesion among the teams studied. Both the ranking and the level of sociomotor space, as independent variables, determine significant differences regarding the level of social cohesion among the teams studied. The sociomotor space variable determines at the level of the teams sportive studied significant differences also regarding task cohesion.

scholarly journals PERCEPTION OF COHESION IN INTERACTIVE SPORTS TEAMS

2020 ◽  
pp. 431
Author(s):  
Gordana Dobrijević ◽  
Jelena Đorđević Boljanović ◽  
Slavko Alčaković ◽  
Snežana Lazarević
Keyword(s):  
Social Cohesion ◽  
Professional Sports ◽  
Basketball Players ◽  
Statistical Software ◽  
Sports Teams ◽  
Group Environment ◽  
Group Integration ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
The City ◽  
And Task

The aim of this study is to examine the perception of cohesion in highly interdependent sports teams, compare cohesion in different sports, and then compare social and task cohesion. The participants were 205 professional sports players in the city of Belgrade, Serbia. They are engaged in five different sports: Football/soccer, basketball, volleyball, handball, and water polo. The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) was used to collect the data. All the analyses were carried out with the SPSS 22 statistical software. The results have shown moderately-high levels of all four aspects of cohesion (Group Integration-Task, Group Integration-Social, Individual Attractions to the Group-Task, and Individual Attractions to the Group-Social) in all sports. Overall, perception of task cohesion is higher than perception of social cohesion. The study also reveals that the type of sport played impacts the level of cohesion, with basketball players having the highest scores of all.

scholarly journals Questionnaire sur l’Ambiance du Groupe: A French-Language Instrument for Measuring Group Cohesion

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Philippe Heuzé ◽  
Paul Fontayne
Keyword(s):  
Construct Validity ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Present Report ◽  
Group Cohesion ◽  
French Language ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Group Environment ◽  
Psychometric Analyses ◽  
French Culture ◽  
Sport Teams

The present report provides a summary of five studies undertaken to develop a French-language instrument to assess cohesiveness in sport teams—the “Questionnaire sur l’Ambiance du Groupe” (QAG). For the initial version of the instrument, the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) was translated into French using the protocol outlined by Vallerand (1989). However, psychometric analyses undertaken in Studies 1, 2, and 3 failed to yield acceptable evidence of construct validity. Items were then revised in an attempt to make them more suitable for the French culture. Subsequent analyses in Study 4 provided support for the construct validity and reliability (internal consistency and interscale equivalence) of the QAG. In Study 5, predictive validity was demonstrated. The QAG has been found to possess satisfactory psychometric properties as a measure of cohesion in sport teams.

scholarly journals Using a Personal-Disclosure Mutual-Sharing Approach to Deliver a Team-Based Mindfulness Meditation Program to Enhance Cohesion

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Piotr A. Piasecki ◽  
Todd M. Loughead ◽  
Kyle F. Paradis ◽  
Krista J. Munroe-Chandler
Keyword(s):  
Social Cohesion ◽  
Mindfulness Meditation ◽  
Team Building ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Soccer Players ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
Viable Approach ◽  
Building Program ◽  
Personal Disclosure

In an effort to increase perceptions of cohesion among intercollegiate soccer players, a team-based mindfulness meditation program was undertaken. This team-building program was delivered by using a personal-disclosure mutual-sharing approach. A total of 31 female intercollegiate soccer players from two teams participated. Assigned to the intervention condition was a Canadian intercollegiate team (U Sports), while the control condition was an American intercollegiate team (NCAA, Division II). The participants completed a measure of cohesion (Group Environment Questionnaire) pre- and postintervention. Controlling for the preintervention scores, the 8-week team-based mindfulness meditation program resulted in significantly higher perceptions of social cohesion for the intervention group compared with the control group at postintervention. However, there were no significant differences in task cohesion between the intervention and control groups at postintervention. Using personal disclosure, mutual sharing seems a viable approach by which to deliver a team-based mindfulness meditation program to enhance a team’s social cohesion.

The team cohesion-performance relationship: A meta-analysis exploring measurement approaches and the changing team landscape

2021 ◽  
pp. 204138662110411
Author(s):  
Rebecca Grossman ◽  
Kevin Nolan ◽  
Zachary Rosch ◽  
David Mazer ◽  
Eduardo Salas
Keyword(s):  
Team Performance ◽  
Social Cohesion ◽  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Team Cohesion ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Predictive Capacity ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Optimal Measurement ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
Team Characteristics

Team cohesion is an important antecedent of team performance, but our understanding of this relationship is mired by inconsistencies in how cohesion has been conceptualized and measured. The nature of teams is also changing, and the effect of this change is unclear. By meta-analyzing the cohesion-performance relationship ( k = 195, n = 12,023), examining measurement moderators, and distinguishing modern and traditional team characteristics, we uncovered various insights. First, the cohesion-performance relationship varies based on degree of proximity. More proximal measures –task cohesion, referent-shift, and behaviorally-focused– show stronger relationships compared to social cohesion, direct consensus, and attitudinally-focused, which are more distal. Differences are more pronounced when performance metrics are also distal. Second, group pride is more predictive than expected. Third, the cohesion-performance relationship and predictive capacity of different measures are changing in modern contexts, but findings pertaining to optimal measurement approaches largely generalized. Lastly, important nuances across modern characteristics warrant attention in research and practice. Plain Language Summary Team cohesion is an important antecedent of team performance, but our understanding of this relationship is mired by inconsistencies in how cohesion has been conceptualized and measured. The nature of teams has also changed over time, and the effect of this change is unclear. By meta-analyzing the cohesion-performance relationship ( k = 195, n = 12,023), examining measurement moderators, and distinguishing between modern and traditional team characteristics, we uncovered various insights for both research and practice. First, the cohesion-performance relationship varies based on degree of proximity. Measures that are more proximal to what a team does – those assessing task cohesion, utilizing referent shift items, and capturing behavioral manifestations of cohesion – show stronger relationships with performance compared to those assessing social cohesion, utilizing direct consensus items, and capturing attitudinal manifestations of cohesion, which are more distal. These differences are more pronounced when performance metrics are also more distal. Second, despite being understudied, the group pride-performance relationship was stronger than expected. Third, modern team characteristics are changing both the overall cohesion-performance relationship and the predictive capacity of different measurement approaches, but findings pertaining to the most optimal measurement approaches largely generalized in that these approaches were less susceptible to the influence of modern characteristics. However, in some contexts, distal cohesion metrics are just as predictive as their more proximal counterparts. Lastly, there are important nuances across different characteristics of modern teams that warrant additional research attention and should be considered in practice. Overall, findings greatly advance science and practice pertaining to the team cohesion-performance relationship.

scholarly journals Response surface optimization of medium composition for protease production by Bacillus subtilis using cassava waste

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Rathakrishnan ◽  
P. Nagarajan ◽  
Rajesh Kannan
Keyword(s):  
Bacillus Subtilis ◽  
Response Surface ◽  
Waste Product ◽  
Maximum Growth ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Maximum Growth Rate ◽  
Medium Composition ◽  
Protease Production ◽  
Response Surface Optimization ◽  
Cassava Waste

Optimization of the growth condition for maximum growth rate and protease production was carried out using Bacillus subtilis. The optimization of protease production using agro industrial waste product such as cassava waste as substrate was performed with statistical methodology based on experimental designs. The screening of twelve nutrients for their influence on protease production was achieved using a Plackett-Burman design. MgSO4.7H2O, casein and glucose were selected based on their positive influence on protease production. The selected components were optimized using Response Surface Methodology (RSM). The optimum conditions are (% w/w): MgsO4.7H2O- 0.14, casein- 1.4 and glucose- 2.64. These conditions were validated experimentally which revealed an enhanced protease yield of 202.048 U/gds.

Group Cohesion

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly Rios ◽  
Cameron D. Mackey
Keyword(s):  
Factor Model ◽  
Group Cohesion ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Sports Teams ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Common Goals ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Definition Of

The definition of group cohesion has been debated since the formal introduction of the concept in social psychology. Group cohesion has undergone a variety of conceptualizations over the years stemming from several theoretical perspectives. Many models of group cohesion have been introduced; however, research with these models is largely confined to the field (e.g., psychology) or subfield (e.g., sports psychology) in which it originated. Initially, unidimensional models of group cohesion were popular, with proponents of these models arguing that cohesion would have the same consequences regardless of its operationalization. However, later research found that group cohesion may be multidimensional in nature. Several two-dimensional models have been proposed, the most popular of which distinguishes between group members working together to attain common goals (task cohesion) and group members interacting with one another on a more personal level (social cohesion). Another multidimensional model of group cohesion builds on the social-task cohesion distinction but further divides social and task cohesion into Group Integration and Individual Attractiveness to Group sub-components, thus creating a four-factor model. Group cohesion has been applied to a variety of group contexts, including sports teams, military squads, and work groups. The amount of cohesion in each group is dependent upon the properties of the group being investigated. Groups that have naturally formed (i.e., “real” groups) have higher rates of group cohesion than groups created for the purpose of a study (i.e., “artificial” groups). Other factors that affect group cohesion include type of group (e.g., interdependent vs. co-acting) and level of analysis (i.e., individual or group). Research on group cohesion has focused on the consequences of group cohesion in lieu of what causes group cohesion in the first place. Furthermore, although much research has detailed the relationship between cohesion and performance, many other positive consequences of group cohesion have not been assessed in depth. Finally, group cohesion is also associated with potential negative consequences, such as groupthink.

Assessing the Cohesion of Teams: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire

1987 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence R. Brawley ◽  
Albert V. Carron ◽  
W. Neil Widmeyer
Keyword(s):  
Team Sports ◽  
Factorial Validity ◽  
Responsibility Attributions ◽  
Group Environment ◽  
Sport Teams ◽  
Task Cohesion ◽  
Concurrent Study ◽  
Group Environment Questionnaire ◽  
Predictive Study

The process of validating a recently developed instrument to assess perceived team cohesion is discussed. The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), an instrument designed to measure cohesion in sport teams, has good estimates for its internal consistency and for its content and factorial validity (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985; Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron, 1985). However, other aspects of its validity required examination. The present article reports three studies concerning inspection of the GEQ's concurrent (Study 1), predictive (Study 2), and construct (Study 3) validities. In Study 1 the GEQ exhibited the predicted correspondence with similar measures of cohesion and was not significantly correlated with measures of other constructs. In Study 2 the GEQ successfully discriminated team and individual sport athletes by predicting their membership to these groups on the basis of their task cohesion scores. As well, classification of athletes as new and long-standing members of individual sport teams was predicted on the basis of their social cohesion scores. Finally, in Study 3 evidence was obtained for the predicted difference in self-responsibility attributions between high and low task-cohesive athletes of team sports. Considering the results of the three studies with previous evidence of content and factorial validity, the conclusion was that the GEQ is valid. In sum, demonstrations of the GEQ's content, factorial, concurrent, predictive, and construct validity reflect the ongoing process of its construct validation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document