TEAM COHESION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTERACTING and COACTING TEAM …libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/10010890.pdf · 1 team cohesion differences between interacting and coacting

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




in the Interpersonal Attractions to Group-social (ATG-S)




and female team players in Interpersonal Attractions to

Group-social (ATG-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group



of team sport and gender in the Interpersonal Attractions

15

to Group-social (ATG-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group




in the Group Integration-Task (GI-T) sub-scale mean

score of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).


and female team players in Group Integration-Task (GI-T)




of team sport and gender in the Group Integration-Task

(GI-T) sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment




in the Group Integration-Social (GI-S) sub-scale mean

score of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).


16

and female team players in Group Integration-Social

(GI-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment



of team sport and gender in the Group Integration-Social

(GI-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment


(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


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


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).


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).



in the Interpersonal Attractions to Group-social (ATG-S)

sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment Questionnaire

(GEQ).


(p < .05).


between male and female team players in Interpersonal

Attractions to Group-social (ATG-S) sub-scale mean score of

the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).


(p > .05).

49


between type of team sport and gender in the Interpersonal

Attractions to Group-social (ATG-S) sub-scale mean score of



(p > .05).



in the Group Integration-Task (GI-T) sub-scale mean score of



(p < .05).


between male and female team players in Group Integration-Task

(GI-T) sub-scale mean score of the Group Environment



50

(p > .05).


between type of team sport and gender in the Group

Integration-Task (GI-T) sub-scale mean score of the Group



(p > .05).



in the Group Integration-Social (GI-S) sub-scale mean score

of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ).


(p < .05).


between male and female team players in Group

Integration-Social (GI-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group

51



(p > .05).


between type of team sport and gender in the Group

Integration-Social (GI-S) sub-scale mean score of the Group



(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

Documents

TEAM COHESION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN INTERACTING and COACTING TEAM …libproject.hkbu.edu.hk/trsimage/hp/10010890.pdf · 1 team cohesion differences between interacting and coacting