Download The Cohesion-Performance Outcome Relationship

JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 1991,13,364-371
The Cohesion-Performance Outcome Relationship
in a Coacting Sport
Jean M. Williams
W. Neil Widmeyer
University of Arizona
University of Waterloo
The cohesion-performance outcome relationship was reexamined in coacting
teams utilizing a recent multidimensional approach to group cohesion (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). Contrary to the results of earlier studies,
a positive rather than negative relationship was hypothesized. Teams with
high cohesion were predicted to have higher intrateam communication and
member motivation. The latter two variables, in turn, were hypothesized to
predict performance. Subjects were 83 female golfers from 18 NCAA Division I teams who participated in a 54-hole tournament. Cohesiveness was
assessed by the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron et al., 1985), and
performance outcome was assessed by the team tournament score minus
the NCAA differential (handicap) score. Cohesion significantly predicted
performance outcome (?=16.7), with task cohesion being the best predictor. Cohesiveness also significantly predicted communication (?=23)
and motivation as assessed by commitment to the team goal (?=28). Communication and motivation accounted for only 5 % of the variance in performance, with motivation being the only significant predictor. The results are
discussed in terms of measurement contaminants, Steiner's group productivity model, and future research needs.
The role of cohesion (i.e., togetherness, team spirit, closeness, teamwork,
team unity) in fostering success is one of the most frequently examined smallgroup variables in sport. Reviewers of sport cohesion research typically conclude
that the cohesion-performance outcome relationship is positive in interacting
teams but negative in coacting teams (Carron, 1988; Cox, 1990; Gill, 1986). In
interacting sports, success depends upon appropriately combining each player's
diverse skills in an interdependent pattern of teamwork. In coacting sports, players independently perform the same skills, and team success is determined by
the sum of individual performances.
The reason for different performance findings, according to Landers and
Lueschen (1974), is that cooperative tasks with means-interdependence among
Jean M. Williams is with the Department of Exercise and Sport Sciences at the
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. W. Neil Widmeyer is with the Department of
Kinesiology at the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, N2L 3G1.
Cohesion Performance 1 365
team members facilitate interaction that, in turn, leads to greater cohesiveness
and task performance. In contrast, rivalry was thought to produce the best performance in independent tasks, or, as Carron (1988) explained, becoming too concerned with the welfare and feelings of coactors detracts from one's own
performances. Numerous studies (e .g ., Ball & Carron, 1976; Stodgill, 1963;
Widmeyer & Martens, 1978; Williams & Hacker, 1982) with sports such as
basketball, hockey, and football provide the foundation for the interacting cohesion explanation, but only limited and questionable research (Landers &
Lueschen, 1974; Lenk, 1969; McGrath, 1962) supports the thesis that a negative
cohesion-performance relationship exists in coacting sports.
Viable alternative interpretations and explanations for the cohesion-performance research findings have been overlooked. For example, the use of "incomparable instruments with unknown psychometric properti&" (Brawley, Carron,
& Widmeyer, 1987, p. 276) makes it almost impossible to compare the relative
contribution of cohesion to performance. The negative coacting results occurred
with indirect, interpersonal attraction measures (e.g., a sociometric friendship
index); the positive results in interacting sports occurred with items that directly
assessed the perceptions of the team as a whole. When interpersonal attraction
measures were used in interacting sport studies, no cohesion-performance relationship was found (e.g., Martens & Peterson, 1971; Widmeyer & Martens,
1978). Thus, differences in measurement of cohesion are as plausible an explanation for the interacting cohesion findings as is the type of task.
Also, the failure to study cohesion within a conceptual model that distinguishes between social and task cohesion may contribute to inaccurate cohesionperformance conclusions. More recently, Carron, Widrneyer, and Brawley
(1985) proposed a multidimensionalmodel of cohesion and a corresponding measurement instrument (Group Environment Questionnaire, or GEQ) that distinguishes between the task (i.e., group goals, objectives) and social aspects (i.e.,
social relationships) of cohesion. According to Carron et al. (1985), different
cohesion-performance results might occur depending on which construct of cohesion is considered.
Finally, Steiner's group productivity model (Steiner, 1972) offers an alternative explanation for how cohesion might affect performance in interacting and
coaching sports. In Steiner's model, actual productivity equals potential productivity minus losses due to faulty process. Potential productivity is determined by
each member's knowledge and skill relevant to the demands of the task. Process
losses result from faulty coordination and reduced motivation. Coordination
losses occur due to factors such as poor timing or ineffective strategies. Motivation losses occur whenever a group member gives less than his or her best effort.
Whatever reduces coordination and/or motivation losses should improve actual
productivity.
One way cohesion might enhance productivity in interacting sports is by
improving communication and teamwork. Coordination of play during tournaments is not relevant in coacting sports, but the athletes di communicate with
one another during practices and before and after tournaments, and this communication can be viewed as a form of coordination. For example, members of
cohesive coacting teams may be more likely to give one another helpful tips about
technique and strategies, such as how to correct for a slice or play a particular
golf hole. Rather than the dichotomous classification of sports as interacting
366 / Williams and Widmeyer
(high coordination/cooperation) and coacting (no coordination/cooperation),
it may be more accurate to conceive of task-coordination requirements as
varying along a continuum from lower (e.g., bowling, golf) to higher (e.g.,
basketball, football) requirements. Thus, cohesion should facilitate performance in all sports although not to as great a degree as in sports with highcoordination requirements.
Reducing motivation losses should benefit performance equally in coacting
and interacting sports. One consequence of high cohesion may be greater commitment to the group's goals (Zander, 1971), and this, in turn, could lead to better
performance, providing that team goals do not detract from the recognition and
encouragement of individual contributions and goals (Gill, 1986). Thus, consistent with Steiner's (1972) model of group productivity, we propose that cohesive
teams, regardless of the type of sport, have greater productivity due to fewer
coordination and motivation losses.
To test the hypothesis that cohesion is positively rather than negatively
related to team performance outcome in coacting sports, intercollegiate golf
teams were studied. From the work of Brawley et al. (1987), we hypothesized a
stronger relationship between task cohesion and performance outcome than between social cohesion and performance outcome. Also, we proposed that cohesiveness should be positively related to intrateam communication and member
motivation. High communication and motivation, in turn, should be related to
better performance.
Method
Subjects
The subjects were 83 female golfers from 18 NCAA Division I university
teams participating in a major southwestern invitational golf tournament held
approximately halfway through the competitive season. All golfers in the tournament, except for three, participated in the study. On average, two or three golfers
per team did not travel to the tournament and thus were not tested. The teams
primarily came from the western states and from all skill levels.
Procedure
We contacted the coaches by phone to explain the purpose of the study and
to solicit permission and cooperation in contacting their golfers. The project was
described as examining group-dynamic variables that may be related to golf
performance and satisfaction. Researchers gathered the questionnaire data at the
tournament site either on the day of an optional practice round or on the day of
an 18-holematch in which local community supporters competed with the college
golfers. The tournament director and NCAA national office furnished the performance data. At the time of the study, the golfers had completed about half of
their 9-month season.
Measurement
Cohesion was assessed with the 18-item Group Environment Questionnaire
(GEQ) developed by Carron et al. (1985). Items are rated on 9-point Likert scales
Cohesion Performance / 367
anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree. This instrument is conceptually based and psychometrically sound. The validation process, consisting of
four development projects and 10 studies to date, is described in detail elsewhere
(e.g., Brawley et al., 1987; Carron et al., 1985; Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron,
1985). The GEQ assesses four aspects of cohesion: (a) members' attractions to
their group's task (ATG-T), (b) members' perceptions of their group's integration around its task (GI-T), (c) members' attractions to the social aspects of their
group (ATG-S), and (d) members' perceptions of their group's social integration
(GI-S) .
Each team's total score for the 54-hole tournament minus the team differential score served as the performance outcome. The team differential score represents how well a team played prior to the tournament. It is a measure similar in
nature to the golf handicap in that the computation takes into consideration both
the course difficulty rating and the score shot by each golfer who represented the
team at previous tournaments. Subtracting the team differential score from the
actual score shot by the team helped account for prior performances' potential
contribution to present performance.
Intrateam communication during practices and at competition was assessed
with three questions: (a) "During practices, how often did you and your teammates give each other tips about your individual play?" @) "During or after
practices and college/arnateur rounds at tournaments, how often did you and
your teammates give each other tips on how to play the course? and (c) "During
or after competition rounds at tournaments, how often did you and your teammates give each other tips on how to play the course?" Member motivation was
assessed by asking, "How important was it to you personally to achieve the team
goal?" Subjects responded on 9-point Likert scales anchored with never and
almost always for the communication questions and not at all important and
extremely important for the motivation question.
The communication score was computed by totaling the responses on the
three scales. Prior to adding the scales, a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient
(Cronbach. 1951) determined if internal consistencies of the cokunication
items permitted adding the scores to obtain a total communication score. Nunnally (1978) has suggested that any value above .70 is the generally accepted
standard for reliability estimates. The Cronbach alpha for the communication
scale was .83.
Results
Hierarchical multiple-regression analyses determined the unique contribution of the task and social cohesion measures to performance outcome (see Table
1). In the first equation, the two social cohesion measures were forced into the
regression equation followed by the two task cohesion measures. In the second
question, the two task cohesion measures were forced into the equation followed
by the two social cohesion measures. Table 1 illustrates the proportion of unique
performance variance accounted for (R') by task, social, and total cohesion, the
F statistic for the I? change, and the beta weights for each predictor variable.
Only task cohesion significantly predicted performance outcome. The higher the
task cohesion, the better the golf performance. Although neither of the social
368 / Williams and Widmeyer
Table 1
Individual Effects of Task and Social Cohesion on Performance Outcome
Predictors
Task cohesion
ATG-T
GI-T
Social cohesion
ATG-S
GI-S
Total cohesion
B
R*
Ffor change
P
.I33
5.109
,009
,010
.394
,676
.I67
3.205
.018
-.348
-. 1 74
,083
,068
cohesion measures significantly added to the prediction of performance, both
correlated positively with performance.
Stepwise multiple-regression analyses determined if being cohesive predicted intrateam communication and member motivation and if communication
and motivation predicted better performance. Cohesion significantly predicted
communication, F(2,82)= 12.35, p<.001, and motivation, F(2,68)= 12.99,
p<.001, accounting for 23 % and 28% of the respective variances. Only GI-T
and ATG-T significantly predicted communication, accounting for 18 % and 5 %
of the variance, respectively. In contrast, ATG-S and GI-S predicted motivation,
accounting respectively for 23% and 5% of the variance. In all cases, being
cohesive was associated with better intrateam communication and higher member
motivation. Communication and motivation, in turn, predicted performance outcome, F(1,83)=4.15, p<.05, but motivation was the only significant predictor.
Higher commitment to achieving the team's performance goal was associated
with better golf performance; however, it accounted for only 5%of the variance
in performance outcome.
Discussion
Support was found for the hypothesis that cohesion relates positively to
performance in coacting sports. The failure to find the negative relationship
obtained in earlier studies of intramural bowling teams (Landers & Lueschen,
1974), ROTC rifle teams (McGrath, 1962), and Olympic rowing teams (Lenk,
1969) may be because the golfers participated on intercollegiate teams with a
long competitive season. However, the cohesion-performance difference was
more likely due to the direct assessment of group
task cohesion compared to
the essentially indirect, interpersonal attraction measures employed by earlier
researchers. Interpersonal attraction measures have long been thought to
underrepresent the construct of cohesion and thus to be inadequate determinants of the antecedents and consequences of cohesion (e.g., Widmeyer et
al., 1985). Still, without also assessing individual attractiveness in the present
study, the results cannot be attributed unequivocally to differences in
instrumentation.
-
Cohesion Performance 1 369
There was support for the hypothesis that a stronger relationship exists
between task cohesion and performance outcome than between social cohesion
and performance outcome. This finding is consistent with the cohesion-performance relationship found in interacting sports (e.g., Brawley et al., 1987). Although neither of the social cohesion measures significantly added to the
prediction of performance outcome, their positive relationship to performance
outcome failed to support the negative interpersonal attraction correlations reported in earlier coaction studies (Landers & Lueschen, 1974; Lenk, 1969;
McGrath, 1962). All three measures (i.e., the ATG-S, GI-S, and the interpersonal attraction measures) can be viewed as some type of social assessment.
Surprisingly, the golf cohesion measures accounted for almost as much
performance variance (16.7%) as that typically reported (e.g., Gossett & Widmeyer, 1981; Widmeyer & Martens, 1978) with interacting sports (18%-22%)
when cohesiveness was assessed with measures such as the Sport Cohesiveness
Questionnaire (Martens, Landers, & Loy, 1972). The differences, however, in
the amount of performance variance accounted for by cohesion were in the hypothesized direction. We proposed that the higher coordination and cooperation
requirements in interacting sports, compared to coacting sports, increase the
potential in interacting sports for cohesiveness to reduce productivity losses due
to faulty member coordination. Testing for such a continuum of task coordination
demands and increased productivity due to cohesiveness requires studies that use
the same measurement to assess cohesion. Until these data are available, hopefully from a conceptually and psychometrically sound instrument such as the
GEQ, the continuum in task coordination demands, and resulting cohesion-performance relationships, must be viewed as only speculation.
Interesting data emerged regarding potential mediators of the cohesionperformance relationship. Again, applying Steiner's (1972) model, cohesion
should improve group productivity to the extent cohesiveness reduces coordination and motivation losses. As hypothesized, teams who scored high in cohesion
had better intrateam communication and member motivation compared to teams
who scored low in cohesion. These results suggest that giving one another more
tips regarding golf technique and strategy and having greater commitment to
achieve the team goals, may contribute to the better performance of teams with
a high level of cohesion by reducing their coordination and motivation losses.
The evidence was not strong, however, for such a supposition.
Communication and motivation accounted for only 5 % of the variance in
performance outcome, with member motivation being the only significant predictor of performance outcome. The failure of the two variables to account for
more of the variance in performance may have been a consequence of the operational definitions used. Unfortunately, in the sport psychology literature, these
constructs are not clearly defined in conceptual or operational terms. A broader
interpretation of communication and motivation might yield a stronger relationship to performance outcome. For example, there was no assessment of social
communication, and only limited aspects of task communication and motivation
were assessed. There also may be other mediators, such as satisfaction (Martens
& Petersen, 1971; Williams & Hacker, 1982), contributing to the performanceoutcome variance accounted for by the cohesion measures.
In interpreting the results of the present study, it should be noted that the
design (i.e., cross-sectional, one-time data collection) permits identifying only
370 1 Williams and Widmeyer
correlations among the variables, not conclusions regarding cause-effect relationships. For example, we do not know if cohesiveness leads to successful performance or if winning makes a team more cohesive, nor do we know what mediates
the positive cohesion-performance relationship. From the practical standpoint,
these questions are critical. Many coaches and sport psychologists might not
want to take the time to create an environment that fosters cohesiveness unless
there is concrete evidence for cohesion contributing to successful performance.
If coaches and sport psychologists should choose to try and foster cohesion on
the assumption that such efforts contribute to success, the results in the present
study, as well as those in interacting sports, suggest time would be better spent
on building task cohesion than on building social cohesion.
Based on the assumption that cohesion may contribute to success or other
desirable outcomes, future researchers will want to direct efforts toward determining what factors enhance group cohesion in coacting sports. Unfortunately, all research to date examining antecedents of cohesion in athletic teams
has taken place in interacting sports. Also, in the present study, rather than
cohesion increasing intrateam communication and member motivation, the variables may have been antecedents of cohesion. On the other hand, there may be
a circular, causal relationship between the variables and cohesion.
Future researchers need to determine the direction of the cohesion-performance relationship as well as the nature of the flow of variables mediating the
relationship. Nevertheless, the results of the present study seriously challenge
the often-held belief that cohesion is negatively related to performance in coacting
sports.
References
Ball, J.R., & Carron, A.V. (1976). The influence of team cohesion and participation
motivation upon performance success in intercollegiate ice hockey. Canadian
Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 1,241-275.
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.
Carron, A.V. (1988). Group dynamics in sport. London, ON: Spondym.
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.
Cox, R.H. (1990). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA:
Wm. C. Brown.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.
Psychometrika, 16,297-334.
Gill, D.L. (1986). Psychological dynamics of sports. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Gossett, D., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1981, June). Improving cohesion's prediction of
perjormance outcome in sport. Paper presented at the North American Society for
the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity Conference, Monterey, CA.
Landers, D., & Lueschen, G. (1974). Team performance outcome and the cohesiveness
of competitive coacting groups. International Review of Sport Sociology, 9,57-71.
Lenk, H. (1969). Top performance despite internal conflict: An antithesis to a
functionalistic proposition. In J. Loy & G. Kenyon (Eds.), Sport, culture and
Cohesion Performance / 371
society: A reader on the sociology of sport (pp. 393-397). Toronto, ON:
MacMillan.
Martens, R., Landers, D.M., & Loy, J. W. (1972). Sport Cohesiveness Questionnaire.
Washington, DC: AAHPERD Publications.
Martens, R., & Peterson, J. (1971). Group cohesiveness as a determinant of success and
member satisfaction in team performance. International Review of Sport Sociology,
6,49-71.
McGrath, J.E. (1962). The influence of positive interpersonal relations on adjustment and
effectiveness in rifle teams. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 365375.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychomatic theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steiner, I.D. (1972). Group process andproductivity. New York: Academic Press.
Stogdill, R.M. (1963). Team achievement under high motivation. Columbus, OH: The
Bureau of Business Research, College of Commerce and Administration, Ohio
State University.
Widmeyer, W.N., Brawley , L.R., & Carron, A.V. (1985). 7he measurement of cohesion
in sport teams: R e Group Environment Questionnaire. London, ON: Sports
Dynamics.
Widmeyer, W.N., & Martens, R. (1978). When cohesion predicts performance outcome
in sport. Research Quarterly, 49,372-380.
Williams, J.M., & Hacker, C.M. (1982). Causal relationships among cohesion,
satisfaction and performance in women's intercollegiate field hockey teams.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 324-337.
Zander, A. (1971). Motives and goals in groups. New York: Academic Press.
Manuscript submitted: November 6, 1990
Revision received: June 23, 1991