Sport and Exercise Psychology (Cohesion)

Sport and Exercise Psychology (Cohesion)

Introduction

Cohesion is a very integral part of sport and exercise psychology. The focus of the management of any team is unity. One can never have success in any team sport if the team they are leading is not united. The role of each member in a team setting should be determined. Issues that result to mistrust in a team should be avoided as this would have a great negative impact on the performance of the team. Team cohesion in sports is therefore very vital. Cohesion as a construct group in the dynamics of the sports has been heavily studied. Cohesion has great influence on the performance the performance of the team. There is a positive association between cohesion and the success of the team in both the coactive and interactive sports. For instance, basketball and tennis (d=68 and 66 respectively). According to Carron, Brawley and Widmeyer (1998: 213), cohesion has been defined as “A dynamic process which 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.” Often time cohesion has been characterized by being multidimensional in task and social aspects, it is also very dynamic and it changes in intensity over a given period. It is a very instrumental element of the team construct. Cohesion is also very affective since there are deep emotional elements which are involved.

Building trust in the team greatly influences the cohesion of the team thus there should always be effort to come up with techniques that would in building trust in the team. The forces of cohesion are very vital in ensuring that members of a particular group remain loyal and committed to the fulfillment of the goals of or objectives of the team or group (Jowett & Lavallee, 2007).

There is close association between the leadership of a particular team and the cohesion of the team. The leadership style of the coach in any sporting team would influence greatly the cohesion of the team as states by Heuzé et al. (2006). The leadership of the team would determine the motivational climate and the physical and the mental health of the athlete. A coach should be able to influence the performance and learning of the athlete through his or her leadership efficacy. The coaching efficacy and coaching behavior would influence the cohesion of the team and thus affect the performance and the motivation of the athlete and even the entire team since a team is made of individual athletes. The satisfaction of the team as a result of coaching efficacy would make enhance the cohesion of the team. Cohesion is very important for an effective functioning of the team and achievement of the outcome of the group psychology. This is the reason why there is the need for the applied sport psychologist (ASP) in a team.

The role played by applied sports psychologist such as assessment, counseling of the individual members of the group, creation of awareness in the group, development of strategy and education helps in the enhancement of the functioning and competitive performance of the team. This is because it enhances the member of the team and also help in supporting the behavior of the staff in the team. As stated by Jowett (2007), the dyadic relationship (the relationship between the coach and individual team member) is the greatest underpinning of the group cohesion besides other aspects such as development of goals and role responsibilities communication. There is a need for high degree of connection between the coach and the individual members of the group.

According to Golembiewski (1962), cohesion is the most important small group variable. This assertion though contentious, has been supported by a number of researches. According to Carron et al., (2002), there is a positive link between cohesion and performance. A number of assessment tools such as Such Group Environment Questionnaire also known as GEQ developed by Carron, Widmeyer and Brawley’s (1985) has greatly facilitated literature on cohesion. The dimensions that this tool focuses on include the attractions of the individual to the group’s task aspects, the attractions of the individual to the group’s social aspects, the integration of the group revolving around task objectives and the integration of the group revolving around social objectives.

Because of this tool, it is possible to utilize the norms from a cohesive perspective in the situation of the team with relative to others. The identity of the team is characterized by the fact that when the team loses then everyone in the team has lost and when the team wins, then each and every individual in the team has won. Aspects of the mutual benefits in a team include victory, recognition of the individual members of the team and the privileges that the individual members of the team get by taking in the team. Important aspects of the group process are cooperation, performance of task, the social interactions and the communication within the group. The existence of the group is in the existence of cohesion. There is no group without cohesion. This is what distinguishes the group and the crowd (Golembiewski, 1962).

According to Cox (2006), social cohesion in the term is defined by the extent to which members in a particular team like one another and the reception of individual satisfaction from the presence of one another. It is important for the cohesion of the group to have both aspects of social cohesion and task cohesion. A combination of team cohesion and task cohesion would make the team’s performance very sustainable. The key objective of group cohesion seems to be the satisfaction of affective needs of the individual members of the team. This is the driving force behind the pursuit of the achievement of the goals of the team as observed by Paskevich, et al. (1999). The centrality of the integration of the group is on the belief held by the individual member concerning the team. In most cases, the attraction of the member to the group has a close association with his or her belief. The commitment and unity for the purposes of success is more common in a highly cohesive group in comparison to a group which is characterized by low cohesion as stated by Jarvis (2006). Unity by the players in a group for the purpose of pursuing the common purpose of the team is a very important aspect of the team social cohesion. Task cohesion is characterized by the unity of the players in a group in achieving a particular task. The main factors that the cohesion of the team include team members clear roles, willingness by the individual members of the team to make personal sacrifice for the purpose of the success of the team, communication qualities between the members of the team and lastly the team’s shared goals. The success of the team will therefore depend on the cohesion of the team.

The team climate which is a psychological construct is very important for team cohesion. Its components are the environment, interrelationship amongst the members of the team and the atmosphere thereof (Paskevich et al., 1999: 200). The desire of an athlete to be part of any team is hinged on the satisfaction of the team and they prefer being involved in the decision making thus making autonomy an important element of team cohesion. There must also be a sense of emotional support both from the members and the coach and this is the reason as to why it is said team cohesion is affective. An important aspect of the climate of the team that should be enhanced is trust. In addition to trust, fairness, allowance for creativity would play a great role in building a team climate which is strong. As stated by Eys et al. (2006), there are a number of correlates of cohesion in sports. This include factors related to the environment such as normative pressures, individual related factors such as the sense of an individual for the negative outcome responsibility, factors due to leadership which include the relationship between a person and the task and lastly team factors. The team factors worth considering include the norms of the group, collective efficacy, and role involvement which entail the athlete’s role clarity, the acceptance and the performance of that very role.

References

Carron, AV, Brawley, LR & Widmeyer, WN 1998). The measurement of cohesiveness

Carron, AV, Widmeyer, WN & Brawley, LR 1985, ‘The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire,’ Journal of Sport Psychology, vol. 7, pp. 244–266.

Carron, AV., Colman, MM, Wheeler, J & Stevens, D 2002, ‘Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis,’ Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, vol. 24, pp. 168–188.

Cox, RH 2006, Sport Psychology: Concepts and Applications (6th ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York.

Eys, MA, Burke, SM, Carron, AV & Dennis, PW 2006, The sport team as an effective group, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Golembiewski, R 1962, The small group, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Heuzé, JP, Sarrazin, P, Masiero, M, Raimbault, R & Thomas, JP 2006, ‘The relationships of perceived motivational climate to cohesion and collective efficacy in elite female teams,’ Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, vol. 18, pp. 201–218

in sport groups, pp. 213.

Jarvis, M 2006, Sport Psychology: A Student’s Handbook, Routledge, New York.

Jowett, S & Lavallee, D 2007, Social Psychology in Sport, Human Kinetics, Champaign, Ill.

Paskevich, DM, Brawley, LR, Dorsch, KD & Widmeyer, WN 1999, ‘Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues,’ Group Dynamics, vol. 3, pp. 210–222.