Congrs International de la SFPS - Paris INSEP 2000 Confrences

COHESION IN SPORT TEAMS AND EXERCISE GROUPS: AN OVERVIEW OF 15 YEARS

OF RESEARCH
A.V. Carron
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Key-words: cohesion, measurement, correlates
Cohesion is defined as a dynamic process reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and
remain united in the pursuit of instrumental objectives and/or the satisfaction of member affective
needs (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998). It is generally considered to be the most important small
group variable (e.g., Lott & Lott, 1965). Fifteen years ago, Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley (1985)
provided an operational measure for cohesion for in sport teams, The Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ). Subsequently, the GEQ was also used in research with exercise groups. There
are three purposes in the current presentation: first to provide a brief overview of the nature of the
GEQ including its general underlying assumptions and the specific constructs assessed; second, to
outline research evidence from studies using the GEQ that pertain to correlates of cohesion in sport
teams; and, third, to outline research evidence from studies using the GEQ that pertain to correlates of
cohesion in exercise groups.
In regard to the first purpose, it should be noted that the conceptual model that provided the foundation
for the GEQ is based on three main assumptions (see also Carron et al., 1985, 1998). The first is that
cohesion, which is a group property, can be assessed through the social cognitions of individual
members. Associated with this first assumption are five propositions: a group has clearly observable
properties such as an organizational structure, role and status relationships, and so on; members
experience the social situation of their group, are socialized into it, and develop a set of beliefs about
it; these beliefs, like other social cognitions, are a product of the members selective processing and
personal integration of group-related information; member perceptions about the group are a
reasonable estimate of various aspects of unity; and, member social cognitions can be measured. The
second assumption is that the social cognitions members form in regard to the unity of the group are
related to the group as a totality (i.e., perceptions of a we, us, our nature) as well as to the group
as a forum for the satisfaction of individual needs (i.e., perceptions of a my, I, me nature). The
label attached to each of these has been group integration and individual attractions to the group,
respectively. The third assumption is that the two fundamental foci for group member perceptions are
the group task and the group as a forum for social relationships. In the conceptual model that resulted
(and the GEQ which evolved from that conceptual model), the major variance in team cohesion is
considered to be due to four constructs: Individual attractions to the group-task (ATG-T), Individual
attractions to the group-social (ATG-S), Group integration-task (GI-T), and Group integration-social
(GI-S).
In regard to the second purpose, correlates of cohesion in sport teams can be classified with four broad
categories for ease of communication: situational factors, personal factors, leadership factors, and
collective factors (see also Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). The situational factors that have been
examined include orientation of the competition (task cohesion is most salient in sport teams, social
cohesion in recreational teams), team size (task cohesion decreases as size increases), and task type
(cohesion is plays a role equally in both individual and team sports). Team member cognitions, affect,
and behavior have been examined within the individual factors category. Cognitions found to be
associated with cohesion are self-handicaps (cohesion is associated with increased self-handicapping),
role efficacy and role clarity (cohesion and the two role dimension are positively related), perceptions
of the teams ability to withstand disruptive events (belief in the durability of the group increases as
perceptions of cohesiveness increase), and attributions for causality (cohesion is associated with team
enhancing attributions). Also, cohesion and perceptions of status differences have been shown to be
inversely related. As far as affect is concerned, greater cohesion has been shown to be related to lower
precompetition anxiety as well as to greater athlete satisfaction. Cohesion also has been shown to be

Congrs International de la SFPS - Paris INSEP 2000 Confrences

positively associated with adherence behavior, personal effort, sacrifice behavior, and conformity
behavior. Cohesion has also been shown to be negatively associated with social loafing. Within the
leader factors category, research evidence shows that more training and instruction behavior, social
support behavior, and positive feedback behavior on the part of coaches are related to greater
perceptions of cohesion on the part of athletes. Also, a more democratic approach to decision making
has been shown to be associated with greater cohesiveness. The collective factors that have been found
to be positively associated with cohesiveness include team success, collective efficacy, and group
communication. As team cohesiveness increases, the team is more successful, collective efficacy is
greater, and communication is improved.
Insofar as the third purpose is concerned, greater cohesion in exercise groups has been found to be
associated with situational factors and personal factors (see also Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). As was
the case with sport teams, one situational factor that has been examined is class size. The findings
generally support the generalization that as size increases, perceptions of class cohesion decrease. The
personal factor examined in relation to class cohesiveness can be categorized as individual behavior,
cognition, and affect. Adherence behavior has been possibly the most frequently examined variable in
cohesion research in the exercise context. Task cohesion has found to be a reliable predictor of a
number of manifestations of adherence (including attendance and drop out behavior) over relatively
short-term (i.e., 13 weeks) and long term durations (i.e., one year). Cohesion has also been shown to
be positively related to a number of cognitions including perceptions that the exercise group can resist
disruptive events, individual self efficacy to overcome barriers to exercise, personal attitudes toward
exercise, perceptions of control over exercise behavior, and a belief in the presence of instrumental
and affective forms of social support. Finally, cohesion has been positively associated with individual
satisfaction and enjoyment; the affect of exercisers is more positive when cohesiveness is greater.
References
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport
groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A.V., & Hausenblas, H.A. (1998). Group dynamics in sport (2nd ed.). 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.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of
relationships with antecedent and consequence variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.