33

Constructive communication
Kevin L. Burke

We cannot not communicate. Whether or not we speak, gesture, acknowledge others, or

return emails and text messages, we are communicating. Good communication L~ a cenrral
skill sport psychologists and others in sports org-anizations should possess. Several authors
have written regarding communicology, body language, linguistics, proxemics, encoding,
dec()ding, sending, receiving, and other related topics (Burke, 1997). Many universities
offer courses and even majors in communicatio:l. A hook is available entitled Case Studies
in Sport Communication (Brown & O'Rourke, 2003), and a measure of communication in
team sports has been developed (Sullivan & Feltz, 2006). In the business world, studies have
sh own h aving good interpersonal relations is a key forecaster of profitability and "bottomline" advantages (Peters, 1988). Studies comparing communication among sport and business leaders emphasize similar amibutes (Weinberg & McDermott, 2002). Whetten and
Cameron ( 1991) suggested supportive communication L~ a competitive advantage for
managers and organizations. Regardless of the setting, effective communication L~ central to
success. Knowing how to be effective communicators may he considered one of the most
important skills sport psychologists should strive to hone. Interactions with others will significantly influence our success as practitioners. Understanding the basics of communication provides a foundation for maximizing the components of this talent and potential for
continual improvement.

Communication theory and research

There are interpersonal and group communicatbn theories in other areas of study that may
be relevant to sport circumstances. One interpersonal communication model, the predicted
outcome value theory (Sunnafrank, 1986), C(mcems anticipated costs and rewards in relationships. Sunnafrank postulated relationships are advanced by the expectation of more
positive than negative outC(>mes. In other words, the rewards and C(>Sts expected in a relationship will influence the choice tO avoid, constrain, or pursue further involvement with
another person. If athletes expect to benefit fro:n consulting with sport psychologists, they
are more likely to seek and facilitate these C(msultations. If athletes expect negative outcomes
315

KEVIN L. BURKE

from spml psychologisl8, Lhey will communicaLe in ways that hinder 1lu: relationship- even

possibly avoiding communication.

The belief that eventual maturity of interpersonal relationships is affected by perceptions
of being understood or misunderstood is known as the theory o{ perceived understanding
(Cahn, 1990). For example, if athletes perceive that sport psychologists understand or
empathize with them, the athletes will develop feelings of emotional intimacy, which will
probably lead to more interactions with sport psychologists. If athletes feel misunderstood
by sport psychologists, they will most likely limit further communication.
The previous theories were developed with one-on-one communication issues at the
core. There are also models of group communication processes. Two group communication
theories/models are: the symbolic convergence theory (Bormann, 1986) and the interaction
system model (Fisher & Hawe., 1971). Symbolic convergence (SC) theory emphasizes
choices and personal translation, and that the swries and anecdotes members of a group tell
disch~e important group norms and rules. In a sport setting for example, the anecdotes
basketball players share with teammates about each other, or their opponents, augment
team norms and help to develop and reinforce team identity. Team members learn about
members of the group, and who the group represent:.~, through these symbolic converging
behaviors (story telling). SC theory places importance on the meanings stories have for a
team or group because these stories help the members form a rhetorical vision (Bormann,
1986). Rhetorical vision is the view of the team identity among group members and in relation to persons outside the group. The strength of the SC theory is the potential w explain
group processes such as the deve~opment of norms, rules, and cohesiveness (Infante, Rancer,
& Womack, 1997).
The interaction systems (IS) model places emphasis on interactions among group members
rad1er than indiv idual acLiori (Fhiher & lla wes, I 971)

LO

expla in group behavior. The IS

model foc~~es on group members' behavior patterns, responses, and the interaction of message patterns (Infante et al., 1997). In other words, the IS model e:<plains that to understand
team behavior, the interactions among team members should be analyzed, rather than just
the behaviors of members within a team. According to Fisher and Hawes, verbal statements
may be categorized as to the function performed in the group (e.g., clarification, substantiation, interpretation, decL~ion mtl<ing). Applied to a sport team, the IS model could be used
to attempt to identify how a team interacts (e.g., message patterns among teammates) and
the processes transpiring in making team decisions.
In addition to the theories and models above, Byrne's ( 1971) reinforcement theory proposes that principles of reinforcement explain most interpersonal attraction occurrences.
Simply explained, we like and are attracted to people who reward us, and we dislike and are
repelled by people who punish us. Byrne also predicted persons with similar anirudes will
find their relationship rewarding, and hence, will like each other.
Research related to improving communication in sport teams has been limited in
the field of sport psychology (Hanraharl & Gallois, 1993). One 12-week investigation of
enharlcing interpersonal relations in team sports (DiBerardinis, Barwind, Flaningam, &
Jenkins, 1983) showed improvement in a:>mmunication skills, and those gains were positive
predictors of athletic performance. Other related studies investigating team a:>hesion
have found, in interactive team sports, success and performance are dependent upon
effective communication (e.g., Nixon, 1976). Studies investigating sport psychologistathlete relations (e.g., Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979) and co-acting sportS (Williams &
\Vidmeyer, 1991) have suggested a:>mmunication may be integral to success or perfonnance
in sport.
316

CONSTRUCTIVE COMMUNICATION

Types of communication
Communication types may be viewed as intrapersonal and interpersonal. lntrapersonal
communication is usually better known as "self-talk" or our inner monologue - the conversations we have with ourselves (see Chapter 53 ). One could argue that intrapersonal communication is the most important type of communication because it affecr.s one's views on
life, confidence, daily actions, and reactions.
Interpersonal communication has usually been defined as meaningful exchanges between
two or more persons and refers tO a person sending or receiving a message(s) from another
individual or group. Interpersonal communication includes not only verbal content, but
also nonverbal cues sometimes known as body language (e.g., micro-expressions, posture,
facial expressions, voice intonations). Burke ( 1997) estimated that 50% to 70% of all
information exchanged in-person is nonverbal. If this estimate is accurate, then forms of
communication not exchanged in-person (e.g., e-mail, text messages, instant messaging,
blogging) may be severely limited, or at least much less effective than face-to-face encounters. When communication is &~embodied, then the potential for miscommunication and
misinterpretation rises substantially.

Communication techniques
Although there is limited empirical research and theory on communication processes in
sport, many methods and techniques have been suggested to improve communication
processes on sport teams (e.g., Burke, 2005, 2006). Anshel (2003) developed a "ten
commandments" of effective communication in sport (See Table 33. l ). Although suggested
for coaches, sport psychologists may apply these propositions to their interactions with
others.
Yukelson (2010) provided several suggestions for how to become an effective communicacor. He stated: one must be honest, have good listening skills, be good at asking
questions, be able to develop rapport, promote various views of the same situation, tL~e the
proper terminology, and establish a trusting relationship. Yukelson aL~o emphasized tO
become an effective communicator one must take the time to practise these important
attributes.

Table 33. I The ten commandmenrs of communication.

I)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)

Thou shalt be honest.

Thou shalt not he defensive.
Thou shalt be consistent.
Thou shalt be empathetic.
Thou shalt not he sarcastic.
Thou shalt praise and criticize behavior, not personal icy.
Thou shalt respect the incegricy of ochers.
Thou shalt use positive nonverbal cues.
Thou shalt reach skills.
Thou shalt inceract consistently with all rerun members.

From: Anshel, M. H. (2003) . Spott psychology: From theory to ptactice (2nd ed.).
Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarishrick.

317

KEVIN L. BURKE

Communication malfunctions
Although technology has assisted in the rapid exchange of certain types of communications, errors or misperceptions in communications are still frequent, and when communication failures or breakdowns occur, most persons blame the other parties. This bias may
keep sport psychologist:.~ from thoroughly examining and attempting to improve their
interpersonal skills. For accurate communications to occur, all participants must make a
substantial effort, which sometimes is challenging. When persons are not "on the same
page," communication breakdowns or barriers Occur. One of the more common blocks tO
communication is inattentive listening, which usually occurs because the listener is not
interested, is thinking of another topic, or is planning the next response. Another possible
communication barrier between individual~ is trust. When persons do not share a trust of
each other, confidence in the information exchanged L~ severely affected. Another common
cause of communication malfunctions is sending unclear or inconsistent messages.
Ambiguous and vague statements are often difficult to comprehend and lead tO unintended
(mis) interpretations.
Levels

of listening

One aspect of improving communication and reducing communication malfunctions

is the skill of becoming a better listener (Flynn, Valikoski, & Grau, 2008). Martens (1997)
claimed listening effectively is difficult and most untrained listeners hear less that 20%
of what is said to them! Martens (1997) suggested one may improve listening skill~
by recognizing the need to listen, focusing intently on hearing what is said, trying tO
understand the meaning of the message as well as the facts of the message, avoiding
the temptation to interrupt or complete others' statements for them, respecting others'
rights tO give their viewpoinrs, and trying not to give an emotional response unless it L~
suitable. Rosenfeld and \Vilder (1990) discussed three level~ of listening. Level one represents active lL~tening. In active listening, the receiver is trying to understand the content of
the message, the intention of the message, and the feelings accompanying the message.
Martens (1997) stated that active lL~tening involves letting the message sender know the
message L~ being understood. Sometimes called reflective listening (Yukelson, 2010), thL~
skill can be accomplished by paraphrasing (restating) what the person said, asking
questions, and using body language that communicates attention and engagement.
Using these techniques makes the sender aware the receiver is paying close attention
and is interested in the message. After the message is received, the listener should honest!y
and immediately inform the sender how the message is understood in a brief, but clear,
manner (Martens, 1987). Another aspect of reflective or active listening is the ability
tO show empathy (Yukelson, 2010). Being empathetic means the listener is able to view the
situation from the sender's perspective. A good lL~tener is able to show the sender caring
and concern.
Level two listening refers to hearing only the content of the message. This type of listening may cause the communicator to feel the listener L~ uninterested or preoccupied. Level
three listening occurs when the person receiving the message only hears portions of what L~
being stated. Attention to the message fades in and out. Receivers may also be so concerned
in developing responses that they neglect to hear all of what the sender is attempting tO
share. Beginning sport psychology graduate students in their first consultation role plays
may be an example of this phenomenon.
318

CONST RUCTIVE COMMUNICATION

Weinberg and Gould (2003) discussed using supportive behaviors to indicate one is
listening to the message being sent. Some of these actions are: staying open to new
ideas, keeping direct eye contact, nodding the head, using receptive facial gestures,
acknowledging receipt of the message verbally, and paraphrasing what has heen said. Finally,
the foundation for improving a:>mmunication, and lessening the risk of a:>mmunication malfunctions, is to be motivated to improve. It is likely that the amount of communication enhancement occurring will directly depend on the level of m0tivation to
seek improvement.
Sending effective messages

Being a good communicaror involves the ability to a:>mmunicate in a manner that is clear
and concise. Hardy, Burke, and Crace (2005) provided several guidelines for sending effective
messages. An initial aspect of what L~ to be communicated L~ the development of the message,
determining what is to he a:>mmunicated and attempting to stay within the confines of that
message. Avoid adding peripheral statements or information unnecessary to the baseline
message. Also, conveying too much information may overload the receiver, particularly when
the athlete or a:>ach L~ under elevated stress. Development of the message can be challenging
for sport psychologists in the midst of counseling sessions, due to the small amount of
preparation time available in thc~~e immediate situations.
Another central element tO effective communication is to seek first tO understand the
person, then seek to be understood (Covey, 1990). This suggestion places importance on
showing empathy by understanding the client's goal~, interests, values, and frame of reference.
By getting to know the coach or athlete first, you will be more likely to communicate
with them in a meaningful manner. Another way tO be sure communications are being
understood is to observe the actions and reactions of the listeners (e.g., body language,
micro-expressions). Look for signs the athletes or coaches comprehend what is being said.
Finally, one way to help assure your message is received is repetition. Repeat the message as
many times as L~ necessary to he sure it is underst0od. Although at times it may be necessary
to repeat the message in the same manner it was first delivered, find ways of sending the
same message in different forms.
In communication, finding a pmitive manner of stating what needs to he said - even if
strong criticism is necessary - can be extremely effective. The "sandwich approach" (Smith
& Smoll, 1996) has been a popular method for providing corrective information in a
manner in which the person receiving the criticism does not feel attacked, and is instead
encouraged by the interaction. Briefly stated, the sandwich approach begins with a positive
opening statement, followed by a future-oriented corrective statement, and end~ with an
ena:>uraging, positive chsing remark. In daily interactions with others, finding a positive
way tO speak with others is almost always more engaging than sarcastic or biting exchanges no matter what the topic of conversation may he.
The use of humor in communication has been shown to have mental and physical benefits (Burke, 2006). Humor is a basic way of communicating (Lynch, 2002) and can be
effective in therapy (Keller, 1984). A good sense of humor can also be an effective coping
mechanism (Brooks, Guthrie, & Gaylord, 1999), a relationship builder, and a meaningful
a:>mmunication avenue (Rogers, 1984). Also, studies have indicated humorotL~ individuals
have h igher popularity (Wanzer, Booth-Butterfield, & Booth-Butterfield, 1996). Currently,
it seems there are potentially many benefit.~ to humor, when used appropriately, in communicating with clients.
319

KEVIN L. BURKE

Nonverbal communication
As mentioned earlier, micro expressions, bodr language, and facial expressions may he
responsible for conveying more information than verbal communication. Body language
may be a more salient indicator of what another is thinking and feeling than verbal content,
because these subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) cues are more difficult to control conscious~y than spoken language (Burke, 1997). Many individuals are so focused on the verbal
aspects of their messages they often give little attention as to whether or not their facial
expressions and body postures support what is being said. It behooves sport psychology professionals to learn to pay attention to these potential Iy valuable clues. Yet, even the most
experienced body language expert:.~ realize interpreting body language accurately on a
consistent basis is challenging.
Although sport psychologist.~ may attend to bodily cues from their clients to better
comprehend the overall communication sequence, clients may he engaged in tne
same analysis. Sport psychology professionals should strive to provide nonverbal
communication that supports the messages being sent. For example, using a confident ho::ly
posture (e.g., shoulders back, chin forward) can help the client have confidence in what is
being said.

Electronic communication
One decision sport psychology consultants mu~t consider is how much, if any, electronic
communication they wish tO use with their clients. With the many communication avenues
available (e.g., cell telephone, e-mail, instant arid text messaging, Facehook, Twitter, biogs),
it is possible tO provide an alm<~~t unlimited amount of "in touch" services with a client (see
also 01apter 44 in this book). Today's "echo hoomers" generation (or Generation Y -names
given to children of"baby boomers") is the first generation to grow up with computer technology (such as e-mail and text messaging), cell phones, and satellite dishes for television
(Leung, 2005). Echo boomers' (EBs) familiarity with these electronic devices, in many
cases, means some EBs are much more comfortable communicating in this fashion than
many sport psychologists usually are. Therefore, sport psychologist.~ should familiarize themselves with these communication possibilities and at least consider using some of these
avenues as a supplement to face-to-face meetir.gs, particularly with EBs. One major drawback of rhL~ communication boom, however, is some clients may expect practitioners tO he
available almost 24/7, which may create dependency issues that must be dealt with by sport
psychologists.

"Bull in the ring": a team exercise

When a ream experiences communication difficulties, the bull in the ring (BITR) technique (Burke, 2005) may be tL~ed to assist with alleviating ream disruption and tension.
When handled properly, this intervention usually gets the teammates involved and can he
an effective eye-opening, group, and self-awareness session. The BITR session may he held
in two stages. First, the players are asked to sit in a circle (the ring), and a chair is placed in
the center of that circle. For the first part of the session, a team item is placed in the center
chair. The item could be a media guide, team jersey (without a player's name or number
320

CONST RUCTIVE COMMUNICATION

showing), sport object (e.g., bat, ball), or even a card that has the team's name, maSC(>t, or
logo on it. The players are instructed to follow four basic rules:
1. Speak freely, honestly, and forthrightly.

2. Do not explain the brief statements (discussion may occur later).

3. Do not openly react to the statements.
4. Keep an open mind.
Proceeding clockwise around the circle, each teammate is asked to make a constructive,
negative statement about their team while looking at the team symbol in the center chair.
(For each "round," it is usually a good idea to grant the first person a thirty-second pause to
give an adequate amount of time for a thoughtful response.) For this part of the BITR session, players are not allowed tO make statement:.~ about any individual, hut are tO only make
relevant statements about the team. After hearing all of the C(>nStructive negative statement.~ and following the same guidelines, each player is then asked to make a positive statement about the team. After hearing all of the positive statements, each player L~ then
allowed to make one comment or ask one question of any teammate related to the positive
or negative comments made in this part of the session.
The second component of the BIT R session follows the same format as the first part, hut
each player sits in the center chair to hear comments directed at him/her. Thus, all players
will hear one positive and one negative statement about themselves from each of their
teammates. Each center-chair team member (the hull) is given the opportunity to select
whether to hear the round of positive or negative statements first. Teammates making the
comments may pass (only once) if not ready to respond, and, must look the bull directly in
the eyes while making all comments. Each time a new round of comments begins, the team
mate next in the circle after the person who last began the previous round, begins the next
round of comments.
Obviously this activity can be a sensitive encounter for any team. The sport psychologist's
role is to enforce the rules, keep the teammates on task, and help the process flow as
smoothly as possible. After all of the players complete their turns in the center chair, then
each team member is given a chance to ask one question to any one of the teammates about
the positive or negative comments made. Most bull~ tend tO ask a question regarding a
negative statement from one of their teammates. The sport psychologist should keep these
mini-disctL~Sions brief. These questions may bring about short dL~ctL%ions and interactions
from teammates who sometimes may not interact often. Issues not normally talked about
among the teammates who do interact often may be discussed. Then, if the climate is
facilitative after the second part of this exercL~e. allow any teammate who vol.unteers, to
make one C(>mment, or ask one question of any other teammate, as long as the C(>mment/
question does not relate to the statements made during the BITR session. After the C(mclusion of the BITR session, the sport psychologist may wish to have the group dL~cuss the
process just enC(>untered. Whether or not tO have a "debriefing" session after the BITR
depends on how the encounters were responded to by the participants. If the sport psychologist believes there may be more L~sues to discuss or the group would benefit from
further discussion of the BITR processes, then further discussion is enC(mraged.
The BITR exercise can be an excellent method for reducing uncertainty within a team
situation. Through these sessions teammates learn what each other is thinking about the
team, and how they are perceived by teammates. In circumstances in which there L~ excellent
rapport and trust, coaches and sport psychologist:.~ may cho<~~e to participate in the BITR.

321

KEVIN L. BURKE

Another way to incorporate sport psychologists or coaches in the BITR (without players
being concerned about retaliation by persons in "positions of power,") is to allow anonymous positive and negative statements tO be presented. By learning how one is perceived by
othenl, the BITR leS<lion helpll promote selfawnrenelS through seeing oneself through
others' eyes. Another purpose of BITR is to "clear the air" about issues hurting the team
chemL~try, and to help promote better communication. Many times the BITR session will
promote a bonding experience for the ream members. The three c~ or major goals of the
BITR intervention are to promote cohesion, tO improve communication, and to clear the air.

Closing comments
Even under the best circumstances, maintaining clear and consistent communication L~
challenging. Many people have a tendency to blame communication mishaps on others,
which makes oneself unlikely to seek to improve in this area. Understanding and practising
our skills of communication, along with the accompanying engaged, open, and attentive
hody language, is a major key to being successful as a sport psychology consultant. See Box
33. l for some take-home messages from thL~ chapter.

Box 33.1
Take-home messages regarding communication
O:>mmunication may be viewed as constantly occurring.
O:>mmunication may be inrrapersonal and interpersonal.
Use the "ten commandments" of communication.
Make the effort to be an active listener.
O:>mmunicate with others in a manner that is clear and concise, using a p<~~i
tive approach and a sense of humor.
Be aware of nonverbal communication elements to send effective messages and
to understand clients.
O:>nsider using electronic communication methods - at least as an adjunct to
face-to-face encounters.
Use the "bull in the ring" technique to delve into group or ream issues.

References
Anshel, M. H. (2003). Spart psychology: From thwry to practice (2nd ed.). Scorr.'ldale, AZ: Gorsuch
Scarisbrick.
Bonnann, E. G . ( 1986}. Symbolic convergence theory and group decision making. In R. Y. H irokawa
& M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and woiip decisinn making (pp. 219- 236). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Brooks, N. A., Guthrie, D. W., & Gaylord, C. G . (1999) . Therapeutic humor in the family: An
exploratory study. Humor, 12, 151- 160.
Brown, R. S., & O'Rourke, D. J. (2003). Case stitdies in sport comm1mication. Wesq10rr, CT: Praeger.
Burke, K. L. (1997) . Communication in sporr..~: Research and practice. Jo11mal of Interdi~ciplina!'y
Resea!'ch in Ph)sicaI Ed11cation, 2, 39- 52.

322

CONSTRUCTIVE COMMUNICATION

Burke, K. L. (2005). But coach doesn't understand: Dealing widl teain communication quagmires.
In M. B. Andersen (Ed.), Spart psychology in practice {pp. 45- 59). Chainpaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Burke, K. L. (2006) . Using spore psychology to improve hasketball perfonnance. In J. Dosi( (Ed.),
The spart psychologist's handbook: A gitide for spori--specific pe1farmance enhancement (pp. 121- 137).
Wesc Sussex, England: Wiley.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cahn, D. D. (1990) . Perceived understaJlding and interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and
Personal Relacion.ships, 7, 231 - 244.
Covey, S. R. ( 1990). The 7 habils of highly effective people. New York: Simon & Schuster.
DiBerardinis,J., Barwind,J., Raningam, R. R., &Jenkins, V. (1983}. Enhanced interpersonal relation
as predictor of achlecic perfom1ance. lntemational}ottmal of Sport Psychology, 14, 243-251.
Fisher, S. A., & Hawes, L. C . (1971) . An inceracr system model: Generating a grounded dleory of
small groups. Quarterly ]011rna1 of Speech, 57, 444-453.
Flynn, ].. Valikoski, T., & Grau, J. (2008). Listening in dle husiness context: Reviewing che scace of
research. Intemational]ournal of Listening, 22, 141-151.
Hanrahan, S., & Gallois, S. (1993 ). Social interactions. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant
(Eds.), Handbook of Research on Sport Psychology (pp. 623--046). New York: MacmillaJl.
Hardy, C. ].. Burke, K. L., & Crace, R. K. {2005). Coaching: An effective communication syscem. In
S. Murphy (Ed.) The sport psych handbook (pp. 191- 212). Champaign, IL: Humail Kinet ics.
Infante, D. A., Rancer, A. S., & Womack, D. R {1997). Imercultural contexrs. In Buildingcommunictv
tion theory (3rd ed., pp. 371- 395). Prospect He.ights, IL: Waveland Press.
Keller, D. (1984). Humor as therapy. Wauwatosa, WI: Med-Psych.
Le.ung, R. (2005, Septemher 4) . The echo hoomers. CBS News. Retrieved June 10, 2009, from: h ttp://
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/IO/Ol/60minuces/main646890.shanl
Lynch, 0 . H. (2002). Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication
research. Communication Theory, 12, 423-445 .
Martens, R. {1987). Coaches gitide to sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Martens, R. {1997). S1tccessfttl coaching. Champaign, IL: HumaJl Kinetics.
Nixon, H. L. (1976) . Team oriencarions, imerpersonal relations, aJld team success. Research Quarterly,
47, 429-435.
Pe.cers, T. (1988). Thri.ving on chaos. New York: Knopf.
Rogers, V. R. (1984) . Laughing wich children. Ed1teational Leadership, 41, 46--50.
Rosenfeld, L., & Wilder, L. (1990) . Communication fundamencak Act ive listening. Sport Psychology
Training B11/lerin, I (5), 1-8.
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, R L. (1996) . Way wgo, coach!: A scientifically-proven approach to coaching effectiveness. Portola Valley, CA: Warde.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, R, & Curtis, B. (1979) . Coach effectiveness training: A cognitive-behavioral
approach to enhaJlcing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. ]011rna1 of Sport Psychology,
59- 75.
Sullivan, P. M., & Felcz, D. L. (2006). The preliminary developmenc of che Scale for Effective
Communication in Team Sports (SECTS). ]011rna1 of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1693-1715.
Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Predicted outcome value during initial interactions: A reformulation of
uncercainry reduction cheory. Human Comm11nicarion Research, 13, 3-33.
Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Buccerfield, S., & Boodl-Butterfield, M. (1996) . Are funny people popular? An
examination of humor orientation, loneliness, aJld social attraction. Communication Q11artetly, 44,
42- 52.
We.inberg. R., & McDermott, M. (2002). A comparative aJlalysis of spore and hLLsiness organizations: Factors perceived critical for organizational success. ]011rna1 of Applied Sport Psychology,
14, 282- 298.
We.inberg, R. S., & Gould, D. {2003). Foundations of sport and exercLse psychology (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

323

KEVIN L. BURKE

Whetten, D. W., & Cameron, K. S. (1991). Developi.ng management ski/L~ (2nd ed.). New York:
HarperCollins.
Williams, J.M., & Widmeyer, W N . (1991) . The cohesion-performance outcome relationship in a
coacting spore. ]011rnal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 364- 371.
Yukelson, D. (2010) . Communicating effectively. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology:
Personal c;rowch to peak performance (6th ed., pp. 149- 165). New York: McGraw-Hill.

324