Presentation on theme: "The Social ψ of Sport 1. Group Cohesion 1.1 Theories."— Presentation transcript:
The Social ψ of Sport 1. Group Cohesion 1.1 Theories
THE SOCIAL ψ OF SPORT The dynamics of a group influence how the people in that group behave. Many sports are co-operative as well as competitive and members of a team have to work together. Whether we take part in sport and exercise as part of a team or as individuals, the people leading us, coaching us, playing or competing with us and watching us, influence our behaviour. How we relate to these people, how we perceive them and how we think they perceive influences our behaviour. All of these things are what S&EP’s are interested in when they refer to the social ψ of sport.
The word cohesion literally means “sticking together”. When S&EP’s refer to group cohesion they are interested in what makes a team or group “gel”. They are interested in what turns a group of separate individuals into a cohesive team. A cohesive group has an identity and a shared purpose. A highly cohesive group is likely to be more successful than a group low in cohesion. A cohesive group is more united and committed to success The success of a team is down to more than just the talent of its members.
GROUP COHESION Widmeyer et al (1985) distinguished between 2 different aspects of team cohesion :- 1. Group integration Each member of the team has a view of the team as a unit 2. Individual attractions Each member of the team has a view of the other Individuals in the team
ASSESSING GROUP COHESION The GEQ Carron et al (1985) developed a psychometric test to measure team cohesiveness The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) assesses :- Group integration Individual attractions The task achievement of a team The social life of a team
Key Study ~ Tuckman (1965) Most ψgists agree that groups go through a series of stages of getting to know one another before they can perform cohesively. Tuckman studied the formation of groups and what makes small groups function well. He proposed that group cohesion occurred in a series of 4 stages :- Stage 1 – Orientation/testing/dependence Stage 2 – Conflict Stage 3 – Group cohesion Stage 4 – Functional role-relatedness
Key Study ~ Tuckman (1965) These terms have been replaced with the much more catchy :- Stage 1 – Forming Stage 2 – Storming Stage 3 – Norming Stage 4 - Performing
Key Study ~ Tuckman (1965) Storming? Forming? Norming? Performing?
Key Study ~ Tuckman (1965) Forming This is when the group members first come together Members “sound one another out” The group starts to develop a structure andhierarchy Why do you think this stage is called “forming”?
Key Study Tuckman (1965) Storming This stage is characterised by conflict – group members banter, posture and challenge as they fight for positions in the hierarchy Members of the group try to find their place Why do you think this stage is called “storming”?
Key Study ~ Tuckman (1965) Norming Resistance is overcome and a feeling of cohesiveness starts to develop Agreed group standards start to evolve New roles are adopted by group members Group members find their place Why do you think this stage is called “norming”?
Key Study ~ Tuckman (1965) Performing Roles become flexible Group energy is channelled into the task Conflicts are resolved Group structure supports performance Why do you think this stage is called “performing”?
Key Study ~ Tuckman (1965) In 1977 Tuckman added a 5th stage – when the group breaks up. He called this stage “adjourning” Groups break up for a number of reasons ~ irreconcilable differences, task completion etc.
Tuckman (1965) Evaluation The model has practical usefulness. Sports practitioners are comfortable using Tuckman’s model when developing groups and trying to understand group dynamics. Many studies have shown a relationship between team cohesiveness and success, so anything that adds to our understanding of cohesiveness will be helpful
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.