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.

GROUP COHESION

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