Relationships among motivation, gender, and cohesion in a sample of collegiate athletes.
Halbrook, Meghan ; Blom, Lindsey C. ; Hurley, Kimberly 等
A considerable amount of research has been conducted to understand
why individuals choose to participate in sport (Kipp & Amorose,
2008). Two of the most common answers relate to athletes'
motivation and team cohesion. More specifically, motivation type and
perception of team cohesion have both been found to have an effect on
persistence and learning (Martens & Webber, 2002), as well as
overall performance (Turman, 2003).
The Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) is a
comprehensive model that has shown to be effective in explaining
motivation and behavior. For example, individuals may differ in their
motivational orientations, outside influences, and interpersonal
perceptions (Haggar & Chatzisarantis, 2008), yet research suggests
that all are motivated intrinsically to master their environment (Deci
& Ryan, 1985). SDT describes motivation on a continuum (i.e.
Self-Determination Continuum) anchoring intrinsic motivation on one end,
extrinsic motivation in the middle, and amotivation on the other end. By
recognizing different degrees of athlete's motivation, researchers
can better identify reasons for participation in selected activities.
Intrinsic motivation (IM) is considered participation without
contingencies, and compared to extrinsic motivation, intrinsically
motivated athletes have been found to have increased enjoyment of
activity (Brustad, 1988), decreased dropout (Gill, Gross, &
Huddleston, 1983), and better sportsmanship (Vallerand & Losier,
1999). Pelletier et al. (1995) broke down IM further into three
subgroups: 1) IM to know and understand-participation due to the
individual's enjoyment of learning new techniques or trying
something different 2) IM toward accomplishments- individuals
participate in order to master a technique or accomplish personal goals
and 3) IM to experience stimulation involves motivation derived from
excitement and sensory pleasure from participating in sport.
Extrinsic motivation can be defined as participating to gain
rewards, usually materialistic, and avoid punishment (Kowal &
Fortier, 1999). Deci and Ryan (1985) found that extrinsic motivation
also contained four subcategories, with integrated regulation as the
most closely related to intrinsic motivation. Integrated regulation
describes participation as a means to an end goal and is considered
extrinsic for this reason. Identified regulation involves participating
in an activity that may not be enjoyable, but may have growth and
development benefits. Introjected regulation occurs when an
individual's main reasons for participating relates to enhancing an
ego or avoiding guilt or anxiety. And lastly, the most direct extrinsic
motivation is external regulation: motives that focus on obtaining
measurable rewards for participating, such as scholarships and/or
prestige.
Finally, amotivation arises when athletes can no longer determine a
motive for why they continue to participate in the sport. These athletes
feel like they have no sense of control over their actions and often end
up quitting their sport (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Pelletier et al., 1995).
Amotivation has been shown to predict the least amount of participation
in athletes and exercisers and the lack of consistent participation
contributes to decreasing group and personal success (Alexandris,
Tsorbatzoudis, & Grouios, 2002).
Another moderator that has shown to be a determining factor of
group success in much of the past and current research is cohesion
(Turman, 2003). Cohesion has been defined as "a dynamic process
that 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" (Carton, Brawley, &
Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213) and can be broken down into two categories: task
and social. Task cohesion refers to a general trend to achieve group
goals (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) and has little to do with
the relationships formed and maintained. Social cohesion, however,
examines the development of relationships and the collective ability to
get along with one another. High team cohesion within sport has been
linked to low dropout rates (Lindner et al., 1991), high performance
standards (Callow, Smith, Hardy, Arthur, & Hardy, 2009), and
collective efficacy (Heuze, Bosselut, & Thomas, 2007).
The differences of task and social cohesion have often been debated
and researched, but there is no clear conclusion as to which is more
influential. Mullen and Copper (1994) found in their meta-analysis that
task cohesion has a significant positive relationship with group
performance, insinuating that having clear goals and working toward
those goals as a group can impact success of a team more so than social
cohesion. More specifically, in one study, players from successful
volleyball teams viewed task cohesion as more important than social
cohesion compared with players from less successful volleyball teams
(Davids & Nutter, 1988).
However, research also supports social cohesion as an important
factor of group cohesiveness. For example, Van Vienen and De Dreu (2001)
found that social cohesion had a stronger relationship with success than
task cohesion. It has also been determined in prior studies that
athletes who perceived lower levels of social cohesion in summer sport
leagues were more likely to display higher levels of tardiness and
absenteeism during the athletic season (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley,
1988). Social cohesion was also the predominant factor when examining
the willingness to return for the following season in a sample of 142
recreational female ringette players (Spink, 1995).
Despite the ongoing debate between task and social cohesion, there
is little refute that general team cohesion is important in both sport
participation and performance (e.g., Eys, Loughead, Bray, & Carron,
2009; Lott & Lott, 1965; Widmeyer et al., 1993). For example,
researchers have found that when individuals perceive higher levels of
team cohesion, they are more likely to attend practices and participate
in games as opposed to those athletes who viewed team cohesion as lower
(Carron et al., 1988). Furthermore, the cohesion-performance
relationship was found to be stronger with females, but showed no
difference in sport type. Another example of this finding is
demonstrated in the study of elite basketball and soccer teams that
revealed a strong positive relationship between performance, cohesion,
and overall success (Carron, Bray, & Eys, 2002).
Research on gender differences within the motivation and cohesion
fields appears inconclusive. In one study, it was found that collegiate
male athletes demonstrated significantly higher levels of extrinsic
motivation, specifically external regulation (obtaining measurable
rewards) compared to females (Kingston et al., 2006). Ryan (1980) also
attempted to locate differences in a sample of collegiate football
players and female athletes and found that the male athletes on
scholarship reported lower levels of intrinsic motivation than the
female athletes on scholarship. Kingston et al.'s (2006) study
replicated that of Amorose and Horn (2000) with contradicting results,
showing that scholarship athletes, regardless of gender, had higher
levels of intrinsic motivation than non-scholarship athletes. Female
athletes in both of these studies, regardless of scholarship status or
location, reported significantly higher levels of intrinsic motivation
than male athletes (Fortier, Vallerand, & Guay, 1995).
As for perceived cohesion and gender, studies regarding the
dynamics of this relationship have also been few and inconsistent in
discovering differences (Carron, 1982; Mullen & Copper, 1994). The
majority of researchers continued to use male athletes to examine task
and social cohesion statistics even though females are generally seen to
be the more social sex (Glenday & Widmeyer, 1993; Spink, 1995). As
measures and theories have progressed, more studies have shown that the
typical male and female stereotypes could be false; females have been
found to be similar to males in task cohesion, indicating that females
are not solely focused on social aspects (Gardner, Shields, Bredemeier,
& Bostrom, 1996; Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carton, 1985). In fact,
female athletes have reported significantly higher levels of task
cohesion than males in several studies (e.g., Gardner et al., 1996;
Widmeyer et al., 1985). Research using team sports has shown that
although all athletes benefit from higher levels of team cohesion,
female athletes' perceptions of cohesion affect sport performance,
such as winning percentage, more than males' perceptions (Carron et
al., 2002). Female athletes have shown to be more intrinsically
motivated as well as report more perceptions of task cohesion on their
sport teams than males (Pelletier et al., 1995; Gardner et al., 1996).
Although some research has used motivation and cohesion variables
within the same study, no known research has examined the relationship
and direction between the two; therefore, the purpose of this study was
to explore the relationships among motivation type, perceived team
social and task cohesion, and gender in a sample of collegiate athletes.
More specifically the following hypotheses were developed:
1. The motivation subscales of intrinsic motivation to learn and
know, to experience stimulation, and toward accomplishments, as well as
integrated regulation would have positive relationships with task and
social cohesion.
2. The motivation subscales of identified regulation, introjected
regulation, external regulation, and amotivation would have negative
relationships with task and social cohesion.
3. There would be an interaction between gender and motivation type
in predicting social cohesion. Specifically, female athletes, regardless
of motivation type, would perceive higher social cohesion than male
athletes, who were assumed to only view social cohesion as high when
towards the intrinsic end of the SDC. Furthermore, social cohesion would
be better predicted by gender than motivation type. This hypothesis was
based on the research that suggests that male athletes rank competition
higher in importance than female athletes (Mathes & Battista, 1985).
4. There would not be an interaction between gender and motivation
type for task cohesion, as research suggests that both male and female
athletes perceive task cohesion as important (Gardner et al., 1996).
However, motivation types would be a significant predictor of task
cohesion.
Methods
Participants
All varsity head coaches at a large Midwestern university were
approached in person to obtain permission to use their teams in the
current study. The final sample consisted of 253 student-athletes from
15 different teams (see Table 1); a response rate of 63.25%. Male
athletes represented a slightly higher proportion (n = 135) than female
athletes (n = 118). The athletes ranged in age from 18 to 23 years (M=
20.06, SD = 1.222) and represented eight team and seven individual
sports. Freshmen (n = 80) and sophomores (n = 73) made up 60.5% of the
participants. Although nine ethnicities were represented in the study,
80.6% were Caucasian (n = 204) followed by 13 % African American (n =
33).
Instruments
Participants completed a demographic form, the Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron et al., 1985) to measure perceptions of team
social and task cohesion, and the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier
et al., 1995) to assess prominent motivation types and position on the
SDC.
Demographics Questionnaire. The demographics questionnaire was
developed by the researchers to gain descriptive information about the
participants. It consisted of seven items related to gender, age,
ethnicity, sport played, time of season, year in school, and years on
team.
Group Environment Questionnaire. Carton et al. (1985) developed the
GEQ to assess social and task cohesion in sport teams. The instrument
consists of 18 items that are grouped into four subscales that measure
perception of cohesion among the group as a whole from the
athlete's perspective as well as the athlete's personal
attraction to the group. The GEQ is one of the most commonly used
measures for assessing cohesion among male and female athletes (Eys,
Carton, Bray, & Brawley, 2007) and has been found to be most
reliable when studying participants between the ages of 18 to 30 years
(Carron et al., 1985). In a sample of 154 professional male basketball
players, Cronbach's alpha revealed values of.35 for ATG-S, .66 for
ATGT, .69 for GI-S, and .76 for GI-T (Heuze, Raimbault, and Fontayne,
2006). Eys et al. (2007) revised the GEQ to include positively worded
items and increased the reliability of the subscale. In its original
form, there is evidence supporting the construct validity of the GEQ
based on 212 team sport athletes (Carron et al., 1985).
Sport Motivation Scale. The SMS (Pelletier et al., 1995) evaluates
the eight subscales of motivation, with four items for each subscale.
Items reflect potential reasons for the athlete's sport
participation (e.g., "Because I must do sports to feel good about
myself"; "For the pleasure it gives me to know more about the
sport that I practice") and are scored on a seven-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 7
("exactly"). Pelletier et al. (1995) sampled 593 university
athletes and found adequate internal consistency among seven of the
eight subscales, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .74 to .80; the
identification subscale exhibited the lowest internal consistency (a =
.63). All subscales were found to have a high positive correlation
between one another, with the correlation weakening only between
amotivation and intrinsic motivation, which makes sense theoretically.
This reliability was verified in another study by Kingston et al. (2006)
with collegiate student athletes; the mean Cronbach's alpha score
for the subscales was at least .80, except for the identification
subscale which was below .70. Additionally, the SMS has shown strong
logical validity and adequate content validity (Li & Harmer, 1996;
Pelletier et al., 1995).
For the present study, a weighted scoring system was used to
identify a single motivation score as recommended by Sarrazin and
colleagues (2002). First, an average score for each subscale was found,
then the scores were weighted by multiplying by the following: +2 for
the IM subscales, + 1 for integrated regulation, -1 for the remaining EM
subscales, and -2 for Amotivation, and finally summed. This allowed a
single number to be attained so that motivation type could be placed
along the continuum. The SDC score could range from -18 to 18 with
higher scores signifying intrinsic motivation types while lower scores
show extrinsic motivation types or amotivation.
Procedures
Upon IRB approval, 15 Division I college head coaches were
contacted about the study and team meetings were scheduled. At each team
meeting, the researchers explained the study, and interested athletes
were given a packet of questionnaires to complete that included informed
consent form, demographics questionnaire, GEQ, and SMS. The GEQ and SMS
were alternately ordered in the packets to avoid any biases that may
have arisen due to questionnaire placement. Participants completed the
packet in less than fifteen minutes.
Data Analysis
Using a correlational design in a convenience sample of Division I
college student-athletes, the researchers assessed the relationships
among gender, motivation type (i.e. SDC score), and perceived team
cohesion. All statistical analyses were run using SPSS 17.0. Data was
checked for normality, and Cronbach's alphas were run for all
survey subscales (see Table 2). The high Cronbach's alpha levels on
the subscales show strong correlations between the items within the
subscales, and ultimately demonstrate that the measures were reliable.
The GEQ was scored as suggested by Carton et al. (2002) by combining the
two task subscales and two social subscales to get a single score for
each type of cohesion. However, as mentioned previously, a weighted
scoring system to compute motivation type (i.e. SDC score) was used with
the SMS data (Sarrazin et al., 2002).
Results
Descriptive statistics were computed for the GEQ and the SMS. To
evaluate the first two hypotheses, which examined the relationships
between task and social cohesion and each of the eight motivation
subscales, Pearson's correlations, with significance levels of .05,
were used (see Table 2). The first hypothesis was supported, as both
task and social cohesion were positively correlated with all three types
of intrinsic motivation and integrated regulation. However, the second
hypothesis was not supported in its entirety. While negative
relationships were found between amotivation and both types of cohesion,
no relationship was found between either type of cohesion and
introjected regulation. Furthermore, an unpredicted positive
relationship was found between both types of cohesion and identified
regulation. Intrinsic motivation subscales consistently had a stronger
positive correlation with social and task cohesion, while the extrinsic
subscales either had a weaker significant positive correlation, no
relationship, or a significant negative correlation. However, although
there was a relationship in the predicted direction, it is not an
overall strong relationship.
For the third and fourth hypotheses, two multiple regression
analyses were performed in order to predict social and task cohesion
based on gender, motivation type (i.e. SDC score), and the interaction.
Recall that the third hypothesis stated that there would be an
interaction between gender and motivation type in predicting social
cohesion and social cohesion would be better predicted by gender than
motivation type. The regression analysis (see Table 3) was significant
in explaining 19% of the variance in social cohesion ([R.sup.2] = .191,
F(3,241) = 18.927, p < .05). Motivation type significantly predicted
social cohesion ([beta] = .398, p < .05), and there were no
significant gender differences in social cohesion ([beta] = .197, p >
.05), thus partially supporting the hypothesis. However, the interaction
between gender and motivation type was not significant, indicating no
difference in the impact of motivation type on task cohesion between
males and females, thus not supporting the hypothesis. The low R-squared
indicates that although this model was significant, as a whole it was
not effective in prediction of level of perceived social cohesion.
The regression analysis for hypothesis four (see Table 4) explored
the hypothesis that there would not be an interaction between gender and
motivation type for task cohesion; however, motivation types would be a
significant predictor of task cohesion. The model was significant
accounting for, 19% of the variance in task cohesion ([R.sup.2] =. 196,
F(3, 241) = 19.532, p < .05). The interaction between gender and
motivation type was not significant, indicating no difference in the
impact of motivation type on task cohesion between males and females.
Additionally, there were no significant gender differences in task
cohesion ([beta] = .219, p > .05) and motivation type was a better
predictor than gender ([beta] = .468, p < .05); therefore, fully
supporting hypothesis four. Again, the low R-squared indicates that
although the model was significant, as a whole it was not effective in
the prediction of perceived task cohesion.
In two post-hoc hierarchical regression analyses, type of sport was
added to the original variables of gender, SDC score, and the moderator
variable of gender x motivation in order to identify if type of sport,
individual or team, contributed to the prediction of perceptions of
social and task cohesion. For both task and social cohesion, the
variance explained significantly increased with the addition of type of
sport as a predictor. For task cohesion, the variance increased from
approximately 19% to explaining 23% ([R.sup.2] change = .035, p <
.05). Social cohesion variance increased from 19% before type of sport
was considered to 25% ([R.sup.2] change = .065, p < .05).
Furthermore, type of sport is a significant predictor of social cohesion
([beta] = -.419, p < .05) and task cohesion ([beta] = -.331, p <
.05) indicating athletes that participated in individual sports rated
perceptions of social and task cohesion lower than athletes on team
sports. As for motivation type, there was not a moderating effect for
type of sport on motivation within task cohesion ([beta] = .215, p >
.05), but for social cohesion a moderating effect was produced ([beta] =
.236, p < .05), indicating that motivation type has a larger impact
on predicting cohesion for individual sports than team sports.
Discussion
The main purpose of the current study was to assess how motivation
level and gender of individual athletes related to how they perceived
team cohesion. Results contributed to a better understanding of
athletes' motivation and group processes (i.e., perceived social
context). Specifically, more intrinsically motivated individuals
perceive higher levels of social and task cohesion than teammates who
were less intrinsically motivated. For example, individuals who report
high levels of IM to know and learn, IM to experience stimulation, IM to
accomplish, integrated regulation, and identified regulation also
reported high levels of social and task cohesion.
Although extrinsic motivation is often believed to be less
self-determined, Iso-Ahola (1999) stated that certain external
motivations could become self-determined through identification in the
way of self-discovery and recognition. By definition, identified
regulation also has to do with goal achievement and growth which means
that those athletes who scored high on the identified regulation
subscale could still be participating in the sport for intrinsic reasons
instead of the extrinsic motivation that is suggested in the measure.
Therefore, this type of motivation has a more similar relationship to
the intrinsic motivation subscales as opposed to other extrinsic
motivation subscales.
The non-significant correlations between cohesion and the
introjected regulation and external regulation subscales could be
explained by the varying levels of scholarship status among the sample,
coaching climates, or past performance record. These variables were not
examined in this research but have emerged as predictors of motivation
(Amorose & Horn, 2000; Gardner et al., 1996; Kipp & Amorose,
2008). Athletic scholarships can encourage participation due to a sense
of guilt or duty even if an athlete has lost enjoyment in the activity
itself which can hinder relationships among the team and lower personal
motivation. Coaching climate can have a similar effect as a coach can
either develop an atmosphere through self-determination theory that
builds motivation or destroys it. Poor past performance records can
cause tension throughout a team and a loss of team and athlete
motivation.
Although non-significant, external regulation showed a positive
relationship with task and social cohesion which is opposite of what was
predicted. The stronger correlation with social cohesion rather than
task cohesion with external regulation could possibly be explained by
the idea that social factors in sport could be portrayed as an extrinsic
motive since some athletes participate for the chance to meet others and
be involved in a group.
Widmeyer and colleagues (1985) showed that there were no
significant differences in perception of task or social cohesion between
adult male and female athletes. However, other research suggest that
male athletes are more likely to participate in sport for a means to an
end (i.e. extrinsic motive) while female athletes are more likely to
participate in an activity for the intrinsic rewards (Sarrazin et al.,
2002). Gender differences on motivation type were explored in the
current study to determine its relationship to social and task cohesion
levels. Results indicated that the gender x motivation type interaction
was not relevant with this sample. In other words, there were no
motivation differences between male and female athletes. Furthermore,
gender was not a significant predictor of cohesion. However, motivation
type is likely to be a strong influence in predicting perceptions of
cohesion, as motivation type became more intrinsic (i.e. moves towards
intrinsic motivation on the SDC), athletes perceived higher levels of
cohesion, which is consistent with Widmeyer et al.'s original
research (1985). Similar motivation results are supported by past
research that has also made use of the SMS (Krinanthi, Konstantinos,
& Andreas, 2010; Pelletier et al., 1995)
It is important to note the limitations of the study. Carron and
Brawley (2000) noted that cohesion fluctuates throughout group
development, so in early stages of development, teams are typically more
focused on task cohesion and allow social cohesion to develop during the
season (Carron et al., 1985). Because this study utilized a one time,
cross-sectional approach, possible seasonal fluctuations in cohesion
could have affected the results since athletes were at different points
in their seasons when they completed the questionnaires. However, scores
from this study were consistent with normative data from the GEQ (Carron
et al., 2002).
Another limitation is homogeneity of the sample. This study
exclusively utilized NCAA Division I collegiate athletes; thus, the
results may differ for athletes involved in other levels of competitive
sport participation. Furthermore, over 80% of the sample was Caucasian,
so it should also be concluded that these results may not be generalized
to other ethnicities. The large amount of ethnic similarities could also
affect the results in that homogeneity of a group often contributes to
more positive perceptions of group formation (Eitzen, 1975).
Sport participation is extremely complex and dynamic. Findings here
support that the relationship between athlete motivation type and team
cohesion may be mediated by other factors, other than gender, that were
not examined in this study such as team member seniority, motivational
climate (Kipp & Amorose, 2008), scholarship status, starter versus
non-starter status, and type of sport (i.e. interactive vs. coactive).
Type of sport should specifically be noted because in interactive
sports, effective play requires strong interdependence of all
individuals thus making their perception of cohesion much higher than
those of coactive sports (Gardner et al., 1996). This finding was
supported in post-hoc analyses revealing team sport athletes rating
perceptions of team social and task cohesion higher than individual
sport athletes. The moderating effect of motivation and type of sport
should also be noted as it indicates that individual sport
athletes' personal motivation is a stronger predictor of
perceptions of cohesion than team sport athletes' motivation. This
result is interesting yet to be expected as individual sport athletes
are required to perform alone and rely on themselves much more often
than team sport athletes who have the camaraderie of the team to help
motivate their participation and perceptions. Future research should
further examine the cohesion-motivation differences between types of
sports (Senecal et al., 2008).
Furthermore, applied researchers may want to examine the impact of
specific techniques and strategies used by coaches and sport
psychologists to influence motivation and team cohesion. For example,
personal growth experiences (McClure & Foster, 1991), ropes and
challenge courses (Meyer, 2000), and social get-togethers outside of the
sport arena (Yukelson, 1997) have been shown to contribute to motivation
and cohesion. As the current research suggests, intrinsic motivation
aspects related to the motives to learn, experience stimulation, and
accomplish are related to high perceptions of cohesion. Therefore,
techniques and interventions designed to build cohesion may be even more
effective if they emphasize activities focused on intrinsic motivation.
In summary, the results of this study are beneficial for athletes,
coaches, and sport psychologists because it allows them to have a
clearer understanding of the importance of motivation, specifically
intrinsic motivation types, on the team's perceptions of social and
task cohesion. With this knowledge, individuals associated with a group
or sport team can contribute more effectively to group outcomes by
suggesting and/or implementing team building exercises throughout the
season. In addition, individual motivation measures can be utilized at
the beginning of the sport season in order to determine the amount of
intrinsically motivated athletes that occupy a team; therefore drawing a
conclusion of the perceived task and social cohesion. As mentioned
earlier, this is essential as higher cohesion leads to willingness to
return to sport (Spink, 1995), less tardiness (Carton et al., 1988), and
overall higher performance success (Carron et al., 2002).
References
Alexandris, K., Tsorbatzoudis, C., & Grouios, G (2002).
Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: Investigating
their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and
amotivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 233-252.
Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation:
Relationships with collegiate athlete's gender, scholarship status,
and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-85.
Brawley, L. R., Carton, A.V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1993). The
influence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of group
goal-related variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15,
245-260.
Brustad, R. J. (1988). Affective outcomes in competitive youth
sport: The influence of intrapersonal and socialization factors. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 307-321.
Callow, N., Smith, M. J., Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, J.
(2009). Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship
with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 21, 395-413.
Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations
and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.
Carron, A. V. & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and
measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106.
Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, N.W. (2002). Normative
data for the GEQ. In A.V.
Carton (Ed.), Group environment questionnaire: test manual
(pp.42-56). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1998). The
measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J.L. Duda (Ed.),
Advancements in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carton, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M.A. (2002). Team cohesion
and team success in sport. Journal of Sport Sciences, 20, 119-126.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D.
(2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W., & Brawley, L. (1985). The
development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The
group environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,
244-266.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W., & Brawley, L. (1988). Group
cohesion and individual adherence to physical activity. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 10, 127-138.
Davids, K., & Nutter, A. (1988). The cohesion-performance
relationship of English National League volleyball teams. Journal of
Human Movement Studies, 14, 205-213.
Deci, E. L. (1992). On the nature and functions of motivation
theories. Psychological Science, 3, 167-171.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and
self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Eitzen, D. S. (1975). Group structure and group performance. In
D.M. Landers, D.V. Harris, & R.W. Christina (Eds.), Psychology of
Sport and Motor Behavior. University Park, PA: College of HPER,
Pennsylvania State University.
Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R.
(2007). Item wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion:
The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 29, 395-402.
Eys, M. A., Loughead, T., Bray, S., & Carron, A. (2009).
Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The youth sport
environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31,
390-408.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic
motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 257-274.
Gardner, D. E., Shields, D. L., Bredemeier, B. J., & Bostrom,
A. (1996). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and
team cohesion among baseball and softball players. The Sport
Psychologist, 10, 367-381.
Gill, D. L., Gross, J. B., & Huddleston, S. (1983).
Participation motivation in youth sports. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 14, 1-14.
Glenday, L., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1993). Describing and
explaining gender differences in the cohesion of athletic teams. Paper
presented at the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport
Psychology Conference, Montreal, Quebec.
Haggar, M., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2008). Intrinsic motivation
and self-determination in exercise and sport. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Haggar, M., Chatzisarantis, N., & Harris, J. (2006). The
process by which relative autonomous motivation affects intentional
behavior: Comparing effects across dieting and exercise behaviors.
Motivation and Emotion, 30, 306-320.
Heuze, J. P., Bosselut, G., & Thomas, J. P. (2007). Should the
coaches of elite female handball teams focus on collective efficacy or
group cohesion? The Sport Psychologist, 21, 383-399.
Heuze, J. P., Raimbault, N., & Fontayne, P. (2006).
Relationships between cohesion, collective efficacy, and performance in
professional basketball teams: An examination of mediating effects.
Journal of Sport Sciences, 24, 59-68.
Iso-Ahola, S. (1999). Motivational foundations of leisure. In E. L.
Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure Studies: Prospects for the
Twenty-First Century (pp. 35-51). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Kingston, K., Horrocks, C., & Hanton, S. (2006). Do
multidimensional intrinsic and extrinsic motivation profiles
discriminate between athlete scholarship status and gender? European
Journal of Sport Science, 6, 53-63.
Kipp, L. & Amorose, A. J. (2008). Perceived motivational
climate and self-determined motivation in female high school athletes.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 31, 108-129.
Kowal, J. & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants of
flow: Contributions from self-determination theory. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 139, 355-368.
Krinanthi, Ct, Konstantinos, M., & Andreas, G. (2010).
Self-determination and sport commitment: An evaluation by university
intramural participants. International Journal of Fitness, 6, 41-52.
Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of
the Group Environment Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 49-63.
Lindner, K. J., Johns, D. P., & Butcher, J. (1991). Factors in
withdrawal from youth sport: A proposed model. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 14, 3-18.
Lott, A. J. & Lott, B. D. (1965). Group cohesiveness,
communication level, and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 62, 408-412.
Loughead, T. M. & Hardy, J. (2006). Team cohesion: From theory
to research to team building. In S. Hanton & S. Mellalieu (Eds.),
Literature Reviews in Sport Psychology (pp.257-287). Hauppauge, NY: Nova
Science Publishers.
Martens, M. & Webber, S. N. (2002). Psychometric properties of
the sport motivation scale: An evaluation with college varsity athletes
from the U.S. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 254-270.
Mathes, S. & Battista, R. (1985). College men's and
women's motives for participation in physical activity. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 61, 719-726.
McClure, B. A. & Foster, C. D. (1991). Group work as a method
of promoting cohesiveness within a women's gymnastics team.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 307-313.
Meyer, B. B. (2000). The ropes and challenge course: A
quasi-experimental examination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90,
1249-1257.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group
cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin,
115, 210-227.
Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Tuson, K., Briere, N.,
& Blais, M. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation
scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53.
Petitpas, A. J., Brewer, B. W., & Van Raalte, J. L. (1996).
Transitions of the student-athlete: Theoretical, empirical, and
practical perspectives. In E.F. Etzel (Ed.), Counseling College Student
Athletes: Issues and Interventions, 2nd ed. (pp. 137-156). Morgantown,
W.VA: Fitness Information Technology.
Ryan, E. D. (1980). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and
athletics: A replication and extension. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R.
Halliwell, W. R. Newell, & G. C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor
behavior and sport (pp. 19-24). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., &
Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A
21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32,
395-418.
Scanlan, T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1984). Social psychological
aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: Predictors of
competitive stress. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 25-35.
Senecal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A
season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team
goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
30, 186-199.
Spink, K. S. (1995). Cohesion and intention to participate of
female sport team athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
17, 416-427.
Thompson, S. A., & Albinson, J. (1991). An investigation of
factors affecting the development of cohesion among intercollegiate
rowers. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sport
Psychology Conference, London, Ontario.
Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching
techniques on team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 26, 86-104.
Vallerand, R. J. & Losier, G. (1999). An integrative analysis
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 11, 142-169.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M.,
Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1993). On the assessment of
intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence on the
concurrent and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 159-172.
White, S.A. (1993). The relationship between psychological skills,
experiences, and practice commitment among collegiate male and female
skiers. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 49-57
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The
Measurement of Cohesion in Sport Teams: The Group Environment
Questionnaire London, Ont: Sports Dynamics.
Widmeyer, W. N., Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (1993). Group
cohesion in sport and exercise. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, & L.
Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology. New York:
Macmillan.
Widmeyer, W. N., & Martens, R. (1978). When cohesion predicts
performance outcome in sport. Research Quarterly, 49, 372-380.
Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building
interventions in sport: A direct services approach at Penn State
University. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 73-96.
Meghan Halbrook, Lindsey C. Blom, Kimberly Hurley, Robert J. Bell,
Jocelyn E. Holden
Ball State University
Address Correspondence to: Dr. Lindsey Blom, School of Physical
Education, Sport, & Exercise Science, Ball State University, Muncie,
IN 47306.Email: lcblom@bsu.edu Phone: 765.285.5130
Table 1
Sample Information by Sport
Sport Classification Frequency Percentage
Men's Volleyball Team 15 5.9
Field Hockey Team 13 5.1
Men's Swimming Individual 24 9.5
Women's Golf Individual 7 2.8
Softball Team 20 7.9
Men's Golf Individual 11 4.3
Women's Track Individual 32 12.6
Women's Volleyball Team 8 3.2
Women's Gymnastics Individual 13 5.1
Baseball Team 34 13.4
Women's Soccer Team 16 6.3
Women's Tennis Individual 9 3.6
Men's Tennis Individual 12 4.7
Men's Basketball Team 7 2.8
Football Team 32 12.6
TOTAL 253 100.0
Table 2
Variable Alphas, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Cronbach's
Variable N M SD Alpha Task Social
SDC 249 6.82 3.95 -- -- --
IMKL 253 4.84 1.28 0.85 .31 ** .25 **
IMA 252 5.43 1.11 0.83 .32 ** .26 **
IMES 253 5.53 1.06 0.77 .37 ** .42 **
IntR 249 5.08 1.20 0.81 .20 ** .22 **
IdR 249 5.08 1.23 0.78 .26 ** .27 **
IntroR 252 3.87 1.42 0.77 -.002 -.008
ExtR 253 4.30 1.41 0.79 .08 .10
Amot 252 2.29 1.26 0.82 -.34 ** -.38 **
Task 253 6.85 1.29 0.79 -- --
Social 253 7.18 1.24 0.77 -- --
** p<.01 (2-tailed). SDC=self-determination continuum score,
IMKL= intrinsic motivation to know and learn, IMA= intrinsic
motivation to accomplish, IMES= intrinsic motivation to
experience stimulation, IntR= integrated regulation, IdR=
identified regulation, IntroR= introjected regulation, ExtR=
external regulation, Amot=amotivation
Table 3
Hypothesis 3: Social Cohesion Regression Coefficients
Beta t P
Intercept 31.624 0.001
Gender (^) 0.197 1.702 0.090
Motivation Type (SDC score) 0.427 5.276 0.001
Interaction (SDC score x Gender) -0.068 -0.517 0.606
* Significant at p < .05
(^) Female athletes were coded as a T" while male athletes
were coded as "I".
Table 4
Hypothesis 4: Task Cohesion Regression Coefficients
Beta t P
Intercept 27.907 .001
Gender (^) .219 1.893 .060
Motivation Type (SDC score) .468 5.799 .001 *
Interaction (SDC score x Gender) -.132 -1.002 .318
* Significant at p < .05
(^) Female athletes were coded as a "0" while male athletes
were coded as "I".
