group success member satisfaction in performance · 2016. 8. 9. · intramurals. the...

Group Cohesiveness as a Determinant ofSuccess and Member Satisfaction in Team

Performance

RAINER MARTENS and JAMES A. PETERSON (U.S.A.)

The effectiveness of sport teams in competition is dependent uponmany factors, one of which is the ability of individual members to worktogether. The coach often refers to this ability as teamwork, togetherness,or morale, while the researcher refers to it as group integration or groupcohesiveness. Physical educators and coaches alike have long postulatedthat the most effective team is not necessarily composed from a con1bi-nation of the best skilled individuals. The ability of individuals to effecttively interact with teammates to obtain a group-desired goal has beenrecognized as contributing to team effectiveness. A common held assump- .

tion is that the higher the cohesiveness of a team the more effective it willbe. The purpose of the present study was to investigate this assumptionamong intramural basketball teams. The problem was to determine if

different levels of group cohesiveness affected the effectiveness and indi-vidual member satisfaction of these teams.

Lott and Lott (1965), in their review of the group cohesion literature,cite considerable research directed at the relationship between cohesive-ness and performance. The conclusion reached by these reviewers is thatthe findings have been contradictory - i. e., in some situations a highlevel of cohesiveness was beneficial, while in other cases this same levelof cohesiveness impaired performance. Lott and Lott state that:

It seems likely that in a task situation other variables such as the demands ofthe situation itself (instructions or job specifications), the standards of performancepreferred by liked co-workers, and the degree to which sociability may interferewith the required behavior for a particular job, may be highly significant (p. 298).

The experimental literature concerning the relationship between

cohesiveness and team performance for sport groups is also contradictory.Klein and Christiansen (1966), Myers (19’82), and Chapman and Campbell(1957) using basketball teams, rifle teams, and a novel motor task, re-

at SAGE Publications on August 9, 2016irs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://irs.sagepub.com/

50

spectively, have reported a positive relationship between the cohesivenessof these teams and their effectiveness. An equal number of studies, how-ever, have found that increasing levels of cohesiveness among sportteams produced no increase in effectiveness or actually impaired effective-ness. Lenk (1966) cites several examples of highly effective olympic rowingteams having extremely low levels of cohesiveness. Fiedler (1953, 1954)and McGrath (1962) have found that a high degree of cohesiveness ofteninterfered with effective performance of basket-ball teams and rifle teams.To explain this apparent paradox, both McGrath and Fiedler have sug-gested that players on high cohesive teams may be more concerned withmaintaining good interpersonal relations than with effectively playingbasketball.

Certainly the need for further study as to the consequences of variouslevels of cohesiveness on the effectiveness of sport teams is obvious. How-ever, another measure of the consequences that various levels of cohesi-veness may have on participation is member satisfaction. It would appearthat the degree of satisfaction individuals derive from participating in

a sport with a particular group is of equal importance to the number ofgames won or lost. Therefore, the present study determined if different

levels of group cohesiveness are partial determinants of member satisfac-tion as well as team effectiveness.

METHOD

Szcb jects and Design

In cooperation with the Division of Intramurals at the University ofIllinois, Urbana, over 1200 male university undergraduate students dividedinto 144 basketball teams were used as subjects. These teams participatedin league play on the basis of their residential affiliation: fraternity(FRAT), men’s residence halls (MRH), and men’s independent associations(MIA). The members of each team, therefore, resided together and mosthad previously participated in intramural basketball together. Con-

sequently, the members of a team were not unfamiliar with each othersince a certain degree of social interaction had occured previously.

A questionnaire instrument, used to assess each team’s level of cohesi-veness, was administered one day before the first league game of thespring intramural basketball program. Cohesiveness was assessed bya number of different question. On the basis of these responses teams werecategorized into low, moderate, or high cohesive teams. The number ofgames won was the measure of effectiveness. The degree of satisfaction



51

was obtained from a questionnaire administered at the end of the season.Team effectiveness for the three levels of cohesiveness (using each measureof cohesiveness) was analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance disregard-ing the teams’ residential affiliation. Member satisfaction was analyzed ina 3 X 3 factorial design. Each measure of cohesiveness trichotomized wasthe three levels of the first factor and the three residential organizationswas the second factor.

Measurer~2ent o f Group Cohesiveness ’

.’&dquo;

The most common nominal definition of group cohesiveness is Festin-

ger’s (1950). He defines cohesiveness as ‘’the resultant of all the forces

acting on members to remain in the group&dquo; (p. 164). Operationally definingthis array of forces acting on members to remain in the group has not beenvery successful. As a result, the most prevalent approach for measuringgroup cohesiveness has been to assess the degree of interpersonal attrac-tion between members of a group. Obviously interpersonal attraction doesnot constitute the only force acting upon members to remain in the group.Therefore, most previous research has operationally defined cohesivenessby measuring only one component of the nominal definition.

This arbitrary operational definition has been criticized by Gross andMartin (1952). They argue against the attempt by researchers to measureonly one component of cohesiveness and, then, on the basis of the resultsobtained, make inference to the total concept. They suggest it is better toassess cohesiveness by a direct question to each member regarding thecohesiveness of the group. Rather than the researcher making an inferenceabout the cohesiveness of a group on the basis of partial information, Grossand Martin advocate each member of the group making such an inferencebased upon his intimate acquaintance with the group.

In the present project a number of measures of cohesiveness whichwere suggested by previous research were used. The questionnaire wasconstructed in the form of a 9-choice alternative between two polarities.For example, to assess interpersonal attraction the following question wasasked:

On what type of a friendship basis are you with each member of your team? Ifyou know him very well and are good friends, rate him high on the scale. If youdo not know him or are not good friends, rate him low on the scale.

The questions asked were of three different types. Four questionsassessed each team member’s evaluation of every other member regard-



52

ing : (a) the degree of interpersonal attraction, (b) contribution of each

member based on his ability, (c) the contribution of each member basedon enjoyable to play with, and (d) the influence or power of each member.The second type of question asked each member to indicate his relation-ship to the team. The two questions of this type asked each member’sopinion of: (a) how strong a sense of belonging he had toward the group,and (b) the value of membership on the team. The third type of questionasked each member’s evaluation of the group as a whole regarding (a) thelevel of teamwork, and (b) how closely knit the group was.

-

Procedure

.

Questionnaires were administered by four assistants supervised by theexperimenter. Each team was contacted through the Division of Intra-murals and asked to participate in the study. A time was arranged foreach group to answer the questionnaire together. Once together the

assistant had the names of every team member written and numbered

on a poster visible to the entire group. Each member evaluated everyother member according to the number assigned. Those individuals whocould not attend the group meeting (a very small number) completed thequestionnaire alone immediately before the first game.

All records of games won and lost were tabulated by the Division ofIntramurals. The post-questionnaire was administered approximately twodays after the last game of the season. All teams completed the season,even though a small number of individuals quit teams during the season.

The questionnaire data were transferred from IBM digital answersheets to IBM computer cards. A mean for each question’ for each teamwas computed. The teams were then ranked for each measure of cohesi-veness for each residential group and divided into the three categories:low, moderate, and high cohesiveness. This categorization of the eightcohensiveness questions then served as the three levels of the independentvariable.

RESULTS

Team Effectiveness

The one-way analyses of variance for the eight measures of cohesive-ness are summarized in Table 1.

The first four questions assessed each member’s rating of every othermember in the group. None of the questions regarding interpersonal attrac-



53

tion, contribution based on ability or satisfaction or power significantlydifferentiated between successful and unsuccessful teams. The sense-of-

belonging question also failed to show any differences between winningand losing teams.

TABLE 1

Summary of the Analyses of Team E ffectiveness Variance for the Eight Measuresof Cohesiveness

significant at the .05 level.Significant at the .01 level.

The two question designed to directly assess cohesiveness as a generalconstruct - degree of teamwork and closeness - significantly differen-tiated between successful and unsuccessful teams. Figure 1 graphicallyillustrates the differences between the three levels of teamwork and

closeness on the number of games won. For both cohesion criteria, a New-man-Keuls test (Winer, 1962, p. 80-85) was used to determine the simpleeffects of the overall F. For the teamwork criterion, accepting the .05

level of significance, the high (2.89) and moderate (2.66) cohesive teams ’

won significantly more games than the low cohesive teams (2.13). Thedifference between the high and moderate teams, however, was not signi-ficant. For the closeness criterion, the Newman-Keuls test revealed thathigh cohesive teams wom significantly more games (2.96) than the mod-erate (2.46) and low cohesive teams (2.26). The difference between themoderate and low cohesive teams was not significant.



54

The most significant F value was obtained from the question regardingthe &dquo;value of membership&dquo; each individual attributed to his basketball

team. Those teams whose individual members attributed greater value inbelonging to the group won significantly more games (3.26) than those withmoderate (2.18) or low scores (2.27). The difference between the moderateand low teams was not significant for this criterion.

Fig. 1. Number of games won for three different levels of cohesi%-eness based on

three criteria.

Individual Member Sat?’sfactio7i

The post-questionnaire asked each individual to indicate how satisfiedhe was personally with playing on his team. A team mean was calculatedwhich was the score used for the analysis of member satisfaction variance.

The eight analyses of variance on individual member satisfaction for

each of the cohesiveness criteria are summarized in Table 2. Accepting the.05 level of significance, seven of the eight measures found significantdifferences on individual member satisfaction. The only item failing to

show a significant difference was interpersonal attraction.The Newman-Keuls procedure for a factorial design (Winer, 1962, p.

309) was used to determine the simple effects of the over-all significant F.For the contribution-based-on-ability criterion the Newman-Keuls test

indicated that the teams rating themselves high on ability were significan-tly more satisfied (4.11) 1 than moderately-rated teams (4.58) and low-rated (4.78). The difference between the moderate and low-rated teamswas not significantly different at the .05 level. The exact same pattern of

1 The lower the score the greater the satisfaction.



55

TABLE2 2

Summary of Analyses of li2e~nber ~S’atisfactiona for the Eight Measzcres ofCohesiveness

* Significant at tlic .05 level.** Significai).t at the .01 level.



56

significant differences was found for the contribution-based-on-satisfactioncriterion. The mean for the high-rated group was 4.21, while the moder-ated group had a mean of 4.52, and the low-rated group had a meanof 4.74.

The Newman-Keuls test on the significant influence of power criterionrevealed that the teams high on this measure were significantly moresatisfied (4.24) than the low teams (4.79) while the moderate teams werealso significantly more satisfied (4.43) than the low teams. The differencebetween the high and moderate teams was not significant.

For the sense-of-belonging criterion the high, moderate, and low teamseach differed significantly from the other two groups. Unlike the othercriteria, the high teams were most satisfied (4.10), but the low teams werenext (4.51), while the moderate teams were least satisfied (4.88).

The teamwork criterion was the only measure in which the high Ii

cohesive teams were not the most satisfied. The Newman-Keuls test onthis criterion indicated that the moderate teams were significantly moresatisfied (4.26) than the low teams (4.77) and the high teams were signifi-cantly more satisfied (4.44) than the low teams. The difference betweenthe moderate and high teams was not significant.

The closeness criterion found the very close teams to be significantlymore satisfied (3.81) than the teams low in this criterion (4.83). The New-man-Keuls test on this criterion found no significant difference betweenthe very close teams and the moderately close teams (4.30) and betweenthe moderately close teams and the teams low in this criterion.

The value-of-membership criterion revealed that the teams who valuedtheir membership the most were significantly more satisfied (4.16) than themoderate- (4.65) and low-rated teams (4.67) on this criterion: The differencebetween the low and moderate teams was not significant.

DISCUSSION

The results from the team effectiveness data are equivocal and focusupon the methodological problem of operatively defining cohesiveness.

The general operational definitions were used: (a) each member rated

every other member of the team on some component of cohesiveness-e.g., .,

interpersonal attraction; (b) each member indicated his relationship to theteam-e.g., value of membership; and (c) each member directly rated thecohesiveness of the group as a whole-e.g., level of teamwork. Our

hypothesis that high cohesive teams win significantly more games thanlow cohesive teams was supported when assessing cohesiveness by thethird approach and one question from the second approach. Results of the



57

other measures of cohesiveness found no significant differences in gameswon between high and low cohesive teams.

The four components of cohesiveness assessed by the first approachwere interpersonal attraction, contribution based on ability, contributionbased on satisfaction, and influence or power. The questions concerningthe contribution based on ability and satisfaction were used as additionalindications of interpersonal attraction. The degree to which members ofthe team attributed power or influence to the group was the fourth compo-nent of cohesiveness. The nexus being that the more cohesive the team thegreater its influence on the members. The failure of these measures tofind any systematic variance between high, moderate and low cohesiveteams as far as team effectiveness is concerned does not concur with pre-vious research.

For example, Fiedler (1953, 1954), Lenk (1966), McGrath (1962), andViet (1968) have all suggested from their research that high levels of

cohesiveness may be detrimental to effective performance. On the otherhand, Chapman and Campbell (1957), Klein and Christiansen (1966), andMyers (1962) have found a positive relationship between cohesiveness

- and effectiveness. The sole operational definition of cohesiveness in eachof these studies has been some form of interpersonal attraction. Our inter-personal attraction results (and the measurement of any component of

cohesiveness) present a third finding, mainly that differences in inter-personal attraction among teams do not significantly affect team effecti-veness.

Another portion of our results appeared ambiguous. The sense-of-

belonging and value-of-membership questions were designed to measureeach individual member’s relationship to the team, and consequently, w ereexpected to reveal similar results. This was not the case, however. Thesense-of-belonging question did not defferentiate between successful andunsuccessful teams, whereas the value-of-membership question found a ve-ry significant difference. Why the apparent discrepancy between two ques-tions thought to assess the same phenomenon? One possible explanationis that sense of belonging seems to focus upon the individual’s relationshipwith other members in the group and the status he has in the group. If

this be the case, his status, which is really an indication of this relationshipwith the other members, may be a general evaluation of his interpersonalattraction toward the group. Possibly then the nonsignificant finding fromthe sense-of-belonging question is consistent with the interpersonal attrac-tion results. The value-of-membership question, on the other hand, impliesnot only the importance of affiliating with the other members of the team,but with the goals and outcomes of the team. If the activities of the teomare of intrinsic enjoyment to an individual even though he does not partic-



58

ulary feel a strong sense of commitment to that group, he may indeedvalue his membership while not having a strong sense of belonging.

The somewhat consistent pattern obtained from the different opera-tional definitions lead us to the following conclusion. At the present timeour knowledge of the operational measurement of cohesiveness is not

sufficient to measure only certain components of cohesiveness and haveit significantly discriminate between effective and ineffective teams. Thesedata suggest that individual members are better able to integrate the

components of cohesiveness to determine the level of cohesiveness presentwithin a team.

In reviewing the previous relevant research we find no apparent ex-planation for the contradictory results; nor do we know why the previousresearch has consistently found differences between high and low cohesiveteams when using interpersonal attraction as the criterion and the presentstudy failed to find any difference. However, the significant results

obtained in this study suggest that Gross and Martin’s argument for

a direct assessment of cohesiveness has merit.

Results of the analyses of individual member satisfactions showed

that seven of the eight cohension criteria significantly discriminated be-tween satisfied and unsatisfied teams. These results suggest a circular

relationship between satisfaction, cohesiveness, and success.

Fig. 2. Relationship between cohesiveness, success, and satisfaction.

Those teams who are more cohesive are more successful, and teamswhich are successful have greater satisfaction from participation thanunsuccessful teams. Greater satisfaction, in turn, leads to higher levelsof cohesiveness, thus maintaining a circular relationship. In actuality,though, this cause-effect triangulation is bombarded with a number

of other important factors that may influence this sequence of events.In conclusion, we have found that when cohesiveness is directly

assessed, it is an important determinant of team effectiveness. However,



59

it is not contended that cohesiveness is the primary factor in successfulbasketball performance. The ability of the players and their opponents,the quality of coaching, the officials, and many other factors contributeto the effectiveness of a team. Our finding, however, does suggest thathigher levels of cohesiveness are associated with greater success and

satisfaction.

REFERENCES

Chapman L. J., and Campbell D. T., An attempt to predict the performance ofthree-man teams from attitude measurements, "Journal of Social Psychology",1957, 46, 277-286.

Festinger L., Schachter S., and Back K., Social pressures in informal groups: A studyof a housing project, New York, Harper and Bros., 1950.

Fiedler F. E., The psychological distance dimension in interpersonal relations, "Jour-nal of Personality", 1953, 22, 142-150.

Fiedler F. E., Assumed similarity measures as predictors of team effectiveness,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology", 1954, 49, 381-388.

Gross N. and Martin W. E., On group cohesiveness. "American Journal of Sociology",1952, 57, 546-554.

Klein M. and Christiansen G., "Group composition, group structure and group ef-fectiveness of basketball teams", in Loy J. W. and Kenyon G. S. (eds), Sport,culture, and society, London, The MacMillan Co., 1969, pp. 397-408.

Lenk H., "Top performance despite internal conflict: An antithesis to a function-

alistic proposition", in Loy J. W. and Kenyon G. S. (eds), Sport, culture, and

society, London, The MacMillan Co., 1969, pp. 393—397.

Lott A. J. and Lott B. E., Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A reviewof relationships with antecedent and consequent variables, "Psychological Bul-letin", 1965, 64, 259—309.

McGrath J. E., The influence of positive interpersonal relations on adjustment ef-fectiveness in rifle teams, "Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology", 1962,65, 365-375.

Myers A., Team competition, success, and the adjustment of group members, "Jour-nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology", 1962, 65, 325—332.

Veit Nans., Some remarks upon the elementary interpersonal relations within ball

games teams, paper presented at 2nd International Congress of Sport Psychol-cgy, Washington, D. C., October 1968.

Winer B. J., Statistical Principles In Experimental Design, New York, iVIcGraw-Hill,1962.

rpYI1I10BAH CnAHHHOCTb KAK .l(ETEPMI1HAHT YCIZEXA14 y,n;OBJIETBOPEHJ1H -QJIEHOB KO1VIAHRbI B i4rpE

Pe3K)j<te

HaCTo.qigaR pa6oTa IJaCCMaT~YI$~2T IIpOt7JIeMbI, KaK cKa3aile3i pa3Hbifli ypOSE’I-Ib

rpynnoBoi1: CIIc’1FIHHOCTLI Ha 3cbcbeKTkIBHocTkI J1 HHlJ,HBJ1AyaJIbHOM yAol3iieTBopeHi’lll t.IJIe-

HOB 6aCKeT60flbHbIX KOMaH~, BbIC’fyII3fOIui-I1 B 3c’IIipbIT011 nOMern;eHJ1J1. Pa60Ta ripeg-



60

CTaBfIAeT co6ou cbparmeHT rrporpaMhLbI 6ojiee IIIt1pOKOro I4CCfIefIOBaHKA npe~IIIeCTBYIO-I.IJ;J1X <paKTopOB T4 rIOCJIe,i~CTBLiYI cnaHHHOCTM CnOpTJ1BHbIX rpynn.

Bojiee 1200 cTyAeHTOB KOJIJIe~lI&oelig;i1:, uneHc1B 144 6aCKeroOJIbHbIX KomaHn OTBeTJ1mlHa aHKeTy, CO’CTaBjieHHYIO AJIQ onpe~eJIeHJ1R criasiHHOCTi4. KomaHAbI npI4Hanne*anI4K 24 C0103am B Tpex OKpyrax no TeppHTOpI1aJIbHoMY npI’1H~J1ny. AHKeTa oneiiMBajia

pa3HbIe KOMnoHeHTM CIIaFIHHOCTL2, TaIUIe KaK JIM-qHbIe rIpYIBSi3aHHOCTLI 14 cnjia, J1 co-

~epaeaJIa Bonpocbi, Tpe5yK)LHMe npRMOJ1 O~eHKJ1 co cTOpoHbI uneHoB rpyrlrlosoro B3a-I4MOReYICTBYIfI 14 B3aYIMHOI%I 6JI113OCTM. QJ1CJIO BblJ1rpaHHbIX J1rp onpegeiisiiio 3<PcPeKTHB-HOCTb KOMaH~bI, B TO Bpemq Kah rIOCJIeCS30HHbITQ OIIpOC oi~eHMBaii CTeIIeHb J1H~HBH-

gyaJlbHoro Y~OBJIeTBOpeHJ1R LITI2HOB, KOMaHnBI 6bIJILf nonpa3neneHBI Ha KaTeropI4PI

C H143K-14M, CpeflHI4M 14 BbrcoKi4m ypOBHeM cnaHHHOCTT-1, I7pIZLieM ~1,JIFi Ka:~KAor4 KaTeTOpI4I46bijio Bocemb CTeIIeHeJ1 CIIaRHHOCTJ1. BoceMb OA:30CTOpOHHYIX aHaJIYI30B OTKJiOHeHHM

onpenenanI4 9(p(peKTHBIIOCTb ¡:;:&OElig;~&OElig;H;:J;, B TO Bpema KaK 3X3 aHaJIYI3a OTKJIOHCHMM (TIJLIYPOBHR CIIaRHHOCTJ1 14 TpI4 TeppMTOpMaJIbHbIe OpraHJ13~J1J.1:) onpe~eJIRJII1 Y~OBJIeTBO-

peHize HJICHOB KOMaHA.

Pe3yJIE.TaTbi rIOKa3aJIYI, 14TO oneHKa KOMIIOHeHTOB cnaaHHocTI4 He OTjiPil4aeTCR

memgy no6e*naIomI4MI4 ri IIpOI4rpbIBaloLI~T~IbIYI KoMaHxaMI4. OAHaKO npM i-ip3iMOM OTBeTeo cnanHHoCTM KOMaH).1;bI 60nee cnaRHHbre K0.IIeKTYiBbI BbIHrpaJIH 3aM2TH0 60JIbLLIe lirp,

mem KOMaHRbI CO cpegheri M H1,13KOil cnauHHOCTbio. CeMb 143 Tiliciia BOCbMLI rIOKa3aTe-

JIei1: cnaaHHocTI4 yKa3bIBaIOT, Tro KOMaHRbI C BbICOKO:I1: CriaFiHHOCTbIU 5bIJIH 6ojiee

Y~OBJIeTBOpeHbI CB0I4M y-qaCTJ1eM B Krpax, ~IeM KOM2H,I~bI CO CpeAHTII~2 I2 HYI3KI4M ypOB-Hem CIIaRHHOCTI1.

. DIE GRUPPENZUGEHCSRIGKEIT ALS DETERMINANTE DESERFOLGS UND DER GENUGTUUNG BEI MANNSCHAFTSSPIELEN

Zusammenfassung

Als Teil eines grbsseren Plans zur Untersuchung des Ursprungs und der Konse-quenzen des Zusammengeh6rigkeitsgefilhls in Sportgruppen stellten sich diese For-schungen die Aufgabe festzustellen, ob eine unterschiedlich stark ausgeprdgte Grup-penzugehbrigkeit einen Einfluss auf die Leistungsfdhigkeit und die Genugtuung deseinzelnen Gruppenmitglieds innerhalb von Korbball-Hochschulmannschaften hatte.

Mehr als 1200 mannliche Studenten, Mitglieder von 144 Korbball-Mannschaftenbeantworteten Frageb6gen, die sich die Aufgabe stellten, das Zusammengehbrig-keitsgefuhl zu messen. Diese Mannschaften geh6rten 24 Sportvereinen ein, die auI

territorialer Basis aufgebaut waren. Der Fragebogen bezog sich auf Berschiedene

Komponenten des Zugehorigkeitsgefuhls, wie die Anziehungskraft und Stdrke zwi-schenmenschlicher Beziehungen, und stellte ebenfalls die Frage, wie die Grup-penmitglieder ihre Zusammenarbeit und Nahe einschatzten. Die Zahl der gewon-nenen Spiele zeugte von der Leistungsfdhigkeit der Mannschaft, wahrend ein Fra-gebogen nach der Spielsaison die Stufe der Genugtuung der einzelnen Mannschafts-mitglieder einschatzen sollte. Die Mannschaften wurden in solche mit einem niedri-gen, durchschnittlichen und hohen Niveau des Zusammengehorigkeitsgefuhls ge-

gliedert, und das Zusammengehorigkeitsgefuhl der Mitglieder hatte acht Abstufun-gen. Acht in einer Richtung verlaufende Variantenanalysen bestimmten die Leist-

ungsfahigkeit der Mannschaft, wdhrend 3 XI 3 Variantanalysen (drei Stufen des Zu-



61

sammengehorigkeitsgefuhls und drei territoriale Organisationen) die Genungtuungder Mitglieder bezeichneten.

Die Ergebnisse erwiesen, dass bei der Einschdtzung der einzelnen Komponentendes Zusammengehorigkeitsgefuhls zwischen gewinnenden und verlierenden Mann-schaften kein Unterschied bestand. Dennoch war es offensichtlich, dass bei einerdirekten Frage uber das Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl in der Mannschaft solche miteinem hohen Niveau dieser Zusammengeh6rigkeit viel mehr Spiele gewonnenhatten als solche mit einem durchschnittlichen oder niedrigen Zusammengehorig-keitsgefühl. Sieben von acht Abstufungen der Zusammengeh6rigkeit zeugten davon,dass Mannschaften mit einem hohen Grad das Zusammengehorigkeitsgefuhls viel

mehr Genugtuung uber ihre Teilnahme am Spiel hatten als Mannschaften mit einemdurchschnittlichen oder niedrigen Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl.

LA COHRRENCE EN GRUPES COMME LE DETERMINANT DU SUCCES ET DELA SATISFACTION DES MEMBRES PENDANT LES PERFORMANCES

EN EQUIPS

R6sum6

Etant une des phases d’un plus large projet examinant les causes et les con-

s6quences de la coh6rencedes groupes sportifs, cette etude a determine combien

les diff6rents niveaux de la coh6rence des groupes influaient sur 1’efficacit6 et la

satisfaction individuelle parmi les membres des ~quipes de basket-ball.Plus de 1200 6tudiants des colleges, membres de 144 6quipes de basket-ball, ont

r6pondu a un questionnaire destine pour mesurer la coherence. Les 6quipes partici-paient dans 24 matches de ligue, en trois divisions, selom leur appartenancer6sidentielle. Le questionnaire determinait les differents elements de la coherence,comme; l’attraction inter-personnelle, la force. 11 demandait aussi l’oppinion directedes membres au sujet du travail de 1’6quipe et de la cordialité. Le nombre dese

matches gagnes determinait 1’efficacit6 des 6quipes, pendant que le questionnairedeterminait le degr6 de la satisfaction individuelle des membres. Les 6quipes etaientclassees comme: peu, mod6r6ment et tres coherentes pour chaque de ces huit me-sures de coherence. Les huit unidirectionnelles analyses d6terminaient 1’efficacit6

des 6quipes, alors que 3 X’3 analyses (3 niveaux de coherence et 3 organisationsr6sidentielles) determinaient la satisfaction des membres.

Les r6sultats ont montre qu’il n’y avait pas de diff6rence entre les equipesgagnantes et perdantes quand il s’agissait des elements de la coh6rence. Cependant,quand on a demande directement de la coh6rence des equipes - celles tres cohe-rentes ont gagn6 remarquablement plus de matches que les 6quipes peu et mo-

dérément coherentes. Sept de ces huit mesures de coh6rence ont indiqu6 que les

6quipes tres coh6rentes étaient visiblement beaucoup plus satisfaites de leur par-

ticipation que les equipes peu et modérément coherentes.



group success member satisfaction in performance · 2016. 8. 9. · intramurals. the...

Documents