Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Group dynamics II
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Group dynamics II

431

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
431
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Group Dynamics related to sport performance II Sports Psychology A2
  • 2. Group coordination and cooperation Answer on a separate sheet of paper. 3 minutes TASK 1: How can lack of cooperation within a sports team lead to problems with team coordination? Provide a sporting example to illustrate your answer. Think about... What is cooperation? How does it help or hinder in a sporting situation?
  • 3. Topic aims: By the end of this topic you should be able to: 1. Describe the nature of a group/team (mutual awareness, interaction, common goal). 2. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of Steiner’s model of group performance (awareness of problems associated with productivity of a group/team). 3. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of motivational factors(social loafing); coordination/cooperation factors (Ringelmann effect) and explain the negative influences on behaviour that cause dysfunctional behaviour and avoidance of an active and healthy lifestyle. 4. Explain the factors affecting the formation and development of a cohesive group/team. FIRST WE NEED TO SORT THE ROOM OUT
  • 4. The Ringelmann Effect As group size increases there may be a decline of individual effort and eventual productivity. This phenomenon was first noted by Ringelmann. (The Ringelmann Effect)
  • 5. The Ringelmann effect Ringelmann observed a ‘tug – of war’ competition during the nineteenth century; watching events that included two to eight competitors. The main points to remember are that he found: As the groups got bigger individual effort decreased. Instead of eight men pulling eight times as hard as one, the group averaged pulling four times as hard as one man. Therefore he found an inverse (opposing) relationship between the number of people performing the task and the amount of effort put in by each of them. Later research by Ingham et al linked this relationship to a decrease in motivation rather than its initial link by Ringelmann to lack of coordination.
  • 6. Ringelmann and Steiner...LINK TASK 5: Use your knowledge and understanding of Steiner’s model of productivity and the Ringelmann effect to write a short paragraph which links the two pieces of research; drawing the concept of social loafing. Think about: Where the two theories crossover? What is social loafing? How can you combine them in an explanation which leads to you to social loafing.
  • 7. Ringelmann and Steiner...LINK Steiner suggested that lack of actual productivity is a result of faulty group processes; which he categorised in to two aspects: Coordination losses and Motivational losses. Ringelmann’s research has shown that actual performance decreases with an increase in group size due to lack of individual effort; Ingham later suggested that this was due to the motivational losses that Steiner’s identified in his model of productivity. This loss in actual group productivity (performance) is more likely due to reduced motivation (rather than Ringelmanns suggestion of low coordination) has been termed Social Loafing.
  • 8. Social Loafing Social Loafing: An individual who attempts to ‘hide’ when placed in group situations and fails to perform to their potential. Research in to explaining social loafing by Latane, Harkins and Williams (1979) proposed that performers demonstrated both allocation strategies and minimising strategies. Allocation Strategies: performers are motivated to work hard in groups but save their best for when they are performing alone or under close scrutiny when it personally benefits them more. Minimising Strategies: performers are motivated to give as much or as little (minimum) effort in order to ‘get by’ and achieve the task.
  • 9. Homework: Next Thursday 1. Describe a situation from sport that provides opportunities for performers to ‘loaf’. 2. Using this example; explain possible reasons why performers may choose to ‘loaf’. 3. Using the sporting example you have given. Identify four strategies that a coach/teacher could use to minimise the impact of social loafing and the Ringelmann effect. 4. If the coach/teacher did not attempt to reduce social loafing and the Ringelmann effect; what impact might this have on performers sustaining a healthy and active lifestyle?
  • 10. Homework: Next Thursday 1. Describe a situation from sport that provides opportunities for performers to ‘loaf’. 2. Using this example; explain possible reasons why performers may choose to ‘loaf’. 3. Using the sporting example you have given. Identify four strategies that a coach/teacher could use to minimise the impact of social loafing and the Ringelmann effect. 4. If the coach/teacher did not attempt to reduce social loafing and the Ringelmann effect; what impact might this have on performers sustaining a healthy and active lifestyle?

×