What are the indefinite qualitiesthatturna collectionof disparate individualsintothe hopefullypurposeful,cohesive
unitthat we call a ‘team’? Whatis the processthat bringsusto the pointwhere ourinteractionswiththe othersinthe
teamare settled,where there are some positivesbetweenmembersof the team, a distinctidentityexiststhatdefines
our teamas a unitandthere isa sharedunderstandingof purpose of whatthe teamis tryingtoachieve?Thisiswhat
GROUP COHESION isall about,anda model putforwardbyTuckman (1965) tracesthe processof movingfromthat
collectionof individualsintowhatwe recognizeasa team!
Bruce Tuckman publishedhis FormingStormingNormingPerforming model in1965. He addeda fifthstage,
A thinktankof social psychologists,of whichTuckmanwasa part,was lookingatsmall groups and organizational
behaviouratthe navel Medical ResearchInstitute,Bethesda,MarylandUSA.Altmanhadbeencollectingarticleson
groupdevelopmentandgave themtoTuckman to see if anypatternsemerged.Tuckman(1965) reportedidentifying
fourstages:orientation/testing/dependence,conflict,groupcohesion,functional role-relatedness.Forthese he evolved
the terms:‘forming’,‘storming’,‘norming’and‘performing’,andproposedhisstage theoryof groupdevelopment.
In the Formingstage,teammembersare introduced.They
cautiouslyexplore the boundariesof acceptablegroup
behaviour.Thisisastage of transitionfromindividual to
memberstatus,andof testingthe leader'sguidance both
Definingthe tasksandhowtheywill be
Difficultyinidentifyingsome of the relevant
Because there issomuch goingon to distractmembers'
attentioninthe beginning,the teamaccomplisheslittle,if
In the Stormingphase membershave theirownideasasto
how the processshouldlook,andpersonal agendasare
rampant.Stormingisprobablythe mostdifficultstage for
the team. Theybegintorealise the tasksare differentand
impatientaboutthe lackof progressand argue aboutwhat
actionsthe team shouldtake.Theytryto impose their
of the otherteammembers.
the real issues
Thismeansmembershave little energytospendon
they ARE beginningtounderstandone another.
The Normingphase iswhenthe teamreachesagreement
on whatthe processwill be.Everyone wantstobe part of
the newagreement.Membersare enthusiasticandmay
be temptedtogo beyondthe original aimsandobjectives.
accept the team,teamgroundrules,theirrolesinthe
team,and the individualityof fellow members.Emotional
become more cooperative.
Acceptance of membershipinthe team
An attempttoachieve harmonybyavoiding
sharingof personal problems
A sense of teamcohesion,spirit,andgoals
theynowhave more time and energytospendonthe
The team has now settledintoitsrelationshipsand
changes.Atlast teammembershave discoveredand
Membershave insightsintopersonal andgroup
Close attachmenttothe team
The team isnow an effective andefficientunit.Youcantell
whenyourteamhas reachedthisstage because youstart
gettinga lotof workdone!!!!
Tuckman's fifthstage,Adjourning,isthe break-upof the group,whentheirtaskiscompletedsuccessfully,everyonecan
move onto newthings,feelinggoodaboutwhat'sbeenachieved. Recognitionof,andsensitivityto,people'sfeelingsin
the adjourningstage isextremelyimportantparticularlyif membersof the grouphave beencloselybondedastheymay
feel asense of insecurityorthreatfromthischange.These feelingsare perfectlynormal forpeoplewhohave been
Social loafingdescribes thephenomenon that occurs when individualsexertless
effort when working as a group than when working independently. Research
indicates thatthere is some degree of social loafingwithin every group, whether
Latane, B., Williams,K.,& Harkins,S. (1979).Many Hands Make Light The Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing.
Method – Latane et al,wanted to replicateRingleman’s work conceptually.On eight occasions,6 undergraduatemales studying
introductory psychology from Ohio State University were invited to help the experimenter’s judge how much noisepeople make i n the
social settings.The participants wereasked to judge cheering and applause,and also to judgehow loud these seem to those who hear
The participants wereasked to:
(1) Clap or cheer as loudly as possiblefor 5 seconds
(2) Judge noises.Both performers and observers were asked to guess how much noisehad been produced.
After some practicethere 36 trialsof yellingand 36 trials of clappingalone,in pairsand in groups of 4 and 6. The order of these trials
was counterbalanced.Measures were taken by a General Radio Sound Level Meter at 4m form each performer.
The noiseproduced did not grow in proportion to the number of people. The average sound pressuregenerated per person
decreased with increasinggroup size(p<0.001).
Two-person groups performed at only 71% of the sum of their individual capacity
Four persons groups at 51%
Six person groups at 40%
As in pullingropes in the Ringleman’s study, it appears that when itcomes to clappingand shoutingmany hands do, in fact make light
Aspects of Cohesion
W have so far consideredthe processbywhichateam or groupformsand develops,andhow ateamcan sufferinlosso
overall performance.However,the real questionishow togetherthatgroupis andhow unitedthe teamis.Groupsare
social unitsandcohesionis the glue thatbondsthemtogether.Cohesionisthe constructwhichrepresentsthatstrength
of the social bondwithinthe group.Groupcohesion hasbeenexploredbyCarron& Bennet(1977) and Carron&
Chellandurai (1981& 1982)
Carron (1982) – CohesivenessinSportsGroups
Carron broke hisperceptionsof cohesioninsportintofourareas
The theoretical framework
General Theoretical Perspective
Thisderivesfromthe workof Festingeret al (1963),
Theysaidthat to understandgroupdynamicsandhow
(a) The sourcesof rewards
(b) The meansto achievingthe rewards
These notionshave beendevelopedtobe considered
as two components,namelysocial cohesionandtask
Sports Research Perspective
While theoryacknowledgesthatthere are two
operationallydefinedasone general dimension.
E.g. Martenset al’ssport cohesiveness questionnaire
degree of friendshiporinterpersonal attractionamong
groupmembers,the sense of belonging,andthe level
of teamworkperceivedtobe presentinthe group.The
emphasisonsocial cohesiontypifiesthe measuresthat
Issuesof validityprevail,byemphasizing social
Otherfactors thatinduce cohesivenessare
overlooked,suchasthe goalsand objectives
Alsogroupsthat have lowlevel attractionand
formationcan occur because peopleshare similar
valuesortheycan see a clear goal-path.
There isno agreedsingle,general conceptof
Carron has broughttogethervariouspartsof an
Audience effectreferstoa change inperformance broughtaboutbythe presence of others.Anaudiencemaybe
passive,asinyourfamilywatchingyoupractice at home,or a stadiumfull of spectators.Alternativelytheymaybe co-
acting,that is,takingpart inthe activityeithercompetitivelyorco-operatively.
Triplett(1898) – The first Social,Sport PsychologyExperiment
cyclingtrials underthree conditions.
Condition1 – cyclistswere toldtorace individually
Condition2 – Theywere toldto race together,but
Condition3 –Theywere sentoff togetherand
The fastesttime wasrecordedfor the competinggroup,but
than the individuals
Reliability– because the studyisdated,itis
experimental conditionswere used.
Generalisability–All cyclists,butall sports
Key Study – Cottrell et al (1968) – The Effectsof an Audience Versusthe Effectsof the ‘Mere Presence’ofothers.
Aim- Cottrell aimedtoshowthatthe studybyZajonc (the nextone afterthis) notionof the mere presenceof an
audience,overlookedthe impactfromthataudience.He therefore setouttocompare a taskcarriedout witha
blindfoldedaudience (merepresence)withone carriedoutwithanon-blindfoldedaudience.
Sample – A total of 45 introductorypsychologyuniversitystudentsperformedaspseudo-recognitiontask;
15 performedthe tasksalone.
15 before anbefore anaudience of twopassive spectators
15 before anaudience of twowhowere notspectatorsand were blindfolded.
Apparatus and Materials– The stimuli were tennonsense words –AFWORBU,BIWONJI,CIVADRA,JTEVKANI,
LOKANTA,MECBURI, NANSOMA,PARITAF,SARIDIKandZABDLON.The participantswere show the wordsona4x6
inchphotoof each word.Theywere thentestedusing2x2 inchslidesof eachwordon a projectorcalleda
TACHISTOSCOPE(a typeof projectorthatshowsan imagefora specific but adjustableperiod time).A stopwatchwas
usedto time the stagesof the experiment.
Procedure - Words were practiced andpseudo-recognitiontrialswerestarted.
Subjectswere tolditwasa studyof how people learnaforeignlanguage.Hence the strange words.
The numberof responsesinthe pseudo-recognitiontrialswasrecorded,givingthe dependentvariable
There were three conditionsof the independentvariable
o In the alone condition- the subjectwasalone inthe room duringtesting.
o In the audience condition–twoconfederatesposingasfellow introductorypsychologystudents
arrivedinthe experimental room earlyforasupposedcolour-perceptionexperiment.Theywere
allowedtowatchthe presentexperimentwhile waitingfortheirandthusbecame anaudience.
o The mere presence condition- wasthe same as the audience condition,exceptthe confederates
were askedtoput on blindfoldsinpreparationfortheir(alleged) forthcomingexperiment.
As can be seenformthe figure below,mere presenceandalone produce asimilarlevel of response,butthe audience
conditionstandsoutas having a significantlygreaternumberof responses.Thissuggeststhatmere presence,as
Zajoncsuggested,isnotsufficienttoaffectperformance, butthe audience needstobe involved.Active oratleast
alert.The findingsare alsosuggestingthatmere presencedoesinfactincrease the individual’sgeneral drive.
On the pseudo-recognitiontrails the presence of anaudience enhancedthe emissionof dominantresponses(the
response thatsupersedesthe otherpossible responses).However,the mere presence of otherpersonsof the same
statusand in the same physical proximityasthe audience didnotenhance the emissionof dominantresponses.
Key Study – Zajonc (1969)- Cockroach Studies
Zajonchas conductedmanystudies; mostof hisworkis basedondrive andarousal.He claimedthatan audience
producesarousal ina performer.Thisheightensthe dominant response.Withasimple,familiarorwell learnedtask,
thisincrease inarousal will heightenperformance(explainingsocial facilitation).Withanovel,unfamiliarorcomplex
task,thisincrease inarousal will impair/diminishperformance (explaining social inhibition)
Zajoncpresentedsome intriguingevidence insupportof histheory.He turnedhisattentiontocockroaches,andthe
fact that theyare repelledbylight.Zajoncsetupa cockroach runin whichhe placeda lightat one end.
Participants – 72 adultfemale cockroaches.
1. The alone condition- Whenthe lightwas turnedon,the cockroach ran away fromthe lightas quicklyas
possible.Zajonctimeshowlongittool toreach the endof the run. He calculatesan average of tentrials.
2. Co-actingCondition– He placedtwocockroachesinthe run, and againtimedhow quickly theyrantothe end.
He calculatedthe average of tentrials.
3. Non-coactingaudience condition- Zajoncbuiltacockroachgrandstand.Thiswas Perspex housingwith
compartmentsjustlarge enoughtofitone cockroach,thoughnot large enoughforthemto turn around.This
was placedbythe side of the run and so formedanon-coactingaudience of cockroaches.Again,Zajoncplaced
a cockroach in the run.And timedhow quicklyitranthe run, calculatinganaverage of tentrails.
4. The three conditionsabove were repeatedusingacockroach maze insteadof a cockroach run. Thiswas
complex asopposedtoa simple task,hence affectingthe dominantresponse.
Results- Taking the lone cockroachin a cockroach run as a benchmark,the cockroachesinfrontof the grandstand
(the non-coactingaudience) werefaster,whilethe coactingcockroaches,runningagainsteachother,ranfaster!
Takingthe lone cockroach ina cockroachmaze as a benchmark,the cockroachesinfrontof the grandstand(the non-
coacting audience) wereslower,while the coactingcockroaches,runningagainsteachother,ranthe slowest.
Conclusions –The firstthingZajonc suggest isthatthe presence of otherincreasesarousal.Whena task issimple,
familiarorwell learned,thisarousal enhances‘goodperformance,whichisthe dominantresponseinthisinstance.
Whena task is novel,complex orunfamiliar,itenhancespoorperformance ,whichisthe dominantresponseinthis
instance. The cockroachrun demonstratesthe formerandthe cockroachmaze the latter.
Figure 1 Graph to show the level of
response in the alone, mere presence and
layout of the
Zajonc et al (1969)
While we mayobserve animprovementinperformance infrontof anaudience,andthe nature of the audience beyond
‘mere presence’maybe important, we mayalsoobserve the phenomenonwhereby,tovaryingdegrees,there isan
advantage inplaying‘athome’infrontof youraudience of spectators.Whetherornotthisobservationcanbe
supportedbydocumentedevidence and,if sowhythisshouldbe,wasstudiedbySchwartzandBarsky(1977)
Validity– the studyissupportedbylotsof studiesthathighlightthe effectsof anaudience
Generalisability–Poor, difficulttoextrapolate from cockroaches!
Reductionist– The studyhighlightsthatthe audience effectisbiological orinnate –not really…..probablymore
Application– Good– can helpimprove sportsperformance bytrainingathletesinfrontof an audience
Key Study – Schwartz & Barsky (1977) – Home Advantage.
Included 1880 major league baseball games played in 1971.This represents 97% of all games played that year in the
American and National Leagues.
Also recorded were home team outcomes for all 182 games played in 1971 in the professional American and National
Same information was gathered from 910 games played by 182 collegefootball teams in 1971.
Data gathered from 542 played in both divisionson the National Hockey League in he 1971/72 season – this includes
87% of all the games played that year.
1485 collegebasketball games played by the Philadelphia area Big5 teams over a 16 year period (1952-66)
Home victories exceed 50% of all games won
The advantage of playingathome differs from one sportto another.
SPORT (percentage of games won by the home team in baseball, football and hockey)
BASEBALL PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE HOCKEY
Home Team Outcome 1971 1971 1971 1971-72
WIN 53 55 59 53
LOSE 47 41 40 30
TIE 4 1 17
TOTAL 100 100 100 100
The home advantageis atits most decisivein the indoor arenas of basketball and icehockey.
It is leastdecisivein baseball,where the home team won 53%.
The success athome seems largely attributableto offensive(attacking) play rather than better defensive play.In
addition,a hostilecrowd can bringabout deterioration in the play of the away team rather than improve the
performance of the home team, suggestingthat an away disadvantagemay accountfor the home advantage.
The Arousal theory goes a longway to explainingthefindings.The home effect is most pronounced when a strongteam
hosts a weak team; the damage is most pronounced for the away team when the task is difficult,thatis playingaway
for a strong team. Ironically therefore, successful performanceis affected not only by an athlete’s skill and abilities but
also the number an enthusiasmf their well-wishers.
Home advantageis most apparent in the indoor sports of ice hockey and basketball,leastso in the outdoor sports of
baseball and football.
The major factor in home advantagefor all sports is moreeffective offensive play rather than defensive action.
Playingathome or away is as stronga correlateof a team’s performance as is the quality of its players.
Home advantageis almosttotally independent of visitor fatigueand lack of familiarity with the home playingarea.
Away disadvantageis often as significantan explanation as homeadvantage. This may also be explained by arousal
Leadership & Coaching
Leadershipiswhere anindividualleadsordirectsthe activitiesorbehaviourof a
grouptowards a sharedgoal.In the sportssettingthiscan be the leadershipof an
organization,teamorclub.Coachinginvolvesaveryspecifictype of leadership
wherebyone personencouragesthe developmentof skillsinindividualsandina
Trait and Type Theories
Key Study- Stogdill (1948)- Great Man Theory
An initial question when considering leadership is whether leaders are born or made. The notion that some people are born with
the qualities essential to leadership is the trait approach. Know as the ‘Great Man’ Theory. Many researchers have suggested and
studied this approach to explain leadership. An attempt is made here to consider the characteristics of leaders . Stogdill researched
many articles on leadership and the trait approach and extracted the relevant data in his quest to find consistency and patterns.
Data was obtained from various groups by various methods, giving a broad range of social composition and of different
1. Observation and time sampling of behaviour in group situations –The behaviour of two or more individualsis observed in
situations which permit the emergence of leaders.
2. Choice of associates (voting, naming, ranking, sociometrics) – Members of a group are asked to name the person whom
they would prefer as a leader, possibly describing the characteristics which make them a desirable leader.
3. Nomination by qualified observer- Leaders are named by those in a formal position to identify group leaders such as
teachers, club leaders, or other adult observers.
4. Selection of person occupying position of leadership – Leadership is regarded as the same as holding office or an
appointed position of responsibility.
5. Analysis of biographical and case history data- most of these studies were based on the analysis of biographical data.
6. The listing of traits considered essential to leadership- different groups, such as business executives and members of the
professions, were asked to list the traits which they believed essential to leadership.
7. Supplementary aspects – various methods have been employed to determine the traits associated with leadership. Most
frequently used are tests of intelligence and personality but we also find questionnaires, rating scales and interviews.
Chronological Age – Leaders are found to be younger in 6 studies and older in 10 studies – otherwise age has no effect.
Height – A weak positive correlation was found to be taller in 9 studies and 2 studies they were shorter. (Gandhi, Hitler)
Weight – A weak positive correlation was found between weight and leadership – leaders are heavier (7 studies)
Physique, energy, health – Leaders have superior physique –however no consistent relationship.
Appearance- some evidence – leaders present a better appearance
Fluency of speech- Most consistently by leaders- ‘confident tone of voice’ or ‘pleasant voice’ , ‘talkativeness’.
Intelligence- leaders are brighter.
Scholarship and Knowledge- with a high degree of uniformity leaders are found to better grades than non-leaders and
have better knowledge of how to get things done.
Conclusion – Stogdill’s research is a good example of many studies that have been conducted into identifying which traits typify the
quality o ‘leader’. However, there is little consistency to suggest that a leader in one situation will inevitably be a good leader in a
different situation.This lack of a consistentset of qualities to identify a good leader in all situations has always render ed the ‘GREAT
LEADER’ approach short on credibility.
Lewinetal (1939) lookedat10 yearoldboys ina model-makingclub.Theirleaderswere autocratic,democraticor
laissez-faire.The groupwiththe autocraticleaderproducedthe most, butproductiondeclinedandconflictensuedwhen
the leaderleftthe room.The groupwiththe democraticleaderproducedalittle lessthatthe autocraticgroup,but
continuedproductivelywhenthe leaderwasnotpresent.The laissez-fairegroupexperiencedlow productionlevelsand
much more conflict thanthe othergroups.The leaderof the groupchangedon a 5 weeklybasisandwhattheyfound
was thatthe behaviourof the groupchangedtoo.
What makes a successful leader?
Fieldler(1964) suggestedthatthe traitapproachalone couldneveraccountfor leadership,asleadershipwascontingent
(dependent) uponanumberof factors.He identifiedleadersasperson-orientatedortaskorientated,asmeasuredby
howwell they goton withtheir‘leastpreferredco-worker’.Chellandurai (1978)effectivelyappliedthistosport.
Key Study – Chelladurai (1978) Multi-Dimensional Model of Leadership.
Thispiece of researchisattemptto identifywhat these contingenciesare andhow theyinteractto explainthe
questionof whatmakesa goodleaderinsport.Chelladurai (1978) identifiesthree possible leaderbehaviours,as
PrescribedLeaderBehaviour – confirmsandconformstothe normsand expectationsof the organisationinwhich
leadershipisbeingexamined.Itisbehaviourthatisprescribesbythe authorityof the institution.E.g ‘Thecaptain of
the England cricket teamsits on theBoard of selectors,and his role requires him to turn up when the board meets.
This situation determinesthis behaviour.
PreferredLeaderBehaviour- is whatthe team memberswouldchoose theirleaderthave.Itmay alsomean
preferredasinpreferable,asa teamwhose confidencewaslow wouldneedaleaderwhowaspraising,encouraging
and gave themsome self-belief.Therefore the teammembers’preferencesorneedsdetermine thisbehaviour,
althoughthe situationcouldhave animpactas well.
Actual Leader Behaviour- istangible behaviourthatthe leaderreallydisplays,irrespective of the prescribedor
preferredbehaviour.Thisisdeterminedbythe leader’straitsandinnate characteristics.
Chelladurai suggeststhatdifferenttypesof leaderbehaviourdisplayedtogethershouldbe calledcongruence.
Whenprescribed,actual andpreferred leadershipare all incongruentthenalaissez-faire outcome should
ensue. (sowhennoqualitiesare met,theyshouldall justgetonwithit)
Whenprescribedandpreferredleadershipare congruentbutthe leader’sactual behaviourisincongruentto
these, thenthe removal of the leaderisonthe card (leadercan’tlead…..thentime togo)
Whenpreferredleadershipiscongruentwithactual leadershipbutthe prescribedleadershipbehaviouris
incongruent,the teamwill experience satisfactionbutperformance maysuffer.
Whenprescribedleadershipiscongruentwithactual leadershipbutthe preferredleadershipbehaviouris
incongruenttothese,thensuccessful performance islikelybutatthe expense of teamsatisfaction.
Onlywhenall three are congruentwill idealperformance andsatisfactionbe promoted.
Prescribed Actual Preferred Laissez-faire
Prescribed+Preferred Actual Removal of leader
Actual + Preferred Prescribed Team Satisfaction
Actual + Prescribed Preferred Successful performance
Prescribed +Actual + Preferred Ideal Performance andsatisfaction
Coachinginvolvesthe transmissionof skillsforapplicationtothe sportingsituation,andreliesonthe coach’sabilityto
effectivelyimpactthe knowledgenecessaryforsuccessful participation.
Key Study – Smith et al (1977)Coach Effectiveness Training
Baseball coaches in a children’s leaguefromSeattle, USA engaged in a pre-season trainingprogramme. Success was defined as
being ableto relate effectively rather than solely improvein a win/loss count. The programme was based on previously identified
cognitive-behavioural guidelines and measured usingthe 12-category coachingbehaviour assessmentsystem (CBAS). The effects
of the trainingprogramme on coach behaviours and player perceptions,attitudes and self-esteem were assessed.
The hypothesis was that differences in attitudes towards trained versus untrained coaches would be most pronounced for
children with low self-esteem.
31 Seattle-area male Little League Baseball coaches –from three leagues, involved at a major level - 10-12 year olds and
senior level – 13-15 year olds.
18 of the participants were in the experimental condition and attended the trainingsession
13 of the participants were in the control condition,so they had no treatment.
The mean ages of the coaches was 36 years with an average of 8 years experience.
The training sessions
Lasted for 2 hours
Participantswere presented with guidelines developed from previous research.
The goal of the guidelines was to increasepositiveinteractionsbetween coach and players and team mates and reduce
fear of failure.
The guidelines were designed to increasethe coaches awareness of their own behaviour,and focus attention on the
Behavioural feedback was provided in terms of the 12 behavioural categories in the coachingand behavioural
The coaches were observed duringthe first2 weeks of the season by trained coders.
Coaches from the experimental group and he control group were compared in terms of observed behaviours (observed
by 16 undergraduates trained for 4 weeks, by means of the CBAS), players’perceptions,players’attitudes to
themselves, the coaches,team-mates and the sport. Self esteem was also assessed.
Comparability of experimental and control coaches
On player-perceived behaviours,there were no significantdifferences in any of the 12 behaviour categories.
A total of 26,412 behaviours were coded duringgame observations.
The trainer group increased their self esteem score from 51 to 52.5, whereas the control group’s self esteem scorefell
from 52 to 50.7
The greatest change in attitudes was found in those whose self-esteem was low.
Mean winningfor trained coaches was 54.5%. Control group was 44.7%.
The results of the present study indicatethat the experimental trainingprogramme exerted a significantand positive
influenceon coachingbehaviours,player-perceived behaviours and children’s attitudes to their coaches,team-mates
and other aspects of athletics performance. A positivechange was also observed in children who played for the trained
Reactive Behaviours Desirable performances Positive reinforcement
Mistakes/Errors Mistake contingent encouragement
Mistake contingent technical
Misbehaviours Keeping control
Spontaneous behaviours Game-related General technical instruction
Game-irrelevant General communication