a “we” in “team” investigation of team cohesion and success in baseball

8/3/2019 A We in Team Investigation of Team Cohesion and Success in Baseball

1/23

Team Cohesion and Success 1

Running head: TEAM COHESION

A We in Team? Investigation of Team Cohesion and Success in Baseball

Adam Revelette

University of Kentucky


2/23


Abstract

This study investigates the effect of team cohesion on success in baseball. It also examines the

relationship team cohesion and success has between high school, collegiate, and professional

levels of competition. Results demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between team

cohesion and success in baseball. The more cohesive a team is, therefore, the more likely it will

succeed. High school players showed the strongest correlation between team cohesion and

success, while professional players reported the weakest. Collegiate athletes, in this particular

study, recorded a negative correlation between team cohesion and success. Implications of these

conclusions are discussed, along with directions for possible future research studying team

cohesion and success in athletics.

A We in Team? An Investigation of Team Cohesion and Success in Baseball

In the world of sports, people are always looking to gain an upper hand on their

competition. With the recent developments in training programs and facilities throughout the

country, athletes of all ages now have the opportunity to train year-round for their sport(s). The

discipline of sport psychology has grown considerably since its inception, and is relatively

available to some extent for all young athletes. These changes have resulted in a diminishing

gap between the mental and physical abilities of athletes in all levels of competition. With this

knowledge, more people have turned to the development of the team concept in sports to further

aid their own abilities and opportunities. The push for team cohesion within the world of sports

has become more and more popular in recent times.

The implementation of the concept of team cohesion is not solely linked to athletics.

Nearly all businesses and organizations have some form of team-building to promote cooperation

and teamwork within their community of employees. Because of its wide spectrum of uses,


3/23


'team cohesion' is often loosely (and sometimes incorrectly) defined. One of the purposes of this

study was to find a consistent, working definition of the concept of team cohesion. Being able to

research, explain, and define this concept makes it easier to implement it within the world of

sports. Specifically, this study will focus on the effect team cohesion has upon team success in

baseball.

In high school, collegiate, and professional baseball, athletes are becoming more and

more equal in their physical and mental abilities. Elite high school players are now able to skip

an entire yearof eligibility to move on and compete in college, while some choose to pass over

college and sign to play professionally. Regardless of the initial talent level of an athlete, there is

a growing consistency in the general physical and mental abilities in baseball today. Because of

this, these athletes, along with coaches, parents, and team's organizational members are now

trying to reinforce the team concept in their sport. If this study is able to suggest that there is a

positive correlation between team cohesion and team success in baseball, it will provide these

athletes and the people that have interest in their success with another tool to gain the so-called

'edge' strived for in sports.

Literature Review

In order to conduct a study examining the correlation between team cohesion and

success, it was important to clearly define several key variables. The concept of team cohesion

was the center of attention during the research process. Mullen and Copper (1994) reassured the

process, claming that it "seems reasonable to expect that a cohesive group will exhibit successful

task performance" (p. 210). Continued research provided numerous consistent variables, many

of which were included in the review.

Leadership. Researchers concurred that necessary leadership was required for team


4/23


cohesion (and success) to occur. In order for many athletes to feel comfortable in a competitive

setting, it is necessary for them to be able to trust their teammates. If no work is done to form

this relationship amongst teammates, then it is likely that the team will not reach its full

potential. Presence of trust in leadership, however, provides justification for the importance of

management practices, such as leadership development and team building (Dirks, 2000).

Other researchers went as far as including leadership and its characteristics as a variable

in their study. Shields, Gardner, Bredemeier and Bostro (1997) used the ability to identify

leadership characteristics as a measure to examine the relationship between leadership behaviors

and team cohesion. Using Chelladurai and Carron's (1978) Multidimensional Model of

Leadership, they predicted leadership behaviors among athletes within teams of varying

cohesion. In fact, Shields et al. (1997) supported their hypothesis that participants playing on

teams with high levels of cohesion were able to identify similar leadership characteristics more

consistently than athletes on teams with low levels of cohesion.

The consistency, depth, and amount of research conducted on leadership suggest that it is

a vital part of team cohesion. This variable was integral in the decision making process that was

involved in selecting Carron, Brawley and Widmeyer's (2002) Group Environment

Questionnaire. This 17-item survey contained several questions involving leadership and its

qualities within the team setting.

Sacrifice Behavior. Sacrifice behavior did not appear to be an immensely popular

variable when researching team cohesion, however it did provide integral information when

considering the team as a whole. One particular group of researchers defined sacrifice behavior

as "individual behavior that involves voluntarily initiating an action or giving up prerogative or

privilege for the sake of another person or persons without regard to reciprocity" (Prapavessis &


5/23


Carron, 1997, p. 234).

Unfortunately, much of the world's focus today is on selfish decisions that people make,

and the concept of sacrifice behavior is relatively hard to come by. Within most perennially

successful sports teams, however, it is possible to find such behavior. Aside from the desire to

win, researchers suggest that this conformity without regard to reciprocity is due to a need for

belonging. Once an athlete is committed to a team, he/she feels a need to belong, which is

characterized by two criteria: a need for frequent, pleasant interactions with others, and a

temporarily stable framework of concern for one another's welfare (Terry, Carron, Pink, Lane,

Jones & Hall, 2000). If other athletes are willing to perform sacrifice behavior to promote team

cohesion, the need to belong amongst their teammates will also be satisfied.

Team. Many researchers acknowledged that team cohesion was a complex concept. In

1999, Ryska, Todd, Yin, Cooley and Ginn claimed that what actually contributes to building a

cohesive group may run contrary to what intuition would suggest. The same group also noted

that "there is no one way to effectively build team cohesion in sports (Ryska et al., 1999, p. 66).

For these reasons, 'team' and 'cohesion' were included in the current study as individual variables.

Since baseball is one of the most popular team sports around the world, the importance of

finding out what exactly a 'team' was became evident. In an article involved with perceptions of

group cohesion and mood in sport teams, researchers defined team as "a collection of individuals

whose existence as a collection is rewarding to the individuals" (Terry et al., 2000, p. 246). The

'collection of individuals,' in this particular study's case, represents the baseball teams for which

the subjects play(ed) for. The 'existence' that Terry and his colleagues spoke of refers to, in

baseball, the competition within the season. The rewarding part of this 'existence' would be

experiencing individual and team success.


6/23


This current study attempts to determine whether or not the concept of 'team' has been

growing in popularity and is a necessary component for team success. Previous research has

proved that athletes with high attraction to their team could be predicted to have low levels of

tension and anger among their teammates (Terry et al., 2000). Terry et al. also claimed that

athletes could be predicted to have high levels of group integration for their team (2000, p. 251).

Cohesion. Several studies found varying interpretations of the concept of 'cohesion.'

Since the previous variable discussed was focused on the 'team' aspect of 'team cohesion,' it is

essential to develop a similarly effective definition for cohesion.

Matheson, Mathes & McMurray (1997) defined cohesion as "the total field of forces

which act on members to remain in the group" (p. 89). This so-called 'field of forces' can be

interpreted to have numerous different meanings. In the boundaries of the current study,

however, it was considered within the context of the world of sports. Many highschoolers play

baseball simply because they wish to be part of a group within their school's athletic program.

Collegiate athletes are more inclined to play baseball to help pay for their education.

Professional athletes are often bounded financially and contractually to perform for their

particular organizations.

Regardless of thefield, it is evident that there is some kind offorce that drives individuals

to participate in sports. Because many athletes play for the same reason, it is nearly

inconceivable to believe that they would be unable to develop some level of cohesion within

their teams. Researchers refer to this "evolution of a collection of individuals into an effective

group- from group formation through various stages of group development- as the result of

increasing levels of cohesiveness" (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997, p. 233). They believe cohesion

to be a dynamic process, which is characterized by the tendency of a group to stick together and


7/23


stay united in pursuit of its objectives (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997). Regardless of the

definition, research was consistent when claiming that cohesion serves as the proverbial 'glue'

that holds a team together.

Team Cohesion. Because this entire study was focused on the effect of team cohesion on

success, it was necessary to gather as much information as possible in the research process. The

concept of team cohesion was defined by Paul Turman while studying the impact of coaching

techniques on cohesion. Turman defined team cohesion as "an individual's sense of belonging to

a particular group and his or her feelings of morale associated with membership in groups"

(2003, 65). This definition is critical to the study because it allows for the concept of team

cohesion to be understood across other contexts outside of sport. Being able to apply this notion

to organizational and business worlds allowed for a much better understanding ofwhatteam

cohesion was and how it affected members of a group.

According to Turman, team cohesion hinges on two ideas: sense of belonging and

feelings of morale (2003). The current study assumes that all athletes are able to associate, either

positively or negatively, some sense of belonging to their teams. This is an extension of

Prapavessis and Carron's research, which claimed that group cohesion is created because an

individual's sacrifice contributes to perceptions of teammates' sacrifice conformity to group

norms (1997). This sense can be affected by several different factors, including leadership

behavior, relationship with teammates, and general levels of disclosure among the athletes.

As explained before, the leader(s) of a team may have a massive effect on its individuals,

depending on how welcome they are to change/criticism, how they deal with team success, and

how they react and respond in times of adversity. If leaders are quick to take credit and just as

fast to blame others, it is likely that an athlete will not feel a significant sense of belonging with


8/23


that particular team. If a leader credits his/her teammates in times of success and pulls the team

together while in adversity, this factor is likely to change. Dirks (2000) maintained that "trust in

leadership is both a product and a determinant of team performance" (p. 1006).

Relationships with teammates also contribute significantly to a player's sense of

belonging. Many individuals' teammates can turn into best friends, and for that matter, worst

enemies. Again, times of adversity can be a quick measure of just how close members of a team

are. It is true that even best friends fight, but if teammates are unable to resolve their differences

and move forward, it is likely that their sense of belonging will be negatively affected.

Baumeister and Leary (as cited in Terry et al., 2000) proposed that the need to belong is a

fundamental human motive, applicable across disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and

anthropology.

Disclosure is another trait involved with the need to belong. A highly cohesive team with

a positive sense of belonging will likely have much more in-depth communication between its

players. On the contrary, a poor team atmosphere may struggle to discuss other things outside of

their own particular sport. If teammates are able to disclose information with one another, it is

probable that their sense of belonging will be positively affected. Research has contended that

the success of team-building efforts is a function of the number of desirable team characteristics

(such as disclosure) that can be built into a work environment (Mealiea & Baltazar, 2005).

Another aspect of Turman's team cohesion definition involved feelings of morale. Since

a season in sports is filled with many ups and downs, morale is not regarded as one of the most

important aspects of team cohesion. The most important point to note here, however, is that a

successful team should never be 'too high' or 'too low.' That is, individuals of a team should be

wary of becoming too confident in their abilities after consecutive victories, and should never get


9/23


too down on themselves if they should lose a few contests in a row.

Carton (as cited in Matheson, Mathes & McMurray, 1997) explained that cohesive teams

are groups whose members are held together by the force of a common goal. The first thing that

comes to mind when pondering a 'common goal' with sports teams is winning. In many cases,

this is the main factor that holds teams together. Matheson et al. also identified team cohesion as

a factor that may play a critical role in the success or failure of sports teams (1997).

For this key reason, winning becomes vital to teams, coaches, players, staff, families and

other supporters. It is one of the reasons why sport is one of the biggest markets in the world.

Professional athletes who experience winning on a regular basis are rewarded with gaudy

contracts and countless sponsorships. Players guiding their teams to championships become

instant local celebrities. Shields, Gardner, Bredemeier and Bostro (1997) allege that when

leaders reward productivity, group cohesiveness has been shown to increase. It is hard to argue

that the money and fame involved in professional sports do not have anything to do with

contributing to group cohesiveness.

Bormanns Symbolic Convergence Theory

The current study is framed by Ernest Bormann's symbolic convergence theory, which

states that sharing common fantasies, objectives, and goals will transform a collection of

individuals into a cohesive group. To further define this concept, an additional explanation of

group cohesionwas referred to. In 1950, Festinger defined group cohesion as being the resultant

force acting on members to stay within a group or team.

The importance of acknowledging Festinger's work was evident due to its consistent

presence amidst the research process. Within the context of the sports world, it can be concluded

that the 'resultant force' keeping members in a group (or team) is winning. Winning can also be


10/23


considered to be the fantasy, objective, or goal that Bormann states is necessary for individuals

to transform into a cohesive group. These two points are the main grounds for which this entire

study is based, that is, the relationship between team cohesion and success in sports (specifically

baseball).

If possible, the current study will yield results which suggest that there is a positive

correlation between team cohesion and success in baseball. This correlation would fit within the

structure of Bormann's symbolic convergence theory. If the subjects show that their team's

common fantasy, objective, and/or goal of winning is related to the overall cohesiveness of their

particular teams, then it is likely that the hypothesis for the current study will be confirmed.

Research Question and Hypotheses

RQ: Is there a correlation between team cohesion and success in baseball?

H1: Team cohesion will have a positive relationship with team success in baseball.

H2: Team cohesion will have the strongest effect on team success in high school baseball,

followed by the collegiate competition level. Team cohesion will have the weakest effect on

success within professional baseball teams.

Method

Participants

Fifty-seven (all male) baseball players were surveyed in the study. To qualify for

eligibility, all participants were required to have participated in at least two (2+) seasons in one

of the levels of competition (high school, collegiate, or professional baseball). Because of these

varying levels of competition, differing means of accessing participants were used.

High school baseball players (n= 20) were approached at Champions Baseball Academy

in Nicholasville, Kentucky on November 12, 2006. A partial amount of collegiate athletes (n=7)


11/23


were approached on the campus of the University of Kentucky at the Center for Athletic and

Tutorial Services during the week of November 14, 2006. The remaining college baseball

players (n=13) and the entire professional player sample were attained via e-mail interaction,

which spanned throughout the entire month of November, 2006.

The ethnic breakdown of participants was as follows: White, 82.5%; African American,

10.5%; and Hispanic, 7%. High school and collegiate subjects each contributed 35% of total

participants, with professional athletes (30%) rounding out the rest. Ages in the study ranged

from 13-26 with mean 19.35 and standard deviation 3.55.

Measures

Two different scales were used two times each in the survey. The first was adapted from

Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer's Group Environment Questionnaire (2002) and was used to

assess team cohesion with the mostsuccessful andleastsuccessful teams the particular athlete

had been a part of. The second scale was derived from Yeatts, Hyten & Barnes' Key Factors for

Team Success (1996) scale, measuring team success with the same successful and unsuccessful

teams.

Team Cohesion. Team cohesion was measured with this 5-point, 17-item scale. On the

Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), participants were asked

questions related to playing time, desire to win, style of play, friends on the team, social

activities of the team, etc. It was necessary to recode four of the items on the scale, as they were

negatively worded against team cohesion. These topics included conflicting aspirations of the

team, failure to communicate, not hanging out together, and not sticking together outside of

practice and games.

After completing the questionnaire with their mostsuccessful team in mind, the subjects


12/23


were asked to repeat the scale while thinking of their leastsuccessful team. Cronbach's alpha for

this scale was reported at .87 for the most successful teams, and .80 for the least.

Team Success. Team cohesion andsuccess were measured on a Likert-type 5-point, 7-

item scale derived from work by Yeatts, Hyten & Barnes (1996). It was not necessary to recode

any of the items, as all were positively worded. Examples of these items included statements

such as "the team's cohesion had nothing to do with [the team's] success" and "the team's talent

was the main reason for [its] success." Again, the subjects were asked to respond to these

statements with a number value (1- strongly agree to 5- strongly disagree) according to their

reactions.

Just like the previous questionnaire, this scale was also used twice in the survey.

Participants were asked to respond to the statements with the same successful and unsuccessful

teams they had used the first time. Cronbach's alpha for this scale was reported at .90 for the

most successful teams, and .78 for the least.

As previously supported, all four scales used within the survey proved to be reliable

(above .70) according to Cronbach's alpha. Team cohesion scales measured .87 (best team) and

.80 (worst team), while the scales for team success reported figures of .90 (best) and .78 (worst).

The ability to confirm the dependability of these scales was central for the study to successfully

prove or disprove its hypotheses.

Procedure

Participants were approached by the researcher in the previously mentioned locations

(Champions Baseball Academy, University of Kentucky Center for Academic and Tutorial

Services, via e-mail). They were asked if they would be interested in participating in a survey on

team cohesion and success in baseball. Each participant was informed verbally and in writing


13/23


that the surveys were voluntary, and that there would be no tangible benefits for completing such

a survey. Individuals that were interested in taking the survey were given a consent form (see

Appendix A) with the attached survey (see Appendix B) for completion. On average,

participants needed 5-10 minutes to read and sign the consent form and complete the survey.

Necessary efforts were made to ensure participants' privacy and comfort within the atmosphere

in which they completed the survey.

Results

Upon acquiring the data, it was determined that team cohesion did indeed have a positive

relationship with team success. The participants' answers on the survey showed that as a whole,

they believed that the more cohesive a team was, the more success it would experience. Results

became slightly unclear, however, when the participants were broken up into their levels of

competition. High school athletes reported the highest correlation between team cohesion and

success, with professional players reporting the lowest. The perplexing part, however, dealt with

collegiate athletes, who reported a negative correlation between the two variables. Exact

statistics for these claims are provided in the upcoming data analysis.

There are numerous descriptive statistics that were recorded during data analysis. For the

subjects' mostsuccessful teams, the team cohesion scale ranged from 1.00-4.18 (M= 2.44, SD=

.58). The second scale, which covered team cohesion andsuccess, had a minimum of 1.00 and a

maximum of 4.14 (M= 2.22, SD= .77). Statistics from surveys that participants completed with

their least successful teams were, as expected, slightly different. Team cohesion recorded a

range from 1.53-4.65 (M= 3.09, SD= .51), while team cohesion and success went from 1.57-4.86

(M= 3.45, SD= .65).

Initial analysis of this data concludes that there was a discernable difference in the scores


14/23


reported between the most and least successful teams that the participants had competed for. In

general, the subjects demonstrated a stronger agreement with the statements in both scales with

their most successful teams in mind. This finding was significant, as it facilitated the process of

supporting H1.

The last form of data analysis involved testing the research question and hypotheses.

Although it was proven through the previous analysis that a difference between team cohesion

and success with the subjects' teams existed, it was necessary to conduct t-tests to verify just how

well the variables correlated with one another. Upon completion of a Pearson Correlation, it was

found that there was a positive correlation between the two scales with the subjects' best teams:

r(55)= .33, p


15/23


cohesion is positively related to team success. This is an important finding because athletes at all

levels are always trying to get an edge on their competition. The grind of the length of the

season and the short recovery time in between baseball games make this edge particularly

difficult to achieve physically. The willingness to attain an upper hand on the competition has

recently resulted in the steroid scandal in Major League Baseball, as athletes have resorted to

risking their own health for success within the game.

Regardless of the means by which baseball players try to improve, there is no arguing

that the effort level to make these positive adjustments is apparent. One of the key factors for an

individual to have personal success is whether or not his team is winning games. After all, Most

Valuable Player awards aren't given to players on teams with losing records. Therefore, one of

the main factors involved with maximizing an athlete's abilities within the game of baseball is

greatly involved with team success as well.

The theoretical framework used for the study supports its findings. According to

Bormanns symbolic convergence theory, sharing common fantasies, objectives, and goals will

transform a collection of individuals into a cohesive group. Participants in the study showed that

their common interests (primarily winning) provided grounds for building team cohesion. The

subjects noted through the survey that their most successful teams had higher levels of cohesion

when compared to their least successful teams.

The current study was able to support the H1, which theorized that baseball players

believe that the more cohesive their team is, the more successful it will be. The study was unable

to consistently support H2, which attempted to predict the order of correlation strength (high

school- strongest, college- moderate, professional- weakest). Even though H2 was not supported,

it was determined that high school athletes didhave a stronger correlation than professionals


16/23


regarding team cohesion and success.

Limitations of this Study

Limitations in the study were evident upon analyzing the data. There was actually a

negative correlation reported by the collegiate population, for example. Perhaps one of these

reasons is not having a large enough sample (n= 20), which could be considered for all levels of

competition. Another reason for this may be because several members from the same team were

used as subjects (n= 7 played for the University of Kentucky). Two scenarios could have been

accountable for the negative correlation. First, if the team happened to get along great, but

lacked in talent, they may have claimed that high cohesion does not result in success. Secondly,

if the team experienced great success, but dealt with turmoil amongst its players, they could have

reported that high levels of success cannot be attributed to team cohesion.

Another reason for the negative correlation may be that the college atmosphere is much

different than high school and professional environments. In college, individuals are presented

with much more freedom in their down time. It is highly conceivable for a collegiate student-

athlete to get along better with their classmates than their teammates. College students are also

more exposed to peer pressure and its accompanying distractions. Due to these reasons, having a

small sample size for levels of competition was the foremost limitation within this study.

A poor distribution of ethnic backgrounds (82.5% Caucasian) could also be a limitation

within the study. Dealing with teammates of other ethnicities can affect team cohesion,

especially as an increasing number of Latin American athletes sign to play professional baseball.

Styles of living can clash in the locker room atmosphere, hindering the possibilities of creating

relationships between ethnicities. Furthermore, Latin Americans inability to speak, learn, or

adapt to the English language could undeniably result in a lack of team cohesion.


17/23


Directions for Future Research

With these limitations in mind, possibilities for future research become increasingly

intriguing. A stronger argument can be made with more reliable data if a larger and more diverse

sample is used. Additional participants would also provide a clearer understanding of whether or

not collegiate athletes rely on team cohesion for success.

Another reason this study is worthy of further research is the consistent and immense

popularity of baseball worldwide. If future studies results are unvarying, baseball teams will be

provided with a useful tool that can make their team better. More competitiveness within the

game of baseball would result in an amplified amount of awareness, interest, and energy around

the sport as well. Additionally, increased funding from new followers would aid the game of

baseball throughout all levels of competition. If further research is able to attest that team

cohesion has a positive effect on team success in baseball, the concept andthe sport will receive

more attention.

Conclusion

With a continued flow of information and results supporting the claims of this study, the

importance of team cohesion will reach an all-time high. It can already be seen in Major League

Baseball by looking at its latest world champion. True, the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals limped into

the postseason with an 88-74 regular season record, lowest out of all eight playoff teams. They

werent the most talented team either, but used their ability to play together as a team, pulling off

three series upsets in a row on their way to an unlikely World Series Title. Perhaps 57 World

Series MVP David Eckstein said it best, its not being the greatest at what you do, its believing

in yourself and your teammates when it matters most (2003, p.64).


18/23


References

Alexander, V., Krane, V. (1996). Relationships among performance expectations, anxiety, and

performance in collegiate volleyball players. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19(3), 246-270.

Carron, A., Brawley, L., Widmeyer, N. (2002). Group Environment Test Questionnaire

Manual. West Virginia University: Fitness Information.

Dirks, T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: evidence from NCAA basketball.

American Psychological Association, 85(6), 1004-1012.

Eckstein named World Series MVP (2006). Retrieved November 27, 2006 from USA Today

Web site: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/playoffs/2006-10-28-eckstein-

mvp_x.htm?csp=35.

Matheson, H., Mathes, S., & Murray, M. (1997). The effect of winning and losing on female

interactive and coactive team cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(3), 88-97.

Mealiea, L. & Baltazar, R. (2005). A strategic guide for building effective teams. Public

Personnel Management, 34(2), 135-143.

Prapavessis, H. & Carron, A. (1997). Sacrifice, cohesion, and conformity to norms in sport

teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 1(3), 231-240.

Ryska, T., Yin, Z., Cooley, D., & Ginn, R. (1999). Developing team cohesion: A comparison of

cognitive-behavioral strategies of U.S. and Australian sport coaches. Journal of

Psychology, 133(5), 65-75.

Shields, D., Gardner, D., Bredemeier, B., & Bostro, A. (1997). The relationship between

leadership behaviors and group cohesion in team sports. Journal of Psychology, 131(2),

897-905.

Terry, P., Carron, A., Pink, M., Lane, A., Jones, G. & Hall, M. (2000). Perceptions of group


19/23


cohesion and mood in sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice,

4(3), 244-253.

Turman, P. (2003). The impact of coaching techniques on team cohesion in the small group

sport setting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26(1), 63-81.

Yeatts, D., Hyten, C., Barnes, D. (1996). What are the key factors for self-managed team

success? The Journal for Quality and Participation, 22, 46-61.


20/23


Appendix A

Information Sheet about My Study

University of Kentucky

TITLE OF STUDY: Team Cohesion and Team Success within Levels of Baseball

INVESTIGATOR INFORMATION: I have been asked to participate in a research study under

the direction of Adam Revelette, Department of Communication, University of Kentucky. The

faculty mentors for this research are Dr. Seth Noar and David Cichocki.

PURPOSE: This study will help Adam Revelette better understand the relationship between team

cohesion and team success within levels of baseball, and will aid in completion of a class

requirement for COM365.

DURATION AND LOCATION: My participation in this study will last approximately 10

minutes. The study will be conducted at Champions Baseball Academy in Lexington, Kentucky.

PROCEDURES: I will complete a survey about how I believe team cohesion aides team success

in my particular level of baseball (high school, collegiate, professional). This session today will

be the only session I will be asked to participate in.

RISKS/DISCOMFORT: I have been told that there is little, if any, risk in participating in the

study.

BENEFITS: I understand that I will not receive any tangible benefit for participating in thisstudy. My participation will help Adam Revelette complete a requirement for COM365 and may

lead to a better understanding of team cohesion and team success in baseball.

ANONYMITY: My name will not be attached to any of the materials I complete during the

study. Thus, all information I provide is anonymous.

RIGHT TO REFUSE OR WITHDRAW: I understand that I am not required to complete the

survey and there will be no penalty if I do not complete the survey. I may also withdraw from

this study at any time.

OFFER TO ANSWER QUESTIONS: This research study is for a class project for

Communication 365. If I have questions about this study, I can ask Adam Revelette before,

during, or after I complete the survey.

AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE: I understand that participating in this study is completely

voluntary. By signing below, I am giving my consent to participate in this study. A copy of thisinformation form will be provided to me if I request one.

____________________________ _______________________Signature Date


21/23


Appendix B

Team Cohesion and Team Success in Baseball Survey

Demographic Questions

The first section in the survey asks questions about you, including questions about your age,race, and level of baseball you currently compete in. Please circle your responses.

1. What month and year were you born?

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Year: __________

2. What is your current age?

__________

3. What is your race or ethnic identity?

White/Caucasian Black/African American Asian/Pacific Islander

American Indian/Native American Other: ____________________

4. What level of baseball do you currently compete in?

High School College Professional


22/23


Team Cohesion- Part 1

The next section of the survey asks questions about your perception of team cohesion with

respect to team success in baseball. First, think of the mostsuccessful team you've played on in

your current level of baseball, and respond accordingly.

1. How much do you agree or disagree with the following?

(1- Strongly Agree; 2- Agree; 3- Neither Agree nor Disagree; 4- Disagree; 5- Strongly Disagree)

I was happy with the amount of playing time I got: _____

I was happy with the team's level of desire to win: _____

The team gave me enough opportunity to improve my personal performance: _____

I liked the style of play of the team: _____

Some of my best friends were on the team: _____

The team was one of the most important social groups to which I belonged: _____

I enjoyed being a part of the social activities of the team: _____

I missed the members of the team once the season ended: _____

Our team was united in trying to reach its goals for performance: _____We all took responsibility for any loss or poor performance by the team: _____

If players had problems during practice, everyone wanted to help so we could get back on track: _____

The team's members had conflicting aspirations for team performance: _____

The team's members did not communicate freely about their responsibilities in practice or games: _____

Our team wanted to spend more time together in the off-season: _____

Members of the team would rather go out on their own than as a team: _____

Members of the team rarely hung out together: _____

Members of the team did not stick together outside practice or games: _____

Team Cohesion- Part 2

The next section of the survey asks questions about your perception of team cohesion with

respect to team success in baseball. Now, think of the leastsuccessful team you've played on inyour current level of baseball, and respond accordingly.



I was happy with the amount of playing time I got: _____

I was happy with the team's level of desire to win: _____

The team gave me enough opportunity to improve my personal performance: _____

I liked the style of play of the team: _____

Some of my best friends were on the team: _____The team was one of the most important social groups to which I belonged: _____

I enjoyed being a part of the social activities of the team: _____

I missed the members of the team once the season ended: _____

Our team was united in trying to reach its goals for performance: _____

We all took responsibility for any loss or poor performance by the team: _____

If players had problems during practice, everyone wanted to help so we could get back on track: _____

The team's members had conflicting aspirations for team performance: _____

The team's members did not communicate freely about their responsibilities in practice or games: _____


23/23


Our team wanted to spend more time together in the off-season: _____

Members of the team would rather go out on their own than as a team: _____

Members of the team rarely hung out together: _____

Members of the team did not stick together outside practice or games: _____

Team Success- Part 1

The next section of the survey asks questions about your perception of team success with respectto team cohesion in baseball. First, think of the mostsuccessful team you've played on in your

current level of baseball, and respond accordingly.



The team's output met the standards desired by those receiving the output: _____

We expected to maintain the level of output indefinitely without burnout/collapse: _____

We believed that our personal needs and development were being met: _____

The team's members got along well, without much dispute or fighting: _____I was excited to be a part of the team day-in and day-out: _____

I felt like I was an important part of the team's everyday activities: _____I was consistently motivated to work hard for my team: _____

Team Success- Part 2

The next section of the survey asks questions about your perception of team success with respectto team cohesion in baseball. Now, think of the leastsuccessful team you've played on in your

current level of baseball, and respond accordingly.



The team's output met the standards desired by those receiving the output: _____

We expected to maintain the level of output indefinitely without burnout/collapse: _____

We believed that our personal needs and development were being met: _____The team's members got along well, without much dispute or fighting: _____

I was excited to be a part of the team day-in and day-out: _____

I felt like I was an important part of the team's everyday activities: _____I was consistently motivated to work hard for my team: _____

References

Carron, A., Brawley, L., Widmeyer, N. (2002). Group Environment Test Questionnaire

Manual. West Virginia University: Fitness Information.

Yeatts, D., Hyten, C., Barnes, D. (1996). What are the key factors for self-managed teamsuccess? The Journal for Quality and Participation, 22, 46-61.

a “we” in “team” investigation of team cohesion and success in baseball

Documents