group cohesion and collective efficacy of … cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams...

JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXWCISE PSYCHOWGY, 1990, U, 301-311

Group Cohesion and Collective Efficacy of Volleyball Teams

Kevin S. Spink University of Saskatchewan

/ The main pulpose of this study was to examine the relationship between group cohesion and collective efficacy in volleyball teams. A secondary purpose was to determine whether the cohesion/collective efficacy relationship would be moderated by the type of group selected. The results supported the conclusion that specific measures of group cohesiveness were positively related to collective efficacy for elite volleyball teams, but not for recreational teams. In the elite teams, Individual Attractions to Group-Task and Group Integration-Social were found to differentiate significantly between low and high collective efficacy teams, with the high collective efficacy teams rating cohesiveness higher. No significant results emerged, however, when the relationship between group cohesion and collective efficacy was examined for recreational teams. This suggests the need for future research to address the cohesion/collective efficacy question from a comparative per- spective.

Determining the factors that contribute to team success has been a long- standing quest by both researchers and practitioners. One factor that has received considerable attention over the years in this regard is team cohesion. Although a number of studies have examined the relationship between cohesion and performance success, the results are equivocal. There are studies showing that greater levels of team cohesion lead to success (Ball & Carron, 1976; Carron & Chella- durai, 1981; Shangi & Carron, 1987), studies showing lesser levels of cohesion leading to success (Landers & Lueschen, 1974; Lenk, 1969), and finally, a few studies showing no relationship (Melnick & Chemers, 1974; Williams & Hacker, 1982). Although several explanations have been put forward to explain these inconsistencies, including both the traditional problems associated with measurement (Carron, Widrneyer, & Brawley, 1985) and the difficulty in establishing causality (Carron & Ball, 1977; Landers, Wilkinson, Hatfield, & Barber, 1982), previous research has failed to investigate the role of mediating variables in the cohesion/performance relationship.

This is surprising because it is generally accepted that there are differences in the reasons why sports teams stay together. For instance, one team may stay

Kevin S. Spink is with the College of Physical Education, University of Saskatche- wan, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada, S7N OWO.

301

302 1 Spink

together with the intention of winning the league championship whereas another may exist primarily to meet weekly and socialize. The fact that teams may have different reasons for staying together has been reflected in recent attempts to develop cohesiveness measures (Carron et al., 1985; Yukelson, Weinberg, & Jackson, 1984). In the instrument developed by Canon and his colleagues (1985), for instance, it was assumed that there are two classes of goals and objectives that influence group activity. A group may cohere around the task it was organized to accomplish (i.e., task cohesion) or it may cohere around social functions (i.e., social cohesion).

Intuitively, it would appear that task cohesion would have more impact on the cohesion/performance relationship than would social cohesion. Recent empirical research has provided some support for this suggestion. Using the cohesion instrument developed by Carron et al. (1985), it was found that players from successful volleyball teams cohered around task factors more than players from less successful teams (Davids & Nutter, 1988). Furthermore, it might also be expected that if the task dimensions of cohesion are related to performance success, then factors previously identified as precursors to success should also correlate with this aspect of cohesiveness. One factor that has often been empiri- cally linked to success has been efficacy.

A number of studies have indicated that individual efficacy is an important factor in performance success. For the most part, this research has emanated from Bandura's (1977) model of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy, as defined by Band- ura (1977), refers to an individual's conviction that he or she is capable of execut- ing the behaviors necessary to produce a given outcome. Empirical studies that have examined the effects of efficacy expectations on sport and motor performance h ~ v e generally found that increases in self-efficacy expectations are positively related to performance outcomes (e.g., Feltz & Mugno, 1983; Lee, 1982; McAuley, 1985; Weinberg, Gould, Yukelson, & Jackson, 1981).

Although most of the research on self-efficacy has focused on the individual, there is some evidence that collective efficacy has a positive impact on group performance. Collective efficacy was a term coined by Bandura (1982) to reflect the fact that groups often have collective expectations for success. In one investigation examining this issue, Zander (1971) reported the unpublished results of a study by Forward and Zander in which the collective efficacy of different groups was manipulated prior to performance. In the study, half of the groups were made to believe that their members were strongly inclined toward working for group goals (high collective efficacy) whereas the other half held the perception that their members were poorly inclined toward working for group goals (low collective efficacy). When the groups participated in a collective strength task, it was found that those groups with high collective efficacy consistently outper- formed groups with low collective efficacy on a range of strength tasks.

In addition to the fact that both cohesion and self-efficacy have been positively linked to performance success, there appears to be other common ground relating these two concepts. For instance, previous research has revealed that both cohesion and self-efficacy have a positive impact on persistence. Research has revealed that individuals who are highly efficacious tend to persevere despite repeated failure (Schunk, 1981). In a similar vein, it has been demonstrated that groups scoring high on cohesion measures tend to show increased persistence in pursuing group tasks (Horowitz, Exline, Goldman, & Lee, 1953).

Group Cohesion and Volleyball / 303

A consideration of these parallel relationships suggests that group cohesion may be related to the self-efficacy of the group. As this had not been investigated previously, the main purpose of the present investigation was to examine the cohesion/efficacy relationship. Specifically, it was hypothesized that volleyball teams high in collective efficacy about an impending encounter will be more cohesive than teams that are low in collective efficacy.

In terms of the form this increased cohesion will take, it is predicted that those teams high in collective efficacy will score higher on the task scales of the GEQ, especially Individual Attractions to Group-Task (Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron, 1985). Using the conceptual model of cohesiveness outlined by Carron et al. (1985), it was assumed that high ratings of collective efficacy would be associated with elements of cohesiveness that focused on task rather than social aspects. In this study, collective efficacy was operationalized in terms of how well participants expected their team to do in a tournament. The emphasis on Individual Attractions to Group-Task was based on the recent empirical finding that players from successful volleyball teams possessed greater Attractions to Group-Task than did players of less successful teams (Davids & Nutter, 1988).

Volleyball teams were selected because recent theorizing has suggested that the relationship between cohesion and performance is most critical when the amount of mutual interaction required by a sport is high. Based on the schema proposed by Carron and Chelladurai (1981), volleyball teams fall into the cate- gory where mutual interaction is greatest.

A secondary purpose of this investigation was to examine this relationship using teams competing at different levels. Research with sport teams has revealed that the development of cohesion is often moderated by the type of team used. For instance, while investigating the relationship between cohesion and adherence, Carron, Widrneyer, and Brawley (1988) found that specific aspects of cohesiveness associated with enhanced adherence varied across different levels of sport teams (i.e., elite sport team participants vs. recreation sport participants). Simi- larly, in a study examining the relationship between cohesion and group resistance to disruption, it was found that the form and extent of this relationship was moderated by whether the team was elite or recreational (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1988). Evidence such as this suggests that the cohesionlefficacy relationship might also vary for the elite sport team versus the recreational sport team. Therefore a secondary purpose of this study was to examine the cohesion1 efficacy relationship between groups to determine whether the relationship was moderated by the level of sport team selected (i.e., elite vs. recreational team).

Method Subjects

The subjects for this study were 92 volleyball players participating in the Open (N=53) and Senior Divisions (N= 39) of the Annual Supervolley Tourna- ment held at a major university in Canada. Subjects were selected from both the men's and women's sections of the tournament.

Teams can enter the tournament in one of several divisions. Although there are no stipulations as to which division a team may enter, the Open Division typically attracts the best elite teams and the Senior Division the best recreational teams. As well as paying a higher entry fee to participate in the tournament (Open

304 1 Spink

teams pay $350, Senior teams pay $200), winners and runners-up in the Open competition received prize money of $2,000 and $350, respectively. There was no prize money in the Senior Division.

Procedures

The researchers were allowed to include the questionnaire as part of the registration packet that each coach or team representative received the night before the tournament began. This procedure was followed because the tournament organization precluded getting the teams together prior to the tournament, either individually or collectively, to administer the questionnaire. Teams were not required to present themselves until game time. Consequently there was no predictable pattern to when teams would arrive or when the players from each team would arrive, making a supervised administration of the questionnaire very difficult. In an attempt to minimize the problems associated with this type of questionnaire administration, the coacheslteam representatives were asked to distribute the questionnaire to each team member early enough to allow all the players to complete the questionnaire prior to the first game of the tournament. It was also stressed to the team representatives that players were required to complete the questionnaire independently and return it to a kiosk in the gyrnna- sium prior to their first game. The instructions on the questionnaires assured the participants that their responses would remain confidential.

Of the 369 players participating in the Open and Senior Divisions, 132 (35.8%) returned a completed questionnaire. Although this represents a relatively low response rate, a post hoc investigation revealed that the respondents represented teams that spanned the entire range of final placings in the tournament. For example, in the Open Division a median split of all final placings revealed that completed questionnaires were received from players on four teams in the upper half of the distribution and five teams in the lower half, with the number of respondents from each team ranging from 30 to 83 % . Similarly, in the Senior Division a median split of all final placings revealed that responses were received from players on three teams in the upper half and four teams in the lower half of the distribution, with responses from each team ranging from 30 to 77 % . Owing to the relatively equal distribution of returns across the final team placings, it was felt that the low return rate did not compromise the specific theoretical priorities of the study.

TO determine whether cohesion was related to collective efficacy, an extreme-groups design was employed. The rationale for using this design was based on the assumption that any relationship that may exist between cohesion and collective efficacy is most likely to emerge if extreme forms of efficacy are examined. Using this design required that subjects be classified as either high or low on the basis of their perception of how well they expected their team to do in the tournament. Subjects who expected their team to place first in the tournament were classified as high in collective efficacy whereas those who thought their team would not finish with a medal (i.e., top three) were classified as low in collective efficacy. This extreme-groups design left 92 subjects for the analysis.

Group Cohesion and Volleyball 1 305

Questionnaire

To assess team cohesion, the four-scale Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) developed by Widmeyer et al. (1985) was used. The GEQ is derived from a conceptual model that views cohesion as a multidimensional construct comprising both individual and group aspects, each of which has a social and a task orientation. The four aspects of cohesiveness that are outlined in the model and identified in the questionnaire are Individual Attractions to Group-Social (ATG-S), Individual Attractions to Group-Task (ATG-T), Group Integra- tion-Social (GI-S), and Group Integration-Task (GI-T). Although it is assumed that the four scales are correlated, recent theorizing and empirical findings have suggested that distinctions should be made between the four constructs when examining the nature of team cohesion (Brawley et al., 1988; Carron et al., 1988; Davis & Nutter, 1988; Widmeyer et al., 1985). Recent investigations have revealed that both the reliability and validity of the GEQ have been established for athletic populations (Widmeyer et al., 1985).

In addition to the GEQ items, the questionnaire also contained two questions that assessed collective efficacy expectations: "What placing do you expect to attain in Supervolley?" "How confident are you that your team will attain this placing?" Since it was assumed that groups differing in collective efficacy would - -

&so differ in their expectancy of success, the first question was meant to assess the group's collective efficacy. The second question was designed to assess how confident they were in their prediction. In terms of the response mode, the first question w& open-ended while the second was answered on a 7-point scale ranging from "not confident' ' to "extremely confident. ' '

Subjects were also asked to answer a number of background questions relevant to their participation in volleyball. Three other open-ended questions relevant to this study included asking subjects to indicate their age, the number of years they had been involved with their present team (to ensure that an accurate perception of the group was obtained, players who had been associated with this team for less than 1 year were eliminated from the analysis), and the number of years they had been involved with organized volleyball.

Results

In line with recent research that has analyzed different groups independently (Brawley et al., 1988; Carron et al., 1988), separate stepwise discriminant analyses were conducted on the elite and recreational participants. As mentioned previously, an extreme-groups design was employed wherein subjects who expected their team to finish first formed one extreme group (high collective efficacy) while those who expected their team not to finish in the top three formed the other extreme (low collective efficacy). The cohesion scores of these individuals were used as independent variables to predict their classification into efficacy groups.

Although recent research has failed to find any meaningful gender differences in the use of the GEQ (cf. Carron et al., 1988), supplementary analyses were conducted to determine whether there were any gender differences in the

306 1 Spink

type and extent of the cohesion/collective efficacy relationship in either the elite or the recreational groups. In terms of the breakdown of subjects by gender and efficacy groups, the elite group had 10 males and 13 females in the high collective efficacy groups and 17 males and 13 females in the low collective efficacy groups. The recreational group had 7 males and 8 females in the high collective efficacy group and 12 males and 12 females in the low collective efficacy group.

To determine whether gender moderated the cohesion/collective efficacy relationship, four discriminant analyses were conducted. The scores of low and high collective efficacy elite groups were entered into separate discriminant analyses to determine whether the cohesion scales of males could be distinguished from those of females. Similar analyses were done for the participants in the recreational groups. The results of the analyses revealed that there was no significant difference (p>. 1) between the scores of males and females in any of the four comparisons.

Elite Volleyball Players

To assess whether there were any differences in team composition, two- tailed t tests for independent samples were performed on three additional factors: subject's age, years of involvement with current team, and years of involvement in organized volleyball. Table 1 contains the relevant means and standard deviations for these variables. None of the comparisons between the two groups were significantly different (p>. 1), suggesting that the composition of the two collective efficacy groups in terms of volleyball experience and team involvement were similar.

While high and low collective efficacy groups had been determined by the subject's differing expectancy of success in the tournament, it was also necessary to determine whether the groups differed in their confidence in making this prediction. To assess this, subjects were asked to respond on a 7-point scale to the following question about their prediction: "How confident are you that your team will attain this placing?" Using a t test for independent samples, no significant differences were found between the high (M=5.35) and low collective efficacy

Table 1

Age, Years With Team, and Years in Volleyball for Players Low and High in Collective Efficacy

Yrs in organ. Degree of Age Yrs with team volleyball

collective efficacy M SD M SD M SD

Elite Low 21.30 6.71 2.37 2.13 7.77 4.79 High 19.17 3.16 2.09 1.08 6.00 3.06

Recreational Low 20.50 3.32 2.04 1.23 6.92 4.06 High 21.80 2.31 1.87 0.64 8.06 3.04


(M=5.00) groups in their prediction of their placing. Therefore, while both groups differed in their prediction for success, both were confident in their prediction.

A stepwise discriminant analysis was used to determine which cohesion scores contributed to a function that would predict classification of high and low collective efficacy elite volleyball players. The results of the analysis revealed a highly significant difference between high and low collective efficacy players participating in the Open Division X2(2,~=53) = 18.06,p<.001. Two of the four cohesion scales contributed to the significant differentiation between the groups: ATG-T and GI-S. Post hoc univariate Fs conducted on each variable that contributed to the discriminant function classification revealed that both ATG-T, F(1,51)=14.53, p<.001, and GI-S, F(1,51)=7.80, p<.01, contributed significantly to the differences between high and low collective efficacy elite players. As the means noted in Table 2 indicate, both ATG-T and GI-S were greater for team members who were high in collective efficacy.

Table 2

Cohesion of Elite and Recreational Volleyball Players Low and High in Collective Efficacy

GEQ scales

Degree of ATG-social ATG-Task GI-Social GI-Task collectiveefficacy N M SD M SD M SD M SD

Elite Low 30 32.30 6.64 25.43 6.61 20.90 5.66 32.43 7.20 High 23 35.00 5.54 31.61 4.66 25.22 5.47 35.26 5.98

Recreational Low 24 35.13 8.26 28.46 6.15 27.42 6.20 35.04 6.56 High 15 34.40 7.81 29.47 4.60 26.93 5.16 36.07 6.09

The complete discriminant function for these variables correctly classified 73.6% of the entire sample, with 78.3 % of the high collective efficacy group being classified correctly and 70.0% of the low collective efficacy group being classified correctly.

Recreational Volleyball Players

Analyses of the background questions concerning age, years of involvement with the team, and years of involvement in organized volleyball were conducted using t tests for independent samples. The results revealed no significant differences for any of the three factors, suggesting that the two collective efficacy groups were also similar in composition. The descriptive statistics for these three variables in each collective efficacy condition are presented in Table 1.

Subjects participating in the Senior Division were also asked to indicate the confidence that they had in their prediction of where their team would place in the tournament. A t test for independent samples indicated there were no significant differences between the predictions of the high (M=6.00) and low

308 / Spink

collective efficacy (M=5.79) groups. As was the case with the elite athletes, both the high and low efficacy groups differed in their prediction of placing in the tournament, and both were confident in their prediction.

A discriminant function analysis was also conducted on the high and low collective efficacy recreational volleyball players. The results revealed that none of the cohesion variables discriminated between participants who predicted that their team would finish first in the tournament (high collective efficacy) from those who predicted that their team would not finish in the top three (low collective efficacy). The means and standard deviations for all of the cohesion measures in each efficacy condition are presented in Table 2.

Discussion

The primary purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between team cohesion and the perception of collective efficacy. A secondary purpose was to determine whether the relationship would be moderated by the type of group selected. The results from this study suggest that individual perceptions of group cohesiveness are positively related to collective efficacy for elite teams, but not for recreational teams.

In elite volleyball teams, it was found that group cohesiveness was an important factor associated with collective efficacy. Specifically, Individual At- tractions to Group-Task and Group Integration-Social were found to differentiate significantly between low and high collective efficacy groups, with individuals on high collective efficacy teams rating these cohesion factors higher than individuals on low collective efficacy teams.

The finding that ATG-Task was related to high collective efficacy is consistent with the stated hypothesis, and is in concert with recent research that has shown that players from successful volleyball teams possessed greater ATG-Task than those from less successful teams (Davids & Nutter, 1988). Since the previous research of Zander and Forward (as cited in Zander, 1971) had established that collective efficacy is positively related to performance outcome, it was assumed that teams who scored highest in collective efficacy would also be the most successful. This was certainly the case in this study. Although not reported previously, a post hoc analysis examining the final placings in the tournament revealed a significant difference in the placings, t(5 1) = 7.93, p<.00 1, with the high collective efficacy teams finishing higher (M=3.26) in the tournament than low collective efficacy teams (M= 7.43).

While the finding that GI-Social was related to collective efficacy was not predicted in this study, the emergence of this relationship may be consistent with related research on cohesion. For instance, one study found that GI-Social was a critical element associated with member adherence in elite sport teams (Carron et al., 1988). Specifically, it was revealed that the individual's perception of social closeness of the entire team discriminated high and low adherers in terms of withdrawal behavior, with adherers exhibiting significantly greater cohesion. This line of reasoning is consistent with the assumption that the greater the member adherence, and hence team stability, the more likely the team will exhibit a high level of collective efficacy. Based on the results of this study, it might be suggested that, at the elite level, perceptions of cohesiveness may be an important consideration of team members in determining a team's level of collective efficacy.


An interesting result of this study was that, while there was a significant relationship between certain aspects of cohesiveness and collective efficacy for elite teams, no relationship emerged for recreational volleyball players. Although the limited sample size (N= 39) may have contributed to this lack of significance within this group, there are also empirical reasons to suggest that this f~nding may not be surprising. For instance, previous research has illustrated that the form and extent of the relationship of cohesion to other variables may be moderated by group type (Brawley et al., 1988). This study also supports Escovar and Sirn's (1974) call for more researchers to study cohesion comparatively, as these results revealed that the specific aspects of cohesion associated with collective efficacy varied between elite and recreational groups. As well as attempting to replicate the findings of the present study, future research must also continue to explore the moderating effects of different groups on cohesion and its related variables.

While it was clear that the relationship between cohesiveness and collective efficacy was moderated by group type, it is not as obvious why these differences exist. This question requires future study. One explanation suggested by the results of this study concerns the cohesiveness levels of those elite and recreational teams who were low in collective efficacy. A comparison of GEQ scale means between elite and recreational players (see Table 2) reveals that, although the cohesiveness levels of the high collective efficacy players did not appear to differ between groups, there was a consistent difference in the cohesiveness of low collective efficacy players when groups were compared. Specifically, in

- -

terms of the latter, those on elite teams consistently reported lower levels of cohesion for each GEQ scale than did those on recreational teams.

One possible explanation for this discrepancy may involve the goals held by members of each group. In the elite group it might be surmised that the primary goal of the team was to win. The fact that the elite teams were participating in a division that awarded prize money to the top two placings lends some credence to this explanation. This suggestion is also consistent with recent research in the sporting arena that has illustrated how an individual's salient goals for competing covaried with the instructional set that preceded the sporting contest (Spink & Maehr, 1986). Specifically, the results of the Spink and Maehr (1986)study revealed that when a contest was presented as a means to an end (i.e., the winner was promised an award), the participants had more extrinsic goals than when the contest was presented as a round robin tournament wherein everyone played and there was no ultimate winner or award.

If this assumption is valid and winning was indeed perceived as more important by participants in the Open Division, then each member's perception of the team's cohesiveness might become more critical in assessing how the team would place in the tournament (i.e., it might be assumed that the greater the perception of cohesion, the greater the collective efficacy). On the other hand, it is possible that the goals of the recreational participants may have reflected factors other than winning. If this was the case, perceptions of cohesiveness may not necessarily be reflected in level of collective efficacy in placing well.

In fact cohesiveness may be an end in itself for these participants rather than a means to an end, as might be the case with elite teams. The fact that the mean scores for the recreational groups on the GEQ scales did not differ significantly between the high and low collective efficacy groups, and yet were of a similar magnitude to the high collective efficacy scores for the elite group,

310 / Spink

provides some support for this suggestion. In essence, both efficacy groups in the recreational division were highly cohesive. Consequently, future research should determine the goals being pursued by the members of the participating teams, as well as the importance attached to each of the primary goals, if the relationship of collective efficacy to cohesion is to be better understood.

Finally, several limitations of this study should be acknowledged. First, the administration of the questionnaire may have influenced the results. Although care was taken to ensure that respondents completed the questionnaire independently, the fact that the questionnaires were filled out without supervision does not eliminate the possibility that some of them could have been filled out together, thus influencing the response. A suggestion for future research would be to supervise the completion of the questionnaire. Also, the small sample size for the recreational group may explain the lack of significant findings with respect to that group. Likewise, the operational definition of collective efficacy may have contributed to the lack of differences between the two recreational groups. As mentioned previously, the individuals participating in the Senior Division (i.e., more recreational) may have held goals that they deemed more important than where their team would finish in the tournament.

As previous research has revealed that intramural participants often recruit teammates on the basis of skill as well as the degree of friendship (Landers et al., 1982), it might be suggested that recreational participants, more so than elite participants, value the social aspects of cohesiveness and feel a sense of collective efficacy in terms of these types of goals. Also, the criteria arbitrarily used in this study to differentiate the quality of players (e.g., open vs. senior section of the tournament) may not be as valid as other methods (e.g, varsity vs. intramural team athletes). While the limitations inherent in this study underscore the tenta- tive nature of the conclusions, it is hoped that the findings are suggestive enough to warrant further study.

References

Ball, J.R., & Carron, A.V. (1976). The influence of team cohesion and participation motivation upon performance success in intercollegiate ice hockey. Canadian Jour- nal of Applied Sport Sciences, 1,271 -275.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psy- chological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Brawley, L.R., Carron, A.V., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1988). Exploring the relationship between cohesion and group resistance to disruption. Journal of Sport & Enercise Psychology, 10, 199-213.

Carron, A.V., & Ball, J.R. (1977). Cause-effect characteristics of cohesiveness and participation motivation in intercollegiate hockey. International Review of Sport Soci- ology, 12,4940.

Carron, A.V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesion as a factor on sport performance. Zntema#z'onal Review of Sport Sociology, 16, 21-41.

Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N., & Brawley, L.R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,244-266.

Carron, A.V., Widmeyer, W.N., & Brawley, L.R. (1988). Group cohesion and individ-

Group Cohesion and Volleyball / 31 1

ual adherence to physical activity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10, 127-138.

Davids, K., & Nutter, A. (1988). The cohesion-performance relationship of English National League volleyball teams. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 14, 205- 213.

Escovar, L.A., & Sim, F.M. (1974). m e cohesion of groups: Alternative conceptions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Asso- ciation, Toronto.

Feltz, D.L., & Mugno, D.A. (1983). A replication of the causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efftcacy and the influence of autonomic perception. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5,263-277.

Horowitz, M . , Exline, R.I., Goldman, M., & Lee, F. (1953). Motivational effects of alternative decision making processes in groups (Tech. Rep. to the U.S. Office of Naval Research, Group Psychology Branch). Urbana: University of Illinois.

Landers, D., & Lueschen, G. (1974). Team performance outcome and cohesiveness of competitive co-acting groups. International Review of Sport Sociology, 9,57-69.

Landers, D., Wilkinson, M.O., Hatfield, B.D., & Barber, H. (1982). Causality and the cohesion-performance relationship. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 170-1 83.

Lee, C. (1982). Self-efficacy as a predictor of performance in competitive gymnastics. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4,405-409.

Lenk, H. (1969). Top performance despite internal conflicts: An antithesis to a functional- istic proposition. In J.W. Loy & G.S. Kenyon (Eds.), Sport, culture and society: A reader on the sociology of sport @p. 393-397). New York: Macmillan.

McAuley, E. (1985). Modeling and self-efficacy: A test of Bandura's model. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,283-295.

Melnick, M., & Chemers, M. (1974). Effects of group social structure on the success of basketball teams. Research Quarterly, 45, 1-8.

Schunk, D.H. (198 1). Modeling and attributional effects on children's achievement. Jour- nal of Educational Psychology, 73,93-105.

Shangi, G., & Carron, A.V. (1987). Group cohesion and its relationship with performance and satisfaction among high school basketball players. Chmdian Journal of Sport Sciences, 12,20p.

Spink, K.S., & Maehr, M.L. (1986). Contingent and non-contingent conditions, task meaning and continuing motivation. The Australian Journal of Science and Medi- cine in Sport, 18,22-26.

Weinberg, R.S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., & Jackson, A. (1981). The effect of preex- isting and manipulated self-efficacy on a competitive muscular endurance task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1,345-354.

Widmeyer, W.N., Brawley, L.R., & Canon, A.V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. London, Ontario: Sports Dynamics.

Williams, J.M., & Hacker, C.M. (1982). Causal relationships among cohesion, satisfaction, and performance in women's intercollegiate field hockey teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4,324-337.

Yukelson, A., Weinberg, R., & Jackson, A. (1984). A multidimensional sport cohesion instrument for intercollegiate basketball teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6 , 103-117.

Zander , A. (197 1). Motives and goals in groups. New York: Academic Press.

The author wishes to thank Laurie Baber for her assistance in data collection.

group cohesion and collective efficacy of … cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams...

Documents