Team cohesion is a frequently examined psychological construct in sport, particularly in

interdependent team sports, as a measure of performance. Carron (1982) defines cohesion as a

dynamic process that is reflected in part by the tendency of a group to stick together and remain
united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and for the satisfaction of member
needs. Success and good performance is a pursuit for a sporting team competing at any level and
research has shown that in interacting sports the success depends on combining individual skills
and interdependent team work (Festinger, 1963). There are two types of cohesion which are task
cohesion and social cohesion. Task cohesion refers to the general orientation toward achieving
goals and objectives as a group while social cohesion consists of a general orientation toward
developing and maintaining social relationships within a group.Reasearch studies indicate that
highly cohesive teams are likely to be highly successful teams .It is certain that a highly cohesive
team would more likely to achieve more than a team whose members exhibit discontent conflict
and disruption .Therefore a coach and the team must be concerned with both task cohesion and
social cohesion .This is because increase in both the former and the latter will ultimately lead to
success.Success is an important aspect of task cohesion therefore more success a team
experiences the high the cohesion.

Team Cohesion is most commonly measured by using the Group Environment Questionnaire
(GEQ). The GEQ developed by Carron et al in (1985) is based on a conceptual model in which
cohesion is measured using four primary constructs; individual attraction to the group task,
individual attractions to the group social, group integration-task, and group integration-social. It
can also be measured by monitoring team success through winning percentage (Carron et al
2001), the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire (Duda and Whitehead 1998),
and the Multidimensional Sport Cohesion Instrument (MSCI) (Macros et al, 2010) which
consists of 22 items that assesses four aspects of cohesion which are teamwork, valued roles,
unity of purpose, and attraction to the group. The fact that this construct has been found to be so
highly correlated with performance, it is important to continue to investigate ways in which it
can be successfully coached. Research has shown that cohesiveness can be effectively measured
and coached . Therefore it is beneficial to the coach and the team to employ strategies to
improve cohesiveness just as they would coach skill specific strategies in their chosen
sport. Further investigation into the research and future research could highlight the link to
gender differences, cultural difference and different sports to cohesion and how this would be
applied to the current popular coaching strategies.

Kozub and Button (2000) investigated the influence of a competitive outcome on perceptions of
cohesion in rugby and swimming teams aiming to investigate the effects of winning or losing on
perceived group cohesion. They used a sample of 60 male rugby players and 60 male swimmers.
All the 120 participants completed the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) immediately
before and after rugby matches and dual swim meets. Kozub and Button found that only the two
task dimensions of the GEQ altered significantly from pre to post competition. For rugby, the
group’s task integration mean score increased slightly following a win but decreased
significantly following a loss. For swimmers, the mean score for group task integration increased
significantly from pre to post meet for both winners and losers. Finally for both sports, the
attractions to the group task increased from pre to post event regardless of the outcome. This
research suggests that different dimensions of group cohesion, may be affected differently by
success and failure. It appears that the perceived level of cohesion does increase following
success in some sports. This suggests that team cohesion can be enhanced by success. The
findings of some studies indicate a strong association between cohesion and sport performance,
and between cohesion and satisfaction.

Cloninger (2004) postulated that no sports team is successful without together to reach a
common goal .Teamwork is essential to a good performance from any sports team ,professional
or not ,and is a great way to teach children certain life lessons ,such as cooperating well with
others and taking responsibility for actions . Cooperation is a positive effect of cohesion on
performance. Teamwork in sports promote cooperation .Both children and adults can learn how
to better cooperate with their team mates ,even if they are not particularly fond of the team . For
example members of the football team need to cooperate to successfully perform a play, whether
it be a running play or a passing play .Without all involved in the play working together to make
the play happen, the other team could wind up with the ball.

More so confidence is another positive effect of cohesion on performance. Working as part of a

sports team is also a great way to build confidence( Bandura ,1986) .Research concerning sports
and children /teens has shown that children especially girls ,who play sports are more likely to
have a positive self-image than those who do not play sports .A girl who plays softball or
basketball ,for example ,is not only less likely to be overweight ,but is also more likely to receive
compliments about her game time performance ,thus boosting self-esteem.

Socializing is also another positive effect of cohesion on performance. Working together on a

sports team encourages socialization, as players become part of a group (Fiedler, 1967). The
group, or in this case the sports team, shares a common interest, a love for particular sport .For
example if a child is home schooled participating in a community baseball team is an ideal way
to expose your child to others while do something fun .Children can talk about the sport together
and brainstorm ways to make the team better.

Working with a sports team is an excellent way to teach accountability. Plays are not always
successful, and if a player was in the wrong place at the wrong time, missed the basket or was
looking at the outfield when she should have been focused on running the bases, she will need to
take responsibility for what went wrong instead of blaming it on a teammate or finding another
excuse. A research was carried to examine the effects of team cohesion .The research data was
obtained from 25 teams which were competing in izmir province. Athletes range varied from 18
to 38.The distribution of athletes in branches are 155 football, 82 basketball, 6 volleyball, 34
handball and 27 water polo, totaling 360 amateur and professional team players. The SPSS and
AMOS were used for the data analysis. The results reveal that team cohesion have a significant
impacts on team member satisfaction and intent to remain with the team

However although cohesion has positive effects on performance it also has negative effects.
Social loafing is one of the negative effects of cohesion on performance. Social loafing refers to
the concept that people are prone to exert less effort on a task if they are in a group versus when
they work alone .The e idea of working in groups is typically seen as a way to improve the
accomplishment of a task by pooling the skills and talents of the individuals in that group .But, in
some groups, there is a tendency on the part of participants to contribute less to the group’s goal
than if they were doing the same task themselves. Social loafing has a negative consequences for
both the group and the individuals in the group .The group dynamic is affected when certain
individuals are seen as weak contributors to the group purpose .It tends to split the group and
fosters lack of cohesion .
Group size also has negative effects on cohesion on performance .Small groups are more
cohesive than large groups .Group conformity and group –think are two of the potential hazard
of high group cohesiveness .Group conformity happens when teams members adopt similar
behaviors ,usually in an attempt to fit in or to reduce disagreements between group members
.Team members conforming to group norms may cause lowered productivity or lack of
creativity and innovation .Group –think happens when individual group members lose the ability
to think for themselves and rely on the group to make their decisions.

There is also resistance to change, members of cohesive groups rely heavily on each other and
resist external ideas and input .This can lead to isolation and a feeling of superiority over others
in the organizations .As a result of cohesive groups find it difficult to change their values ,actions
or behaviors ,particularly when the change is driven by external forces .Even if an individual
member of the group becomes convinced of the need to change ,he may find it difficult to put
into practice due to strength of the group dynamic.

In conclusion, they are positive and negative effects of cohesion on performance. Research
studies indicate that highly cohesive teams are likely to be highly successful teams .It is certain
that a highly cohesive team would more likely to achieve more than a team whose members
exhibit discontent conflict and disruption .Therefore a coach and the team must be concerned
with both task cohesion and social cohesion .This is because increase in both the former and the
latter will ultimately lead to success. Success is an important aspect of task cohesion therefore
more success a team experiences the high the cohesion.
REFERENCES

Cloninger, Susan (2004). : Cognitive Social Learning. (4th ed.),Theories of Personality

Understanding Persons . New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Carron A.V., Colman, M.M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002) Cohesion and performance in
sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188.

Festinger ,L.(1963).Social Pressures in Informal Groups .Stanford,CA:Stanford University Press.

Fiedler ,F.E.(1967).A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness .New York :McGraw Hill .

Hart,P.(1994).Government:A study of small groups and policy failure .Baltimore:The Johns

Hopkins University Press