Relationships among motivation, gender, and cohesion in a sample of collegiate athletes.
Abstract: Motivation and cohesion have both been found to have an effect on persistence and learning (Martens & Webber, 2002), as well as overall performance (Turman, 2003), signifying their imperative nature to any successful team. However, these two factors have yet to be examined in relation to one another when exploring gender as a contributing variable. The purpose of this study was to determine if gender and motivation type were related to athletes' perceptions of team cohesion. In order to address this concept, 253 male and female collegiate athletes completed a demographics questionnaire, the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier et al., 1995), and the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron et al., 1985). Results revealed significant positive correlations between perceptions of task and social cohesion with each of the three intrinsic motivation types and two extrinsic motivation types (i.e. integrated regulation and identified regulation). Negative relationships were found between a motivation and task and social cohesion. However, gender was not a significant predictor of perceived cohesion when moderated with motivation type; only self-determination score was a significant predictor of both task and social cohesion. These outcomes indicate that fostering intrinsic motivation, despite gender, in sport teams may contribute to more positive social and task cohesion among the group.
Article Type: Report
Subject: College athletes (Psychological aspects)
Motivation (Psychology) (Social aspects)
Sex differences (Psychology) (Social aspects)
Social cohesion (Psychological aspects)
Authors: Halbrook, Meghan
Blom, Lindsey C.
Hurley, Kimberly
Bell, Robert J.
Holden, Jocelyn E.
Pub Date: 03/01/2012
Publication: Name: Journal of Sport Behavior Publisher: University of South Alabama Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Psychology and mental health; Sports and fitness Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2012 University of South Alabama ISSN: 0162-7341
Issue: Date: March, 2012 Source Volume: 35 Source Issue: 1
Topic: Event Code: 290 Public affairs
Geographic: Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United States
Accession Number: 280387199
Full Text: A considerable amount of research has been conducted to understand why individuals choose to participate in sport (Kipp & Amorose, 2008). Two of the most common answers relate to athletes' motivation and team cohesion. More specifically, motivation type and perception of team cohesion have both been found to have an effect on persistence and learning (Martens & Webber, 2002), as well as overall performance (Turman, 2003).

The Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) is a comprehensive model that has shown to be effective in explaining motivation and behavior. For example, individuals may differ in their motivational orientations, outside influences, and interpersonal perceptions (Haggar & Chatzisarantis, 2008), yet research suggests that all are motivated intrinsically to master their environment (Deci & Ryan, 1985). SDT describes motivation on a continuum (i.e. Self-Determination Continuum) anchoring intrinsic motivation on one end, extrinsic motivation in the middle, and amotivation on the other end. By recognizing different degrees of athlete's motivation, researchers can better identify reasons for participation in selected activities.

Intrinsic motivation (IM) is considered participation without contingencies, and compared to extrinsic motivation, intrinsically motivated athletes have been found to have increased enjoyment of activity (Brustad, 1988), decreased dropout (Gill, Gross, & Huddleston, 1983), and better sportsmanship (Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Pelletier et al. (1995) broke down IM further into three subgroups: 1) IM to know and understand-participation due to the individual's enjoyment of learning new techniques or trying something different 2) IM toward accomplishments- individuals participate in order to master a technique or accomplish personal goals and 3) IM to experience stimulation involves motivation derived from excitement and sensory pleasure from participating in sport.

Extrinsic motivation can be defined as participating to gain rewards, usually materialistic, and avoid punishment (Kowal & Fortier, 1999). Deci and Ryan (1985) found that extrinsic motivation also contained four subcategories, with integrated regulation as the most closely related to intrinsic motivation. Integrated regulation describes participation as a means to an end goal and is considered extrinsic for this reason. Identified regulation involves participating in an activity that may not be enjoyable, but may have growth and development benefits. Introjected regulation occurs when an individual's main reasons for participating relates to enhancing an ego or avoiding guilt or anxiety. And lastly, the most direct extrinsic motivation is external regulation: motives that focus on obtaining measurable rewards for participating, such as scholarships and/or prestige.

Finally, amotivation arises when athletes can no longer determine a motive for why they continue to participate in the sport. These athletes feel like they have no sense of control over their actions and often end up quitting their sport (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Pelletier et al., 1995). Amotivation has been shown to predict the least amount of participation in athletes and exercisers and the lack of consistent participation contributes to decreasing group and personal success (Alexandris, Tsorbatzoudis, & Grouios, 2002).

Another moderator that has shown to be a determining factor of group success in much of the past and current research is cohesion (Turman, 2003). Cohesion has been defined as "a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs" (Carton, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213) and can be broken down into two categories: task and social. Task cohesion refers to a general trend to achieve group goals (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985) and has little to do with the relationships formed and maintained. Social cohesion, however, examines the development of relationships and the collective ability to get along with one another. High team cohesion within sport has been linked to low dropout rates (Lindner et al., 1991), high performance standards (Callow, Smith, Hardy, Arthur, & Hardy, 2009), and collective efficacy (Heuze, Bosselut, & Thomas, 2007).

The differences of task and social cohesion have often been debated and researched, but there is no clear conclusion as to which is more influential. Mullen and Copper (1994) found in their meta-analysis that task cohesion has a significant positive relationship with group performance, insinuating that having clear goals and working toward those goals as a group can impact success of a team more so than social cohesion. More specifically, in one study, players from successful volleyball teams viewed task cohesion as more important than social cohesion compared with players from less successful volleyball teams (Davids & Nutter, 1988).

However, research also supports social cohesion as an important factor of group cohesiveness. For example, Van Vienen and De Dreu (2001) found that social cohesion had a stronger relationship with success than task cohesion. It has also been determined in prior studies that athletes who perceived lower levels of social cohesion in summer sport leagues were more likely to display higher levels of tardiness and absenteeism during the athletic season (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1988). Social cohesion was also the predominant factor when examining the willingness to return for the following season in a sample of 142 recreational female ringette players (Spink, 1995).

Despite the ongoing debate between task and social cohesion, there is little refute that general team cohesion is important in both sport participation and performance (e.g., Eys, Loughead, Bray, & Carron, 2009; Lott & Lott, 1965; Widmeyer et al., 1993). For example, researchers have found that when individuals perceive higher levels of team cohesion, they are more likely to attend practices and participate in games as opposed to those athletes who viewed team cohesion as lower (Carron et al., 1988). Furthermore, the cohesion-performance relationship was found to be stronger with females, but showed no difference in sport type. Another example of this finding is demonstrated in the study of elite basketball and soccer teams that revealed a strong positive relationship between performance, cohesion, and overall success (Carron, Bray, & Eys, 2002).

Research on gender differences within the motivation and cohesion fields appears inconclusive. In one study, it was found that collegiate male athletes demonstrated significantly higher levels of extrinsic motivation, specifically external regulation (obtaining measurable rewards) compared to females (Kingston et al., 2006). Ryan (1980) also attempted to locate differences in a sample of collegiate football players and female athletes and found that the male athletes on scholarship reported lower levels of intrinsic motivation than the female athletes on scholarship. Kingston et al.'s (2006) study replicated that of Amorose and Horn (2000) with contradicting results, showing that scholarship athletes, regardless of gender, had higher levels of intrinsic motivation than non-scholarship athletes. Female athletes in both of these studies, regardless of scholarship status or location, reported significantly higher levels of intrinsic motivation than male athletes (Fortier, Vallerand, & Guay, 1995).

As for perceived cohesion and gender, studies regarding the dynamics of this relationship have also been few and inconsistent in discovering differences (Carron, 1982; Mullen & Copper, 1994). The majority of researchers continued to use male athletes to examine task and social cohesion statistics even though females are generally seen to be the more social sex (Glenday & Widmeyer, 1993; Spink, 1995). As measures and theories have progressed, more studies have shown that the typical male and female stereotypes could be false; females have been found to be similar to males in task cohesion, indicating that females are not solely focused on social aspects (Gardner, Shields, Bredemeier, & Bostrom, 1996; Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carton, 1985). In fact, female athletes have reported significantly higher levels of task cohesion than males in several studies (e.g., Gardner et al., 1996; Widmeyer et al., 1985). Research using team sports has shown that although all athletes benefit from higher levels of team cohesion, female athletes' perceptions of cohesion affect sport performance, such as winning percentage, more than males' perceptions (Carron et al., 2002). Female athletes have shown to be more intrinsically motivated as well as report more perceptions of task cohesion on their sport teams than males (Pelletier et al., 1995; Gardner et al., 1996).

Although some research has used motivation and cohesion variables within the same study, no known research has examined the relationship and direction between the two; therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore the relationships among motivation type, perceived team social and task cohesion, and gender in a sample of collegiate athletes. More specifically the following hypotheses were developed:

1. The motivation subscales of intrinsic motivation to learn and know, to experience stimulation, and toward accomplishments, as well as integrated regulation would have positive relationships with task and social cohesion.

2. The motivation subscales of identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation would have negative relationships with task and social cohesion.

3. There would be an interaction between gender and motivation type in predicting social cohesion. Specifically, female athletes, regardless of motivation type, would perceive higher social cohesion than male athletes, who were assumed to only view social cohesion as high when towards the intrinsic end of the SDC. Furthermore, social cohesion would be better predicted by gender than motivation type. This hypothesis was based on the research that suggests that male athletes rank competition higher in importance than female athletes (Mathes & Battista, 1985).

4. There would not be an interaction between gender and motivation type for task cohesion, as research suggests that both male and female athletes perceive task cohesion as important (Gardner et al., 1996). However, motivation types would be a significant predictor of task cohesion.

Methods

Participants

All varsity head coaches at a large Midwestern university were approached in person to obtain permission to use their teams in the current study. The final sample consisted of 253 student-athletes from 15 different teams (see Table 1); a response rate of 63.25%. Male athletes represented a slightly higher proportion (n = 135) than female athletes (n = 118). The athletes ranged in age from 18 to 23 years (M= 20.06, SD = 1.222) and represented eight team and seven individual sports. Freshmen (n = 80) and sophomores (n = 73) made up 60.5% of the participants. Although nine ethnicities were represented in the study, 80.6% were Caucasian (n = 204) followed by 13 % African American (n = 33).

Instruments

Participants completed a demographic form, the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron et al., 1985) to measure perceptions of team social and task cohesion, and the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier et al., 1995) to assess prominent motivation types and position on the SDC.

Demographics Questionnaire. The demographics questionnaire was developed by the researchers to gain descriptive information about the participants. It consisted of seven items related to gender, age, ethnicity, sport played, time of season, year in school, and years on team.

Group Environment Questionnaire. Carton et al. (1985) developed the GEQ to assess social and task cohesion in sport teams. The instrument consists of 18 items that are grouped into four subscales that measure perception of cohesion among the group as a whole from the athlete's perspective as well as the athlete's personal attraction to the group. The GEQ is one of the most commonly used measures for assessing cohesion among male and female athletes (Eys, Carton, Bray, & Brawley, 2007) and has been found to be most reliable when studying participants between the ages of 18 to 30 years (Carron et al., 1985). In a sample of 154 professional male basketball players, Cronbach's alpha revealed values of.35 for ATG-S, .66 for ATGT, .69 for GI-S, and .76 for GI-T (Heuze, Raimbault, and Fontayne, 2006). Eys et al. (2007) revised the GEQ to include positively worded items and increased the reliability of the subscale. In its original form, there is evidence supporting the construct validity of the GEQ based on 212 team sport athletes (Carron et al., 1985).

Sport Motivation Scale. The SMS (Pelletier et al., 1995) evaluates the eight subscales of motivation, with four items for each subscale. Items reflect potential reasons for the athlete's sport participation (e.g., "Because I must do sports to feel good about myself"; "For the pleasure it gives me to know more about the sport that I practice") and are scored on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("not at all") to 7 ("exactly"). Pelletier et al. (1995) sampled 593 university athletes and found adequate internal consistency among seven of the eight subscales, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .74 to .80; the identification subscale exhibited the lowest internal consistency (a = .63). All subscales were found to have a high positive correlation between one another, with the correlation weakening only between amotivation and intrinsic motivation, which makes sense theoretically. This reliability was verified in another study by Kingston et al. (2006) with collegiate student athletes; the mean Cronbach's alpha score for the subscales was at least .80, except for the identification subscale which was below .70. Additionally, the SMS has shown strong logical validity and adequate content validity (Li & Harmer, 1996; Pelletier et al., 1995).

For the present study, a weighted scoring system was used to identify a single motivation score as recommended by Sarrazin and colleagues (2002). First, an average score for each subscale was found, then the scores were weighted by multiplying by the following: +2 for the IM subscales, + 1 for integrated regulation, -1 for the remaining EM subscales, and -2 for Amotivation, and finally summed. This allowed a single number to be attained so that motivation type could be placed along the continuum. The SDC score could range from -18 to 18 with higher scores signifying intrinsic motivation types while lower scores show extrinsic motivation types or amotivation.

Procedures

Upon IRB approval, 15 Division I college head coaches were contacted about the study and team meetings were scheduled. At each team meeting, the researchers explained the study, and interested athletes were given a packet of questionnaires to complete that included informed consent form, demographics questionnaire, GEQ, and SMS. The GEQ and SMS were alternately ordered in the packets to avoid any biases that may have arisen due to questionnaire placement. Participants completed the packet in less than fifteen minutes.

Data Analysis

Using a correlational design in a convenience sample of Division I college student-athletes, the researchers assessed the relationships among gender, motivation type (i.e. SDC score), and perceived team cohesion. All statistical analyses were run using SPSS 17.0. Data was checked for normality, and Cronbach's alphas were run for all survey subscales (see Table 2). The high Cronbach's alpha levels on the subscales show strong correlations between the items within the subscales, and ultimately demonstrate that the measures were reliable. The GEQ was scored as suggested by Carton et al. (2002) by combining the two task subscales and two social subscales to get a single score for each type of cohesion. However, as mentioned previously, a weighted scoring system to compute motivation type (i.e. SDC score) was used with the SMS data (Sarrazin et al., 2002).

Results

Descriptive statistics were computed for the GEQ and the SMS. To evaluate the first two hypotheses, which examined the relationships between task and social cohesion and each of the eight motivation subscales, Pearson's correlations, with significance levels of .05, were used (see Table 2). The first hypothesis was supported, as both task and social cohesion were positively correlated with all three types of intrinsic motivation and integrated regulation. However, the second hypothesis was not supported in its entirety. While negative relationships were found between amotivation and both types of cohesion, no relationship was found between either type of cohesion and introjected regulation. Furthermore, an unpredicted positive relationship was found between both types of cohesion and identified regulation. Intrinsic motivation subscales consistently had a stronger positive correlation with social and task cohesion, while the extrinsic subscales either had a weaker significant positive correlation, no relationship, or a significant negative correlation. However, although there was a relationship in the predicted direction, it is not an overall strong relationship.

For the third and fourth hypotheses, two multiple regression analyses were performed in order to predict social and task cohesion based on gender, motivation type (i.e. SDC score), and the interaction. Recall that the third hypothesis stated that there would be an interaction between gender and motivation type in predicting social cohesion and social cohesion would be better predicted by gender than motivation type. The regression analysis (see Table 3) was significant in explaining 19% of the variance in social cohesion ([R.sup.2] = .191, F(3,241) = 18.927, p < .05). Motivation type significantly predicted social cohesion ([beta] = .398, p < .05), and there were no significant gender differences in social cohesion ([beta] = .197, p > .05), thus partially supporting the hypothesis. However, the interaction between gender and motivation type was not significant, indicating no difference in the impact of motivation type on task cohesion between males and females, thus not supporting the hypothesis. The low R-squared indicates that although this model was significant, as a whole it was not effective in prediction of level of perceived social cohesion.

The regression analysis for hypothesis four (see Table 4) explored the hypothesis that there would not be an interaction between gender and motivation type for task cohesion; however, motivation types would be a significant predictor of task cohesion. The model was significant accounting for, 19% of the variance in task cohesion ([R.sup.2] =. 196, F(3, 241) = 19.532, p < .05). The interaction between gender and motivation type was not significant, indicating no difference in the impact of motivation type on task cohesion between males and females. Additionally, there were no significant gender differences in task cohesion ([beta] = .219, p > .05) and motivation type was a better predictor than gender ([beta] = .468, p < .05); therefore, fully supporting hypothesis four. Again, the low R-squared indicates that although the model was significant, as a whole it was not effective in the prediction of perceived task cohesion.

In two post-hoc hierarchical regression analyses, type of sport was added to the original variables of gender, SDC score, and the moderator variable of gender x motivation in order to identify if type of sport, individual or team, contributed to the prediction of perceptions of social and task cohesion. For both task and social cohesion, the variance explained significantly increased with the addition of type of sport as a predictor. For task cohesion, the variance increased from approximately 19% to explaining 23% ([R.sup.2] change = .035, p < .05). Social cohesion variance increased from 19% before type of sport was considered to 25% ([R.sup.2] change = .065, p < .05). Furthermore, type of sport is a significant predictor of social cohesion ([beta] = -.419, p < .05) and task cohesion ([beta] = -.331, p < .05) indicating athletes that participated in individual sports rated perceptions of social and task cohesion lower than athletes on team sports. As for motivation type, there was not a moderating effect for type of sport on motivation within task cohesion ([beta] = .215, p > .05), but for social cohesion a moderating effect was produced ([beta] = .236, p < .05), indicating that motivation type has a larger impact on predicting cohesion for individual sports than team sports.

Discussion

The main purpose of the current study was to assess how motivation level and gender of individual athletes related to how they perceived team cohesion. Results contributed to a better understanding of athletes' motivation and group processes (i.e., perceived social context). Specifically, more intrinsically motivated individuals perceive higher levels of social and task cohesion than teammates who were less intrinsically motivated. For example, individuals who report high levels of IM to know and learn, IM to experience stimulation, IM to accomplish, integrated regulation, and identified regulation also reported high levels of social and task cohesion.

Although extrinsic motivation is often believed to be less self-determined, Iso-Ahola (1999) stated that certain external motivations could become self-determined through identification in the way of self-discovery and recognition. By definition, identified regulation also has to do with goal achievement and growth which means that those athletes who scored high on the identified regulation subscale could still be participating in the sport for intrinsic reasons instead of the extrinsic motivation that is suggested in the measure. Therefore, this type of motivation has a more similar relationship to the intrinsic motivation subscales as opposed to other extrinsic motivation subscales.

The non-significant correlations between cohesion and the introjected regulation and external regulation subscales could be explained by the varying levels of scholarship status among the sample, coaching climates, or past performance record. These variables were not examined in this research but have emerged as predictors of motivation (Amorose & Horn, 2000; Gardner et al., 1996; Kipp & Amorose, 2008). Athletic scholarships can encourage participation due to a sense of guilt or duty even if an athlete has lost enjoyment in the activity itself which can hinder relationships among the team and lower personal motivation. Coaching climate can have a similar effect as a coach can either develop an atmosphere through self-determination theory that builds motivation or destroys it. Poor past performance records can cause tension throughout a team and a loss of team and athlete motivation.

Although non-significant, external regulation showed a positive relationship with task and social cohesion which is opposite of what was predicted. The stronger correlation with social cohesion rather than task cohesion with external regulation could possibly be explained by the idea that social factors in sport could be portrayed as an extrinsic motive since some athletes participate for the chance to meet others and be involved in a group.

Widmeyer and colleagues (1985) showed that there were no significant differences in perception of task or social cohesion between adult male and female athletes. However, other research suggest that male athletes are more likely to participate in sport for a means to an end (i.e. extrinsic motive) while female athletes are more likely to participate in an activity for the intrinsic rewards (Sarrazin et al., 2002). Gender differences on motivation type were explored in the current study to determine its relationship to social and task cohesion levels. Results indicated that the gender x motivation type interaction was not relevant with this sample. In other words, there were no motivation differences between male and female athletes. Furthermore, gender was not a significant predictor of cohesion. However, motivation type is likely to be a strong influence in predicting perceptions of cohesion, as motivation type became more intrinsic (i.e. moves towards intrinsic motivation on the SDC), athletes perceived higher levels of cohesion, which is consistent with Widmeyer et al.'s original research (1985). Similar motivation results are supported by past research that has also made use of the SMS (Krinanthi, Konstantinos, & Andreas, 2010; Pelletier et al., 1995)

It is important to note the limitations of the study. Carron and Brawley (2000) noted that cohesion fluctuates throughout group development, so in early stages of development, teams are typically more focused on task cohesion and allow social cohesion to develop during the season (Carron et al., 1985). Because this study utilized a one time, cross-sectional approach, possible seasonal fluctuations in cohesion could have affected the results since athletes were at different points in their seasons when they completed the questionnaires. However, scores from this study were consistent with normative data from the GEQ (Carron et al., 2002).

Another limitation is homogeneity of the sample. This study exclusively utilized NCAA Division I collegiate athletes; thus, the results may differ for athletes involved in other levels of competitive sport participation. Furthermore, over 80% of the sample was Caucasian, so it should also be concluded that these results may not be generalized to other ethnicities. The large amount of ethnic similarities could also affect the results in that homogeneity of a group often contributes to more positive perceptions of group formation (Eitzen, 1975).

Sport participation is extremely complex and dynamic. Findings here support that the relationship between athlete motivation type and team cohesion may be mediated by other factors, other than gender, that were not examined in this study such as team member seniority, motivational climate (Kipp & Amorose, 2008), scholarship status, starter versus non-starter status, and type of sport (i.e. interactive vs. coactive).

Type of sport should specifically be noted because in interactive sports, effective play requires strong interdependence of all individuals thus making their perception of cohesion much higher than those of coactive sports (Gardner et al., 1996). This finding was supported in post-hoc analyses revealing team sport athletes rating perceptions of team social and task cohesion higher than individual sport athletes. The moderating effect of motivation and type of sport should also be noted as it indicates that individual sport athletes' personal motivation is a stronger predictor of perceptions of cohesion than team sport athletes' motivation. This result is interesting yet to be expected as individual sport athletes are required to perform alone and rely on themselves much more often than team sport athletes who have the camaraderie of the team to help motivate their participation and perceptions. Future research should further examine the cohesion-motivation differences between types of sports (Senecal et al., 2008).

Furthermore, applied researchers may want to examine the impact of specific techniques and strategies used by coaches and sport psychologists to influence motivation and team cohesion. For example, personal growth experiences (McClure & Foster, 1991), ropes and challenge courses (Meyer, 2000), and social get-togethers outside of the sport arena (Yukelson, 1997) have been shown to contribute to motivation and cohesion. As the current research suggests, intrinsic motivation aspects related to the motives to learn, experience stimulation, and accomplish are related to high perceptions of cohesion. Therefore, techniques and interventions designed to build cohesion may be even more effective if they emphasize activities focused on intrinsic motivation.

In summary, the results of this study are beneficial for athletes, coaches, and sport psychologists because it allows them to have a clearer understanding of the importance of motivation, specifically intrinsic motivation types, on the team's perceptions of social and task cohesion. With this knowledge, individuals associated with a group or sport team can contribute more effectively to group outcomes by suggesting and/or implementing team building exercises throughout the season. In addition, individual motivation measures can be utilized at the beginning of the sport season in order to determine the amount of intrinsically motivated athletes that occupy a team; therefore drawing a conclusion of the perceived task and social cohesion. As mentioned earlier, this is essential as higher cohesion leads to willingness to return to sport (Spink, 1995), less tardiness (Carton et al., 1988), and overall higher performance success (Carron et al., 2002).

References

Alexandris, K., Tsorbatzoudis, C., & Grouios, G (2002). Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: Investigating their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 233-252.

Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athlete's gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-85.

Brawley, L. R., Carton, A.V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1993). The influence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of group goal-related variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 245-260.

Brustad, R. J. (1988). Affective outcomes in competitive youth sport: The influence of intrapersonal and socialization factors. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 307-321.

Callow, N., Smith, M. J., Hardy, L., Arthur, C. A., & Hardy, J. (2009). Measurement of transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance level. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 395-413.

Carron, A. V. (1982). Cohesiveness in sport groups: Interpretations and considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 123-138.

Carron, A. V. & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Small Group Research, 31, 89-106.

Carron, A.V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, N.W. (2002). Normative data for the GEQ. In A.V.

Carton (Ed.), Group environment questionnaire: test manual (pp.42-56). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J.L. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Carton, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M.A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sport Sciences, 20, 119-126.

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.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W., & Brawley, L. (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., & Brawley, L. (1988). Group cohesion and individual adherence to physical activity. Journal of Sport and 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.

Deci, E. L. (1992). On the nature and functions of motivation theories. Psychological Science, 3, 167-171.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Eitzen, D. S. (1975). Group structure and group performance. In D.M. Landers, D.V. Harris, & R.W. Christina (Eds.), Psychology of Sport and Motor Behavior. University Park, PA: College of HPER, Pennsylvania State University.

Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2007). Item wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 395-402.

Eys, M. A., Loughead, T., Bray, S., & Carron, A. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The youth sport environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 31, 390-408.

Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (1995). Academic motivation and school performance: Toward a structural model. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 257-274.

Gardner, D. E., Shields, D. L., Bredemeier, B. J., & Bostrom, A. (1996). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and team cohesion among baseball and softball players. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 367-381.

Gill, D. L., Gross, J. B., & Huddleston, S. (1983). Participation motivation in youth sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 14, 1-14.

Glenday, L., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1993). Describing and explaining gender differences in the cohesion of athletic teams. Paper presented at the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Conference, Montreal, Quebec.

Haggar, M., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Haggar, M., Chatzisarantis, N., & Harris, J. (2006). The process by which relative autonomous motivation affects intentional behavior: Comparing effects across dieting and exercise behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 306-320.

Heuze, J. P., Bosselut, G., & Thomas, J. P. (2007). Should the coaches of elite female handball teams focus on collective efficacy or group cohesion? The Sport Psychologist, 21, 383-399.

Heuze, J. P., Raimbault, N., & Fontayne, P. (2006). Relationships between cohesion, collective efficacy, and performance in professional basketball teams: An examination of mediating effects. Journal of Sport Sciences, 24, 59-68.

Iso-Ahola, S. (1999). Motivational foundations of leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (Eds.), Leisure Studies: Prospects for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 35-51). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Kingston, K., Horrocks, C., & Hanton, S. (2006). Do multidimensional intrinsic and extrinsic motivation profiles discriminate between athlete scholarship status and gender? European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 53-63.

Kipp, L. & Amorose, A. J. (2008). Perceived motivational climate and self-determined motivation in female high school athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31, 108-129.

Kowal, J. & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants of flow: Contributions from self-determination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 139, 355-368.

Krinanthi, Ct, Konstantinos, M., & Andreas, G. (2010). Self-determination and sport commitment: An evaluation by university intramural participants. International Journal of Fitness, 6, 41-52.

Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Group Environment Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 49-63.

Lindner, K. J., Johns, D. P., & Butcher, J. (1991). Factors in withdrawal from youth sport: A proposed model. Journal of Sport Behavior, 14, 3-18.

Lott, A. J. & Lott, B. D. (1965). Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408-412.

Loughead, T. M. & Hardy, J. (2006). Team cohesion: From theory to research to team building. In S. Hanton & S. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature Reviews in Sport Psychology (pp.257-287). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Martens, M. & Webber, S. N. (2002). Psychometric properties of the sport motivation scale: An evaluation with college varsity athletes from the U.S. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 254-270.

Mathes, S. & Battista, R. (1985). College men's and women's motives for participation in physical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 719-726.

McClure, B. A. & Foster, C. D. (1991). Group work as a method of promoting cohesiveness within a women's gymnastics team. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 307-313.

Meyer, B. B. (2000). The ropes and challenge course: A quasi-experimental examination. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 1249-1257.

Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.

Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Tuson, K., Briere, N., & Blais, M. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53.

Petitpas, A. J., Brewer, B. W., & Van Raalte, J. L. (1996). Transitions of the student-athlete: Theoretical, empirical, and practical perspectives. In E.F. Etzel (Ed.), Counseling College Student Athletes: Issues and Interventions, 2nd ed. (pp. 137-156). Morgantown, W.VA: Fitness Information Technology.

Ryan, E. D. (1980). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and athletics: A replication and extension. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R. Halliwell, W. R. Newell, & G. C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of motor behavior and sport (pp. 19-24). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.

Scanlan, T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1984). Social psychological aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: Predictors of competitive stress. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 25-35.

Senecal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team-building intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 186-199.

Spink, K. S. (1995). Cohesion and intention to participate of female sport team athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 416-427.

Thompson, S. A., & Albinson, J. (1991). An investigation of factors affecting the development of cohesion among intercollegiate rowers. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology Conference, London, Ontario.

Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 86-104.

Vallerand, R. J. & Losier, G. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 142-169.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., Senecal, C., & Vallieres, E. F. (1993). On the assessment of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence on the concurrent and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 159-172.

White, S.A. (1993). The relationship between psychological skills, experiences, and practice commitment among collegiate male and female skiers. The Sport Psychologist, 7, 49-57

Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The Measurement of Cohesion in Sport Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire London, Ont: Sports Dynamics.

Widmeyer, W. N., Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (1993). Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology. New York: Macmillan.

Widmeyer, W. N., & Martens, R. (1978). When cohesion predicts performance outcome in sport. Research Quarterly, 49, 372-380.

Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport: A direct services approach at Penn State University. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 73-96.

Meghan Halbrook, Lindsey C. Blom, Kimberly Hurley, Robert J. Bell, Jocelyn E. Holden

Ball State University

Address Correspondence to: Dr. Lindsey Blom, School of Physical Education, Sport, & Exercise Science, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306.Email: lcblom@bsu.edu Phone: 765.285.5130
Table 1
Sample Information by Sport

Sport                 Classification   Frequency   Percentage

Men's Volleyball      Team                 15          5.9
Field Hockey          Team                 13          5.1
Men's Swimming        Individual           24          9.5
Women's Golf          Individual            7          2.8
Softball              Team                 20          7.9
Men's Golf            Individual           11          4.3
Women's Track         Individual           32         12.6
Women's Volleyball    Team                  8          3.2
Women's Gymnastics    Individual           13          5.1
Baseball              Team                 34         13.4
Women's Soccer        Team                 16          6.3
Women's Tennis        Individual            9          3.6
Men's Tennis          Individual           12          4.7
Men's Basketball      Team                  7          2.8
Football              Team                 32         12.6
TOTAL                                     253        100.0

Table 2
Variable Alphas, Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

                               Cronbach's
Variable    N     M      SD      Alpha      Task       Social

SDC        249   6.82   3.95       --          --         --
IMKL       253   4.84   1.28      0.85        .31 **     .25 **
IMA        252   5.43   1.11      0.83        .32 **     .26 **
IMES       253   5.53   1.06      0.77        .37 **     .42 **
IntR       249   5.08   1.20      0.81        .20 **     .22 **
IdR        249   5.08   1.23      0.78        .26 **     .27 **
IntroR     252   3.87   1.42      0.77       -.002      -.008
ExtR       253   4.30   1.41      0.79        .08        .10
Amot       252   2.29   1.26      0.82       -.34 **    -.38 **
Task       253   6.85   1.29      0.79         --         --
Social     253   7.18   1.24      0.77         --         --

** p<.01 (2-tailed). SDC=self-determination continuum score,
IMKL= intrinsic motivation to know and learn, IMA= intrinsic
motivation to accomplish, IMES= intrinsic motivation to
experience stimulation, IntR= integrated regulation, IdR=
identified regulation, IntroR= introjected regulation, ExtR=
external regulation, Amot=amotivation

Table 3
Hypothesis 3: Social Cohesion Regression Coefficients

                                    Beta      t        P

Intercept                                   31.624    0.001
Gender (^)                         0.197     1.702    0.090
Motivation Type (SDC score)        0.427     5.276    0.001
Interaction (SDC score x Gender)  -0.068    -0.517    0.606

* Significant at p < .05

(^) Female athletes were coded as a T" while male athletes
were coded as "I".

Table 4
Hypothesis 4: Task Cohesion Regression Coefficients

                                      Beta      t        P

Intercept                                    27.907   .001
Gender (^)                            .219    1.893   .060
Motivation Type (SDC score)           .468    5.799   .001 *
Interaction (SDC score x Gender)     -.132   -1.002   .318

* Significant at p < .05

(^) Female athletes were coded as a "0" while male athletes
were coded as "I".
Gale Copyright: Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.