Causality and the Cohesion-performance Relationship

Abstract

The causal predominance of performance affecting later cohesiveness that has been shown in previous studies was examined by means of a series of statistical analyses designed to assess influence in a longitudinal panel design. Male students (N = 44) participating in a basketball league were administered cohesiveness and participation motivation scales at early, mid, and late season. In contrast to previous findings, the cross-lagged correlations showed that performance and cohesion were significantly related to each other with no causal predominance of one over the other. With the exception of the friendship measure, the cross-lagged correlations were no longer significant when earlier measures of the effect variable were controlled through partial correlation and path analysis techniques. In contrast to previous research, midseason cohesion, as measured by friendship, was a significant (p < .04) predictor of late season performance. The importance of interpersonal attraction in the recruitment and maintenance of intramural team members is discussed along with the necessity for determining, in future studies, the reliability of cohesiveness measures.

An examination of the cohesion‐performance relationship in university hockey teams

“…The partial-correlation coefficients also supported the finding that performance causes cohesion. However, path analyses conducted by Landers et al (1982) on the data yielded no significant path coefficients in either direction. The CLC findings are also tainted by the violation of two basic assumptions underlying CLC panel design, synchronicity and stationarity (Kenny, 1975).…”

“…Carrón and Ball (1977) used the SCQ, and its composite average score, to assess the cohesionperformance relationship of 12 intercollegiate ice hockey teams. The CLCs showed strong support for a one-way causal flow from performance to cohesion, subsequently described by Landers et al (1982) as the Carrón and Ball model. The Pearson-Filon test was later applied by Gill (1978) to the two CLCs and a significant cross-lagged differential resulted (Z=2.87, P<0.01).…”

Group cohesion and starting status in successful and less successful elite volleyball teams

“…In response to the identification of these factors as possible reasons for the conflicting findings, research has been directed at developing new Yukelson et al, 1984). Research also has been done that attempts to establish causality in the cohesion-performance relationship (Bakeman and Helmreich, 1975;Carron and Ball, 1977;Landers et al, 1982). In an attempt to unravel the relation of cohesion to performance, these studies represent an important and necessary research direction.…”

“…These have included the problems associated with the measurement of cohesion and the fact that causality is often difficult to establish (Carron and Ball, 1977;Landers et al, 1982). In response to the identification of these factors as possible reasons for the conflicting findings, research has been directed at developing new Yukelson et al, 1984).…”

“…Previous research investigating the relation of cohesion to performance has examined simple between-group differences in cohesiveness and related them to different outcomes (e.g. Ball and Carron, 1976;Davids and Nutter, 1988;Landers et al, 1982;Williams and Hacker, 1982). In these studies, the members' perceptions of cohesiveness were simply averaged across the group, with no regard to the possibility that there may be within-group differences in the perception of cohesiveness.…”