Effects of groupness and cohesion on intention to return in sport.

Abstract

Two group constructs positively related to sport adherence are team cohesion (Spink, 1995) and groupness (Crozier & Spink, 2014). Given that both constructs likely share some conceptual overlap, it is unclear how they might relate to an adherence outcome when examined together. To address this, the effect of varying levels of both cohesion and groupness on an individual athlete's intention to return to a sport team was examined using a within-subjects experimental design. Adult soccer players (N ϭ 68) read 4 hypothetical soccer team scenarios where the description differed in the levels of cohesion (high vs. low) and groupness (high vs. low) associated with each team. While imagining themselves as a member of each team, participants rated their intention to return to that team in the future based on the cohesion/groupness characteristics outlined in the team description. ANOVA results indicated that the overall model was significant (p Ͻ .001), with a strong effect size ( p 2 ϭ .72). Post hoc analyses revealed that intention to return to a team was higher when teams were described as possessing more versus less of either cohesion or groupness. As well, an additive effect emerged, such that intention to return was highest when imagining oneself as a member of the high cohesion/high groupness team. Although in need of real-world replication, this provides initial support for the idea that cohesion and groupness have additive effects on intention to return.

Groupness, cohesion, and intention to return to sport: A study of intact youth teams

“…Implicit in the terms ''sticking together'' and ''remaining united'' is the idea of adherence, and given that the assumed underlying collective goal of competitive sport is to win, support for the task cohesion-adherence relationship in sport should come as no surprise. In fact, a positive link between task cohesion and both intention to return 7 and actual return to the team 8 have been reported in past sport research with young adults.…”

“…To capture athletes' intention to return to the team, a two-item measure was used for this study that reflected the likelihood of the members being involved with their current team in the future. This same measure was used previously by Spink et al 7 in a sport context. The two items included ''If this league started again next week, how likely would you be to return to playing with this team?''…”

“…One study to date considered the effect of cohesion and groupness together on intention to return to sport. 7 Using hypothetical vignettes, it was found that when cohesion was described as higher (e.g. ''All the players on the team are very close and are united in the pursuit of important team goals''), members indicated that their intentions to return to the team in the future would be greater than when the team was described as exhibiting lower levels of cohesion.…”

“…The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between perceptions of cohesion and the intention of members to return to a team in the future among those who perceived the team to be either higher or lower in perceptions of groupness. Based on the results of the Spink et al 7 study, it was hypothesized that perceptions of team cohesiveness would be positively related to intention to return to the team in the future but that the effect would be stronger among members who perceived the team higher, compared to lower, in groupness. Given that this additive relationship has been examined in only one study to date, we mirrored the current emphasis in psychology on the need for replication.…”

“…18 However, given the importance of cohesion [1][2][3] generally, it was deemed relevant to better understand the basic relationship between perceptions of cohesion and intention to return in a sample of athletes where attrition is a concern. 4,5 We also built on the results of the Spink et al 7 study in two other important ways. First, cohesion was operationalized as a unidimensional construct in that study, which is not consistent with its assumed multidimensional nature.…”