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

Abstract

The positive benefits for youth participating in sport have been well documented. Yet, keeping athletes returning to sport has been a concern. While various factors have been examined to explain this attrition, facets of the sport group experience have started to emerge. From a group perspective, it has been established that athlete intentions to return to a sport team the following season are positively associated with perceived team cohesion. While cohesion is a key group construct, other group factors are worthy of examination. The purpose of the current study was to build upon the research base by examining whether the relationship between cohesion and intention to return would be moderated by another group factor—the level of groupness ascribed to the team. At the end of a competitive season, youth soccer athletes (N = 156) completed measures of task cohesion, groupness, and intention to return to their team in the future. Results revealed that the task cohesion-intention to return relationship was significantly moderated by groupness, p = .03. Simple slopes analysis revealed that the strongest relationship between task cohesion and intention to return occurred under conditions of lower groupness. These initial results indicated that intention to return was highest when the team was perceived as higher in task cohesion, regardless of groupness perceptions. However, when the team was perceived to be lower in task cohesion, those who perceived their team as being more like a group indicated a greater willingness to return to the team in the future.

Keywords

Adherence association football attrition soccer youth sport

Participating in sport and physical activity has been associated with numerous physical, psychological, and social benefits.^1–3 Despite the host of positive outcomes associated with sport participation, Canadian adolescents are becoming less involved in sport with each passing year, and participation rates have been shown to decline into adulthood.⁴ Given that team sport represents a prevalent form of youth sport participation (70% of those involved play a team sport),⁵ looking for clues in the group environment to explain adherence appears worthwhile.

Cohesion has received attention from researchers as one group construct critical to member adherence. In sport, cohesion has been defined as “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” (Carron et al.,⁶ p.213). 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 return⁷ and actual return to the team⁸ have been reported in past sport research with young adults.

While studies have established a relationship between perceptions of cohesion and adherence, it has been suggested recently⁹ that group researchers begin to examine second-generation research questions.¹⁰ That is, questions that involve the identification and testing of possible variables that might qualify the relationship between cohesion and adherence (i.e. moderators). One such possible moderator variable is the perception of groupness within a team.

Groupness has been identified in the sport setting for its role in adherence.^9,11 The groupness construct refers to the extent that group members perceive a collection as more like a group than a mere collection of individuals.¹² Further, researchers¹² have argued that one of the key considerations for the amount of groupness one ascribes to a collection of individuals is the future trajectory of the group as it relates to its implied continuity (i.e. the longer the collection is projected to be together, the more like a group it will appear to be). Given that perceptions about collections of individuals as being more like a group have been constitutively linked to adherence,¹² it is plausible that the perception of a team’s groupness may interact with perceptions of team cohesiveness to impact a member’s intention to return to the team in the future.

Although both constructs are likely to occur together in a group, and both are best viewed as a matter of degree rather than an all-or-none construct,⁹ it is important to recognize that they should not be viewed as isomorphic constructs. For one, it has been established that members of a sport team will draw on different experiences within the team environment to determine the degree to which they perceive their team to be cohesive or more like a group.¹³ Also, at the empirical level, some early adherence research by Robinson and Carron¹⁴ provides indirect evidence that groupness and cohesion can be perceived differently. In that study, it was reported that young athletes who were dropouts from their team perceived the team to be very close knit (i.e. cohesive), but considered they were not part of that group (e.g. lower groupness).

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. However, it was found that reports of return to the team were greatest when the team was described as having higher perceptions of both cohesion (as described above) and groupness (e.g. “… there are team norms shaping member behavior, all players have specific roles within the team, and there is regular communication and interaction among team members…”), relative to teams described as only higher in the cohesion property. These results provide initial evidence that perceptions of groupness may interact in an additive fashion with perceptions of team cohesiveness to facilitate the intention of members to return to a team in the future.

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.¹⁵ Further, cognizant of the suggestion that literal replication may not be as possible in the behavioral sciences,¹⁶ we adhered to Locke’s¹⁷ suggestion for replication with variation, by examining this relationship using a different population—youth.

Examining the team sport environment in youth sport adherence research is not with precedent. For instance, a recent review of the literature identified a number of interpersonal-level correlates such as relatedness and perceptions of the motivational climate.¹⁸ However, given the importance of cohesion^1–3 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.^19,20 As such, one important extension would be to consider a specific cohesion dimension related to the underlying objective of team sport—winning. Given that it might be assumed that task (versus social) cohesion would be more aligned with the objective of winning in competitive teams, it was hypothesized that the relationship between task cohesion and intention to return would differ based on higher and lower levels of groupness. Second, as hypothetical sport teams were used in that study⁷ to manipulate the varying levels of cohesion and groupness, intact teams were selected to increase the external validity.

Methods

Participants

Adolescents (N = 156) from 10 intact youth outdoor soccer teams in a city league from Western Canada participated in this study. Participants ranged in age from 12 to 16 years, with an average age of 13.3 years (SD = 1.1). Participants were primarily female (72.4%; n = 113 on seven teams for females and 27.6%; n = 43 on three teams for males), and were selected from competitive teams where member selection was based on preseason try-outs. On average, participants reported 5.10 years of experience playing competitive soccer and 2.10 years competing with their current team.

Procedure

Upon receipt of institutional ethics approval, researchers were provided permission to speak to coaches at a meeting approximately one month prior to the start of the outdoor soccer season. At this time, the study was explained and permission was requested to have their respective teams included in the study. After providing appropriate consent, participants completed the questionnaire package within the last month of the season following a practice. A researcher was present in order to ensure that participants were completing the measures independently of their teammates and to answer questions. Participants took approximately 10 min to complete the survey.

Measures

Groupness

Athletes’ perceptions of groupness were assessed using a five-item measure adapted from the activity context.²¹ The items assessed aligned with the variables outlined by Carron and Eys²² to describe a sport group: mutual benefit, social structure, common fate, self-categorization, and group processes. A sample item reflecting self-categorization was “Do you consider the individual players on this team to be a group as compared to a collection of individuals?” For each item, athletes were asked to rate their degree of agreement on a 9-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much so). Scores were averaged across all items (α = .92) to reflect a single value wherein greater scores reflected higher perceptions of groupness. Reliability for this measure has been demonstrated in a comparable youth sport context.²³

Group cohesion

Athletes’ perceptions of task cohesion were assessed using the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ²⁰). The YSEQ contains eight items reflecting task cohesion (e.g. “We all share the same commitment to our team’s goals”). For each item, athletes were asked to rate their degree of agreement on a 9-point Likert-type scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree). Responses to each item were averaged where greater overall scores reflected higher perceptions of task cohesion (α = .92). The YSEQ has been shown to be reliable and valid in youth sport settings.^20,24

Intention to return

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?” and “If you had the choice to play on any team next season, how likely are you to return to playing with this team again?” Both items were scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all likely) to 5 (very likely). Scores were averaged across both items (α = .84) with greater scores reflecting greater intentions to return to the current team in the future.

Data analysis

Prior to conducting the main analysis, we screened all data for missing values and outliers, as well as tested for the assumptions of normality.²⁵ Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were calculated for each study variable. To address the main purpose of the study, a hierarchical linear modeling approach was proposed to account for the nested data structure (i.e. individual athletes within teams). This would be done by modeling the moderation of groupness perceptions on the task cohesion – intention to return relationship across individual- and group-level effects²⁶ To determine whether responses were interdependent, nesting of intention to return responses was checked first by calculating the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).²⁷

In the event that responses were found to be independent (ICC < .10),²⁷ data would be analyzed only at the individual level using multiple regression. In this case, mean-centered scores for cohesion and groupness would be entered at step 1, and the interaction term between these two variables at step 2. As a follow-up to a significant interaction term, simple slopes analyses would be conducted to determine the nature of the interaction based on higher and lower scores of cohesion and groupness.²⁸ In the absence of a significant interaction term (i.e. no moderation), only the main effects for cohesion and groupness would be interpreted.

Results

Initial checks of the data revealed that all statistical assumptions were satisfied. Further, 29 participants were removed owing to missing data on at least one of the study variables. As such, the final analysis was conducted with 127 participants on 10 teams. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for study variables.

Study variables	Descriptive statistics			Correlations
Study variables	M	SD	α	(1)	(2)	(3)
(1) Task cohesion	7.09	1.37	.92	–	.55	.61
(2) Groupness	6.82	1.10	.92		–	.40
(3) Intention to return	4.09	1.01	.84			–

Note: Group cohesion and groupness perceptions measured on a 1 to 9 scale, and intention to return on a 1 to 5 scale. In all cases, higher scores reflect stronger perceptions of the construct. All correlations significant at p < .01.

Overall, task cohesion and groupness were moderately and positively related to the dependent variable (intention to return). Further, task cohesion and groupness were correlated only moderately (see Table 1) providing further evidence that they are not isomorphic constructs.

Due to the nested structure of these data (i.e. individuals within teams), we first checked the ICC to determine the degree to which intention to return scores were more related to team members than other participants. The calculated value (ICC = .017) suggested that nesting of responses was not a concern (less than 2% of the variance in intention to return scores shared within the team at level 2) leading to data being analyzed only at the individual level.

Groupness as a moderator of the task cohesion and intention to return relationship

Results from the multiple regression model were significant, F(3, 117) = 26.00, p < .001, accounting for 40% of the variance in intention to return. Within the complete model, a significant task cohesion × groupness interaction term emerged, b = −.09, t(120) = −2.18, p = .03 (see Figure 1). Simple slopes analysis revealed that the relationship between task cohesion and intention to return was stronger for those athletes reporting lower perceptions of groupness, b = .43, t(120) = 6.73, p < .001 versus those reporting higher perceptions of groupness, b = .24, t(120) = 2.36, p = .02. Of interest, there was a significant main effect for task cohesion, b = .33, t(120) = 4.71, p < .001, but not groupness, b = .13, t(120) = 1.61, p > .10.
Figure 1.
Moderating effect of groupness on the relationship between task cohesion and intention to return. High and low scores are calculated based on ±1 SD around the mean. SD: standard deviation.

Discussion

The current study sought to replicate the cohesion-intention to return relationship with variation¹⁷ (i.e. by using youth athletes and intact teams). Further, the study explored a second-generation research question¹⁰ in that groupness was proposed as a potential moderator of the relationship between task cohesion and intention to return to a sport team in the future. We hypothesized that the relationship between task cohesion and intention to return would be strengthened under conditions of higher (versus lower) perceptions of groupness. This would parallel the additive effect demonstrated by Spink et al.⁷ using hypothetical vignettes, where it was found that intention to return was greatest when both cohesion and groupness were higher.

The results of the current study revealed both similarities and differences with findings emanating from past research. In terms of similarities, it was found that when athletes perceived task cohesion as higher on their team (regardless of perceptions of groupness), they reported a greater intention to return to their team in the future. This replicated the main effect found using hypothetical scenarios⁷ as well as extended it to a specific dimension of cohesion (i.e. task). Further, to our knowledge, this is one of the first published studies to report a positive relationship between perceptions of cohesion and the intention to return in youth athletes.

These findings, however, failed to support our hypothesis that intention to return would be strengthened under conditions of higher groupness. In fact, we found that the relationship was stronger when perceived groupness was lower (see Figure 1 for an illustration). This contrasts with past research using hypothetical teams where an additive effect was found for perceptions of cohesion and groupness.⁷ In that study, intention to return to a team in the future was reported as highest when the team was described as being higher in perceptions of both cohesion and groupness (versus when only one of the constructs was described as high). While the current findings are unexpected, some possibilities exist to explain this difference.

One possible explanation for the difference may reflect the different designs and methodologies used. Spink et al.⁷ study used an experimental design and vignettes to create the conditions while the current study used a nonexperimental design, but with intact teams. While the experimental design and vignettes made it possible to manipulate and create higher and lower groupness and cohesion perceptions, thus enhancing internal validity, one of the concerns of that study might be about the ability to extrapolate those vignette findings to the world outside (i.e. external validity).²⁹ Hence, it is possible that the results from the study using the experimental/vignette methodology⁷ do not generalize to intact teams as examined in the current study, and an additive effect simply does not exist.

Another possibility is that an additive effect is only present when adults serve as the population. However, to our knowledge, nothing in the developmental literature provides a plausible rationale to explain why perceptions of cohesiveness and groupness would be additive with adults, but not youth. As such, this possible explanation would appear less appealing at this time.

A third possibility, given the current results, is that perceptions of cohesion and groupness interact, but not in an additive fashion, as hypothesized. It is worth remembering that the results of this study revealed that the relationship between cohesion and intention to return was qualified by the degree of groupness ascribed to the team. However, the relationship between perceptions of task cohesion and intention to return was strongest when perceptions of groupness were lower. An examination of Figure 1 suggests that athletes’ intention to return to their team were highest when the team was perceived to be united in the pursuit instrumental task objectives (higher task cohesion). Further, inspection of Figure 1 makes it clear that perceptions of groupness did not add to the strength of this relationship. That is, based on these initial findings, higher perceptions of task cohesion appear to override higher perceptions of groupness when it comes to intending to return to a youth sport team.

In contrast, the task cohesion/intention to return relationship changed when athletes perceived their team as less united in pursuing important task goals (i.e. lower task cohesion). In this condition, groupness perceptions were associated with a youth athlete’s intention to return to the team in the future. Those who perceived their team as being more like a group indicated a greater willingness to return to the team in the future, even though they perceived their team as less united around important task goals for the team (i.e. lower task cohesion). This suggests that perceiving groupness may be associated with greater intention to return to the group when task cohesion is perceived as lower in the youth sport setting.

These results provide initial evidence with intact youth teams that perceptions of groupness may moderate the relationship between cohesion and intention to return, but not in an additive fashion. Given that this is first examination of this relationship with intact youth teams, and it differs from experimental results using hypothetical vignettes with adults,⁷ future study is required to tease out the veracity of these different outcomes with these different populations.

While this study generated some findings that add to the research base, there were limitations worth noting. First, our sample was comprised only of soccer athletes who were primarily from female teams. Thus, we must remain cautious of interpretations with respect to the sample selected and the generalizability to youth soccer athletes generally. Also, it would be wise to replicate these findings in the context of other interdependent sport groups and at other points of the season to account for the dynamic nature of groups.³⁰ In the present study, we also are bound by the ability to draw conclusions relative to the end of a competitive soccer season. Further, our cross-sectional data collection limits the temporal sequencing of variables, and future longitudinal research designs would be needed to increase confidence that perceptions of cohesion and groupness in fact precede intentions to return to the team. Given the non-experimental design used, it also will be important to design future research studies that manipulate the group constructs in the actual team environment to determine whether the combined effects of cohesion and groupness on intention to return to one’s sport team in the future (as reported in the current study) can be found experimentally.

Finally, in addition to replicating the current findings, future researchers should examine if the same moderation pattern emerges for social cohesion. With a competitive sample selected for the current study, task cohesion was an appropriate dimension to focus our analysis. However, perhaps a more recreational setting would be better suited for examining this relationship using a design that considers both task and social cohesion in separate analyses.

In summary, the results with intact youth sport teams provide evidence that perceiving the team as higher in the group property of task cohesion, regardless of perceptions of groupness, is positively associated with whether an athlete would want to return to that sport team in the future. However, the results also revealed a moderating effect in that when task cohesion was perceived as lower, feeling more like a group than a collection of individuals (i.e. higher groupness) enhanced intentions to return. With this extension to actual teams, and assuming that future studies support these findings, some examples of practical implications can be drawn.

For youth coaches interested in creating continuity within their team across seasons (i.e. having players intend to return each year), it appears as if building a team environment in which members perceive themselves as having higher levels of task cohesion appears to be associated with better intention to return, regardless of groupness perceptions. For example, one way to accomplish this would be using the team building for cohesion protocol as outlined by Carron and Spink.³¹ In addition, addressing the different team goals and objectives as well as what needs to take place in order to reach those goals would provide the athletes with an opportunity to develop this sense of cohesiveness. However, if perceptions of task cohesion fail to materialize throughout the season, cultivation of groupness’ perceptions by the coach also might positively impact the young athlete’s intention to return to the team for the next season. Although no intervention studies for groupness in sport exist, having the coach focus on the different variables that define a group²² such as roles and norms, communication, or mutual benefit would be one way to foster perceptions of groupness.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ewing

Gano-Overway

Branta

et al.

The role of sports in youth development. In: Gatz

Messner

Ball-Rokeach

(eds). Paradoxes of youth and sport, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002, pp. 31–47.

Malina

Cumming

Current status and issues in youth sports. In: Malina

Clark

(eds). Perspectives for a new century, Monterey, CA: Coaches Choice, 2003, pp. 7–25.

Merkel

. Youth sport: positive and negative impact on young athletes. Open Access J Sports Med 2013; 4: 151–160.

Canadian Heritage. Sport participation 2010-research paper, http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/pc-ch/CH24-1-2012-eng.pdf (2013, accessed 3 March 2016).

Canadian Fitness & Lifestyle Research Institute. 2010–2011 Physical activity monitor- participation in sport among children and youth, http://www.cflri.ca/media/node/1147/files/CFLRIPAM2010-2011_Bulletin1EN.pdf (2013, accessed 5 March 2016).

Carron

Brawley

Widmeyer

The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In: Duda

(ed). Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement, Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 1998, pp. 213–226.

Spink

Ulvick

McLaren

et al.

Effects of groupness and cohesion on intention to return in sport. Sport Exerc Perform 2015; 4: 293–302.

Spink

Wilson

Odnokon

. Examining the relationship between cohesion and return to team in elite athletes. Psychol Sport Exerc 2010; 11: 6–11.

Eys

Spink

Forecasts to the future-group dynamics. In: Schinke

McGannon

Smith

(eds). Routledge international handbook of sport psychology, London: Routledge, 2016, pp. 572–580.

10.

Zanna

Fazio

The attitude-behaviour relation-moving toward a third generation of research. In: Zanna

Higgins

Harman

(eds). Consistency in social behaviour: the Ontario symposium, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982, pp. 283–301.

11.

Martin

Bruner

Eys

et al.

The social environment in sport-selected topics. Int Rev Sport Exer Psychol 2014; 7: 87–105.

12.

McGrath

. Groups- interaction and performance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc, 1984.

13.

Thurston JA. Exploring group perception- the relationship between the perception of entitativity and assessments of cohesion. PhD Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA, 2012.

14.

Robinson

Carron

. Personal and situational factors associated with dropping out versus maintaining participation in competitive sport. J Sport Psychol 1982; 4: 364–378.

15.

Baker M. Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test. Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248 (2015, accessed 5 April 2016).

16.

Stroebe

Strack

. The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspect Psychol Sci 2014; 9: 59–71.

17.

Locke

. Theory building, replication, and behavioral priming: where do we need to go from here? Perspect Psychol Sci 2015; 10: 408–414.

18.

Balish

McLaren

Rainham

et al.

Correlates of youth sport attrition: A review and future directions. Psychol Sport Exerc 2014; 15: 429–439.

19.

Carron

Widmeyer

Brawley

. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams - the group environment questionnaire. J Sport Psychol 1985; 7: 244–266.

20.

Eys

Loughead

Bray

et al.

Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2009; 31: 390–408.

21.

Spink

Wilson

Priebe

. Groupness and adherence in structured exercise settings. Group Dyn-Theor Res 2010; 14: 163–173.

22.

Carron

Eys

. Group dynamics in sport, 4th ed. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 2012.

23.

Martin L, Balderson D, Hawkins, M, et al. Groupness and leadership perceptions in relation to social identity in youth sport. J Appl Sport Psychol 2017; 29; 367–374.

24.

Bosselut

McLaren

Eys

et al.

Reciprocity of the relationship between role ambiguity and group cohesion in youth interdependent sport teams. Psychol Sport Exerc 2012; 13: 341–348.

25.

Tabachnick

Fidell

. Using multivariate statistics, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc, 2013.

26.

Davison

Kwak

Seo

et al.

Using hierarchical linear models to examine moderator effects- person-by-organization interactions. Organ Res Methods 2002; 5: 231–254.

27.

Raudenbush

Bryk

. Hierarchical linear models - application and data analysis methods, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2002.

28.

Hayes

Matthes

. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression - SPSS and SAS implementations. Behav Res Methods 2009; 41: 924–936.

29.

Aguinis

Bradley

. Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organ Res Methods 2014; 17: 351–371.

30.

Arrow

Poole

Henry

et al.

Time, change, and development- the temporal perspective on groups. Small Gr Res 2004; 35: 73–105.

31.

Carron

Spink

. Team building in an exercise setting. Sport Psychol 1993; 7: 8–18.