construct emerges from two kinds of perceptions: those arising from members’
perceptions of the group as a totality (“group integration”) and those generated by
members’ perceptions of the personal attractiveness of the group (“individual attractions
to group”). Put simply, these dimensions reflect a bifurcation between “task” and “social”
components of any group. Second, Carron’s analysis of cohesion implies that it is a
desirable state. In other words, if cohesion reflects people’s tendency to stick together in
order to pursue common goals, then it should be associated with team success. But is this
hypothesis supported by empirical evidence? We shall address this question later in the
chapter. Before that, let us quickly sketch four key features of cohesiveness in sport
psychology.
To begin with, cohesion is a multidimensional construct. In particular, as Carron and
his colleagues have suggested, two dimensions of this construct are important—a desire
of group members to complete a given task (“task cohesion”) as well as a need by team-
members to form and maintain interpersonal bonds (“social cohesion”). Based on this
proposition, Carron (1982) and Carron et al. (1998) developed a conceptual model of
group cohesion that is similar to that displayed in Figure 7.3.
As this diagram shows, Carron et al. (1998) distinguished between two overarching
strands of cohesion: “group integration” and “individual attractions to the group”. Group
integration represents each team-member’s perception of the closeness, bonding and
degree of unity in the group as a totality. On the other hand, individual attraction to the
group refers to each team-member’s perception of what encourages him or her to remain
in the group. Figure 7.3 also shows that both types of perceptions may be divided into
“task” and “social” orientations. Combining these various aspects, four dimensions of
cohesion were proposed by Carron et al. (1998). These four dimensions of cohesion are
group integration-task (GI-T), group integration-social (GI-S), individual attractions to
the group-task (ATG-T), and individual attractions to the group-social (ATG-S).
Applying this model to sport, Hodge (1995) and Hodge and McKenzie (1999) suggested
that “task” and “social” cohesion are synonymous with “teamwork” and “team spirit”,
respectively. The second characteristic of group cohesion is that it is a dynamic process.
In other words, cohesion is not a fixed property of a group but changes over time as a
function of a number of variables such as the degree of success or failure experienced by
the team. For example, a soccer team could score highly on cohesion if it has won a
considerable number of games in succession. But this cohesion might diminish if the
team were to lose one or two important matches. Unfortunately, despite acknowledging
the dynamic nature of this construct, few researchers in sport psychology have monitored
changes in team cohesion over the course of a competitive season. One exception to this
trend, however, is a study by Holt and Sparkes (2001) who followed a university soccer
squad throughout a season and found that when the team was eliminated from a
tournament, the players revised their goals for the remainder of the period. This result is
not surprising because when a team competes in two tournaments simultaneously, some
confusion is likely about which of these tournaments is more important. The third
property of cohesion is that it is characterised by “instrumentality”. In other words,
people join or become a team for utilitarian reasons—to achieve a common purpose.
Finally, Carron et al. (1998) proposed that the construct of cohesion has an emotional
dimension which is derived from social relationships and feelings of togetherness among
the players. In summary, cohesion is a multidimensional construct whose practical
Exploring team cohesion in sport: a critical perspective 191