importance for team performance can be gauged from the variety of contexts in which it
has been studied, such as in military settings (Siebold, 1999), in the
industrial/organisational sphere (Bernthal and Insko, 1993) and, of course, in the world of
sport (Heuze and Fontayne, 2002).
Figure 7.3 Carron’s model of group
cohesion (adapted, by kind permission,
from A.V.Carron, M.N.Widmeyer, and
L.R.Brawley, 1985, “The development
of an instrument to assess cohesion in
sport teams: The Group Environment
Questionnaire”
Source: Journal of Sport Psychology, 7(3): 248Despite the apparent clarity of the preceding theoretical analysis, the construct of
cohesion has been criticised on both conceptual and methodological grounds. For
example, Mudrack (1989a) noted a dilemma at the heart of this construct—the fact that
although cohesion is a property of groups, the group itself “as a distinct entity is beyond
the grasp of our understanding and measurement” (p. 38). Put differently, the problem is
the “field of forces” approach to cohesion is difficult to operationalise and the
“attractions to the group” approach is conceptually inadequate because “it focuses
exclusively on individuals at the expense of the group, and therefore may not entirely
capture the concept of group cohesiveness” (ibid., p. 42). Later in the chapter, we shall
Sport and exercise psychology: A critical introduction 192