26.2: Inputs and Interactions that Comprise Group Dynamics

Various group components interact with one another to influence the success and maintenance of groups. Broadly, these components can be divided into group inputs and member interactions (Carron & Eys, 2012). Inputs include members’ attributes and groups’ structural designs that collectively “make up” and organize groups. These inputs then shape within-group processes and members’ feelings and thoughts about their groups that emerge over time. It is anticipated that these processes and emergent states represent how members interact and ultimately determine what groups achieve and what the members gain from their membership. It is important to note that these components influence one another. For example, while it is natural to think about how inputs shape member interactions, the interactions can also induce changes in group member compositions or structures. In this section, some of the key concepts related to each group component will be discussed in detail.

26.2.1. Group Member Attributes

If you recall the sport teams you may have belonged to, you will quickly recognize that every team is composed of members with diverse individual characteristics. Such characteristics can include things like members’ age, gender, ethnicity, personality, and attitudes, and can be broadly referred to as their attributes, which represent a type of a group input. Effectively integrating the collection of individuals who possess diverse attributes is the essence of group success. When researchers or consultants try to measure the composition of members’ attributes ina group, they can use many different methods. The simplest is to identify the overall group mean as a way to reveal whether the group members are “high” or “low” on given attributes as a whole. However, alternative approaches exist, including efforts to identify the dispersion of attributes (i.e., how different or similar are members on given attributes?) or the minimum/maximum score (i.e., what is the lowest or highest score on given attributes?).

Whereas sport researchers have conducted few studies that focused on group composition and member attributes, much of our understanding comes from researchers studying student project groups and workplace groups (Hardy et al., 2020). In these settings, one of the most researched member attributes is member personality. This body of research used the five-factor model proposed by McCrae and Costa (1987) as the conceptual basis, which asserts that there are five global personality dimensions. These dimensions include openness to experience (i.e., how much one prefers or seeks new experiences/perspectives), conscientiousness (i.e., how diligent and reliable one is), extraversion (i.e., how outgoing and sociable one is), agreeableness (i.e., how sympathetic and cooperative one is), and neuroticism (i.e., how emotionally unstable one is; often used interchangeably with emotional instability). Several interesting findings can be drawn from the studies examining member personality composition. In more successful groups, members tend to be more agreeable and conscientious on average (i.e., higher group mean), and most members share these traits (i.e., lower dispersion; Peeters et al., 2006; Prewett et al., 2009). There is also some evidence that groups may benefit from having members who are more extraverted and emotionally stable on average (Prewett et al., 2009). The findings regarding extraversion were nevertheless more mixed in contrast to the other traits, but some researchers found that greater variability in extraversion could be beneficial within teams (Prewett et al., 2018). This suggests that a balanced mix of extraverts and introverts may be beneficial for teams, perhaps because these traits are complementary. It is intuitive that teams might face drawbacks when members are highly introverted or extraverted. For example, teams with predominantly extraverted members may experience conflicts because every member wishes to speak up and take on leadership roles, whereas more introverted teams may suffer because members engage in less communication and interactions that are pillars of effective teamwork.

As an additional finding regarding personality from other group settings, minimum scores on traits such as agreeableness and conscientiousness can relate to team success (Prewett et al., 2009). In other words, having even a single member with noticeably low agreeableness and/or conscientiousness scores may negatively impact the team. This is comparable to the idea of “one bad apple spoiling the whole bunch”. Though there is currently limited research examining personality composition of sport teams, these studies hint at the possibility that athlete personality traits can significantly impact the team.

In addition to personality, members’ cultural backgrounds are an important consideration. In today’s societies, culturally diverse sport teams are very common.As one illustrative example, Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s Men’s First Team squad in the English Premier League during the 2019-2020 season included various players whose skin colors were visibly different. The complexity of the cultural diversity within this team can be further appreciated considering that the players’ nationalities included France, Belgium, Colombia, South Korea, England, Argentina, Netherlands, Ivory Coast, Brazil, Wales, and Portugal (ESPN, n.d.).

Photo by Pixabay from Pexels

There are two major schools of thought on how cultural diversity may impact group functioning. On the one hand, social identity theory posits that individuals are naturally attracted towards others who are perceived to be similar (Tajfel, 1982). This identification school of thought suggests that culturally diverse groups may be more prone to conflicts and social division within the group and thus perform less effectively than culturally homogenous groups. On the other hand, researchers adopting an information processing perspective believe that more culturally diverse groups have more variety of resources and information available, and thus perform better than culturally homogenous groups (Mannix & Neale, 2005).

Advancing from these theoretical foundations, researchers provided evidence of both negative (e.g., Haas & Nüesch, 2012) and positive (e.g., Kearney & Gebert, 2009) effects of cultural diversity.Offering some explanation for such mixed findings, Stahl et al. (2010) demonstrated that the impact of cultural diversity on group outcomes depended on various contextual factors such as task complexity, group size, and team tenure (i.e., amount of time spent together as a team). For instance, it is possible that diverse cultural backgrounds will have unique effects on how members interact when a group is first assembled, compared to the effects of diversity on how groups emerge across months or years.

Given the salience of diverse cultures, there is some emerging research that has examined related topics in sport. For example, Schinke et al. (2013) suggested that social support from teammates and coaches is critical for helping immigrant athletes during their transition into a new community. However, sport researchers have yet to examine how cultural diversity can specifically influence sport teams. Godfrey and colleagues (2020) asserted that cultural diversity within sport teams can influence factors such as team cohesion, athlete satisfaction, member conflicts, as well as the overall team performance in a variety of positive or negative ways. For example, Godfrey and colleagues suggested that leaders of culturally diverse groups could promote more unity among members if they can find ways to recognize members’ unique characteristics and celebrate diversity as something that defines the group. Though the specific mechanisms by which cultural diversity influences sport teams are still unknown, it is clearly an important factor to consider in sport team contexts.

26.2.2. Group Structure

Once a group has been formed, it is necessary to create and maintain a group structure that can maximize members’ abilities and strengths. In particular, successful team performance requires chunking the group’s mission into individual tasks and assigning these tasks to each member according to their strengths and interests. A concept that helps with this process is roles, which can be referred to as the sets of behavioral expectations held for each member (Biddle & Thomas, 1966). Benson and colleagues (2014) classified four major types of roles that emerge within sport teams, including roles related to specialized task (i.e., actions directly related to team performance such as scoring goals), auxiliary task (i.e., supplemental actions indirectly related to team success such as supporting teammates), social (i.e., actions for promoting harmony and relationships among teammates), and leadership (i.e., actions for guiding teammates in terms of both task and social aspects) functions.

Considering that roles reflect the individual tasks that must be combined to create a successful and harmonious group, sport researchers have focused on studying how athletes perceive their roles and their feelings relating to their roles. These concepts include role clarity (i.e., do members understand their roles?), efficacy (i.e., are members confident that they possess the capabilities to execute their roles?), satisfaction (i.e., do members feel pleased with their roles?), and acceptance/commitment (i.e., are members willing to execute their roles?; Eys et al., 2014). Generally, more positive individual and team outcomes result from members who report higher scores on these role perceptions.

Among the aforementioned role perceptions, researchers have demonstrated substantial interest in role clarity, along with role ambiguity (the opposite of clarity). There is evidence that athletes who have a vague understanding of their roles tend to report lower self-efficacy and satisfaction in their group, along with weaker perceptions of team cohesion (Eys et al., 2014). Eys and colleagues (2005) surveyed competitive team sport athletes to understand the various sources of role ambiguity and found that athletes experienced greater role ambiguity if they did not: (a) understand their sport well enough to recognize how their roles affected the game, (b) ask questions to clarify potential misunderstandings, or (c) practice hard enough to learn their roles. Meanwhile, coaches produced ambiguity if they provided little communication or if they did not fully explain members’ role responsibilities. Conflicting communication was also highlighted as an important factor, where two or more coaches communicate inconsistent expectations to the athletes. As for situational factors, athletes were less likely to understand their roles if they did not have role models, opportunities to practice performing their roles in competitions, or if their roles were very complex (Eys et al., 2005).

Although athletes may understand their roles, acceptance and commitment can present additional challenges. Eys and colleagues (2020) made several conceptual advances on the topic of role acceptance and commitment in sport contexts based on the literature within the organizational psychology discipline (i.e., study of industry groups/organizations; e.g., Klein et al., 2012). They defined role commitment as the “dynamic and volitional psychological bond reflected in the dedication to and responsibility for one’s role” (p. 91) and identified three antecedent bases of role commitment: affective, normative, and continuance perceptions (Eys et al., 2020). These bases can roughly be reflected as the “I want to...”, “I ought to...”, and “I have to...” types of perceptions, respectively. For example, athletes are likely to commit to their roles if they are assigned glamorous roles such as the team’s main scorer, because they simply like the roles (i.e., affective base). However, those who are assigned less desirable roles (e.g., substitute or practice players) may still commit to them because there is a strong team norm to be a team player (i.e., normative base) or because they would like to remain as a member of their team (i.e., continuance base).

Box 26.1. Informal Roles

We often focus on formal roles that are essentially assigned by coaches, such as strikers in soccer, guards in basketball, bowlers in cricket, or team captains (i.e., formal athlete leaders). However, many sport teams also have informal roles, which develop more naturally without coaches’ formal delegation of responsibilities. Cope and colleagues (2011) read and analyzed articles from the Sports Illustrated magazines and identified 12 informal roles that may be relevant in sport teams:

• Comedian: Someone who consistently uses humor to amuse others.
• Spark plug: Someone who fires up teammates through inspirational actions/words.
• Enforcer: Someone who is trusted to protect teammates by fighting back when the opponent team uses aggressive tactics.
• Mentor: Someone who guides other members with their knowledge and experiences.
• Informal leader-nonverbal: Someone who leads other members through actions without verbal commands.
• Informal leader-verbal: Someone who leads other members by being outspoken and by giving verbal directions.
• Team player: Someone who makes sacrifices for the team and places their team’s and teammates’ needs before their own.
• Star player: Someone who stands out with exceptional personality or performance.
• Social convener: Someone who organizes gatherings for members to socialize.
• Cancer/bad apple: Someone who spreads negativity throughout the team.
• Distracter: Someone who disturbs teammates’ focus during important tasks (e.g., training, competition).
• Malingerer: Someone who constantly feigns and/or exaggerates injuries for benefits such as drawing sympathy or gaining access to therapies.

Increasing amount of research has documented how these roles emerge and impact the team. For example, informal leaders are known to serve important task, social, motivational, and external functions in sport teams (Cotterill & Fransen, 2016; also see Chapter 25; Cotterill & Fransen, 2021). Other roles such as team comedians, enforcers, cancers/bad apples, and distracters have been suggested to influence the team’s cohesion and overall integration (Cope et al., 2011; Kim, Godfrey, & Eys, 2020; Leggat et al., 2020). In terms of how they emerge, athletes who are more extraverted may be more likely to emerge as the team comedians and athletes who are less conscientious may emerge as the team distracters (Kim, Godfrey, & Eys, 2020). In addition to personality, external factors like the team environment can lead to the emergence of certain informal roles (Kim, Coleman, et al., 2020). Because these roles can emerge rapidly and have a big impact, it may be beneficial to encourage individuals to fulfill positive informal role functions and/or to recognize someone who does (e.g., acting as a spark plug or informal leader).

What types of informal roles do (did) you see on your team? How do you think they emerge(d) and influence(d) the team?

When people think of sport teams, it is common for them to focus on team sports where successful team performance depends heavily on the coordination of all members’ efforts. However,individual sports also tend to happen in groups. For example, athletes participating in sports such as track and field, swimming, wrestling, and badminton commonly belong to a school team or a sport club where they train with other members and often compete for team-level goals (i.e., conference championships). Individual sports also often include events where members have to work together in ways that resemble team sport, such as relays or doubles tennis. Evans and colleagues (2012) identified six types of sport teams, based on the varying degrees of structural interdependence. Two of the six types can be observed in team sports. In integrated teams, all members must coordinate their efforts simultaneously (e.g., basketball, rowing). In segregated teams, members compete together but their actions may not always occur at the same time (e.g., baseball). In both types, members must interact with one another (Evans et al., 2012).

The remaining four types of teams can be observed in prototypical individual sports, where there is no clear group task requiring all members to work together interdependently (Evans et al., 2012). A collective team involves members competing against one another but also for a team outcome(e.g., members of a golf team compete in a tournament that has both individual and team standings). A cooperative team involves members competing separately from teammates but contributing to an overall team goal (e.g., members of a wrestling team compete in different weight groups and contribute to an overall team score). A contrient team involves members competing against one another without a team goal (e.g., members of a tennis team may train together but compete in an individual tournament that does not consider team standings). Finally, in an independent team, members do not compete against one another and there is no team goal, though they may identify as a group (e.g., a team of speed skaters compete in different events; Evans et al., 2012). Considering this spectrum of team types,it is evident that individual sport team members can still experience connection. Furthermore, when members do experience interdependence with one another, their group becomes more salient and teammates can influence one another in meaningful ways (Evans et al., 2013).

Photo by Patrick Case from Pexels

As we have discussed, groups are salient across various types of sport environments, even in those sports that are often considered individual. The salience of groups can be further appreciated when one considers that there are “groups within groups”, often referred to as subgroups. The term cliques is also used to refer to subgroups that are thought to be detrimental to the group. Subgroups have three defining features: The collection of individuals (1) belongs to a bigger total group, (2) has formed reciprocating relationships among them, and (3) can be distinguished from the rest of the group (Martin, 2020). Researchers have discussed several mechanisms by which subgroups may form. Among them, faultline theory suggests that there are unobservable dividing lines in a group due to the various member attributes (Lau & Murnighan, 1998), and uses the analogy of geologic faultlines that are difficult to observe but that divide up the earth’s surface. For example, group members may interact more frequently with members who share similarity in age or cultural backgrounds.

Though research focusing on subgroups/cliques in sport is still in its infancy, studies have gathered important insights from interviews with coaches and athletes (Martin et al., 2015, 2016; Wagstaff et al., 2017). Supporting the faultline theory, coaches and athletes across the studies indicated that certain members naturally gravitated towards one another because they lived together or because they were in the same cohort (e.g., first-year athletes), or due to the similarity in age, personalities, interests, and skill levels. Coaches and athletes also asserted that subgroups are inevitable, and that they are not inherently detrimental to the team because they have consequences that are both positive (e.g., sense of inclusion) and negative (e.g., conflicts). Thus, effective management of subgroups first requires the coaches to engage in ongoing communications with various team members (e.g., athletes, other coaches, trainers) to closely observe member relationships, which can help differentiate positive (or neutral) subgroups from detrimental cliques. Coaches may also benefit from: (a) establishing norms and values that promote unity regardless of subgroup membership, (b) enhancing the members’ understanding of other members’ personality traits and values, and (c) organizing authentic, inclusive team gatherings as opposed to relying on casual team outings that may exclude certain members.

26.2.3. Group Processes

We have so far discussed concepts related to the group member attributes and structures, which pertain to the inputs that provide the foundation of group development and functioning.However, even though the leader has organized these inputs effectively, it cannot be assumed that the group will operate smoothly on an “auto-pilot” mode. Rather, leaders and members must continuously ensure that they engage in effective interactions and group processes that will ultimately determine the team’s success.

To gather a sense of the intricacy within group processes, consider that a group of only 15 members represents over a hundred pairings between teammates, which is a pile of individual relationships! It is perhaps unsurprising that researchers have identified numerous constructs for measuring how members work together. As one key example of this, researchers have attempted to comprehensively unpack the concept of teamwork by trying to document the components required to efficiently work together as a group. McEwan and colleagues (McEwan & Beauchamp, 2014; McEwan et al., 2018) specifically described four phases of effective team performance regulation, each of which includes several components. During the preparation phase, members identify the team’s overall mission, specific goals, and plans to achieve such goals. Then, during the execution phase, members enact their plans by coordinating their efforts as well as by cooperating and communicating with one another. During the evaluation phase, members monitor themselves to ensure that they are following through on their plans and identify areas for improvement. Finally, during the adjustments phase, members modify their plans as necessary, which can involve brainstorming innovative solutions, as well as providing feedback and social support to one another. Through iterative processes involving preparation, execution, evaluation, and adjustment, teams can maximize their chance of overall success and positive individual member experiences.

Early research on the topic of group processes focused on understanding why groups often perform below their full potential. In his conceptual model, Ivan Steiner (1972) asserted that a group’s actual productivity can be represented as the difference between the group’s potential productivity and process losses due to various errors. A group’s potential productivity represents the best possible scenario, where highly skilled and talented members exert maximum efforts and are able to integrate their efforts flawlessly as a group. However, the group’s actual productivity is often less than the group’s potential productivity due to various process errors.

One of the earliest illustrating examples of this reduced group productivity was demonstrated by Ringelmann, whose work originally focused on performance efficiency in agricultural contexts (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). Ringelmann noted that workers’ individual performance on a rope-pulling task decreased as the group size increased. Specifically, if individual performance is expressed as 1 when a worker is pulling the rope alone, the overall group output should theoretically increase by 1 unit each time a new worker is added. However, the workers’ collective performance was recorded at 1.86 for two members, 2.55 for three members, and down to 3.92 for eight members. This means that each member was only contributing 49% of their potential productivity in the largest group, which included eight members! This interesting phenomenon has come to be known as the Ringelmann effect (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). Contemporary scholars assert that this effect is comprised of coordination losses (i.e., members of larger groups experiencing greater difficulties to cooperate compared to smaller groups) and motivation losses (i.e., members reducing their effort when they know there are others contributing to pulling).

This example provides a simple illustration of process losses that can reduce overall group productivity. However, most sport situations are much more complex than rope-pulling, and thus theorists have created their own conceptual models to consider process losses in sport contexts specifically. In terms of coordination, Eccles (2010) explained that athletes must align three elements to achieve optimal teamwork: action type, timing, and location. For example, in basketball, if a point guard with the ball dribble-penetrates through the opponent team’s defense and moves closer to the basket, this may attract multiple defenders to the basket, creating an open space outside the three-point line. The team’s shooting guard then could recognize this and position themselves into this open space, which can allow the point guard to pass the ball to the shooting guard who then can take a three-point attempt without the presence of the opponent team’s defenders. In this example, it is apparent that all three components of coordination are present: The point guard dribble-penetrates and subsequently passes the ball to the shooting guard (action type), who must move (action type) into the open space (location) as soon as the point guard attracts the opponent defenders (timing).

Considering the importance and the complexity of coordination in sport teams, a logical question that follows is, “how does a team achieve coordination?”. A relevant psychological concept is shared knowledge, meaning that team members must have a common understanding of the task at hand to be able to coordinate their actions (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Eccles, 2010). Eccles (2010) asserted that team members can develop shared knowledge naturally through experience (incidentally shared knowledge) and/or through communication (intentionally shared knowledge). As an example of incidentally shared knowledge, defenders in soccer may learn over the years that effective defense entails avoiding large gaps where opponent team players can break through. Athletes may also incidentally learn the tendencies of their teammates over time—allowing them to anticipate one another’s movements during a game. Intentionally shared knowledge develops via verbal communication and is evident when coaches verbally explain strategies to athletes or when teammates constantly exchange task-relevant information during competitions (e.g., softball outfielder yelling, “my ball!”).

Teams may still fail to achieve their potential even when all members have the capacity to coordinate effectively. Specifically, motivation losses also harm group productivity because members elect not to exert their full effort. A popular concept in social psychology that exemplifies motivation losses is social loafing, which refers to a phenomenon where individuals reduce their effort when they are in a group context. Karau and Williams (1993) made several suggestions for reducing social loafing, which included making individual performance identifiable, providing feedback on group performance, assigning meaningful tasks, and promoting cohesiveness in the group.

Box 26.2. Köhler Effect

Though individuals may decrease their efforts in a group setting because of social loafing, an opposite effect can also occur. Otto Köhler, a psychologist from Germany, first discovered that there are circumstances where participants persisted longer on a task when they were performing in a group setting than performing individually.

Köhler effects occur commonly on tasks where group performance is complete only after the weakest member finishes the task. For instance, sport researchers have studied relay events like 4X100m track races and swimming relays, where the slowest member can have a substantial effect on the race result. Even though runners and swimmers occasionally race faster during relays than during individual races, researchers revealed that more inferior members of a given relay team raced their fastest during relays (e.g., Osborn et al., 2012). This improved performance for the weakest links in a relay team may occur because those members feel pressure to match the performance of more superior teammates, such that they do not compromise the team’s overall performance. These findings suggest some practical strategies that coaches may consider for maximizing athletes’ efforts. For instance, athletes may be grouped together with teammates who are moderately more skilled, and group drills can be organized such that individual performances are identifiable.

Photo by Thegiansepillo from Pexels

26.2.4. Group States

As group members spend time together, they develop various affective and cognitive perceptions regarding the group and fellow teammates over time. Such perceptions can be referred to as emergent states. Group dynamics researchers have dedicated substantial attention toward studying emergent states, perhaps because (a) emergent states that are self-reported from team members tend to be easier to measure compared to behavioral processes, (b) they are more changeable compared to member attributes, and (c) optimizing emergent states can positively contribute to groups and their members. Though numerous important emergent states have been examined in the field of sport group dynamics, we will primarily focus on the concept of group cohesion because it was one of the first group-related constructs studied by sport researchers, and because it is the most predominant group-related perception in sport research.

Carron and colleagues (1998) defined group cohesion as an emergent state “that is reflected in 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” (p. 213). Carron and colleagues’ work (e.g., Carron et al., 1998, 1985) has provided the foundation for research on this topic in sport contexts. They demonstrated that athletes’ perceptions of their team’s cohesion can be subdivided based on two factors: (a) whether the perceptions pertain to task-related aspects vs. social relationships in the group, as well as (b) whether the perceptions pertain to members’ personal attractions to the group vs. the group’s integration as a whole. Carron and colleagues (1998, 1985) combined these factors to create four dimensions of perceptions of cohesion, representing the degree to which an athlete (1) feels personally satisfied with their roles and contributions to the group success (attractions to the group-task), (2) feels connected to their teammates (attractions to the group-social), (3) perceives that the group is on the same page in terms of its performance goals (group integration-task), and (4) believes that teammate relationships are positive and strong (group integration-social).

Group cohesion can be viewed as a key emergent state that is associated with numerous important antecedents and outcomes, many of which have already been mentioned in this chapter. For example, research findings have demonstrated that team mean levels of extraversion and emotional stability related to social cohesion (Barrick et al., 1998) and team minimum levels of conscientiousness and agreeableness related to task cohesion (van Vianen & De Dreu, 2001). In addition to member attributes, studies have found that greater cohesion can be observed when coaches engage in democratic and supportive leadership behaviors (Shields et al., 1997), when athletes clearly understand their roles (Leo et al., 2020), and with smaller group sizes (Widmeyer et al., 1990).

Researchers have also focused on understanding the key outcomes of group cohesion. Not surprisingly, studies have linked higher group cohesion to more beneficial outcomes. As examples, athletes who perceive greater cohesion in their group are more motivated to return to their team in the future (Spink et al., 2018), develop better social skills (Bruner et al., 2014), report stronger capacity to cope with stress (Wolf et al., 2015), and are more satisfied with their sport involvement (Paradis & Loughead, 2012). Meta-analyses also reveal that both task and social cohesion are positively related to team performance (Carron et al., 2002). Researchers have also found that the link between cohesion and performance was stronger for some teams than others. As one example, the relationship between cohesion and team performance was stronger in female teams than male teams (Carron et al., 2002).

Though it seems self-evident that cohesion is related to team performance, a more complicated question pertains to the direction of this relationship. Is it the case that more cohesive teams perform better, or is it that teams that perform better develop stronger cohesion? Both of these scenarios appear logically possible. This “chicken or the egg” question was tackled by Benson and colleagues (2016) who studied European elite youth soccer and handball teams. Benson and colleagues found the strongest evidence for the performance-to-cohesion direction. Specifically, mid-season team performance predicted cohesion perceptions later in the season, but mid-season cohesion perceptions did not predict team performance later in the season. Although this study emphasizes the importance of focusing on previous performance as a predictor of cohesion, this does not mean that we should stop working to enhance cohesion. This is because cohesion still impacts team performance indirectly. For example, cohesion may promote teamwork behaviors such as communication or coordination. It is also important to remember that cohesion is related to other meaningful factors pertaining to the group’s functioning (e.g., reduced social loafing) and individual members’ experiences (e.g., greater satisfaction).

As described in the lead-in to this section, cohesion is the most commonly-studied emergent state from sport group dynamics researchers. Researchers are nevertheless increasingly recognizing the spectrum of perceptions or evaluations that athletes make about their group that are also important considerations. As such, we will conclude this section with Table 26.1, which lists several other emergent states and their implications for members and teams.

Photo by Monstera from Pexels

Table 26.1. Example Emergent States Beyond Group Cohesion

Concept	Definition	Example measure in sport	Underpinning theory and relevance	Example finding
Collective efficacy	Perceptions of our group’s ability to successfully complete a task	Collective Efficacy in Sport Questionnaire (Myers et al., 2004)	Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) Peak performance entails believing that we can do it.	With professional soccer players, Leo et al. (2015) found that teams’ changes in collective efficacy during a season were predicted by team conflict and cohesion.
Perceived interdependence	Beliefs about the degree to which members of our group depend on one another for tasks, outcomes, and resources	Perceived Task and Outcome Interdependence Survey (Evans & Eys, 2015)	Social interdependence theory (Deutsch, 1949) We will cooperate when we think we are “in it” together.	University athletes from individual sports reported higher interdependence perceptions with teammates when they participated in cooperative events (e.g., relays), or when they had a team score at competitions (Evans & Eys, 2015).
Social identity strength	The degree to which athletes feel that their sport team contributes to their identity	Social Identity Questionnaire for Sport(Bruner & Benson, 2018)	Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) Social identities benefit wellbeing, and we try to align our behaviors to match our identities.	Young athletes reported stronger identity with their team on days they experienced more prosocial behaviors from teammates (e.g., teammates gave them positive feedback; Benson & Bruner, 2018).
Groupness	Evaluations of the extent to which a collection of individuals represents a group	Spink et al.’s (2010) measure focusing on common fate, mutual benefit, social structure, group processes, and self-categorization	Group entitativity (Campbell, 1958) True groups are likely more potent than collectives that lack features of small groups.	When groupness was higher in youth sport teams, task cohesion was a stronger predictor of intentions to return to the team the next season (Spink et al., 2018).
Motivational climate	The psychological environment aimed at motivating athletes in training/competition (mastery- vs. performance-oriented)	The Perceived Motivational Climate Questionnaire (Walling et al., 1993)	Goal perspective theory (Nicholls, 1984) Two major goal states are dominant in achievement contexts: task vs. ego.	Adolescent male soccer players who perceived a mastery climate in their team reported more “sportspersonlike” behaviors with teammates and competitors (Ommundsen et al., 2003).