Using Consensus as a Criterion for Groupness: Implications for the Cohesion–Group Success Relationship

The purpose of the study was to examine how the exclusion of teams failing to meet varying statistical criteria for consensus on cohesiveness influences the magnitude of the cohesion– team success relationship. The index of agreement was calculated for 78 teams (N = 1,000 athletes) that had complete...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Small group research 2004-08, Vol.35 (4), p.466-491
Main Authors: Carron, Albert V., Brawley, Lawrence R., Bray, Steven R., Eys, Mark A., Dorsch, Kim D., Estabrooks, Paul A., Hall, Craig R., Hardy, James, Hausenblas, Heather, Madison, Ralph, Paskevich, David M., Patterson, Michelle M., Prapavessis, Harry, Spink, Kevin S., Terry, Peter C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Applied psychology
Biological and medical sciences
Cohesion
Criteria
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Goals
Group dynamics
Groups
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Social interactions. Communication. Group processes
Social psychology
Sports. Leisure
Success
Teams
Teamwork
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The purpose of the study was to examine how the exclusion of teams failing to meet varying statistical criteria for consensus on cohesiveness influences the magnitude of the cohesion– team success relationship. The index of agreement was calculated for 78 teams (N = 1,000 athletes) that had completed the Group Environment Questionnaire. Results showed that excluding teams because they fail to satisfy various criteria for consensus leads to changes in the magnitude of the cohesion–team success relationship. The magnitude of the relationship between team success and the individual attractions to group-task manifestation of cohesion showed progressive decreases as criteria required to demonstrate consensus became more stringent. Conversely, the magnitude of the relationship between team success and the group integration–task and group integration–social manifestations of cohesion showed progressive increases as criteria required to demonstrate consensus became more stringent. The results are discussed in terms of their relationship to group dynamics theory and practice.
ISSN:1046-4964
1552-8278
DOI:10.1177/1046496404263923