In the present study, a heterogeneous sample of 105 athletes (mean age = 21.4 years) was used to gain insight into the potential negative consequences of high team cohesion. Athletes were asked open-ended questions relating to the potential disadvantages of high task and high social cohesion. It was found that 56% of athletes reported possible disadvantages to high social cohesion, whereas 31% of athletes reported possible disadvantages to high task cohesion. Furthermore, data analyses revealed multiple dimensions of negative consequences for both high task and social cohesion. More specifically, analysis of responses revealed both group- and personal-level consequences. The findings contrast with the popularly held view that high cohesion is always beneficial for teams and team members. It was suggested that future research assess the prevalence and importance of the disadvantages of high cohesion.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
2.
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. (1978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to non-contingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-417.
3.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987). Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 9, 275-294.
4.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1993). The influence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of goal-related variables. Journal of Sport Psychology, 15, 245-260.
5.
Buys, C. J. (1978a). On “humans would do better with out groups”: A final note. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 568-568.
6.
Buys, C. J. (1978b). Humans would do better with out groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 123-125.
7.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
8.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport: A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-188.
9.
Carron, A. V., & Hausenblas, H. A. (1998). Group dynamics in sport (2nd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
10.
Carron, A. V., Prapavessis, H., & Grove, J. R. (1994). Group effects and self-handicapping. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 246-258.
11.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
12.
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Organizing and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. Sport Psychologist, 7, 127-137.
13.
Côté, J., Salmela, J. H., & Russell, S. J. (1995). The knowledge of high-performance gymnastic coaches: Methodological framework. Sport Psychologist, 9, 65-75.
14.
Eys, M. A., Hardy, J., Carron, A. V., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2003). The relationship between task cohesion and competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 66-76.
15.
Hardy, J., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2002, October). Athletes’views of the advantages of high team cohesion. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Tucson, AZ.
16.
Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. (1978). Control of attributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcohol and the role of underachievement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200-206.
17.
Julian, J., Bishop, D., & Fiedler, F. E. (1966). Quasitherapeutic effects of inter group competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 321-327.
18.
Krane, V., Anderson, M. B., & Strean, W. B. (1997). Issues of qualitative research methods and presentation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 213-218.
19.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
20.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259-309.
21.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1990). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
Naylor, K., & Brawley, L. R. (1992, October). Social loafing: Perceptions and implications. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Canadian Association of Sport Sciences and the Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology Association, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
23.
Paskevich, D. M. (1995). Conceptual and measurement factors of collective efficacy in its relationship to cohesion and performance outcome. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waterloo, Canada.
24.
Paskevich, D. M., Brawley, L. R., Dorsch, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1995). Implications of individual and group level analyses applied to the study of collective efficacy and cohesion. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(Suppl.), 95-95.
25.
Paskevich, D. M., Estabrooks, P. A., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Group cohesion in sport and exercise. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 472-494). New York: John Wiley.
26.
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1996). The effect of group cohesion on competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 64-74.
27.
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). The role of sacrifice in the dynamics of sport teams. Group Dynamics, 1, 231-240.
28.
Terry, P. C., Carron, A. V., Pink, M. J., Lane, A. M., Jones, G. J. W., & Hall, M. P. (2000). Perceptions of group cohesion and mood in sport teams. Group Dynamics, 4, 244-353.
29.
Widmeyer, W. N., & Williams, J. M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coacting sport. Small Group Research, 22, 548-570.
