Of numerous studies conducted over the years examining cohesion in the sport setting, very few have acknowledged that participants are nested within teams, which has resulted in analysis of data at the individual level. Given that members of sport teams are interdependent, valuable information might be lost if constructs such as cohesion are examined only at an individual level. The purpose of this study was to illustrate how multilevel modeling could be used to handle this interdependence among observations within teams when examining the relationship between task cohesion and team satisfaction. Male ice hockey players (N = 194) on 10 teams completed the cohesion and satisfaction measures near the end of the regular season. Using multilevel analysis, task cohesion predicted variance in team task satisfaction at the individual (33%) and group (55%) levels. Results highlight the value of multilevel models as well as extend research finding a relationship between cohesion and individual satisfaction to team satisfaction.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987). Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 275-294.
2.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1993). The influence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of group goal-related variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 245-260.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1993). Team building in an exercise setting. Sport Psychologist, 7, 8-18.
6.
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.
7.
Chelladurai, P., & Reimer, H. (1997). A classification of facets of athlete satisfaction. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 133-159.
8.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
9.
Eisler, L., & Spink, K. S. (1998). Effects of scoring configuration and task cohesion on the perception of psychological momentum. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 311-320.
10.
Florin, P., Giamartino, G. A., Kenny, D. A., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Levels of analysis and effects: Clarifying group influence and climate by separating individual and group effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 881-900.
11.
Fraser, S. N., & Spink, K. S. (2002). Examining the role of social support and group cohesion in exercise compliance. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25, 233-249.
12.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219-229.
13.
Kashy, D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451-477). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Kenny, D. A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Livi, S., & Kashy, D. A. (2002). The statistical analysis of data from small groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 126-137.
15.
Kreft, I., & de Leeuw, J. (2002). Introducing multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Kreft, I. G. G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30(1), 1-21.
17.
Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Group Environment Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 49-63.
18.
Manning, F. J., & Fullerton, T. D. (1988). Health and well being in highly cohesive units of the U.S. Army. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 503-519.
19.
Martens, R., & Peterson, J. A. (1971). Group cohesiveness as a determinant of success and member satisfaction in team performance. International Review of Sport Sociology, 6, 49-61.
20.
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Group task satisfaction: Applying the construct of job satisfaction to groups. Small Group Research, 33, 271-312.
21.
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Identifying group task satisfaction at work. Small Group Research, 34, 413-422.
22.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
23.
Perrone, K. M., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2000). A comparison of group cohesiveness and client satisfaction in homogenous and heterogeneous groups. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 25(3), 243-251.
24.
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Sacrifice, cohesion, and conformity to norms in sport teams. Group Dynamics, 1, 231-240.
25.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
26.
Reimer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. (1998). Leadership and satisfaction in athletics. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 276-293.
27.
Riley, P. (1993). The winner within: A life plan for team players. New York: G. P. Putman.
28.
Spink, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1992). Group cohesion and adherence in exercise classes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 78-86.
29.
Spink, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1994). Group cohesion effects in exercise classes. Small Group Research, 25, 26-42.
30.
Widmeyer, W. N., & Williams, J. M. (1991). Predicting cohesion in a coaching sport. Small Group Research, 22, 548-570.
31.
Williams, J. M., & Hacker, C. M. (1982). Causal relationships among cohesion, satisfaction, and performance in women’s intercollegiate field hockey teams. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 324-337.
