The study aimed to identify group cohesion profiles in athletes and examine whether athletes from distinct profiles significantly differed in affects and coping in competition. A total of 296 competitive athletes participated in the study and completed a series of self-report questionnaires in a temporal design with different measurement points. The athletes completed the questionnaires 2 days before competition, 2 h prior to competition and 2 h after competition. Results from latent profile analysis (LPA) model revealed that three profiles were the most suitable solution: (a) Low group cohesion profile, (b) a mixed group cohesion profile and (c) a high cohesion profile. In particular, (c) athletes from the high group cohesion profile revealed lower scores in intensity of negative affects after the competition, lower precompetitive relaxation, lower precompetitive mental distancing, lower precompetitive mental distraction, lower intracompetitive relaxation, lower intracompetitive logical analysis, lower intracompetitive mental distancing, lower intracompetitive mental distraction and lower intracompetitive disengagement. As a whole, the (b) mixed group cohesion profile revealed the worst combination of the three profiles in terms of coping strategies, which may be a profile at risk of not performing in competition. Thus, it is necessary to understand group cohesion as a multivariate experience for a better comprehension of this phenomenon.
CarronAVColmanMMWheelerJ, et al.Cohesion and performance in sport: a meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol2002; 24: 168–188.
2.
MartensRPetersonJA. Group cohesiveness as a determinant of success and member satisfaction in team performance. Int Rev Sport Sociol1971; 6: 49–61.
3.
OhlertJChloéCKleinertJ. Group cohesion reworded: measuring group cohesion perceptions in sport. Sportwissenschaft2015; 45: 116–126.
4.
CarronAV. Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and considerations. J Sport Psychol1982; 4: 123–128.
5.
EysMABrunerMWMartinLJ. The dynamic group environment in sport and exercise. Psychol Sport Exerc2019; 42: 40–47.
6.
EysMABrawleyLR. Reflections on cohesion research with sport and exercise groups. Soc Personal Psychol Compass2018; 12.
7.
CarronAVEysMA. Group dynamics in sport. 4th ed.US: Fitness Information Technology, 2012.
8.
CarronAVWidmeyerWNBrawleyLR. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: the group environment questionnaire. J Sport Psychol1985; 7: 244–266.
9.
MartinLJParadisKFEysMA, et al.Cohesion in sport: new directions for practitioners. J Sport Psychol in Act2013; 4: 14–25.
10.
SullivanPJShortS. Further operationalization of intra-team communication in sports: an updated version of the scale of effective communication in team sports (SECTS-2). J Appl Soc Psychol2011; 41: 471–487.
11.
IchiroA. Hierarchical structural analysis for the multi-folding structures with hill-top bifurcation points. Procedia IUTAM2012; 5: 88–98.
12.
LazarusRS. How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. Sport Psychol2000; 14: 229–252.
13.
MartinentGNicolasM. A latent profile transition analysis of coping within a naturalistic achievement-related stressful situation. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol2016; 5: 218–231.
14.
MartinentGNicolasM. Athletes’ affective profiles within competition situations: a two-wave study. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol2017; 6: 143–157.
15.
LazarusRSFolkmanS. Coping and adaptation. In: GentryWD (eds) The handbook of behavioral medicine. New York: Guilford press, 1984.
16.
SkinnerEAEdgeKAltmanJ, et al.Searching for the structure of coping: a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychol Bull2003; 129: 216–269.
17.
GaudreauPBlondinJP. Development of a questionnaire for the assessment of coping strategies employed by athletes in competitive sport settings. Psychol Sport Exerc2002; 3: 1–34.
18.
NicolasMGaudreauPFrancheV. Perception of coaching behaviours, coping, and achievement in a sport competition. J Sport Exerc Psychol2011; 33: 460–468.
19.
RussellJA. A circumplex model of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol1980; 39: 1161–1178.
20.
JamiesonJPMendesWBBlackstockE, et al.Turning the knots in your stomach into bows: reappraising arousal improves performance on the GRE. J Exp Soc Psychol2010; 46: 208–212.
21.
MartinentGFerrandC. A naturalistic study of the directional interpretation process of discrete emotions during high-stakes table tennis matches. J Sport Exerc Psychol2009; 31: 318–336.
22.
NicolasMMartinentGCampoM. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a modified positive and negative affect schedule including a direction scale (PANAS-D) among French athletes. Psychol Sport Exerc2014; 15: 227–237.
23.
MartinentGCampoMFerrandC. A descriptive study of emotional process during competition: nature, frequency, direction, duration and co-occurrence of discrete emotions. Psychol Sport Exerc2012; 13: 142–151.
24.
FreemanPReesT. How does perceived support lead to better performance? An examination of potential mechanisms. J Appl Sport Psychol2009; 21: 429–441.
25.
JacksonBGucciardiDFLonsdaleC, et al.I think they believe in me”: the predictive effects of self-efficacy in sport and physical activity settings. J Sport Exerc Psychol2014; 36: 486–505.
26.
WolfSAEysMASadlerP, et al.Appraisal in a team context: perceptions of cohesion predict competition importance and prospects for coping. J Sport Exerc Psychol2015; 37: 489–499.
27.
NicolasMMartinentGDrapeauM, et al.Defense profiles in adaptation process to sport competition and their relationships with coping, stress and control. Front Psychol2017; 8: 2222.
28.
Al-YaaribiAKavussanuM. Teammate prosocial and antisocial behaviors predict task cohesion and burnout: the mediating role of affect. J Sport Exerc Psychol2017; 39: 199–208.
29.
LougheadTMCarronAV. The mediating role of cohesion in the leader behavior satisfaction relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc2004; 5: 355–371.
30.
LougheadTMColmanMMCarronAV. Investigating the mediational relationship of leadership, class cohesion, and adherence in an exercise setting. Small Group Res2001; 32: 558–575.
31.
OhEGillDL. An examination of the relationship between team cohesion and individual anxiety among recreational soccer players. J Amat Sport2017; 3: 1–26.
32.
LougheadTPattersonMMCarronAV. The impact of fitness leader behavior and cohesion on an exerciser's affective state. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol2011; 6: 53–68.
33.
González-GarcíaHMartinentG. Perceived anger profiles in table tennis players: relationship with burnout and coping. Psychol Sport Exerc2020; 50: 101743.
34.
González-GarcíaHMartinentG. Influence of sport-practice-hours on burnout and coping in table tennis players. Int J Rack Sports Sci2019; 1: 15–23.
35.
HeuzéJPFontayneP. Questionnaire sur l'Ambiance du Groupe: a French-language instrument for measuring group cohesion. J Sport Exerc Psychol2002; 24: 42–67.
AkaikeH. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika1987; 52: 317–332.
40.
SchwartzG. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals Stat1978; 6: 461–464.
41.
ScloveSL. Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika1987; 52: 333–343.
42.
LoYMendellNRubinD. Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika2001; 88: 767–778.
43.
CollinsLMLanzaST. Latent class and latent transition analysis with applications in the social, behavioural, and health sciences. New York: Wiley, 2010.
44.
ParkJYuH. Recommendations on the sample sizes for multilevel latent class models. Educ Psychol Meas2017; 78: 737–761.
45.
Nylund-GibsonKGrimmRPMasynKE. Prediction from latent classes: a demonstration of different approaches to include distal outcomes in mixture models. Struct Equ Modeling2019; 26: 967–985.
46.
DoronJMartinentG. Appraisal, coping, emotion and performance during elite fencing matches: a random coefficient regression model approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports2017; 27: 1015–1025.
47.
RaedekeTDGranzykTLWarrenA. Why coaches experience burnout: a commitment perspective. J Sport Exerc Psychol2000; 22: 85–105.
