The Science of Sports Team Dynamics: Cohesion, Loafing, and Locker-Room Hierarchy

TEST_YOURSELF · How well do you know this science?

1. 01 What did Max Ringelmann's rope-pulling experiments (1913) find about group effort?

   Individual effort per person declined as group size increasedGroup effort scaled up exactly in proportion to group sizeLarger groups always pulled harder per person than smaller onesGroup size had no measurable effect on pulling force

   Ringelmann found per-person force dropped steadily as groups grew, with 8-person groups producing only about 49% of summed individual capacity — the earliest documented evidence of what became known as social loafing. source ↗

2. 02 What term did Latané, Williams and Harkins coin in their 1979 study of shouting and clapping in groups?

   GroupthinkSocial loafingDiffusion of responsibilityBystander effect

   Latané, Williams and Harkins named the drop in individual output within groups 'social loafing,' distinguishing the motivational component from mere coordination loss, in 'Many Hands Make Light the Work' (1979). source ↗

3. 03 According to Carron's (1981) conceptual model, how is team cohesion best described?

   A single quality — a team either has it or doesn'tMultidimensional — task cohesion and social cohesion, which can differ independentlyEntirely determined by the head coach's personalityFixed at the start of the season and unable to change

   Carron proposed that cohesion splits into task cohesion (unity toward shared goals) and social cohesion (interpersonal attraction), each assessable at both group and individual levels — a team can score differently on each dimension. source ↗

4. 04 In Beauchamp, Bray, Eys and Carron's model, what is 'role ambiguity'?

   A player's personal reluctance to accept any role on the teamLack of clarity about scope, behaviors, evaluation, and consequences tied to one's roleA coach assigning too many roles to a single athleteDisagreement between two athletes over who should be team captain

   The model defines role ambiguity across four dimensions — scope of responsibilities, behavioral requirements, evaluation criteria, and consequences of not fulfilling the role — in both offensive and defensive contexts, and links it to worse role performance. source ↗

5. 05 What did Graupensperger and Tisak (2018) find about locker-room behavior among youth ice hockey players?

   Locker-room behavior had no relationship to on-ice cohesionPeer prosocial behavior predicted higher task cohesion; peer antisocial behavior predicted lower task cohesionOnly the coach's behavior in the locker room affected cohesionAntisocial locker-room behavior increased task cohesion by raising competitive intensity

   Among 238 youth ice hockey players, perceptions of peer prosocial behavior in the locker room were positively associated with task cohesion, while perceptions of peer antisocial behavior were negatively associated with it. source ↗