An assessment of sport officials' perceptions of group cohesion

Rayme Ehle, David J. Hancock, Kyle F. Paradis, M. Blair Evans, Luc J. Martin

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting Abstract

Abstract

Hancock et al. (2017) established that sport officials identify as operating in a team and being members of a group. Group membership was described through examples of the characteristics required for group classification (self-categorization, common fate, mutual benefits, social structure, and quality interactions; Carron & Eys, 2012). Despite demonstrating unique characteristics (i.e., transience/intra-team competition) not typically discussed in sport group dynamics research, the generalizability of group processes across group contexts (Forsyth, 2014) suggests certain constructs (e.g., cohesion) to be critical for officials’ individual and group performances. To support further qualitative research on officiating groups, we conducted a descriptive study of officials’ responses to a modified cohesion measure and relationships between officiating group cohesion and key demographic constructs. Officials (N = 106; Mage = 46.3 years; Mexperience = 20.4 years) completed an online, modified Group Environment Questionnaire comprised of four subscales: Attraction to the Group-Task (ATG-T), Attraction to the Group-Social (ATG-S), Group Integration-Task (GI-T), and Group Integration-Social (GI-S). Officials represented basketball (n = 62), football (n = 42), baseball (n = 1), and volleyball (n = 1). A series of paired t-tests compared responses on the four subscales, demonstrating the following significant differences (p < .05): ATG-T > ATG-S; ATG-T > GI-S; GI-T > ATG-S; GI-T > GI-S). When comparing officiating leaders with non-leaders, independent t-tests showed that leaders scored higher on all subscales, although results were not statistically significant. Finally, in relation to sport type, independent ttests demonstrated that football officials scored higher than basketball officials on all subscales, though only ATG-S and GI-S reached statistical significance (p < .05). We discuss why officials differed with regard to task and social orientations for cohesion, the link between leadership roles and valuing cohesion, and directions for future research.
LanguageEnglish
PagesS89-S89
JournalJOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY
Volume40
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2018

Cite this

Ehle, R., Hancock, D. J., Paradis, K. F., Evans, M. B., & Martin, L. J. (2018). An assessment of sport officials' perceptions of group cohesion. JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 40, S89-S89.
Ehle, Rayme ; Hancock, David J. ; Paradis, Kyle F. ; Evans, M. Blair ; Martin, Luc J. / An assessment of sport officials' perceptions of group cohesion. In: JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY. 2018 ; Vol. 40. pp. S89-S89.
@article{7b15e626409a4dd0a6e2a0485ca6401e,
title = "An assessment of sport officials' perceptions of group cohesion",
abstract = "Hancock et al. (2017) established that sport officials identify as operating in a team and being members of a group. Group membership was described through examples of the characteristics required for group classification (self-categorization, common fate, mutual benefits, social structure, and quality interactions; Carron & Eys, 2012). Despite demonstrating unique characteristics (i.e., transience/intra-team competition) not typically discussed in sport group dynamics research, the generalizability of group processes across group contexts (Forsyth, 2014) suggests certain constructs (e.g., cohesion) to be critical for officials’ individual and group performances. To support further qualitative research on officiating groups, we conducted a descriptive study of officials’ responses to a modified cohesion measure and relationships between officiating group cohesion and key demographic constructs. Officials (N = 106; Mage = 46.3 years; Mexperience = 20.4 years) completed an online, modified Group Environment Questionnaire comprised of four subscales: Attraction to the Group-Task (ATG-T), Attraction to the Group-Social (ATG-S), Group Integration-Task (GI-T), and Group Integration-Social (GI-S). Officials represented basketball (n = 62), football (n = 42), baseball (n = 1), and volleyball (n = 1). A series of paired t-tests compared responses on the four subscales, demonstrating the following significant differences (p < .05): ATG-T > ATG-S; ATG-T > GI-S; GI-T > ATG-S; GI-T > GI-S). When comparing officiating leaders with non-leaders, independent t-tests showed that leaders scored higher on all subscales, although results were not statistically significant. Finally, in relation to sport type, independent ttests demonstrated that football officials scored higher than basketball officials on all subscales, though only ATG-S and GI-S reached statistical significance (p < .05). We discuss why officials differed with regard to task and social orientations for cohesion, the link between leadership roles and valuing cohesion, and directions for future research.",
author = "Rayme Ehle and Hancock, {David J.} and Paradis, {Kyle F.} and Evans, {M. Blair} and Martin, {Luc J.}",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "S89--S89",
journal = "Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology",
issn = "0895-2779",

}

Ehle, R, Hancock, DJ, Paradis, KF, Evans, MB & Martin, LJ 2018, 'An assessment of sport officials' perceptions of group cohesion', JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, vol. 40, pp. S89-S89.

An assessment of sport officials' perceptions of group cohesion. / Ehle, Rayme; Hancock, David J.; Paradis, Kyle F.; Evans, M. Blair; Martin, Luc J.

In: JOURNAL OF SPORT & EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 40, 06.2018, p. S89-S89.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting Abstract

TY - JOUR

T1 - An assessment of sport officials' perceptions of group cohesion

AU - Ehle, Rayme

AU - Hancock, David J.

AU - Paradis, Kyle F.

AU - Evans, M. Blair

AU - Martin, Luc J.

PY - 2018/6

Y1 - 2018/6

N2 - Hancock et al. (2017) established that sport officials identify as operating in a team and being members of a group. Group membership was described through examples of the characteristics required for group classification (self-categorization, common fate, mutual benefits, social structure, and quality interactions; Carron & Eys, 2012). Despite demonstrating unique characteristics (i.e., transience/intra-team competition) not typically discussed in sport group dynamics research, the generalizability of group processes across group contexts (Forsyth, 2014) suggests certain constructs (e.g., cohesion) to be critical for officials’ individual and group performances. To support further qualitative research on officiating groups, we conducted a descriptive study of officials’ responses to a modified cohesion measure and relationships between officiating group cohesion and key demographic constructs. Officials (N = 106; Mage = 46.3 years; Mexperience = 20.4 years) completed an online, modified Group Environment Questionnaire comprised of four subscales: Attraction to the Group-Task (ATG-T), Attraction to the Group-Social (ATG-S), Group Integration-Task (GI-T), and Group Integration-Social (GI-S). Officials represented basketball (n = 62), football (n = 42), baseball (n = 1), and volleyball (n = 1). A series of paired t-tests compared responses on the four subscales, demonstrating the following significant differences (p < .05): ATG-T > ATG-S; ATG-T > GI-S; GI-T > ATG-S; GI-T > GI-S). When comparing officiating leaders with non-leaders, independent t-tests showed that leaders scored higher on all subscales, although results were not statistically significant. Finally, in relation to sport type, independent ttests demonstrated that football officials scored higher than basketball officials on all subscales, though only ATG-S and GI-S reached statistical significance (p < .05). We discuss why officials differed with regard to task and social orientations for cohesion, the link between leadership roles and valuing cohesion, and directions for future research.

AB - Hancock et al. (2017) established that sport officials identify as operating in a team and being members of a group. Group membership was described through examples of the characteristics required for group classification (self-categorization, common fate, mutual benefits, social structure, and quality interactions; Carron & Eys, 2012). Despite demonstrating unique characteristics (i.e., transience/intra-team competition) not typically discussed in sport group dynamics research, the generalizability of group processes across group contexts (Forsyth, 2014) suggests certain constructs (e.g., cohesion) to be critical for officials’ individual and group performances. To support further qualitative research on officiating groups, we conducted a descriptive study of officials’ responses to a modified cohesion measure and relationships between officiating group cohesion and key demographic constructs. Officials (N = 106; Mage = 46.3 years; Mexperience = 20.4 years) completed an online, modified Group Environment Questionnaire comprised of four subscales: Attraction to the Group-Task (ATG-T), Attraction to the Group-Social (ATG-S), Group Integration-Task (GI-T), and Group Integration-Social (GI-S). Officials represented basketball (n = 62), football (n = 42), baseball (n = 1), and volleyball (n = 1). A series of paired t-tests compared responses on the four subscales, demonstrating the following significant differences (p < .05): ATG-T > ATG-S; ATG-T > GI-S; GI-T > ATG-S; GI-T > GI-S). When comparing officiating leaders with non-leaders, independent t-tests showed that leaders scored higher on all subscales, although results were not statistically significant. Finally, in relation to sport type, independent ttests demonstrated that football officials scored higher than basketball officials on all subscales, though only ATG-S and GI-S reached statistical significance (p < .05). We discuss why officials differed with regard to task and social orientations for cohesion, the link between leadership roles and valuing cohesion, and directions for future research.

M3 - Meeting Abstract

VL - 40

SP - S89-S89

JO - Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

T2 - Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

JF - Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

SN - 0895-2779

ER -