The Effect of Sports Team Cohesion on Aggression, Cheating and Alcohol Consumption Jenny Braun and Lauren Drew Hanover College.

The Effect of Sports Team The Effect of Sports Team Cohesion on Aggression, Cohesion on Aggression,

Cheating and Alcohol Cheating and Alcohol ConsumptionConsumption

Jenny Braun and Lauren DrewJenny Braun and Lauren Drew

Hanover CollegeHanover College

Team SportsTeam Sports

The ‘need to belong’ is an innate feature The ‘need to belong’ is an innate feature of human nature of human nature (Spink, 1998, Baumeister & Leary, 1995)(Spink, 1998, Baumeister & Leary, 1995)

Teams provide a forum for satisfying the Teams provide a forum for satisfying the fundamental human drive of needing to fundamental human drive of needing to belong belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)(Baumeister & Leary, 1995)

Definition of CohesionDefinition of Cohesion

When teammates subscribe to the team’s When teammates subscribe to the team’s goals, socialize and pursue common goals goals, socialize and pursue common goals outside the realm of athletic activityoutside the realm of athletic activity

Impact of CohesionImpact of Cohesion

Many positive outcomes associated with cohesion (Spink, 1998; Prapavessis & Carron, 1997)

“Cohesion is associated with increased conformity to group norms” (Prapvessis & Carron, 1997, 232)

“High cohesive groups exerted more pressure on members toward compliance with group norms then did low cohesive groups” (Festinger, Gerard & Hymovitch, 1952 as cited in Prapavessis & Carron, 1997, p. 232)

Aggression and Team SportsAggression and Team Sports

Increased by zero-sum game structure (Lefebvre & Passer, 1974)

One of the most important problems in contemporary sport (Lefebvre & Passer, 1974)

Cultural-spectators prefer events with more aggressive acts (Makela, 1975)

Cheating in Team SportsCheating in Team Sports

“Willful rule violation” - actions which are considered unacceptable are done on purpose to gain benefit, at the potential cost of a penalty (Roberts, 1996)

Tone for acceptable behavior, including cheating, set by institution or team (Roberts, 1996)

Aggression and CheatingAggression and CheatingCheating and aggression are more

prominent:By malesIn older athletesIn individuals who have been playing the sport

longerTeam cohesion positively related to

expectations that teammates would cheat and aggress, and that coach would support behavior (Light Shields et al., 1995)

Team Sports and Alcohol Team Sports and Alcohol ConsumptionConsumption

o Sports team participation is associated with high rates of substance use, including alcohol (Rockafellow & Saules, 2006).

o A study by the NCAA found that over 80% of college athletes drink (Martens, Dams-O’Connor, and Beck, 2006)

HypothesisHypothesis

Perception of higher team cohesiveness Perception of higher team cohesiveness will be associated with more favorable will be associated with more favorable attitudes towards aggression and cheatingattitudes towards aggression and cheating

Teams which are perceived to be highly Teams which are perceived to be highly cohesive will have higher rates of drinkingcohesive will have higher rates of drinking

MethodMethod

ParticipantsObtained through emailing link for survey to

Athletic DirectorsCollege level athletes or former athletes

174 final participants58 Females116 MalesAges 18 – 57

Median age = 19 years oldMean age = 20 years old

Method

ProcedureInformed ConsentParticipants indicate the following:

Sports team(s) (e.g. basketball, soccer, etc.)Position on teamNumber of years participating per sportBasic demographics (age, gender, nationality)

MethodFour Questionnaires

Standard Likert Scale• 1 “Very Strongly Disagree”, 7 “Very Strongly Agree”

Aggression Questionnaire/Performance Attitudes (Buss & Perry, 1992) =.917

Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), (Carron et al., 1985) =.847

Cheating Questionnaire/Performance Motivation =.862

Alcohol Consumption Questionnaire

Results

Non-significant findingsNo significant relationship between GEQ with

aggression or cheatingNo significant relationship between GEQ and

athletes’ frequency of drinkingNo significant relationship between GEQ and

contact vs. non-contact sports

GEQM = 93.36Range: Minimum score=47.00

Maximum score = 126.00

Performance Attitudes/AggressionM = 68.50Range: Minimum score = 27.00

Maximum score = 146.00

Performance Motivation/CheatingM = 21.94Range: Minimum score=6.00

Maximum score= 42.0

Results

Results

F(1,165) = 7.8, p = .006

r(174) = .652, p < .001

r(167) = .219, p = .004

Discussion

Cohesion was not shown to be related to any variable except who the athletes reported drinking with

Limited exposure to others outside athletic realm (Martens et al., 2006)

Lack of Relationship Between GEQ, Aggression and Cheating

Possible that cohesion does not specify particular attitude toward aggression and cheating

Teams may have similar attitudes toward aggression and cheating if they are highly cohesive

Perceived team cohesion

Ran

ge o

f att

itu

des

tow

ard

ag

gre

ssio

n a

nd

ch

eati

ng

Discussion-Aggression and Cheating

Line between aggression and cheating is often blurred

Moral reasoning (Shields et al.,1995) Individuals may have different moral

values on athletic field than in everyday life

Future Directions

Measure cohesion in teams and variation in attitudes towards aggression and cheating

Develop measurement to record aggression and cheating from behavior

Explore potential disconnect between morality outside of athletic events and within athletic events

Questions?