The social environment in children’s sport: Cohesion, social acceptance, commitment, and enjoyment

The social environment in children’s sportCohesion, social acceptance, commitment, and enjoyment

JANICE L. DONKERS1, LUC J. MARTIN1, KYLE F. PARADIS2, and SCOTT ANDERSON1

(*) University of Lethbridge, Canada(**) Western University, Canada

The primary purpose of the current study was to determine whether percep-tions of cohesion mediated the relationship between social acceptance and individ-ual commitment and enjoyment in children’s sport. A secondary purpose involvedthe assessment of the temporal nature of cohesion over the course of an athletic sea-son. A total of 209 (Mage = 9.87 years; SD = 1.34) recreational soccer players com-pleted questionnaires at three time points (T1 – social acceptance, cohesion; T2 –cohesion; T3 – commitment, enjoyment, cohesion) during an athletic season. Usingstructural equation modeling, the results indicated that task cohesion mediated therelationship between social acceptance and commitment and enjoyment, whereassocial cohesion did not. In addition, individual perceptions of cohesion did not varysignificantly over the course of the season. These results will be discussed in termsof their theoretical and practical implications. As one example, the relative stabilityin terms of perceptions of cohesion in this population could inform future interven-tion work aimed at enriching the social environment.

KEY WORDS: group dynamics, child sport, mediation, social climate, physicalactivity.

Research emphasizes the importance of sport as an environment for thepromotion of health and well being in younger populations (Holt, 2008).Specifically, youth sport can facilitate the development of positive lifestylehabits, including regular physical activity and healthy nutrition (e.g., Janssen& Leblanc, 2010; Tremblay et al., 2011). In addition, sport participation hasthe potential to foster enhanced physical, social, psychological, and intellec-tual development (e.g., Booth et al., 2013; Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2011;

This project was funded by the University of Lethbridge Research Fund (ULRF)Correspondence to: Janice L. Donkers, Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education,

University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, AB, Canada T1K 3M4 (e-mail: [email protected])

Int. J. Sport Psychol., 2014; 45: 1-00doi: 10.7352/IJSP 2013.44.409

Sawka, McCormack, Nettel-Aguirre, Hawe, & Doyle-Baker, 2013). As sev-eral examples, improvements in self-esteem (e.g., Ekeland, Heian, & Hagen,2005), social support networks (e.g., Ullrich-French, & Smith, 2009), andlevels of cardiovascular fitness (e.g., Andersen, Riddoch, Kriemler, & Hills,2011) have all been associated with youth sport participation.

Interestingly, despite the myriad of developmental benefits, and thatsport is considered the most popular organized activity among younger pop-ulations (e.g., Guévremont, Findlay, & Kohen, 2008), maintaining participa-tion and involvement has become a societal problem (e.g., Clark, 2008;Downward, Lera-López, & Rasciute, 2014). In 2005, only half of Canadianchildren (ages 5-14) participated in organized sport (Clark, 2008), and ofthose involved, current research suggests that 30% will dropout of at leastone sporting club annually (e.g., Boiché & Sarrazin, 2009; Delorme, Chal-abaev, & Raspaud, 2011). This yields approximately 600,000 dropout casesper year in Canada (Balish, McLaren, Rainham, & Blanchard, 2014). Fur-thermore, participation rates indicate that sport involvement peaks betweenthe ages of 10 and 13 years, and subsequently declines with age (Ewing &Seefeldt, 1989; Canadian Heritage, 2013). In fact, in 2010, only 26% ofCanadians over the age of 15 participated in organized sport (Canadian Her-itage, 2013). The Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP; e.g.,Côté, Baker, & Abernethy, 2003; Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2011) couldexplain this linear decline. This model involves three stages of sport devel-opment: Sampling (ages 6-12), specializing (ages 13-15), and investmentyears (ages >16). During the specializing years, individuals can choose toengage in sport at a recreational level, pursue a more competitive stream, orretire from sport (Côté, 1999). Not surprisingly, this developmental transi-tion is accompanied by a variety of changes including (a) decreased availabil-ity of sport/activities, (b) a decrease in deliberate play (largely replaced withdeliberate practice), and (c) a shift in roles exhibited by coaches (e.g., fromhelpers to specialists), parents (e.g., from direct to indirect involvement), andpeers (e.g., from co-participation toward the fulfillment of individual needs;Côté et al., 2003). Considering this developmental shift, late childhood/earlyadolescence becomes an important age range to target with regard to under-standing sport participation and commitment motives (e.g. Côté, Lidor, &Hackfort, 2009; Wall & Côté, 2007).

One avenue often explored in relation to participant motives involvesindividual perceptions of the social connections within a group (e.g., Robin-son & Carron, 1982). Cohesion, defined as “a dynamic process that isreflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united inthe pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of mem-

2 J. L. Donkers, L. J. Martin, K. F. Paradis et al.

ber affective needs” (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213), is a con-struct that represents these connections, and has been studied extensivelyacross numerous contexts (e.g., Dion, 2000). Based on the conceptual model(Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985), cohesion involves both individuals’attractions to the group and perceptions of the groups’ integration regardingtask and social orientations. As such, the four-dimensional construct includesIndividual Attractions to the Group-Task (ATG-T), Individual Attractions tothe Group-Social (ATG-S), Group Integration-Task (GI-T), and Group Inte-gration-Social (GI-S). Interestingly, recent work with younger populationssuggests that children and adolescents (ages 9-17) do not distinguishbetween individual attractions to the group and the groups’ integration, butrather, simply perceive cohesion as encompassing task and social orienta-tions—a two-dimensional construct (e.g., Eys, Loughead, Bray, & Carron,2009a, 2009b; Martin, Carron, Eys, & Loughead, 2011, 2012). This agerelated discrepancy in terms of conceptual understanding for constructssuch as cohesion has been supported in the literature (Rubin, Bukowski, &Parker, 2006). With regard to children specifically (ages 9-12), greater per-ceptions of cohesion are related to increased satisfaction and self-efficacy,and decreased levels of competitive state anxiety (Martin, Carron, Eys, &Loughead, 2013). Considering the demonstrated salience of cohesion foradherence behaviors in older populations (e.g., Spink, Wilson, & Odnokon,2010), and these preliminary relationships with important affective and cog-nitive variables in children, the continued investigation of the influence ofcohesion for younger populations is warranted.

Interestingly, although research has demonstrated that young individu-als are able to identify and discuss the cohesiveness of their sport teams (e.g.,Eys, et al., 2009a; Martin et al., 2011), an important prerequisite may havebeen overlooked. Although a child may perceive his/her team as being highlycohesive, the associated benefits derived from that unity might depend onhis/her perception of acceptance within that team. As an example, motivesfor joining and maintaining involvement in sport often include friendships,affiliation, and acceptance (e.g., Ewing & Seefeldt, 1996). In particular, socialacceptance is associated with improved physical competence (Weiss & Dun-can, 1992), self-esteem (Daniels & Leaper, 2006), and social identity(Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). These relative benefits derived from being‘accepted’ by peers is perhaps not surprising given that humans have a fun-damental need to ‘belong,’ and that this desire can influence certain cogni-tions and behaviors (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In fact, in sport, perceptionsof belonging are related to satisfaction with social outcomes (Allen, 2006). Inaddition, the quality of these peer relations is associated with affective out-

The social environment in children’s sport 3

comes such as enjoyment and interest (e.g., Downward et al., 2014; Weiss &Smith, 2002). Not surprisingly then, the importance of social connections inyouth sport has recently been highlighted: “affiliative motives are at least asstrong as achievement motives in influencing children’s interest in becominginvolved in sport” (Partridge, Brustad, & Babkes-Stellino, 2008, p. 278).Finally, Rubin and colleagues (2006) advocate acknowledging the varyinglevels of individual affiliation perceptions. Increasing in order of complexity,these affiliation levels include: (a) the individual, (b) interactions, (c) rela-tionships, and (d) groups. As individuals transition through the levels ofcomplexity, social interactions become more intricate through the additionof certain interpersonal expectations (e.g., reciprocity, meaningfulness).While it is possible to explore each level independently, it is perhaps moreimportant to recognize that events occuring at one level (e.g., relationships)are influenced by events at other levels (e.g., team cohesion). Therefore, weacknowledge that the attainment of quality relations and the need to belong(i.e., social acceptance) are integral components in shaping children’s sportexperiences, and in order for individuals to obtain the previously describedbenefits derived from a cohesive team, we propose that they must first feel asthough they are integrated within and accepted by that team.

In order to assess this proposed relationship, two demonstrated predic-tors of sport motivation were utilized. The first is commitment, which is aconstruct that represents the psychological state of attachment to participa-tion (e.g., Johnson, 1973, 1982). This state of attachment reflects a motiva-tional force that significantly influences persistence and continued involve-ment, and has been identified as a powerful predictor of actual participationpatterns for youth (Scanlan, Carpenter, Lobel, & Simons, 1993; Scanlan,Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler, 1993). The second, enjoyment, is oneof the most frequently cited reasons for child and youth participation in sport(Ewing & Seefeldt, 1996), and retrospective studies with elite athletes haverecognized it as a crucial predictor for early development during the sam-pling and specializing years (e.g., Côté, 1999; Côté & Hay, 2002). Interest-ingly, a lack of enjoyment during the sampling years—our target popula-tion—has historically contributed to dropout behaviors (e.g.,Fraser-Thomas, Côté, & Deakin, 2008; Gould & Horn, 1984). Therefore,considering the impressionability of children, enjoyment appears to be cru-cial for long-term sport involvement.

In recognizing (a) the importance of both commitment and enjoymentfor children’s sport experiences and continued participation, (b) their nat-ural desire for affiliation and acceptance, and (3) the benefits obtained froma cohesive environment, the primary purpose of the study was to determine


the predictive ability of social acceptance for sport commitment and enjoy-ment, and whether this relationship would be mediated by individual per-ceptions of cohesion.

Due to the prospective observational design, a secondary purpose relat-ing to the temporal nature of cohesion was also assessed. Although consen-sus in the literature suggests that perceptions of cohesion vary throughoutthe existence of the group (e.g., Carron & Brawley, 2000; Carron & Eys,2012), this dynamicity was recently called into question and subsequentlytested (Dunlop, Falk, & Beauchamp, 2013). In adult exercise groups, taskcohesion remained stable whereas social cohesion did significantly changeover time (i.e., it was dynamic). These results have direct implications forchild sport as an understanding of the variability of cohesion would informfuture practical and intervention work. Therefore, our secondary purpose isto assess the dynamic nature of cohesion in child sport over the course of anathletic season.

Methods

PARTICIPANTS

Participants included a convenience sample of 346 children from 31 recreational soccerteams across four leagues: U-12 girls (n = 6), U-12 boys (n = 8), U-10 girls (n = 6), and U-10boys (n = 11). All leagues were based in a suburban area (city population ~ 90,000) located inWestern Canada, and teams participated in a one-hour practice and a one-hour competitionevery week for the duration of the season (9-10 weeks). Due to the recreational nature of theleagues, there were no playoff contests or tournaments. Ultimately, 209 children between theages of 8 and 12 years (125 male, 84 female; Mage = 9.87 years; SD = 1.34) completed the ques-tionnaires at all three data-collection periods (i.e., beginning, middle, and end of season). Thissample represents 60% of the participants who completed the questionnaire at the first col-lection period.

MEASURES

Cohesion. Perceptions of cohesion were determined using the 16-item Child SportCohesion Questionnaire (CSCQ; Martin et al., 2012) that assesses both task (7 items) andsocial (7 items) cohesion. There are two negatively worded spurious items used to detect par-ticipant response acquiescence that are not incorporated in the analysis. Exemplar items fortask and social cohesion respectively are, “We like the way we work together as a team” and“I like to spend time with my teammates.” The items are answered on a 5-point Likert-typescale anchored at the extremes by 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree), with higherscores reflecting greater perceptions of cohesion. Previous research has found this measure tobe reliable and valid (e.g., Martin et al., 2012, 2013) and in the present study, acceptable inter-


nal reliability was demonstrated for both task (α = .83) and social (α = .86) cohesion (e.g., >.70; Nunnally & Berstein, 1994).

Social Acceptance. Social acceptance was assessed using the Self-Perception Profile forChildren (SPPC; Harter, 1985). The social acceptance subscale is comprised of six itemsbased on a structured alternative format in which children first indicate similarity to “kids” inthe statements on the right or on the left, followed by whether the statement is “sort of true”or “really true.” Thus, scores range from 1 (low) to 4 (high) in terms of social acceptance. Anexemplar item is “Some kids don’t understand how to get teammates to accept them BUTOther kids do understand how to get teammates to accept them.” Note that two of the origi-nal six items have the terms “classmates” and “peers,” and in the current study, these werereplaced with “teammates.” The reliability and validity of this subscale have been previouslysupported in similar populations and contexts (e.g., Harter, 1985; Weiss & Smith, 2002), aswell as in the current study (α = .73).

Commitment and Enjoyment. Commitment and enjoyment were measured usingadapted items from the Sport Commitment Model (Scanlan et al., 1993) utilized by Weiss andSmith (2002). There are eight items, with four assessing sport commitment (e.g., “How deter-mined are you to keep playing this sport?”) and four assessing sport enjoyment (e.g., “Do youhave fun playing in this sport this season?”). Responses are obtained on a 5-point Likert-typescale anchored at the extremes with 1 (not at all) and 5 (very much); thus, higher scores reflectgreater perceptions of both commitment and enjoyment. In the present study, internal relia-bility scores were acceptable (α = .89, commitment; α = .87, enjoyment) which is consistentwith previous research in similar populations (e.g., Scanlan et al., 1993; Weiss & Smith, 2002).

PROCEDURE

After obtaining ethical approval from the lead investigator’s research institution, a com-munity youth soccer organization was approached to request permission to contact coaches.Prior to the season, a coaches meeting was held where the second author introduced the pur-pose of the proposed study. Once coaches agreed to participate, athletes were presented withletters of information and athlete assent and parental/guardian consent forms. In order to par-ticipate in the study, both assent and consent were required. Participants completed ques-tionnaires prior to or at the end of practice (depending on coach preference) at the beginning(weeks 2-3, in order to provide sufficient time for group related perceptions to develop; e.g.,Wheelan, 2005), middle (weeks 5-6), and end (weeks 8-10) of their seasons. Social acceptanceand cohesion were assessed at Time 1, cohesion was assessed at Time 2, and commitment,enjoyment, and cohesion were assessed at Time 3. The questionnaires took approximately 15-20 minutes to complete.

Data analysis. The primary purpose of the study was to determine whether perceptionsof cohesion mediated the relationship between social acceptance and sport commitment andenjoyment. As athletes were members of sport teams (i.e., data from participants were orga-nized at more than one level), hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) was the preferred type ofanalysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). This allows researchers to identify whether individualperceptions are influenced at the team level. As such, Kenny and Lavoi (1985) suggest testingfor group effects using intra-class correlation (ICC). With the current sample, the ICCs forsocial acceptance (ICC = .04, p > .05) at Time 1 and task (ICC = .03, p > .05) and social (ICC= .04, p > .05) cohesion at Time 2 were non-significant, thus no group effect was present. Sim-


ilarly, a suggested sample size for HLM was advanced by Hox (2010), who stated,“researchers should strive for a sample of at least 30 groups with at least 30 individuals pergroup” (p. 235). Due to the limited number of children present at all three collection periods,our final sample (N = 209) had certain teams that were only represented by one or two ath-letes.

In considering the limitations of the current sample in relation to conducting HLM (i.e.,absence of a group effect and sample size concerns in terms of adequate number of completecases at all three time points), Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with maximum-likelihoodestimation via AMOS 20.0 (Arbuckle, 2011) was undertaken. The mediation analysis followedthe suggestions advanced by Holmbeck (1997) and the following fit indices were selectedbased on recent guidelines for determining model fit (e.g., Bentler, 2007); Chi-squared test(�2), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), androot mean square residual (SRMR). In order to determine acceptable model fit, certain indi-viduals suggest CFI values should be greater than .90 (e.g., Bentler, 1990), while others sug-gest they should be greater than .95 (e.g., Hu & Bentler, 1999). For the SRMR, values below.08 are considered adequate (e.g., Browne & Cudeck, 1993) and for the RMSEA, values below.06 indicate good fit, between .08 and .10 indicate mediocre fit, and greater than .10, poor fit(MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996).

The secondary purpose involved the assessment of the dynamic nature of cohesion (taskand social) over the course of the athletic season. Using SPSS 20.0, two separate repeated mea-sures ANOVA’s were conducted to determine possible differences in individual perceptions ofcohesion across the three collection periods.

Results

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Means, standard deviations, range, and Cronbach’s alpha values for thefive subscales are provided in Table 1. In general, athletes reported high lev-


TABLE IDescriptive Statistics

Variable M SD Range A

Social acceptance (T1) 3.14 .55 1.33-4.00 .73Task cohesion (T1) 3.99 .63 1.86-5.00 .80Social cohesion (T1) 3.27 .78 1.00-5.00 .78Task cohesion (T2) 3.98 .66 1.57-5.00 .83Social cohesion (T2) 3.23 .91 1.00-5.00 .86Task cohesion (T3) 4.05 .69 1.57-5.00 .84Social cohesion (T3) 3.32 .94 1.00-5.00 .86Commitment (T3) 4.33 .84 1.00-5.00 .89Enjoyment (T3) 4.70 .52 2.75-5.00 .87

Note. Possible scale ranges: 1-4 for social acceptance and 1-5 for cohesion (task and social), commitment,and enjoyment. Higher scores reflect greater perceptions for all variables. T1 = Time 1, T2 = Time 2, andT3 = Time 3.

els of social acceptance, task cohesion, commitment, and enjoyment, andmoderately high levels of social cohesion. In addition, the internal consis-tency values were above .70 for all subscales. Tests for normality were con-ducted for all variables in the study, and skewness and kurtosis values rangedbetween the acceptable 2 and -2. In addition, examination of the distributionthrough histograms, recommended for larger sample sizes (e.g., Tabachnick& Fidell, 2013) appeared to be normally distributed (e.g., Field, 2009).

GENDER DIFFERENCES

A 2 (Gender) X 9 (task cohesion, social cohesion, social acceptance,commitment, enjoyment) MANOVA was used to determine if there were anygender differences between variables. The majority of attributes were signif-icant at the p < .05 level, thus, Bonferroni type adjustments were used(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013) for follow up univaritate ANOVAs given thatthere were 9 attributes (.05/9 = p < .001).

In terms of cohesion, female mean scores were higher than males forboth task and social cohesion at all three time points: Time 1 (Task, F =14.18, p < .001, Mmales = 3.86, Mfemales = 4.19; Social, F = 7.56, p = .006, Mmales

= 3.15, Mfemales = 3.45), Time 2 (Task, F = 15.81, p < .001, Mmales = 3.84, Mfe-

males = 4.19; Social, F = 8.25, p = .004, Mmales = 3.08, Mfemales = 3.45), and Time3 (Task, F = 12.49, p < .001, Mmales = 3.92, Mfemales = 4.25; Social, F = 4.61, p= .033, Mmales = 3.21, Mfemales = 3.49). With regard to social acceptance (Time1), female mean scores were also greater than males (F = 8.27, p = .004, Mmales

= 3.05, Mfemales = 3.27). Finally, female mean scores for commitment andenjoyment (Time 3) were greater than male scores (Commitment, F = 9.98, p= .002, Mmales = 4.19, Mfemales = 4.55; Enjoyment, F = 5.04, p = .026, Mmales =4.63, Mfemales = 4.80).

MAIN ANALYSES

Testing the mediational model. Based on the suggestions advanced byHolmbeck (1997), the first step in mediation with SEM is to test the predic-tor outcome model—the predictability of the independent variable (i.e.,social acceptance) for the outcome variables (i.e., commitment and enjoy-ment). This model demonstrated good fit, χ2 (74) = 97.5 (p < .001), CFI =.981, RMSEA = .039, SRMR = .044 with significant standardized parameterestimates (SPE) for social acceptance to commitment (SPE = .20, p = .02)


and enjoyment (SPE = .24, p = .01). Step 2 involves testing the partial medi-ation model to determine the relationship between the mediator variables(i.e., task and social cohesion) from Time 2 (mid-season), the predictor vari-able (i.e., social acceptance) from Time 1 (early season), and the outcomevariables (i.e., commitment and enjoyment) from Time 3 (end of season). Ifthe SPE’s from Step 1 are reduced or eliminated, this suggests partial or fullmediation, respectively. Step 2 demonstrated good model fit, χ2 (342) =490.29 (p < .001), CFI = .939, RMSEA = .046, SRMR = .056. In addition,social acceptance was significantly related to the mediating variables of socialcohesion (SPE = .47, p < .001) and task cohesion (SPE = .53, p < .001); how-ever, the relationship from social acceptance was reduced to non-significancefor commitment (SPE = -.04, p = .69) and enjoyment (SPE = -.02, p = .82),thus demonstrating full mediation. Task cohesion predicted both commit-ment (SPE = .38, p < .001) and enjoyment (SPE = .41, p < .001) whereassocial cohesion did not (commitment, SPE = .10, p = .29; enjoyment, SPE =.12, p = .19). Given that no significant paths were demonstrated from thepredictor variable (i.e., social acceptance) to the outcome variables (i.e., com-mitment and enjoyment), Step 3 assessed the full mediation model with theremoval of the direct paths from the predictor to the outcome variables, anddemonstrated good fit (χ2(340) = 490.46 (p < .001), CFI = .940, RMSEA =.046, SRMR = .056). Social acceptance was a significant predictor of task(SPE = .52, p < .001) and social (SPE = .47, p < .001) cohesion. Task cohe-sion mediated the relationship with commitment (SPE = .36, p < .001) andenjoyment (SPE = .40, p < .001), however social cohesion did not (commit-ment, SPE = .09, p = .32; enjoyment, SPE = .12, p = .20). The results of theχ2 difference test yielded a non-significant difference between the partial andfull mediation models of Δ χ2 (2) = .17, thus supporting the full mediationmodel (see Figure 1).

Testing the dynamic nature of cohesion. Two repeated measuresANOVA’s were conducted to determine whether perceptions of task andsocial cohesion varied over the course of the season. Means for task cohesionat the three time points were (Time 1, M = 3.99, SD = .63; Time 2, M = 3.98,SD = .66, Time 3, M = 4.05, SD = .69) and social cohesion were (Time 1, M =3.27, SD = .78; Time 2, M = 3.23, SD = .91; Time 3, M = 3.32, SD = .94). AsMauchly’s Tests of Sphericity were significant (p < .001) for both, the Green-house-Geisser correction was used for the ANOVA’s. For task cohesion, anon-significant main effect was obtained for Time F(2, 207) = 1.71, p > .05,partial �2 = .02. Similarly, a non-significant main effect for Time F(2, 207) =2.09, p > .05, partial η2 = .01 was also found for social cohesion. Therefore,neither dimension varied significantly over the course of the season.


Discussion

The primary purpose of the study was to determine whether perceptionsof cohesion mediated the relationship between social acceptance and com-mitment and enjoyment. In addition, as a secondary purpose, we were inter-ested in determining the variability of perceptions of cohesion (task andsocial) in child sport participants throughout an athletic season. Severalissues pertaining to the current findings warrant further discussion.

The first topic of interest relates to the predictor outcome model. Theacceptance experienced by children within their teams positively predictedboth sport commitment and enjoyment. These data suggest that social accep-tance may be an initial contributing factor that facilitates sport commitmentand enjoyment in this population. This is consistent with peer relationship


Fig. 1 - Mediation Model of Cohesion Between Social Acceptance and Commitmentand Enjoyment.

Note. Solid lines represent significant relationships between constructs whereas dashed lines represent non-significant relationships. T1 – time 1, T2 – time 2, T3 – time 3.

"

T2Task

Cohesion

T1Social

Acceptance

T2Social

Cohesion

T3Enjoyment

T3Commitment

"

.47

.38

.53

.12

.10

.41-.04

-.02

significant relationships. -represent nonSolid lines represent significant relationships between constructs whereas dashed lines Note.

time 2, T3 –time 1, T2 –T1 significant relationships. Solid lines represent significant relationships between constructs whereas dashed lines

time 3.–time 2, T3 Solid lines represent significant relationships between constructs whereas dashed lines

research that highlights the importance of quality relations in terms of sportenjoyment and interest (e.g., Downward et al., 2014; Weiss & Smith, 2002).In addition, the salience of social influences within children’s sport is per-haps not surprising given that group affiliation has been cited as one of theprimary motives for participation (e.g., Partridge et al., 2008; Weiss, &Petlichkoff, 1989). Similarly, once children are involved, the social environ-ment (e.g., friendships, peer interactions) is said to influence their attitudesand behaviors in physical activity settings (e.g., Horn & Harris, 1996; Weiss& Ebbeck, 1996). Coincidently, feeling accepted within the group can posi-tively influence affect and future intention.

Several theoretical perspectives support the importance of social accep-tance for this population. According to belongingness theory (BT; Baumeis-ter & Leary, 1995), humans have a pervasive motivation to form and maintaininterpersonal relationships. As such, children experience this desire tobelong to groups, which subsequently influences their cognitions and behav-iors. As an extension from BT, the sociometer theory (ST; Leary & Baumeis-ter, 2000) posits that once individuals belong to a group (i.e., a sport team),they develop the ability to monitor their acceptance within the group. Froman evolutionary perspective, this allowed individuals to detect the risk ofexpulsion from groups—and subsequent decline in probability of reproduc-tion and survival (e.g., Forsyth, 2014). Interestingly, ST suggests self-esteemto be an indicator of an individual’s social acceptance, rather than a sense ofpersonal value (Leary & Baumeister, 2000). This ‘sociometer’ is likened to apsychological gauge that allows individuals to monitor the social environ-ment for cues indicating relational devaluation (e.g., exclusion, ostracism;Leary, Phillips, & Cottrell, 2001), and depending on the cues obtained fromthe group (i.e., acceptance vs. rejection), individuals will experienceincreased or decreased self-esteem. Considering perceived acceptance cantranslate to increased self-esteem, it is understandable that children enjoytheir membership, and demonstrate greater intentions to commit to thatgroup. In terms of future research, it would be beneficial to investigatepotential antecedents associated with peer acceptance. Specifically, in sportsettings, what makes certain children more likely to feel accepted in compar-ison to others? Coach behaviours are one avenue worth investigating. Forexample, a team climate focused on competition and comparison could cer-tainly contribute to skill or status based faultlines, which could inadvertentlycreate subgroups and isolate certain members. As such, a better understand-ing of the antecedents to or the behavioural correlates of acceptance in thispopulation could inform the development and implementation of practicalintervention strategies.


The second point of discussion pertains to the mediation demonstratedwith cohesion. Due to a call for this type of investigation with group levelvariables (e.g., Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004), severalstudies have previously assessed cohesion as a mediator in various contexts.In the exercise setting, cohesion has been found to mediate the relationshipbetween fitness leader behaviors and exerciser affective (e.g., satisfaction),cognitive (e.g., perceived exertion), and behavioral (e.g., adherence/atten-dance) outcomes (e.g., Loughead & Carron, 2004; Loughead, Colman, &Carron, 2001; Loughead, Patterson, & Carron, 2008). With regard to sport,and specifically adult populations, cohesion was found to mediate the lead-ership-intention to return relationship (e.g., Spink, 1998). In youth sport,Paradis and Loughead (2012) found cohesion to mediate the relationshipbetween athlete leadership and athlete satisfaction, while Bruner, Boardley,and Côté (2014) found a mediational influence between social identity andprosocial and antisocial behaviour. The present study is the first (to ourknowledge) to demonstrate this mediation in children, and suggests thatonce affiliative needs are satisfied, cohesion is a mechanism by which per-ceptions of enjoyment and commitment are influenced. This mediation alsoreinforces our earlier suggestion, namely, that in order for cohesion to pro-vide individuals with its demonstrated benefits, those individuals must feel asthough they are accepted members of the group. This is a novel contributionto the literature as it suggests assessing other indicators pertaining to thesocial relations within the group augments our understanding of the influ-ence of cohesion. This could provide a more holistic view of the social envi-ronment as experienced by athletes, and in fact, this type of assessment waspromoted by Rubin et al., (2006) as enabling greater conceptual clarityregarding the interactions between varying perceptions of affiliation (i.e., Iam accepted within this group, and this is a cohesive group). Future researchshould attempt to further investigate the interdependence of affiliative expe-riences within the sport environment. For example, could an individual’sperception of the teams’ cohesion be influenced by the presence (or absence)of quality relationships with fewer select members within the team (i.e., sub-groups)?

A third, and closely related point pertains to the specific dimensions ofcohesion. Interestingly, task cohesion significantly predicted commitmentand enjoyment, whereas social cohesion did not. This is an interesting find-ing considering the current support for the importance of social acceptance,as well as the demonstrated influence of other socially derived variables (e.g.,friendship) for this age group (e.g., Allen, 2006; Ullrich-French & Smith,2009). There are several potential explanations as to why this finding


emerged. The recreational nature of the sample may have contributed to thisresult. Although recreational sport is often perceived as a context that fostersfun and enjoyment, within this younger age demographic, coaches oftenfocus on individual basic skill acquisition and development and this mayhave inadvertently inhibited the development of social cohesion by limitinginteraction and opportunities to socialize. Carron and Brawley (2008) pro-posed that in sport, task cohesion typically develops first, followed after-wards by social cohesion. This temporal distinction is in agreement with pre-vious group development research (e.g., Sherif & Sherif, 1969), and theauthors provide certain explanations for the delayed development of socialcohesion, attributing it to the performance-based orientation of sport, andthe fact that social interactions occur less frequently and are less imposed bycoaches compared to task interactions (Carron & Brawley, 2008). This dis-tinction was readily apparent in our results at Time 1, and due to the rela-tively short season length (i.e., 9-10 weeks), and the fact that players typicallyarrived for their practices and competitions with very little time before orafter to socialize, there may not have been enough time to develop strongerrelations and subsequent perceptions of social cohesion (as demonstrated bythe lower mean levels across the season). It would be worthwhile to considerwhether the temporal development of cohesion is indicative of coachingpractices and/or the aims of the sport program. Researchers could examinehow specific factors such as season length, performance-based orientations,and socializing opportunities contribute to the development of social cohe-sion. A better understanding of such processes would allow us to determinewhether this temporal distinction can be attributed to the nature of sport—that is, that quality relations take time to develop in any context, but in sport,instrumental objectives are readily apparent (e.g., attention to basic skilldevelopment, clear and recognizable team objective).

The fourth topic of discussion focuses on the secondary purpose of thestudy—the temporal variability of cohesion over the course of a season. Theresults revealed that neither cohesion orientation was significantly dynamicover the course of the season. In the existing group dynamics literature, thedynamic nature of cohesion has been largely supported (e.g., Carron & Eys,2012). As groups move through formation, to maintenance, to dissolution,individual perceptions of cohesion are believed to vary (e.g., Carron & Braw-ley, 2000). Interestingly, research with adult exercise groups found onlysocial cohesion to vary significantly over time (Dunlop et al., 2013). As such,our findings are not supported by either common consensus, or those foundby Dunlop et al., (2013)—we found perceptions of cohesion (in children) tobe relatively static. We would like to emphasize that a direct comparison of


these findings should be considered with care. As was previously discussed,a distinction has been identified in terms of the conceptual understanding ofcohesion between younger and older populations (e.g., Eys et al., 2009b;Martin et al., 2012), and perhaps perceptions are more stable in youngerpopulations. Alternatively, the lack of dynamicity could be attributed to sea-son length or level of competition. Due to the short season length, assessmentperiods may not have allowed enough time for such perceptions to change,as research does suggest the dynamicity occurs over time (e.g., Carron &Brawley, 2000). Athletes may not have interacted with enough consistency orduration to enable significant variations in perceptions among the group.Similarly, recreational soccer players are typically assigned to teams, and par-ticipation with the same team (and teammates) from season to season isunlikely. However, while we do provide these warnings, we do not precludethe possibility that in children, these perceptions are in fact relatively stableover time. In comparison to other social environment constructs (i.e., moti-vational climate), research has supported the temporal stability of percep-tions in youth sport (e.g., Jõesaar, Hein, & Hagger, 2012; Sage & Kavussanu,2008). Therefore, it appears further research is needed to properly determinethe temporal nature of cohesion in children.

Research advocates sport as a means to foster positive youth develop-ment (e.g., Fraser-Thomas, Côté , & Deakin, 2005), and in acknowledgingthis importance, our results present practical implications. Specifically, indi-viduals working with young athletes (e.g., parents, coaches, practitioners)should take care to facilitate the acceptance experienced among team mem-bers. This will ultimately have an impact on athletes’ perceptions of cohe-sion, and will influence enjoyment and adherence behaviours. In fact, Knightand Holt (2011) recently provided suggestions for developing optimal con-ditions to enhance sport participation, and advocated the promotion of envi-ronments that are socially inviting and supportive. The social environmentcertainly represents an important avenue with implications for young athletepsychological responses (e.g., Quested et al., 2013), and our results reinforcethe necessity of providing opportunities for individuals to feel accepted, andto target improved perceptions of cohesion in order to increase importantaffective and cognitive outcomes.

Despite the strengths of the current study, certain limitations must beacknowledged. The first pertains to the homogenous nature of the sample,for both sport type and level of competition. All participants were registeredin a local recreational soccer league and the results cannot be generalized toother sports or levels of competition. Another limitation relates to partici-pant dropout. Although a high percentage of athletes appeared to dropout


throughout the course of the study, the missing data can be attributed topractice and competition attendance—which with this sample, is largelyinfluenced by parents/guardians—and is not necessarily indicative of partic-ipant volitional adherence or dropout. This attendance related informationwas largely gleaned from coaches during the collection periods, howeverfuture research should strive to better identify the reasons for absences. Suchinformation could inform practical work geared toward enriching the socialenvironment, and by extension improving adherence behaviours.

In summary, the current study supports the contention that social influ-ences such as social acceptance impact feelings of enjoyment and commitmentwithin children’s sport. In addition, this relationship is mediated by percep-tions of task cohesion. This is a novel contribution to the group dynamics lit-erature in children’s sport as it took a prospective observational approach tothe assessment of the social environment. Similarly, the study also involved apreliminary investigation of the temporal nature of cohesion, suggesting its sta-bility over the course of an athletic season. Despite these informative results,future research should continue to investigate the relative importance of cohe-sion for children, as well as how their perceptions vary over time.

REFERENCES

Allen, J. B. (2006). The perceived belonging in sport scale: Examining validity. Psychology ofSport and Exercise, 7, 387-405. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.09.004

Andersen, L. B., Riddoch, C., Kriemler, S., & Hills, A. (2011). Physical activity and cardio-vascular risk factors in children. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 45, 871-876. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090333

Arbuckle, J. L. (2011). Amos 20 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Balish, S. M., McLaren, C., Rainham, D., & Blanchard, C. (2014). Correlates of youth sport

attrition: A review and future directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 429-439.doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.04.003

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attach-ments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 495-529. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,107, 238-246. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality andIndividual Differences, 42, 815-824. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024

Boiché, J., & Sarrazin, P. (2009). Proximal and distal factors associated with dropout versusmaintained participation in organized sport. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine, 8, 9-16.


Booth, J. N., Leary, S. D., Joinson, C., Ness, A. R., Tomporowski, P. D., Boyle, J. M., & Reilly,J. J. (2013). Associations between objectively measured physical activity and academicattainment in adolescents from a UK cohort. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48, 265-270. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-092334

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.

Bruner, M. W., Boardley, I. D., & Côté, J. (2014). Social identity and prosocial and antisocialbehavior in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 56–64. doi:10.1016/j.psy-chsport.2013.09.003

Canadian Heritage (2013). Sport participation 2010: Research paper. Retrieved fromhttp://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/pc-ch/CH24-1-2012-eng.pdf

Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2000). Cohesion conceptual and measurement issues. SmallGroup Research, 31, 89-106. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100105

Carron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2008). Group dynamics in sport and physical activity. In T. S.Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp. 213-237). Champaign, IL: Human Kinet-ics, Inc.

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesivenessin sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measure-ment (pp. 213-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fit-ness Information Technology.

Clark, W. (2008). Kids’ sports. Canadian Social Trends, 85, 54-61.Colley, R. C., Garriguet, D., Janssen, I., Craig, C. L., Clarke, J., & Tremblay, M. S. (2011).

Physical activity of Canadian children and youth: Accelerometer results from the 2007 to2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Health Rep, 22, 15-23. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-200

Côté, J. (1999). The influence of the family in the development of talent in sport. The SportPsychologist, 13, 395-417.

Côté, J., Baker, J., & Abernethy, B. (2003). From play to practice: a developmental frameworkfor the acquisition of expertise in team sport. In J. Starkes & K. A. Ericsson (Eds.) Recentadvances in research on sport expertise (pp. 89-114). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Côté, J., & Hay, J. (2002). Children’s involvement in sport: A developmental perspective. In J.M. Silva & D. Stevens (Ed.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 484- 502). Boston:Merrill.

Côté, J., & Fraser-Thomas, J. (2011). Youth involvement and positive development in sport.In P. R. E. Crocker (2nd Ed.), Sport and Exercise Psychology: A Canadian Perspective (pp.226-255). Toronto, ON: Pearson Education Canada.

Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bais. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 58, 60-67. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.60

Daniels, E., & Leaper, C. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of sport participation, peeracceptance, and self-esteem among adolescent girls and boys. Sex Roles, 55, 875-880.doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9138-4

Delorme, N., Chalabaev, A., & Raspaud, M. (2011). Relative age is associated with sportdropout: evidence from youth categories of French basketball. Scandinavian Journal ofMedicine & Science in Sports, 21, 120-128. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01060.x


Dion, K. L. (2000). Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 7-20. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.7

Downward, P., Lera-López, F., & Rasciute, S. (2014). The correlates of sports participation inEurope. European Journal of Sport Science, 1-11. doi: 10.1080/17461391.2014.880191

Dunlop, W. L., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2011). Does similarity make a difference? Predictingcohesion and attendance behaviors within exercise group settings. Group Dynamics:Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 258-266. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023642

Dunlop, W. L., Falk, C. F., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2013). How dynamic are exercise groupdynamics? Examining changes in cohesion within class-based exercise programs. HealthPsychology, 32, 1240-1243. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030412

Ekeland, E., Heian, F., & Hagen, K. B. (2005). Can exercise improve self-esteem in childrenand young people? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. British Journalof Sports Medicine, 39, 792-798. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2004.017707

Epstein, L. H., Coleman, K. J., & Myers, M. D. (1996). Exercise in treating obesity in childrenand adolescents. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 28, 428-435. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005768-199604000-00006

Ewing, M. E., & Seefeldt, V. (1989). Participation and attrition patterns in American agency-sponsored and interscholastic sports: An executive summary. Final Report. North PalmBeach, FL: Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association.

Ewing, M. E., & Seefeldt, V. (1996). Patterns of participation and attrition in American agencysponsored youth sports. In F. L. Smoll and R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth insport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 31-45). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.

Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009a). Perceptions of cohesion byyouth sport participants. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 390-408.

Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. (2009b). Development of cohesionquestionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport& Exercise Psychology, 31, 390-408.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Wadsworth, CA: Cengage Learning.Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2005). Youth sport programs: An avenue to foster

positive youth development. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 19-40. doi:10.1080/1740898042000334890

Fraser-Thomas, J., Côté, J., & Deakin, J. (2008). Understanding dropout and prolongedengagement in adolescent competitive sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 9, 645-662. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.08.003

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects incounseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.51.1.115

Guévremont, A., Findlay, L., & Kohen, D. (2008). Organized extracurricular activities ofCanadian children and youth. Health Reports, 3, 65-69.

Gould, D., & Horn, T. (1984). Participation motivation in young athletes. In J. M. Silva III &R. S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 359-370). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.

Harter, S. (1985). The Self-Perception Profile for Children: revision of the Perceived CompetenceScale for Children Manual. Denver: University of Denver.

Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in thestudy of mediators and moderators: Examples from child-clinical and pediatric psy-


chology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.65.4.599

Holt, N. L. (2008). Positive youth development through sport. New York, NY: Routledge. Horn, T. S., & Harris, A. (1996). Perceived competence in youth athletes: Research findings

and recommendations for coaches and parents. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Chil-dren and youth in sport: A biospychosoical perspective (pp. 309-329). Dubuque, IA:Brown & Benchmark.

Hox, J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Janssen, I., & LeBlanc, A. G. (2010). Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activ-ity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. International Journal of BehavioralNutrition and Physical Activity, 7, 1-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-40

Jõesaar, H., Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2012). Youth athletes’ perception of autonomysupport from the coach, peer motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in sportsetting: One-year effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 257-262. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.12.001

Johnson, M. P. (1973). Commitment: A conceptual structure and empirical application. Soci-ological Quarterly, 14, 395-406. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1973.tb00868.x

Johnson, M. P. (1982). Social and cognitive features of the dissolution of commitment to rela-tionships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships: Vol 4. Dissolving personal relation-ships (pp. 51-73). London: Academic Press.

Kenny, D. A. & Lavoie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 48, 339-348. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.2.339

Ladd, G. W., Kochenderfer, B. J., & Coleman, C. C. (1997). Classroom peer acceptance,friendship, and victimization: Distinct relation systems that contribute uniquely to chil-dren’s school adjustment? Child Development, 68, 1181-1197. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1132300

Larson, R. W., & Verma, S. (1999). How children and adolescents spend time across theworld: work, play, and developmental opportunities. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 701-736.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.701Leary, M. R. & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer

theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 1-62. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9

Leary, M. R., Phillips, M., & Cottrell, C. (2001). Deconfounding the effects of dominance andsocial acceptance on self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 898-909. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.898

Loughead, T. M., & Carron, A. V. (2004). The mediating role of cohesion in the leader behav-iour-satisfaction relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 355-371. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(03)00033-5

Loughead, T. M., Colman, M. M., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Investigating the mediational rela-tionship of leadership, class cohesion and adherence in an exercise setting. Small GroupResearch, 32, 558-575. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200503


Loughead, T. M., Patterson, M. M., & Carron, A. V. (2008). The impact of fitness leaderbehavior and cohesion on an exerciser’s affective state. International Journal of Sport andExercise Psychology, 6, 53-68. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2008.9671854

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determi-nation of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2011). Children’s perceptions ofcohesion. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 7, 11-25. doi: 10.1037/a0024691

Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2012). Development of a cohe-sion inventory for children’s sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Prac-tice, 16, 68-79. doi: 10.1037/a0024691

Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Loughead, T., M. (2013). Validation of the ChildSport Cohesion Questionnaire. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science,17, 105-119. doi: 10.1080/1091367x.2013.761023

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Paradis, K. F., & Loughead, T. M. (2012). Examining the mediating role of cohesionbetween athlete leadership and athlete satisfaction in youth sport. International Journal of

Sport Psychology, 43, 117-136.Partridge, J. A., Brustad, R. J., & Babkes Stellino, M. (2008). Social influence in sport. In T. S.

Horn (Ed.). Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 278). Champaign, IL: HumanKinetics.

Petlichkoff, L. M. (1996). The drop-out dilemma in youth sport. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The childand adolescent athlete: Encyclopedia of sports medicine (pp. 418-432). Oxford: BlackwellScience.

Quested, E., Ntoumanis, N., Viladrich, C., Haug, E., Ommundsen, Y., Van Hoye, A.,Mercé, J., Hall, H. K., Zourbanos, N., & Duda, J. L. (2013). Intentions to drop-outof youth soccer: A test of the basic needs theory among European youth from fivecountries. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 395-407. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2013.830431

Robinson, T. T., & Carron, A. V. (1982). Personal and situational factors associated with drop-ping out versus maintaining participating in competitive sport. Journal of Sport Psychol-ogy, 4, 364-378.

Rubin, K. H., Bukowski W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups.In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personalitydevelopment (6th ed., pp. 571-645). New York: Wiley.

Sage, L. D., & Kavussanu, M. (2008). Goal orientations, motivational climate, and proso-cial and antisocial behaviour in youth football: Exploring their temporal stabilityand reciprocal relationships. Journal of Sports Sciences , 26, 717-732. doi:10.1080/02640410701769716

Sawka, K. J., McCormack, G. R., Nettel-Aguirre, A., Hawe, P., & Doyle-Baker, P. K. (2013).Friendship networks and physical activity and sedentary behavior among youth: A sys-tematized review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10,1-9. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-130

Scanlan, T. K., Carpenter, P. J., Lobel, M., & Simons, J. P. (1993). Sources of enjoyment foryouth sport athletes. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 275-275.

Scanlan, T. K., Carpenter, P. J., Schmidt, G. W., Simons, J. P., & Keeler, B. (1993). An introduc-tion to the sport commitment model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 1-15.


Smith, A. L. (2007). Youth peer relationships in sport. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Socialpsychological in sport (pp. 41-54). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Spink, K. S. (1998). Mediational effects of social cohesion on the leadership-intention toreturn relationship in sport. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 92-100.doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.2.2.92

Spink, K. S., Wilson, K. S., & Odnokon, P. (2010). Examining the relationship between cohe-sion and return to team in elite athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 6-11. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.06.002

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). NewJersey: Pearson.Tremblay, M. S., Warburton, D. E. R., Janssen, I., Paterson, D. H., Latimer, A. E., Rhodes, R.

E., Kho, M. E., Hicks, A., LeBlanc, A. G., Zehr, L., et al. (2011). New Canadianphysical activity guidelines. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, & Metabolism, 36, 36-46.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/H11-009

Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A. L. (2009). Social and motivational predictors of continuedyouth sport participation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 87-95. doi: 10.1016/j.psy-chsport.2008.06.007

Weiss, M. R., & Duncan, S. C. (1992). The relationship between physical competence andpeer acceptance in the context of children’s sports participation. Journal of Sport & Exer-cise Psychology, 14, 177-191.

Weiss, M. R., & Ebbeck, V. (1996). Self-esteem and perceptions of competence in youth sport:Theory, Research, and enhancement strategies. In O. Bar-Or (Ed.), The Encyclopedia ofsports medicine: The child and adolescent athlete (pp. 364-382). Oxford: Blackwell.

Weiss, M. R., & Petlichkoff, L. (1989). Children’s motivation for participation in and with-drawal from sport: Identifying the missing links. Pediatric Exercise Science, 1, 195-211.

Weiss, M. R., & Smith, A. L. (2002). Friendship quality in youth sport: relationship to age,gender, and motivation variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 420-437.

Wheelan, S. A. (2005). The developmental perspective. In S. Wheelan (Ed.), The handbook ofgroup research and practice (pp. 119-132). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.


Manuscript submitted Aprile 2015. Accepted for publication May 2015.

The social environment in children’s sport: Cohesion, social acceptance, commitment, and enjoyment

Documents