Matheson, Mathes and Murray (1997) The effect of winning and losing on female interactive and coactive team cohesion

getCITED

Home Search Add Content Reports Help

Edit Publication | Edit Contributors | Delete Publication | Edit References | Edit Citations

Add to Bookstack | Show Bookstack | Change Bookstack

The effect of winning and losing on female interactive and coactive team cohesion

Post a Comment

CONTRIBUTORS:

	Author:	Matheson, H.
	Author:	Mathes, S.
	Author:	Murray, M.

JOURNAL:

Journal of Sport Behavior (JSB), 20(3), 284 - 298.

YEAR:

1997

PUB TYPE:

Journal Article

SUBJECT(S):

team-sport; comparative-study; group-cohesion; woman; athlete; winning; losing; swimming; lacrosse; bas-ketball; gymnastics

DISCIPLINE:

No discipline assigned

HTTP:

https://secure.sportquest.com/su.cfm?articleno=455520&title=455520

LANGUAGE:

English

PUB ID:

103-343-555 (Last edited on 2002/02/27 18:44:14 US/Mountain)

SPONSOR(S):

ABSTRACT:
This study examined the influence of winning and losing on team cohesion of two coacting (swimming, gymnastics) and two interacting (lacrosse, basketball) female intercollegiate athletic teams. Fifty-six of the original 70 subjects were administered the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) (Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron, 1985) three times during the playing season: preseason, after winning and after losing contests. The GEQ measures four subscales of cohesion: Attraction to the Group-Task (AGT), Attraction to the Group-Social (AGS), Group Integration-Task (GIT), Group Integration-Social (GIS). A 2 by 2 ANCOVA examined the influence of type of team (coacting, interaction) and outcome (win, loss) on the four subscale measures of GEQ. Significant interaction effects (p less than .05) were obtained on the AGT and GIT subscales, with coacting teams in each instance scoring higher than interacting teams in losing situations. Significant main effect (outcome) differences (p less than .05) were found between coaching and interacting teams on only the AGT subscale, with coacting teams recording higher scores than interacting teams. Results were discussed in terms of the effects of anticipated outcome of competition and divisional level of competition.

STATISTICS

Click on # to view
Citations		0
References		0
Comments		0
Quality		0/0.00
Interest		0/0.00
View(er)s		4/247

Quality
	N/A
High
	7
	6
	5
	4
	3
	2
	1
Low

Interest
	N/A
High
	7
	6
	5
	4
	3
	2
	1
Low

Prev | Next