Success and Residential Affiliation as Determinants of Team Cohesiveness

Abstract

The influence of success and residential affiliation on the postseason cohesiveness of college intramural basketball teams was determined. In addition, whether or not an initial difference existed in the cohesiveness among basketball teams organized from three different residential organizations was investigated. Over 1,200 male college students, members of 144 basketball teams, completed a pre-and post-season questionnaire which assessed nine different aspects of cohesiveness. Three residential organizations and three levels of success were the independent variables. The preseason cohesiveness levels were analyzed by univariate and a multivariate one-way analysis of variance. Covarying out the preseason differences between the teams, the postseason data were analyzed by both a univariate and multivariate two factor (3 X 3) analysis of covariance. Results indicated that fraternity teams were initially more cohesive than teams from either men's residence halls or men's independent associations. Postseason cohesiveness did not significantly differ among the three groups when initial cohesiveness was covaried out. The results of the univariate and multivariate analyses of covariance revealed that success increased postseason cohesiveness, as compared with moderate success or lack of success. No significant interaction between residential affiliation and success was found.

Perceived organizational membership: an aggregate framework representing the employee–organization relationship

“…They noted that there are multiple reinforcements that may bring individuals together as a community. Beyond economic benefits, for example, the status of the group may appeal to individuals, since it suggests that association with the group is likely to provide positive status benefits to the individual members (e.g., Kelley, 1951;Peterson & Martens, 1972). Also, the level of competence of group members may indicate the group's ability to meet individual members' needs (e.g., Hester et al, 1976).…”

Examining the Relationship between Intramural Sports Participation and Sense of Community among College Students

“…It was important to believe that one's place in the group was valuable and meaningful, whether through time, emotion, money or other such personal investment. One such example of investment leading to a stronger sense of belonging can be found within college fraternities and hazing rituals (Peterson & Martens, 1972). For instance, a student who has put their reputation on the line and faces humility will undoubtedly feel more connected to the group as a result of this personal investment (or sacrifice).…”

“…Perhaps the most important characteristic of influence within a community, according to McMillan and Chavis (1986), is that it is bidirectional. Not only does the group have influence over its members, but the members must also be able to influence the group (Peterson & Martens, 1972). A person is unlikely to wish to become part of a group if he or she was incapable of having any influence as this is what results in a sense of empowerment.…”

“…Status can also be viewed as the group's success. It has been shown that group success may bring members of that group closer together; people wish to be part of a successful group (Peterson & Martens, 1972). The latter concept, competence, refers to the fact that people wish to be involved with others who show some degree of competency and whose skills may be of benefit to them (Zander & Havelin, 1960).…”

“…Furthermore, the level of risk taken when becoming involved with a group and its members may be a contributing factor. Peterson and Martens (1972) discuss that intimate interactions (those with high emotional risk) will also affect a person's sense of community.…”