Examining Communication as Information Exchange as a Predictor of Task Cohesion in Sport Teams

in International Journal of Sport Communication
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD $63.00

1 year subscription

USD $84.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD $119.00

2 year subscription

USD $156.00

Past research in sport has identified a relationship between communication as a social property (i.e., acceptance, distinctiveness, positive conflict, and negative conflict) and task cohesion. Operationalizing communication in this manner is viewing the construct through a social lens. Given that forming task-cohesion perceptions also might be linked to how members exchange information, examining the relationship between communication as information exchange and cohesion appears worthwhile. Results from a hierarchical regression (N = 176) revealed that team member communication as both a social property and information exchange positively predicted perceived task cohesion while controlling for team performance (Radj2=.52). Relevant to the study purpose, it was found that communication as information exchange not only contributed unique variance to task cohesion after controlling for communication as a social property and team performance, β = 0.32, sr (semipartial correlation) = .24, but also resulted in a reallocation in variance from the previously significant communication social properties predicting task cohesion.

McLaren is a doctoral student, and Spink, his advisor, in the College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

McLaren (colin.mclaren@usask.ca) is corresponding author.
International Journal of Sport Communication
Article Sections
References
  • BensonA.J.SiskaP.EysM.A.PriklerovaS. & SlepickaP. (2016). A prospective multilevel examination of the relationship between cohesion and team performance in elite youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 27 3946. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.07.009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BorgattiS.P. & CrossR. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science 49(4) 432445. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.432.14428

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BourboussonJ.R’KiouakM. & EcclesD.W. (2015). The dynamics of team coordination: A social network analysis as a window to shared awareness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 24 742760. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2014.1001977

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarronA.V.BrawleyL.R. & WidmeyerW.N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J.L. Duda (Ed.) Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarronA.V.ColmanM.M.WheelerJ. & StevensD. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 24 168188. doi:10.1123/jsep.24.2.168

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CarronA.V. & EysM.A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

  • CarronA.V. & SpinkK.S. (1993). Team building in an exercise setting. The Sport Psychologist 7 818. doi:10.1123/tsp.7.1.8

  • CarronA.V.WidmeyerW.N. & BrawleyL.R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology 7 244266. doi:10.1123/jsp.7.3.244

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CartwrightD. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.) Group dynamics: Research and theory (pp. 91109). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CattellR.B. (1948). Concepts and methods in the measurement of group syntality. Psychological Review 55 4863.

  • CranmerG.A. & MyersS.A. (2015). Sports teams as organizations: A leader–member exchange perspective of player communication with coaches and teammates. Communication & Sport 3 100118. doi:10.1177/2167479513520487

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CunninghamI.J. & EysM.A. (2007). Role ambiguity and intra-team communication in interdependent sport teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 22202237. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00256.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeChurchL.A. & Mesmer-MagnusJ.R. (2010). The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 95 3253. PubMed doi:10.1037/a0017328

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EcclesD.W. & TenenbaumG. (2004). Why an expert team is more than a team of experts: A social-cognitive conceptualization of team coordination and communication in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 26 542560. doi:10.1123/jsep.26.4.542

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EvansM.B.EysM.A. & BrunerM.W. (2012). Seeing the “we” in “me” sports: The need to consider individual sport team environments. Canadian Psychology 53301308. doi:10.1037/a0030202

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EysM.A. & CarronA.V. (2001). Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task self-efficacy. Small Group Research 32 356373. doi:10.1177/104649640103200305

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EysM.A.CarronA.V.BrayS.R. & BrawleyL.R. (2007). Item wording and internal consistency of a measure of cohesion: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 29 395402. PubMed doi:10.1123/jsep.29.3.395

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GrossE. (1956). Symbiosis and consensus in small groups. American Sociological Review 21174179. doi:10.2307/2088518

  • HinszV.B.TindaleR.S. & VollrathD.A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin 121 4364. PubMed doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.43

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HuffmeierJ.MazeiJ. & SchultzeT. (2016). Reconceptualizing replication as a sequence of different studies: A replication typology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66 8192. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LeeJ. (1997). Leader–member exchange, the “Pelz effect,” and cooperative communication between group members. Management Communication Quarterly 11 266287. doi:10.1177/0893318997112004

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LockeE.A. (2015). Theory building, replication, and behavioral priming: Where do we need to go from here? Perspectives on Psychological Science 10 408414. PubMed doi:10.1177/1745691614567231

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MarksM.A.MathieuJ.E. & ZaccaroS.J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review 26(3) 356376.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McEwanD. & BeauchampM.R. (2014). Teamwork in sport: A theoretical and integrative review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 7 229250. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2014.932423

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McGrathJ.E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  • McLarenC.D. & SpinkK.S. (2018). Team member communication and perceived cohesion in youth soccer. Communication & Sport 6 111125. doi:10.1177/2167479516679412

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mesmer-MagnusJ.R. & DeChurchL.A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 94 535546. PubMed doi:10.1037/a0013773

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NewcombT.M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review 60 393404. PubMed doi:10.1037/h0063098

  • PodsakoffP.M.MacKenzieS.B.LeeJ-Y. & PodsakoffN.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 879903. PubMed doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SalasE.SimsD.E. & BurkeC.S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research 36 555599. doi:10.1177/1046496405277134

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SilvaP.GargantaJ.AraujoD.DavidsK. & AguiarP. (2013). Shared knowledge or shared affordances? Insights from an ecological dynamics approach to team coordination in sports. Sports Medicine 43 765772. PubMed doi:10.1007/s40279-013-0070-9

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SmithM.J.ArthurC.A.HardyJ.CallowN. & WilliamsD. (2013). Transformational leadership and task cohesion in sport: The mediating role of intrateam communication. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 249257. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.002

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SpinkK.S.McLarenC.D. & UlvickJ.D. (in press). Cues to informing cohesion in the sport setting: The case for teammate effort. International Journal of Sport Psychology.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SpinkK.S.WilsonK.S. & OdnokonP. (2010). Examining the relationship between cohesion and return to team in elite athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 11 611. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.06.002

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SullivanP.J. & ShortS. (2011). Further operationalization of intra-team communication in sports: An updated version of the Scale of Effective Communication in Team Sports (SECTS-2). Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41 471487. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00722.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • TabachnickB. & FidellL. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

  • TjosvoldD. (1984). Cooperation theory and organizations. Human Relations 37 743767. doi:10.1177/001872678403700903

  • WildmanJ.L.SalasE. & ScottC.P.R. (2014). Measuring cognition in teams: A cross-domain review. Human Factors 56 911941. PubMed doi:10.1177/0018720813515907

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZannaM. & FazioR. (1982). The attitude–behavior relation: Moving toward a third generation of research. In M. ZannaE. Higgins & C. Harman (Eds.) Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 2 pp. 283301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ZwannR.A.EtzA.LucasR.E. & DonnellanM.B. (in press). Making replication mainstream. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. doi:10.1017/S0140525X17001972

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Article Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 107 107 28
Full Text Views 7 7 5
PDF Downloads 4 4 2
Altmetric Badge
PubMed
Google Scholar