Exploring the Relationship Between Cohesion and Collective Efficacy in

Rugby Teams.
Subject:

Rugby football (Psychological aspects)

Rugby football clubs (Psychological aspects)
Teamwork (Sports) (Psychological aspects)

Authors:

Kozub, Stephen A.
McDonnell, Justine F.

Pub Date:

06/01/2000

Publicatio
n:

Name: Journal of Sport Behavior Publisher: University of South

Alabama Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/JournalSubject: P
sychology and mental health; Sports and
fitness Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2000 University of South
AlabamaISSN: 0162-7341

Issue:

Date: June, 2000 Source Volume: 23 Source Issue: 2

Geographi Geographic Scope: United States Geographic Code: 1USA United

c:
States
Accession
Number:
Full Text:

62990404
This exploratory study examined the relationship between perceived
cohesion and collective efficacy in rugby teams. Ninety-six athletes
from seven rugby union clubs completed Widmeyer, Brawley, and
Carron's (1985) Group Environment Questionnaire and a collective
efficacy measure designed to assess the athletes' perceptions of their
team's functioning in seven performance areas. Multiple regression
analyses indicated that the cohesion dimensions accounted for a
significant proportion of the variance (i.e., 32%) in the collective
efficacy scores. Inspection of the standardized regression coefficients
revealed that the task measures of cohesion were stronger predictors
of collective efficacy than were the social measures of cohesion. The
results were consistent with Spink's (1990) study of elite volleyball
teams and supported Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, and Zazanis (1995)
contention that properties of the of the group have great potential to
contribute to a team's sense of efficacy.
Bandura's (1977, 1986) self-efficacy theory provides a useful
framework for the study of behavior within sport. According to
Bandura, self-efficacy represents the degree to which one believes
that he/she can successfully execute the behavior required to
produce a specific outcome. These efficacy beliefs are thought to

have important motivational implications in that they impact an

individual's choice of activity, effort, and persistence. Given that an
individual has the requisite skills, self-efficacy is hypothesized to
positively influence performance. The positive association between
self-efficacy and individual performance was empirically supported in
studies of leg endurance (Weinberg, Gould, Yukelson & Jackson,
1981), diving (Feltz, 1982), gymnastics (McAuley, 1985) and
baseball, (George, 1994). Bandura (1997) concluded that high levels
of self-efficacy enhance performance and reduce the negative effects
of defeat. Bandura also suggested that efficacy beliefs differentiate
between successful and less su ccessful athletes in situations of
competitive stress.
In recognition of the fact that success in many activities and tasks
requires the combined efforts of people working in groups, Bandura
(1986, 1997) proposed collective efficacy as an extension of selfefficacy. Bandura suggested that collective efficacy is more than just
the sum of individual efficacy levels within the group. Collective
efficacy involves the individuals' perceptions regarding the group's
performance capabilities. Collective efficacy beliefs are hypothesized
to have substantial implications for group effort, persistence, and
performance, especially for tasks requiring interaction among group
members for success (Bandura, 1990, 1997). Bandura suggested that
a strong sense of collective efficacy allows great teams to come from
behind to win even when they are not playing their best. On the
other hand, mediocre and inconsistent teams are often plagued by
lower levels of efficacy and a degree of self-doubt. Despite the
important implications for sport team functioning, research on the
collective aspects of efficacy is much less prevalent than the research
on self-efficacy.
The majority of the sparse research on collective efficacy has focused
on the relationship between efficacy and performance. Hodges and
Carron (1992) studied the effect of collective efficacy on the
endurance performance of three person groups. Collective efficacy
was manipulated by providing false feedback indicating that the
experimental groups were either substantially stronger (high efficacy)
or substantially weaker (low efficacy) than a team of confederates.
The experiment was designed such that all groups were
outperformed by the confederate team on the first trial. On a
subsequent trial, the performance of the high efficacy groups
improved, whereas the performance of the low efficacy groups
deteriorated.
The amount of sport related research examining the relationship

between collective efficacy and performance is minimal. Feltz and

Lirgg (1998) examined team efficacy, self-efficacy, and performance
in collegiate hockey. In consultation with collegiate coaches, seven
areas of competence related to success in the sport were identified
(e.g., out-skating one's opponent). These performance areas
provided the basis for the collective or team efficacy measure.
Individual efficacy was also assessed. Overall, Feltz and Lirgg found
team efficacy to be a stronger predictor of hockey performance than
the aggregate of the individual player's efficacy judgments. Across
the 32 game season, there was a tendency for team efficacy to
increase with a win and decrease with a loss. The aggregate of the
individual efficacy scores was not significantly influenced by the
performance outcomes experienced by the teams. Spink's (1990)
study of elite volleyball teams revealed that high efficacy teams
finished significantly higher in a competitive tournament than did
teams with low levels of collective efficacy. This limited research
provided preliminary support for the utility of collective efficacy in
understanding group behavior in sport. As there is support for the
collective efficacy-performance relationship, it is important to
understand the factors that contribute to these efficacy perceptions.
Such information would be useful for coaches and practitioners
wanting to develop this valuable group property. Unfortunately,
research into the sources of collective efficacy within sport teams is
almost non-existent.
In identifying potential antecedents of collective efficacy, one may
start by examining the antecedents of self-efficacy. According to
Bandura (1977, 1986) self-efficacy is a function of four factors;
previous performance, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and
physiological arousal. It is thought that these same factors have
implications for the level of collective efficacy experienced within a
group (George & Feltz, 1995). For example, a team's collective
efficacy may be enhanced by a series of successful performances or
by the outstanding performance of a key player (Bandura, 1997).
Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, and Zazanis (1995) suggested that qualities
of the group itself also have great potential to contribute to a team's
sense of efficacy. These authors specifically identified the leadership
provided by the coach and team cohesion as potential sources of
collective efficacy.
Team cohesion is a group quality that has received extensive
examination by sport psychologists (see Widmeyer, Brawley, &
Carron, 1993). Team cohesion was identified by Spink (1990) as a
factor with considerable potential to influence collective efficacy.
Spink examined the relationship between cohesion elite volleyball

teams. Athletes were asked to state the expected placing of their

team in an upcoming tournament and their degree of confidence that
the team would attain that position. An extreme-groups design was
employed whereby those athletes who expected their team to finish
first were classified as high in collective efficacy and those who
expected their team to finish outside of the top three were
considered low in collective efficacy. Analysis of the confidence item
suggested that the two extreme efficacy groups had roughly equal
and relatively high confidence in their predictions. The results
revealed that perceptions of the team's task related attractiven ess
and the team's social integration differentiated between elite volley
ball players in the high and low efficacy groups. Cohesion scores
were significantly higher for the high efficacy players than for the low
efficacy players. Cohesion measures did not significantly differentiate
between the two groups of recreational sport participants.
and collective efficacy in recreational and
While Spink's (1990) study provided some evidence to suggest that
efficacy and cohesion may be related, this research was somewhat
limited by its measurement of collective efficacy. Spink assessed
collective efficacy with two items "What placing do you expect to
attain in Supervolley?" and "How confident are you that your team
will attain this placing?". The athletes' prediction for their team's
placing in the tournament was used to form the low and high efficacy
groups without consideration of the athletes' degree of confidence in
their prediction (i.e., efficacy strength). This calls into question the
validity of the measure. For example, it is possible that an athlete
was placed in the high efficacy group for predicting a first place finish
in the tournament despite possessing little or no confidence in the
prediction. Another weakness of Spink's measure stems from the use
of a single item efficacy measure. Lee and Bobko (1994) suggested
that single-item measures may be interpreted as assessing
confidence in outcome expectancy rather than self-efficacy.
Extending this notion, Feltz and Chase (1998) have criticized the
single-item measure employed by Spink because of the possible
confounding of collective efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies.
According to Bandura (1986, 1997) efficacy is a belief regarding one's
capability to achieve a specific level of performance (e.g., a win),
whereas an outcome expectancy involves a judgment regarding the
consequences associated with that performance (e.g., satisfaction).
Bandura and others (e.g., Schunk, 1995) have emphasized the need
for researchers to separate efficacy judgments from outcome
expectations or other related constructs.
The purpose of this preliminary study was to examine the relationship
between cohesion and collective efficacy in rugby teams using a

measure of efficacy consistent with the recommendations of Bandura

(1986, 1997) and Schunk (1995). A significant positive relationship
between cohesion and collective efficacy was hypothesized. As
efficacy perceptions focus on the team's capability to successfully
perform various rugby skills, it was expected that the strength of the
relationship would be greater for task measures of cohesion than for
social measures of cohesion.
Method
Participants
Ninety-six male rugby players ranging in age from 19 to 51 years (M
= 5.7 years, SD 5.3 years) voluntarily participated in the study. The
athletes were members of seven competitive Rugby Union clubs. The
participants had played rugby for an average of 8.7 years and had
played for their current team for an average of 3.8 years.
Measures
Widmeyer, Brawley, & Carron's (1985) Group Environment
Questionnaire (GEQ) was employed to measure the players'
perceptions of their team's cohesion. The GEQ is comprised of 18
items, each of which is scored on a 9-point Likert scale. The 18 items
make-up four subscales; group integration-task (GIT), group
integration-social (GIS), individual attraction to the group-task
(ATGT), and individual attraction to the group-social (ATGS). Carron,
Widmeyer, & Brawley (1985) originally reported internal consistencies
for the four subscales of.64 to .76 across two independent samples of
athletes. The validity and internal consistency of the GEQ generally
was supported by subsequent research (e.g., Brawley, Carron, &
Widmeyer, 1987; Li & Harmer, 1996).
Collective efficacy was measured using a seven-item instrument
based on the recommendations of Bandura (1997) and the model
provided by Feltz and Lirgg (1998). According to Bandura, measures
of collective efficacy should be multidimensional and reflect the
variety of tasks performed by the group. This may be accomplished
by assessing individuals' beliefs regarding their team's capabilities
across the specific competence areas within a sport. In keeping with
this notion, experienced rugby coaches were consulted to identify the
performance areas relevant to success in their sport. This
consultation process resulted in the identification of seven
performance areas; a) passing, b) tackling, c) retaining the ball in a
ruck, d) retaining the ball in a maul, e) providing support, f) retaining
possession in a line out, and g) scrummaging. The strength of

collective efficacy was assessed by requiring the participants to rate

the degree to which they were confident that their team could
successfully perform each of th e skills. For example, how confident
are you that your team will retain possession of the ball in a line out?
Response options ranged from 0% (not very confident) to 100%
(extremely confident). An average efficacy score was calculated by
summing the seven percentage ratings and dividing by the number of
items. Thus, efficacy scores had a potential range of 0 to 100.
Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the collective efficacy scale. The
resulting alpha of .78 indicated that the scale possessed an
acceptable degree of internal consistency.
Procedures
Rugby coaches were contacted in order to explain the nature of the
study and to gain permission to approach their teams. A convenient
meeting time was arranged with the cooperating teams. Informed
consent was obtained from those athletes desiring to participate. The
participants completed the questionnaire containing demographic
items, the GEQ, and the collective efficacy items. The questionnaire
was administered by one of the researchers at a training session
within the last few weeks of the rugby season. The timing of the
administration ensured that the players had the necessary
opportunity to interact and develop perceptions regarding their
team's capabilities.
Results
The means and standard deviations for each of the four GEQ
subscales and the collective efficacy measure are presented in Table
1. The instruments assessed the athletes' perceptions of their team's
cohesion and collective efficacy. These perceptions were likely
influenced somewhat by the group or team setting in which they
were made. In order to account for this group influence, standard
scores were calculated for each athlete on each of the scales. The
standard scores represented the distance from the team mean in
units of standard deviation. This transformation allowed for the use
of individual data while controlling for team effects. This procedure
was employed in previous research of group phenomena involving a
small number of teams (e.g., Horn, 1984; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986;
Westre & Weiss, 1991). The standard scores were used in the
analyses that follow.
Bivariate correlations among the cohesion and collective efficacy
scores were calculated and these are presented in Table 1. The

correlation coefficients ranged from .21 to .50 and all were significant
(p [less than] .05). The relationships between the task measures of
cohesion and efficacy were stronger than the relationships between
the social measures of cohesion and efficacy. All of the bivariate
relationships were positive indicating that higher perceptions of team
cohesion were associated with higher levels of perceived collective
efficacy.
A step-wise multiple regression analysis was conducted using the four
GEQ cohesion dimensions as potential predictors of collective
efficacy. The final regression model accounted for 32% of the
variance in collective efficacy, F (2,93) = 21.95, p [less than] .01,
and included the two task cohesion dimensions as significant
predictors. GIT entered into the model on the first step and
accounted for 22% of the variance in collective efficacy. The addition
of ATGT to the model accounted for a further 10% of the variance.
Inspection of the standardized regression coefficients revealed that
GI (B = .36) was a slightly better predictor of collective efficacy than
ATGT (B = .34). The regression coefficients for the two task
measures of cohesion were positive. Players who perceived higher
level of task cohesion also tended to report higher collective efficacy
judgments. The two social dimensions of cohesion did not add
significantly to the prediction of collective efficacy.
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship
between perceived cohesion and collective efficacy in rugby teams. A
positive relationship between cohesion and collective efficacy was
hypothesized. Further, it was expected that the relationship with
collective efficacy would be stronger for task measures of cohesion
than for social measures of cohesion. Consistent with the hypotheses,
the results of the present study revealed a significant relationship
between the four dimensions of team cohesion and collective
efficacy. Also as expected, the two task measures of cohesion were
better predictors of collective efficacy than the social measures of
cohesion. Athletes who perceived their teams as high in task
cohesion tended to rate their teams higher in collective efficacy than
athletes who perceived lower levels of task cohesion. The results
were consistent with Spink's (1990) study of elite volleyball teams
and supported Zaccaro et al.'s (1995) contention that qualities of the
group may serve as i mportant determinants of collective efficacy.
Perceptions of the team's task integration (GIT) was the strongest
predictor of collective efficacy. The group's task related integration

reflects the degree to which the members of a team work together to

achieve a common goal (Carron et al., 1985). This element of team
cohesion has direct relevance for perceptions of collective efficacy,
especially in interactive sports such as rugby (Bandura, 1997). The
more one perceives their team as working together to achieve
common goals, the more confidence one should have in the team's
capability to successfully perform tasks that require a high degree of
coordination and teamwork. This finding supports Zaccaro et al's.
(1995) notion that beliefs about collective efficacy are derived, in
part, from judgments regarding the capabilities of the group
members to coordinate and combine their resources in an effective
manner.
The perceived task related attractiveness of the team (ATGT) was
also a strong predictor of collective efficacy. The more attractive the
team to the individual, the higher the level of perceived team
efficacy. Among other things, ATGT measures athletes' perceptions
regarding the opportunities provided by their team for skill
development and the style of play employed by the team (Carron et
al., 1985). Both of these components have particular implications for
collective efficacy. Individual skill development relates to successful
mastery experiences which are perhaps the most important source of
individual and team efficacy (Bandura, 1986; 1997). Bandura (1990)
suggested that a style of play that capitalizes on players unique
talents and compensates for limitations should foster positive team
efficacy beliefs.
The correlational nature and this research prevents the drawing of
conclusions regarding the direction of the causal relationship between
cohesion and collective efficacy. Zaccaro et al. (1995) suggested that
cohesion may serve as both an antecedent and consequence of team
cohesion. As an antecedent, there are certain positive changes
associated with cohesion that may improve the performance
capabilities of the team and thus promote a higher level of collective
efficacy. These include greater individual role clarity, acceptance, and
performance (Brawley et al., 1987) and increased resistance to
disruption (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1988). Alternatively,
Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Gilbert (1992), cited in Zaccaro et al.
(1995), suggested that cohesion was a consequence of prior
performance success and that this relationship was mediated by
perceptions of collective efficacy. Future research needs to
investigate the complex relationships among collective efficacy,
cohesion, and performance. In order to exa mine the causal
relationships, longitudinal methodologies that assess each variable at
more than one point in time are required. Through the use of path

analysis or structural equation modeling, this type of research may

shed some light on the causal direction of the relationships.
This preliminary study has identified cohesion as one correlate of
collective efficacy. Obviously, much more research is required in
order to develop an understanding of the factors that contribute to
the development of this valuable group property. It would appear
that the coach is in a position to have considerable influence over the
development of collective efficacy. He/she has the potential to
influence each of the sources of efficacy outlined in Bandura's (1977,
1986) model. The coach may set up the learning environment to
maximize mastery experiences. He/she is in a strong position to
influence collective efficacy through verbal persuasion and the
modeling of efficacious behavior. The coach also may impact the
arousal/anxiety experienced by the team members through the
motivational climate, goal setting, and feedback. Investigations of the
role of the coach in the development of collective efficacy would
seem to be a productive line of future research with important
theoretical and practical implicati ons.
Stephen A. Kozub, School of Physical Education, Sport and Leisure,
De Montfort University-Bedford; Justine F. McDonnell, Department of
Physical Education, Sport and Leisure, De Montfort UniversityBedford.
This paper was based on data collected by Justine McDonnell as part
of her undergraduate honors thesis.
The authors would like to thank Deborah Feltz for her constructive
feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of
behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1990). Perceived self-efficacy in the exercise of personal
agency. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, 128-163.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.

Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987). Assessing

the cohesion of teams: Validity of the Group Environment
Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 275-294.
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1988). Exploring
the relationship between cohesion and resistance to disruption.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 199-213.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The
development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport team: The
Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7,
244-266.
Feltz, D. L. (1982). Path analysis of the causal elements in Bandura's
theory of self-efficacy and an anxiety-based model of avoidance
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 764-781.
Feltz, D. L., & Chase, M. A. (1998). The measurement of self-efficacy
and confidence in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.) Advances in sport and
exercise psychology measurement. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology Inc.
Feltz, D. L., & Lirgg, C. D. (1998). Perceived team and player efficacy
in hockey. Journal of Applied Psychology 83, 557-564.
George, T. R. (1994). Self-confidence and baseball performance: A
causal examination of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 10, 381-399.
George, T. R., & Feltz, D. L. (1995). Motivation in sport from a
collective efficacy perspective. International Journal of Sport
Psychology 26, 98-116.
Hodges, L., & Canon, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group
performance. international Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 48-59.
Horn, T. S. (1984). Expectancy effects in the interscholastic athletic
setting: Methodological considerations. Journal of Sport Psychology,
6, 332-346.
Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five
measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 364-369.
Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Group
Environment Questionnaire with an intercollegiate sample. Journal of

Sport and Exercise Psychology. 18, 49-63.

McAuley E. (1985). Success and causality in sport: The influence of
perception. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 283-295.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7, 112-137.
Spink, K. 5. (1990). Cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball
teams. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 301-311.
Weinberg. R. S., Gould, D., Yukelson, D., & Jackson, A. (1981). The
effect of preexisting and manipulated self-efficacy on a competitive
muscular endurance task. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 345-354.
Weiss, M. R., & Friedrichs, W. D. (1986). The influence of leader
behaviors, coach attributes, and institutional variables on
performance and satisfaction of collegiate basketball teams. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 8, 332-346.
Westre, K. R., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between
perceived coaching behaviors and group cohesion in high school
football teams. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 41-54.
Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Canon, A. V. (1985). The
measurement of cohesion iii sport teams: The Group Environment
Questionnaire. London, ON: Sport Dynamics.
Widmeyer, W. N., Canon, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (1993). Group
cohesion in sport and exercise. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K.
Tennant (Eds.) Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 672692). New York: Macmillan.
Zaccaro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective
efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.) Self-efficacy, adaptation. and
adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 305-328). New
York: Plenum Press.
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate
Correlations Among the
Variables
Correlation With
Variable Mean
SD ATGT
GIT
GIS ATGS
Efficacy
ATGT
28.85 6.14 -GIT
31.10 7.68 .31
--

GIS
25.86 6.28 .44
.27
-ATGS
35.82 6.75 .50
.40
.42 -Efficacy 66.69 12.89 .45
.47
.23 .21
-Note. ATGT = Individual Attraction to the Group
Task;
GIT = Group Integration Task; GIS = Group
Integration
Social; ATGS = Attraction to Group Social; All
correlation coefficients significant (p[less
than].05)