Explain relationships between team cohesion and performance in sport.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.

The command term “explain” requires candidates to give a detailed account, including reasons or causes, for relationships between team cohesion and performance.

The word “team” should be interpreted to include sports in which all team members participate at the same time (for example, football) or in which team members participate one at a time (for example, track and field).

Studies include, but are not limited to:

• Ingram et al.’s (1974) study on “social loafing” as a result of team cohesion
• Locke and Latham (1985) on the value of process goals and their potential to enhance team performance
• Slater and Sewall (1994) on the bidirectional relationship between team cohesion and performance
• Boone et al.’s (1997) study on individual’s perceptions of a team
• Kenow and Williams (1999) on comparison of cohesion strategies in coaches from Australia and the US
• Gould et al. (1999) on US Olympic teams’ cohesiveness and performance
• Grieve et al.’s (2000) study on the unidirectional relationship of team cohesion and performance
• Carron et al.’s (2002) study on the positive effect of team cohesion on performance.

Evidence of critical thinking may be provided by candidates in the following ways:

• gender and/or cultural factors
• analysis of negative and/or positive effects
• bidirectionality
• factors other than team cohesion that influence performance
• evaluation of relevant research.

Candidates may explain a small number of relationships between team cohesion and performance to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may explain a larger number of relationships to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.

The question is specifically asking about relationships between team cohesion and performance in sport. Discussion of team cohesion and performance in general is not the focus of the question.

If a candidate explains relationships between team cohesion and performance in general but not relevant for sport, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension, up to a maximum of [3] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization.