. . . lerWanm 3' v] din-cs , 15...: 3! 34.3.5.5}: 1 p! L. . my... I... an t.‘ 1h... I 1...... ”shut-.9: 9 tall El . .1? .v .2: .. n ‘0.- ,‘II .i; 1 4 . . 1:15... o . Is a t... fifimwk... romwnuinnn [3:171 ,r Jr .4 5...... _ , .3... k fi?%fi x “1?“.sltu11uhaanu gfi‘hular 95.1.». a). 19,131) .1 .m- I It“ {tn-SJ»? 5 . with»; ... is...“ hammer“? . .- d“)... fihxsflpwxxuuukat. x35... . 1... . .t :- Illa-2.12.251... . llltgis an... . I . ‘ , . a 2.5.1 2... x . 1...! .1» 53%? ... . in“ 2...... .iiafidn. V .HI.£u.|thr.,I.sI ‘IK ,III E a a... .. nunflfl . fiiiur‘iiino .l 0‘ . u I: , O f a...“ 2.. 9...... .4... it e an .. I. I‘ll-‘31.. yolk‘llotlf - ‘l t h I. . «5‘38” .lrs‘.31§.:z . n. a!!! ".1. .- . , .53., 37.5.3.5... . . .2.«(i-t.-J.Itiv #533135. Nun-““3. ffluflvflsluzax ”Ski,“ {:50 V )n A... . . .t .n . 33...! 1.13.12 93...... 5.5.1., . (angina... ., z .5. it: a. 9.5).... i. 52...... e. 3,314-.. . 35.1.6 Ev... CS. :3. .l. :3 1?}! 25:11 .| .115... anus-ta r" “ it? h—L“ LIBRARY Micmgan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION IN SPORT SCALE presented by Philip Sullivan has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Kines iology Willa Dr. Deborah Feltz Major professor Date WM— MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN REI'URN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 11/00 WpGS-DJA THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION IN SPORT SCALE. By Philip Sullivan A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Kinesiology 2000 ABSTRACT THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE EFFECTIVE COMNIUNTCATION IN SPORT SCALE. By Philip Sullivan Within both applied and basic research in sport psychology, a vague concept of effective team communication has been broached. Discussions between teammates may be effective in that they enhance group properties and/or individual and collective performance. Due to a lack of theoretical basis and skewed measurement, this construct is presently misunderstood and under-utilized. This dissertation includes three sequential studies designed to provide a preliminary instrument for the construct of efl‘ective team communication in sports. A total of 681 athletes participated in this research. It was predicted that a five factor model, with specific relationships to team cohesion, would be found. A confirmatory factor analysis failed to find this structure, however an exploratory factor analysis using a randomly selected sample of half the total number of participants uncovered a preliminary three factor model. This structure was supported with a confirmatory factor analysis using the remaining random half-sample. The three emergent factors were defined as Close communication, Angry communication and Considerate communication. They are each sub-components of the originally hypothesized factors. The random generation of two smaller samples was maintained for all subsequent analyses. Close communication and Considerate communication were both positively related to all aspects of cohesion as measured through the Group Environment Questionnaire. Angry communication was negatively related to task cohesion. This structure of effective communication was then discussed as a reflection of the Social Exchange Theory, and a representation of previous literature on effective communication in sports. COPyright by PHILIP JOSEPH SULLIVAN 2000 This work is dedicated entirely and without doubt to Susan. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is the culmination of years of shared motivation, effort, frustration and fulfillment. I have found Michigan State University to be an excellent place to complete such work, and would like to acknowledge the support, guidance and efforts of Dr. Deborah Feltz, my advisor for the past four years, and an excellent role model for a researcher and educator. I have to earnestly thank the members of my committee: Dr. Martha Ewing, Dr. Norb Kerr, and Dr. Mark Reckase, for their helpfiil comments and understanding of the circumstances under which I completed this work. Great thanks are due to Dr. Ken Cramer at the University of Windsor for his invaluable guidance in the data analysis. Finally, I would like to thank all of my fellow students at the Department of Physical Education/Kinesiology for the past for years, particularly Dr. Sandra Short (nee Moritz) for making this a special time. I could not limit my acknowledgments strictly to academics. I must thank my wife Susan for her unlimited faith and patience, my son Tim for perspective, and my parents, Dr. Arthur and Joan Sullivan. Finally, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to my education, no matter how insignificant or infuriating it may have seemed at the time. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. viii I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 Nature of the Problem ................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 1 l Delirnitations .................................................................................................. 13 Basic Assumptions ......................................................................................... 13 Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 14 Limitations .................................................................................................... 16 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ..................................................................... 17 Communication ............................................................................................. 1 7 Team Attributes in Sport Psychology ............................................................. 20 Social Dynamics in Sport Psychology ............................................................. 23 Communication Research in Sport Psychology ............................................... 31 Theoretical Framework for Studying Effective Communication in Sport ......... 36 Summary and Discussion ................................................................................ 40 III. STUDIES 1 AND 2 ............................................................................................ 41 Study One ...................................................................................................... 41 Study Two ..................................................................................................... 43 vii General Discussion for Studies One and Two ................................................. 46 IV. STUDY 3 ......................................................................................................... 50 Method .......................................................................................................... 52 Results ........................................................................................................... 54 V. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 69 Structural Validity of the Model ..................................................................... 69 The Construct of Effective Communication .................................................... 75 Efl‘ective Communication as a Resource ......................................................... 81 Previous Research .......................................................................................... 84 Future Directions ........................................................................................... 86 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................... 89 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................... 91 APPENDD( C ........................................................................................................... 93 APPENDIX D .......................................................................................................... . 95 APPENDIX E ........................................................................................................... 103 APPENDIX F ........................................................................................................... 106 APPENDIX G .......................................................................................................... 1 18 APPENDIX H .......................................................................................................... 122 APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................ 129 APPENDIX J ............................................................................................................ 131 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 135 viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Descriptive statistics of variables .................................................................. 55 Table 2: Demographic statistics for both samples ....................................................... 60 Table 3: Factors and factor loadings ........................................................................... 64 Table 4: Descriptive statistics for EPA factors (11 = 251) ............................................ 65 Table 5: Descriptive statistics for CF A factors (g = 266) ............................................ 66 Table 6: Correlation matrix of communication and cohesion factors ........................... 67 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Two dimensional representation of Foa and Foa’s (1974) resources ............ 10 Figure 2: Scree plot of Exploratory Factor Analysis (3 = 251) ..................................... 62 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Nature of the Problem The study of social dynamics within sports has presented researchers, counselors, athletes and coaches with a variety of applications. Issues such as leadership, collective efficacy, team cohesion and group goal setting undoubtedly have great theoretical and practical value within sport teams. These issues all rely on one social process which may be the most important component of intra-team interactions. This process is communication, and for some reason, it has been continually unrecognized and neglected within sport psychology research. Communication research in sport pychology. In reviewing research on communication in sports teams, one is struck on the one hand by the many comments lauding what is considered to be effective communication, and on the other by the relatively few empirical studies which address the issue. Further, these research studies do little to bring forth a unified operationalization of team communication. Communication is a central issue in sports teams, as with other groups. In discussing sports teams, various authors have mentioned that team discussions should be open, honest, and direct (Schellenberger, 1981; Sullivan, 1993; Yukelson, 1996). The practical impact of communication is evidenced in the suggested contributions it makes to such established group level processes as cohesion (Widmeyer, Brawley & Carron, 1985), social support (Rosenfeld & Richman, 1997), goal setting (W idmeyer & Ducharrne, 1997), and collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zazanis 1995). Widmeyer and his colleagues (1985) proposed that open discussion of roles and expectations helps to facilitate a shared task-orientation. Subsequently, a cohesive group should be more likely to self-disclose, and become more receptive, thereby increasing both task and social cohesion (Carron & Denis, 1998). Verbal persuasion is appreciated as an explicit contributor to efficacy, both individual and collective (Bandura, 1997). Dale and Wrisberg (1996) used a performance profiling technique to describe how athletes characterize a successful team and coach. Team attributes included being able to communicate effectively, while the coach should be a good communicator. Overall, interpersonal exchanges within sports teams are quite influential on player satisfaction, team unity and individual and group performance. These effects may be what Dale and Wrisberg had in mind by using the term “effective” communication. Exactly what makes communication effective is unclear. In line with Bales’ (1950, 1965, 1970) conceptualization of intra-personal communication, some studies on communication within sports teams have emphasized a social versus task distinction. In 1966, Emerson analyzed the discussions of a mountain climbing team. He specifically focused on transcripts of verbal interactions, and only on task-oriented topics. These were filrther divided into positive or negative comments. Carron (1981) discussed the theoretical implications of a sports team as a small group. His discussion of communication also delineated all discussion into either task or social communication. Sport psychology is largely an applied field, and performance is a bottom line which motivates many researchers. It appears that an unfortunate (and improper) deduction has been made that task outcome (i.e., successfiJl performance) is solely related to task communication. Hanin (1992) chose to represent team communication in four dimensions: orientating, stimulating, evaluating, and task irrelevant. Orientation refers to those discussions by teammates regarding planning and coordinating activity (i.e., performance). Stimulation was defined as those messages aimed to motivate partners to maintain or increase activity level. Evaluation discussions were those that dealt with appraisals (either positive or negative) of the players’ performance. Task irrelevant communication was defined as those “positive or negative messages having no direct bearing on the activity or task at hand” (p. 17). The conceptualization of all social communication as “task irrelevant” bluntly presents the author’s value of such discussion. Hanin found that elite volleyball teams tend to display orienting communication prior to performance, stimulating communication during and evaluating communication after performance. Overall, teams’ communication patterns appeared to be predominantly stimulation based, with relatively equal amounts of orientation and evaluation. The amount of task-irrelevant communication was minor. An even more restrictive view of communication was ofi‘ered by Williams and Widmeyer in a series of studies with varsity golf teams (Widmeyer & Williams, 1991; Williams & Widmeyer, 1991). These authors defined intra-team communication as how often teammates gave each other tips about play during practices and tournaments. Despite this limited view, the authors still found communication to be effective in that it was a significant predictor of performance (W idmeyer & Williams, 1991) and cohesion (Williams & Widmeyer, 1991). Given the complete view of effective communication discussed above, several dimculties are apparent with these reports. Even though a discrimination between task and social communication has a strong empirical founding (of, Bales 1950; 1965; 1970), sport psychology seems to have relegated social communication to a meaningless role. The result is a skewed conceptualization of a central social process. Further, the research has focused on quantitative analyses of verbal communication. Body language, tone of voice, and interpersonal spacing are not deemed relevant. How things are said is ignored while who says it and how ofien it is said are emphasized. The above studies have focused on the role of task-oriented interpersonal relations in sport performance. Other research has examined the efficacy of a more social and qualitative meaning of communication. Sullivan (1993) was motivated by the capabilities of interpersonal communication as a team building process. She described a communication primer for teams and coaches designed around four key values: genuineness; understanding; valuing; and acceptance. Genuineness refers to the group’s tendency to communicate in open and honest ways. Understanding refers to the degree to which the communication is clear and meaningful. Valuing refers to communication which promotes individual worth, while acceptance is the expression of inclusion (or rejection) of individual members. Specific suggestions for coaches and athletes to improve communication included efi‘ective listening (e. g., using eye contact, reflective listening and trying not to argue, but understand), and to recognize and resolve conflict, build on previous ideas and create feelings of trust, respect and understanding. DiBerardinis, Barwind, Flanningam, and Jenkins (1983) instituted a training session for interpersonal relationships with a collegiate volleyball team. The authors found that improvements in communication skills were related to increased (individual) performance. Communication was operationalized through the Interpersonal Relationship Rating Scale (Hipple, 1970) which focuses on players’ perceptions of the team as a whole. Items include the ability to listen to each other in an understanding way, tendency to trust one another, reactions to expressions of affection and warmth fiom one another, and reaction to conflict and antagonism. This instrument was also used by Sullivan (1995), who found that several qualitative aspects of team communication were related to cohesion. While this scale provides an in-depth view of the social aspects of group communication, it was not specifically designed for athletes, and some items are not - applicable to sports teams (e.g., our level of self-understanding, our degree of peace of mind). Further, the items do not discriminate between verbal and non-verbal layers of communication. One question asks the respondent to rate the team’s level of giving love. This communication would typically involve verbal expressions, the amount and intent of physical contact and personal spacing while talking, as well as body language and facial expression. Given the complete conceptualization of interpersonal communication, the scale itself seems quite inadequate to describe communication within a sports team. Interestingly, in DiBerardinis et a1.’s(1983) study on social styles of communication, the participants were all female athletes. The influence of gender in communication styles is one particular area that could be quite applicable to sport psychology. Research outside of sport suggests that there are very dominant gender difl‘erences in communication, with females being more focused on inclusion and acceptance of others, while males tend to communicate their independence and dominance (Tannen, 1991). These differences have been noted in a variety of social settings, including the task-oriented context of the workplace (Tannen, 1994). This pattern is apparent in some early work in sport psychology which found that female participants were not as responsive to achievement instruction as male athletes (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell, 1953). Research on gender differences within social dynamics in sport is limited, but communication appears to be one construct which deserves more attention. The study of communication has definite contributions to make to team dynamics in sports. These include the possibilities of enhancing team unity (Sullivan, 1993; Sullivan, 1995; Widmeyer et al., 1985; Williams & Widmeyer, 1991), individual performance (DiBerardinis et al., 1983) and group success (Dale & Wrisberg, 1995; Widmeyer & Williams, 1991). Taken as a whole, this research suggests that there exists a construct of effective communication which has probable consequences at the group and individual level within sport. Despite these findings, the overall measurement of communication within sports teams is quite narrow and atheoretetical. Typically, only verbal task- oriented messages are assessed. Social communication, non-verbal behaviors, and qualitative aspects of discussions have been neglected and addressed inconsistently. Furthermore, the operationalization of effective communication within sport psychology varies from study to study, author to author, and is in dire need of a proven theoretical framework. Theoretical Framework. Social exchange models may offer the most appropriate theoretical framework to study communication within groups. As a school, these theories share certain concepts as social exchange frameworks. Interpersonal relations are understood to be interdependent exchanges of valued resources. People are motivated towards long term profits (e. g., reaping more resources than they sow) within these relationships (McGlintock & Keil, 1982). Communication is one means for the negotiation and exchange of these resources. If social exchange models agree that the exchange relationship is based on the transference of resources, they offer different meanings for what a resource is. Typical operational definitions have stressed the characteristics of rewards and punishments. Kelly and Thibaut (1978) define a reward as “pleasures, satisfactions and gratifications the person enjoys” (p. 12). Subsequently, an exchange relationship is determined by “the capacity to reward (or punish) another specified actor” (p. 347). The value of these rewards depends on their inherent nature and the laws of supply and demand. One hundred dollars will not be as valuable to a millionaire as to a college student. However, a strictly economic view of social exchange rewards is inadequate. Compared to economic resources, social resources are subjective and ambiguous. Issues such as obligations and trust, which may dominate social exchange, are unspecified and have no determined value. Thus, while social exchange is an economic process of sorts, it is one in which participants do not prioritize equivalences in value, but attempt to achieve a state of reciprocity determined by social, individual and group values (Cole & Schaninger, 1999). Foa and Foa (1974) stated, regarding their resource theory, that a resource is any commodity, material or symbolic, that may be exchanged through interpersonal behavior. These commodities may include social rewards such as personal attraction, social acceptance, social approval, instrumental services, respect/prestige, and compliance/power (Blau, 1964), as well as loyalty, affection, contribution, and professional respect (Liden, Sparrowe & Wyne, 1997). Clarifying that any interpersonal exchange which may be deemed valuable does little to specify what a resource is. Foa and Foa provide a relatively parsimonious conceptualization of resources involved in social exchange. They determine six types of resources: love, status, services, goods, information and money. These are not meant to be the only kinds of resources, merely six broad types commonly exchanged through interpersonal relations. Love is any expression of affection, warmth or regard. Status is the expression of judgment which includes a degree of prestige. Information may include any messages of advice, opinion, instruction or enlightenment (so long as these messages are not love or status). Money refers to any currency with an objective value. Goods are tangible products or materials. Finally, services are any assistance of bodily effort or possessions. These six resources can be classified according to two dimensions: concrete- symbolic and particularistic-universal. The former dimension refers to how exchanges may range from being overtly tangible and concrete to being largely determined by social or cultural interpretation. The latter dimension refers to the influence of interpersonal dynamics. Some resources may be powerfully influenced by who is providing them, others may be essentially the same regardless of the relationship. These two factors can represent a two dimensional space in which the six resources may be placed. While it may be obvious that money is essentially a universal and concrete resource, and love mostly a symbolic and particularistic resource, it is important to remember that each resource is best understood as a range, not a discrete point, in this two dimensional space. Figure 1: Two dimensional representation of Foa and Foa’s (1974) resources. There are two key concepts in F oa and Foa’s (1974) two dimensional Universal M Goods oney Services Information Status Particular Love Symbolic Concrete representation of resources. First, exchanges rarely take place in pure form. Social behavior is extremely complex, and even the most simple of interactions (e. g., a handshake) may actually contain two or more resources (e.g., love and status). Second, resources tend to be exchanged with similar resources. However, because each resource is actually a range, and these ranges may overlap, neighboring resources are exchanged more ofien than non-neighboring ones. With respect to the study of productive communication in sports teams (specifically only between players), money, goods and services are not applicable. Love, status and information are three resources that can be exchanged through interpersonal discussions. Ifone examines some of the dimensions of communication already established 10 in sports teams, they do fit these types of resources. Aspects such as supportiveness, openness and level of giving love (DiBerardinis et al., 1983; Sullivan, 1995) fit within Foa and Foa’s (1974) concept of love. Information includes such factors as tips on play (as measured by Williams & Widmeyer (1991); and Hanin’s (1992) orienting, stimulating and evaluating). Finally Sullivan’s (1993) notions of valuing, genuineness, understanding and acceptance all convey status (as well as love). Again, the three dimensions of money, services and goods (as defined by F oa and Foa) appear thus far to be inapplicable to intra- team communication in sports. Not only is Foa and Foa’s (1974) resource theory inclusive of intra-team communication as studied in sport psychology, its theoretical implications (e. g., that similar resources are more likely to be exchanged) offer a sound basis for deductive research. This model is proposed in the present study as the most applicable for the study of communication within sports teams. Statement of the Problem Previous research, in unsystematic fashion, has alluded to the construct of efl‘ective intra-team communication. Interpersonal relations may be effective in that they contribute to outcomes at an individual (e. g., player satisfaction, performance) and collective (e. g., cohesion, performance) level. Presently it is unclear what about communication makes it effective. The aim of this research is to design and validate an instrument to measure effective intra-team communication in sports using confirmatory factor analysis, and, if necessary, exploratory factor analysis. It is predicted that there is a 11 multi-dimensional structure to ‘effective” communication that is based on the exchange of various resources. Intra-team communication is presently limited to interactions between teammates. Communication in the present study is defined to include social as well as task, and verbal and non-verbal communication. A non-intrusive, paper and pencil survey was decided upon as an appropriate measure. This research followed the guidelines established by Poole and McPhee (1985). In discussing methodology in interpersonal communication, they suggested the following guidelines for developing measurements. First, the instrument should have a sound conceptual basis. Based on this framework, the researcher should construct a preliminary sample of items. Following this, the measure should be designed, and then empirically evaluated for psychometric properties and design. Finally, the instrument should be evaluated in research practice. Foa and Foa’s (1974) resource theory served as the conceptual basis for this study. The preliminary list of items was generated through a qualitative phase of research aimed towards a phenomenological assessment of what athletes perceive resources in effective team communication to be . This research focused on the design and testing of the instrument. The final stage of measurement development, practical evaluation, was limited to the relationships between effective communication and team cohesion. This construct is chosen for two primary reasons. First, communication is a group level factor, and it is only appropriate that practical evaluation of this construct begin at the same level. Second, of the suggested group-level outcomes (e. g., collective emcacy, performance and 12 cohesion), cohesion is the only one which is presently operationalized in a valid way for both co-acting and interacting sports teams. Delimitations The participants in this study were delimited to university aged, athletes on organized sports teams. Any sport which requires group interaction during team sessions (practices if not games) is considered to be a team sport. Therefore, co-acting sports like track and field and wrestling, as well as interacting sports like hockey and football are considered team sports for the present purposes. This study also focused specifically on player-player communication. Therefore, the external validity of this instrument may be limited. It is presently recognized that the resultant survey may not be suitable for older or younger athletes, or those who participate at levels not typical of university students. Further, it cannot be said that this study would be applicable to team interactions involving coaches, athletic trainers, etc. Basic Assumptions The most obvious assumption of the present research is that a paper and pencil survey presents a valid reflection of intra-team communication. As discussed below, communication is a complex phenomenon and written communication can limit the expression of ideas. It is assumed that each item in the survey was interpreted with the same meaning by each participant, and that each response was a valid representation of their own meaning. It is also assumed that individuals presented a good representation of a group 13 phenomenon. Communication is by definition a social process. However, the present choice of instrument focuses on individual perceptions of these social factors. This process has been used before in studying social phenomenon within sports (e.g., Feltz & Lirgg, 1998; Widmeyer et al., 1985). Still, the assumption is made that this is a valid and reliable measurement of interpersonal behavior. Definition of Terms Carron and Hausenblas (1998) defined a group as “a collection of two or more individuals who possess a common identity, have common goals and objectives, share a common fate, exhibit structured patterns of interaction and modes of communication, hold common perceptions about group structure, are personally and instrumentally interdependent, reciprocate interpersonal attraction, and consider themselves to be a group” (p. 13-14). Teams such as track and field and wrestling, whose members act independently during performance still fit this definition. These teams are still instrumentally interdependent in that their task-orientation as a group requires the interaction of teammates (e. g., at practices and socials, to encourage and support each other). To Carron and Hausenblas, a group is more than the collection of individuals and their potential interactions; a group includes several shared attributes. While an individual can occupy a role, and follow rules, he or she cannot have shared perceptions. This requires more than one person, and interactions between these people. One further clarification is made on this definition. This study will focus only on player-player interactions. While individuals such as coaches, trainers, fans and parents may be 14 considered team members, it is currently held that the most essential team interactions are those between teammates. These are the focus of this dissertation. For the present purposes, Carron and Hausenblas’ (1998) definition was used. This is for a variety of reasons. First of all, it presents in detail the core characteristics of the group. It is not essential that every one of these criteria be present for a group to exist so long as characteristics do not exist which contradict these criteria. Secondly, this definition was designed with sports teams in mind, so it offers specific attention to some of the factors inherent in group dynamics in sport, such as common goals and objectives (e.g., to make the playoffs), and instrumental interdependence (e. 3., performance requiring the conjoint or additive performances of the individuals. Finally, while sports teams were the focus of this definition, it is not too specific to eliminate generalizations. Other groups concerned with performance, such as bands, surgical teams, military units and work groups, can also fall under this definition. In recent literature, the distinction between team and group has become blurred, and the two are used interchangeably (Chan, 1998; Moritz & Watson, 1999). In addition to avoiding a distinction that has evolved to little more than splitting hairs, this also allows for a decrease in redundancy. For the present purposes, the terms team and group were used interchangeably. Communication is “a social process that involves the simultaneous exchange of symbols or behaviors (translatable into symbols) between two or more people” ( Mabry & Barnes, 1980, p. 9). This simultaneous exchange means that the two (or more) individuals 15 communicating are actually sharing mutual influence. This is a reciprocal process and the reception of the communication will influence the sender, and subsequently, the message itself. For the present purposes, the following operational definition of interpersonal communication was adhered to. “Interpersonal communication is a symbolic process by which two people, bound together in a relationship, provide each other with resources, or negotiate the exchange of resources” (Roloff, 1981, p. 30). This definition includes the components of communication stressed by Mabry and Barnes (1980), and is couched within the social exchange theory, which serves as the theoretical framework for this research. Limitations The primary limitation of this study lies in the potential lack of validity. Efforts have been made to work with a diverse sample of athletes. Male and female participants from a variety of sporting experiences and levels of competition present a rather homogeneous sample with respect to culture, education, and social-economic status. These shared characteristics could theoretically have a great impact on how individuals interpret and express meanings. Therefore, it is possible that the scale produced fi'om this process may be specific only to these populations. This may affect both the construct validity of this measure (i.e., it may not be a good measure of intra-team communication because of these faults), as well as the external validity of the instrument. 16 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE Communication is a complex and ubiquitous social phenomenon. Sport, as a social activity, allows for one arena to study this process. Responsible research should include a thorough understanding of the phenomenon being addressed (i.e., communication) as well as the specific circumstances under which it is being studied (i.e., the social dynamics of sport). Communication Communication involves the sending and receiving of messages. The entire process involves at least two parties, a sender and a receiver. At some level, the messages must be encoded or transcribed, and later decoded. These coded messages may range fiom the mundane (e. g., two people speaking ‘the King’s English’) to the sublime (e. g., the thrice ciphered messages the Germans used during the Battle of the Atlantic). Most communication occupies a moderate position compared to these two extremes. Take body gestures as one example. How one person holds her head or moves her hands is an encoded message, and the transcribing and decoding of this depends on a variety of factors, chiefly cultural and social influences. In some cultures, nodding one’s head up and down signifies agreement, whereas in others, this message is displayed through a side to side bobbing motion of the head. If one is not aware of the culturally determined coding of these meanings, the message is missed or misread. 17 The messages communicated are further complicated by medium and context. Medium refers to the means by which the message reaches the audience. This could be written, oral, non-verbal or even electronic. Each medium offers unique constraints on the message. What may be clearly understood as sarcasm in a face to face conversation may be easily misconstrued as serious if transmitted through e-mail. Finally, the context refers to the circumstances in which the message is transmitted and received. Specific circumstances may cause one to communicate the same message in a difl‘erent fashion. Parents speaking in fiont of their children may choose to spell out words instead of pronouncing them. When speaking to teams, coaches may choose to use cliches so that the group will understand, whereas in one-to-one conversations, a more personal style would be followed. One solitary communication, then, is the encoding of a message by a transmitter, which is sent via a medium, through a context, and received and decoded by a receiver. However, in only the most artificial situations are messages communicated discretely. Typically they overlap and interact. Interpersonal communication is not just a complicated process, it is a reciprocal one (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond, 1996). Just how one sits to listen to their best friend talk is in itself sending a message. In a common sports situation, a captain may be addressing his/her team. Some players may be listening intensely, others looking at their feet, avoiding eye contact. Perhaps two players talk quietly to each other, while one player merely rolls his eyes. To simply describe this situation as one player talking to the team is ridiculously incomplete. 18 Communication within groups can occur in a variety of fashions. The most obvious distinction is between verbal and non-verbal behavior. Verbal communication refers to those messages expressed as vocalizations. Non-verbal behaviors refer to any overt actions which transmit a message. This may include body language or use of interpersonal space. Verbal communication is itself often divided into social and task aspects (e.g., Bales, 1950, 1965, 1970). These dimensions refer to the orientation of the messages. Social communication refers to those discussions which address the social objective of the group (e. g., listening to someone vent their anger). Task communication refers to those discussions aimed towards the goals and objectives of the group (e. g., discussions of strategy, participative leadership discussions). Non-verbal communication, while more subtle, is no less efficacious. These messages may be divided into proxemics, kinesics and paralanguage (Mabry & Barnes, 1980). Proxemics refer to how people use space. Personal spacing and distance between sender and receivers is in itself a part of the message. Kinesics refers to body movement. Gestures, rate and timing of (gross body or partial body) movement all help transmit a message in its entirety. Paralanguage refers to non-language vocalizations. Tone of voice, volume, and non-language utterances are all important aspects of communication. Consider the following transcript of a hypothetical half time speech given by a coach to a team: We are down by eight points, despite the fact that we have made countless unforced errors. We are giving them the game. If we choose to play the game as 19 well as we know we can, there would be no question who the better team is. The big difference in this game is not skill, or ability or experience, it is concentration and desire. Once we decide to concentrate and give 100%, nothing, including that other team, can stand in our way. These written words convey a message, however, imagine the coach saying this quietly, intently, with her hands in her pockets, standing in one place and making eye contact with each player in turn. Contrast this image with the same words being spoken by a coach, yelling and screaming, getting in the face of a select few players, stamping her feet, and kicking a garbage can over. While the words are the same, the message communicated is quite different. All of these aspects of interpersonal communication are important in sport. Teams exist as social as well as task entities, and athletes and coaches are usually quite comfortable with using their bodies as instruments of communication. To fully conceptualize communication in sport, these dynamics have to be emphasized. Communication appears to be one of, if not the most, essential social processes. Further, sports teams present characteristics of a prototypical group. Therefore, examination of intra-group communication within sports should be a fiuitful empirical undertaking. This endeavor is aided by the rich history of studying group attributes and social dynamics within sports. Team Attributes in Sport Psychology While in pursuit of the shared objectives, groups such as sports teams operate 20 within dynamic environments. The circumstances in which groups exist have a definite impact on their internal structure and function. Levine and Moreland (1990) consider these circumstances to be the group ecology and divide them into physical, social, and temporal considerations. The physical environment for sports teams may include training and performance facilities, as well as places used for social purposes. The actual physical proximity between members is one fact of the physical environment which can have a great influence on team dynamics. Prappavessis, Carron and Spink (1997) go so far as to state that decreasing the physical space within which a team operates, and subsequently increasing contact, will enhance team cohesion. This manipulation of the physical environment has long been recognized, and can be seen in the practices of team retreats and training camps in unfamiliar locations. The former U. S. S.R. national hockey team took this practice to extremes, housing the team in army barracks for 11 months a year (Dryden & MacGregor, 1989). The physical environment of the sports team also includes the actual equipment and clothing worn by players, often designed to enhance team identity and togetherness (Prappavessis et al., 1997; Yukelson, 1997). The social environment includes the larger organizational setting (Alderfer & Smith, 1982), a superordinate organizational culture of individuals who are not members (Moreland & Levine, 1990). Sports teams often exist within larger organizations. University teams are part of an athletic department, professional teams may be owned by corporations, and club teams may be a wing of social or cultural clubs. Most teams exist 21 within conferences or leagues with superordinate rules and norms. In each of these cases, the culture of the larger system may have a profound effect on the team. Influential non- members could include booster groups, fan clubs, parents, and ex-members. These individuals may provide financial or other tangible support. The lobbying of citizens and municipal authorities regarding the public firnding of stadiums (and possible fi'anchise re- location) shows how influential these individuals can be on group performance. Finally, groups exist in temporal environments. This may be seen in the characteristic stages of group development over time, as well as individual turnover. Sports teams, like all groups tend to follow a typical pattern of development. While there have been a variety of models proposed to describe this process, perhaps none have improved on Tuckman’s (1965) stage model. This model involves five temporal stages: Forming, Storming, Norrning, Performing, and Adjouming. When groups form, interpersonal exchanges based on attraction and information lead to shared orientations. Storming is characterized by competition over roles and dissatisfaction with emerging group structure. During nonning, the group structure becomes finalized and the group itself more cohesive. Performing is marked by high task orientation and achievement. Finally, groups may progress to adjourning, when the shared duties are fulfilled, resulting in termination of the team. In situations where the group is relatively stable, other temporal constraints are important. Sports teams may exist for decades, but with no one person continuously involved over that length of time. Considering these circumstances, an appropriate model 22 would be Moreland and Levine’s (1993) model of group socialization. As new members enter groups, they tend to go through a process. First, potential members investigate the group. The group and the member seek a fit between individual and shared goals. After this time comes a phase of socialization, where the group attempts to change individual behavior so that it aligns with team functioning. Third is a maintenance stage, and the role negotiation processes culminate in an equilibrium that can maximize both team and member motives. Should this task break down, there comes a process of re-socialization to produce assimilation of the individual. Finally, the remembrance stage involves all parties engaging in a retrospective evaluation of the experience. According to this model, as new individuals join groups, there is a relatively constant balancing of individual and group needs. How well these are balanced will determine if, and for how long, the team member will remain. Within sports, team goals may include both task and social orientations (Widmeyer et al., 1985), and individual goals may include task performance, task outcome or social approval (Weiss & Chaumeton, 1992). Social Qypamics in Sport Pychology Sport psychology has always reflected an interest in social dynamics. This is mainly due to the practical concems of group performance within sport. As researchers became more interested in collective performance in the sport setting, group level attributes such as cohesion, collective efficacy and social support have all received attention. Perhaps the most studied social dynamic in sport psychology is team cohesion, also 23 know as team unity or camaraderie. Cohesion has been defined as “a dynamics process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron, Brawley & Widmeyer, 1997, p. 3). According to this definition, cohesion is both transient and multi-dimensional. Certain sport teams may be overwhelmingly concerned with performance and have no concern with the social aspects of team firnctioning. These teams can still be considered cohesive as long as the members are united with respect to these objectives. Alternatively, some teams may have little interest in on—field performance, but stress the interpersonal relationships between members as the raison d’etre of the team’s existence. Even though the players care little about the team’s play, this group can also be considered cohesive. In line with this definition, Widmeyer et al., (1985) presented an operationalization of cohesion as a multi-dimensional process. They separated two main dimensions of cohesiveness: individual attractions and group integration; and task and social cohesion. The resulting four factors are group integration - task (GI-T), group integration - social (GI-S); individual attraction to group — task (ATG-T), and individual attraction to group - social (ATG-S). GI-T refers to individual member’s perceptions of the group’s closeness around task-oriented issues (e. g., our team is united in trying to reach its goal for performance), while GI-S refers to those perceptions about the group as a social unit (e. g., our team would like to spend more time together in the ofi-season). ATG-T pertains to personal involvement with the group task (e. g., this team does not give me enough 24 opportunities to improve my personal performance) while ATG-S is concerned with personal involvement with acceptance by and social interaction with the team (e.g., I enjoy other parties more than team parties). Each of these factors, and cohesiveness as a whole, is understood to be a continuous and dynamic attribute. While cohesion is a central characteristic of a group, it is also important because of the practical considerations of having a cohesive team. Teams with a high sense of unity tend to outperform those with low unity, especially in interactional sports (Williams & Widmeyer, 1991). However, there have been findings which contradict this relationship. Lenk (1977) described a team whose performance increased as cohesiveness dissipated. Others have claimed that cohesion is unrelated to performance (Melnick & Chemers, 1974). In response to these issues, Mullen and Cooper (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of the cohesion performance relationship. Reviewing studies in a variety of settings, including sports, they found that there is a statistically significant relationship between cohesion and performance. There was also support for a predictive relationship between cohesion and performance, and these findings were most robust in studies involving sports teams. Perceptions of team cohesion are influenced by a variety of sources. Group attributes like size, time spent together, and physical proximity can all alter team unity. Efl‘orts to increase cohesion include exaggerating signs of distinctiveness or togetherness (e. g., team clothing, tattoos, symbols). Individual factors such as personality characteristics like dominance, submissiveness, friendliness, unfriendliness, and individual 25 and group orientation (Copeland & Straub, 1995), and physical and mental abilities (Dale & Wrisberg, 1996) can afl‘ect group unity. How each individual complements each other is also important when considering individual characteristics. Intra-group dynamics can also alter team cohesion. These include leadership style within the group, with participative leadership being suggested as a contributor to team unity (Prapavessis et al., 1997). Also important are the roles team members are expected to fulfill. Ifthese roles are clarified and accepted, individuals will know what is expected of them, and how they should work together, and the group should be more united (Copeland & Wida, 1996; Prapavessis et al., 1997; Yukelson, 1997). Group attributes include team identity and goals. Clear team goals can firrther perceptions of togetherness (W idmeyer & DuCharme, 1997). Finally, intra-group processes such as norms, communication and social support enhance team unity. Specific suggestions for efl‘ective team norms include cooperation (Prapavessis et al., 1997; Widmeyer et al., 1985), unselfishness and dedication (Dale & Wrisberg, 1996), and sacrifices, particularly by team leaders (Prapavessis et al., 1997). Communication which is open and supportive (Yukelson, 1996), and a sense of social support fi'om teammates are also important (Rosenfeld & Richman, 1997; Yukelson, 1997). It should also be noted that extra-team social factors can enhance the cohesion of the group. A perception of a common enemy has been shown to increase how united team members feel (Sherif, 1966). This may clarify team goals, or enhance perceptions of team identity. 26 The wealth of information on cohesion in teams is reflected in the literature on team building in sports. Various authors have applied this knowledge towards the practice goal of how to make a team more cohesive. For examples, see Yukelson (1997), Prapavessis et al., (1997), Carron and Hausenblas (1998), and Rosenfeld and Richman (1997). Authors have gone so far as to state that cohesion is a necessity of group existence, that “there is no such thing as a non-cohesive group; it is a contradiction in terms. Ifa group exists, it is to some extent cohesive” (Donnely, Carron, & Chelladurai, 197 8, p. 7). However, cohesiveness is not the absolute reduction of team dynamics. For members to perceive any amount of interpersonal attraction of group unity, there must be a certain amount of personal disclosure (Stokes, Fuehrer, & Childs, 1983). The interpersonal exchange of emotions and knowledge may be a more indispensable in-group process. A second group dynamic that is currently generating a lot of interest in sports is collective eflicacy. As a construct, collective efficacy refers to the amount of confidence in the group. It is also referred to as team confidence (F eltz & Lirgg, 1998). Collective efficacy was originally proposed by Bandura (1977, 1997) as a group level extension of self-eficacy. Bandura defined collective efficacy as the group’s belief in their conjoint capabilities to produce given levels of attainment. A competing definition was offered by Zaccaro et a1. (1995), who proposed that it is “a sense of collective competence shared among individuals when allocating, coordinating, and integrating their resources in a 27 successful concerted response to specific situational demands” (p. 309). The concept being expressed through both of these definitions is that within a team, there is a sense of how well that group can accomplish what it aims to do, and that this issue is different from the sum of confidence in individual members or roles. Collective efficacy is a very influential construct. Theoretically, eficacy influences both cognitions (e. g., aspirations, motivation), and behaviour (e. g. persistence). Like self- eflicacy, it is influenced by the groups’ previous mastery attempts, vicarious experiences, and verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1997). Other (potential) determinants include the level of group cohesiveness, group size, and leadership style (Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). A group’s sense of confidence may have a great influence on the shared motivations (George & Feltz, 1995), as well as goal setting, performance, cohesion, and individual efficacy (Spink, 1990). Several experiments have been conducted in which the relationship between collective efficacy and performance were explored. Hodges and Carron (1992) found that groups manipulated to have high efficacy responded more positively to poor performance outcomes than low self-efficacy groups. The pattern in these findings may be partially due to the inter-relations between collective efficacy and team cohesion. It appears that team confidence is related to cohesion, particularly the task-oriented aspects of cohesion (Paskevich, Brawley, Widmeyer & Dorsch, 1997). Like Feltz and Lirgg’s (1998) study, Paskevich et a1. investigated actual sports teams over a period of time. Throughout its brief history, collective efficacy has been confronted with 28 conceptual problems. Chief among these is the level of operationalization for assessing a group’s confidence (Moritz & Watson, 1999). While team confidence refers to a group- level attribute, it is typically measured at the individual level. Individuals tend to rate their own belief in the team’s ability, and these ratings may or may not be statistically processed at the collective level. Currently, there is no clearly established operationalization for efficacy as a collective attribute (Bandura, 1997 ; Moritz & Watson, 1999). This dilemma is part practical, part constructual. For whatever reason, it is hard to measure a group attribute, and at some point, operationalization typically occurs at the individual level. The assumption here, which may or may not be verified, is that each individual is capable of a valid perception of the group. This representation relies (almost explicitly) on interaction between teammates. Through actions and words, players communicate to one another individual and shared capabilities, expectancies, and beliefs. Any one individual would not be capable of offering a sound opinion of group efficacy if he/she were not aware of what his/her teammates could do, could not do, and wanted to do. At some point, these issues have to be communicated fiom one person to another. Ifteam cohesion and collective efficacy are two of the most practical social dynamics within sport, they still both rely on the interpersonal relations within the group. Rosenfeld and Richman (1997) presented a fi'amework of social support in sports teams which is beneficial in understanding this component. The authors argue that social support as a process is best understood when viewed from the recipient’s perspective. The actual support one may receive from teammates may take several forms: tangible, 29 informational, and emotional. These three dimensions can be further divided into eight factors. Tangible support includes both personal assistance and tangible assistance. These refer to the perceptions that another is offering assistance in the form of money or products, or actual labour, services, or help, respectively. Team norms may foster an atmosphere where teammates are expected to offer what assistance they can to one another, and in turn, expect to rely on each other to fill these needs. Informational support includes reality confirmation support, task appreciation support, and task challenge support. Reality confirmation support deals with recognizing that others perceive the world in a similar way. Task appreciation support means others acknowledge your efforts, while task challenge support deals with efforts to motivate one to accomplish more, or more efficiently. Emotional support includes listening support, emotional support, and emotional challenge. Listening support was defined as perceptions that others are listening in a non- judgrnental fashion. Emotional and emotional challenge support refer, respectively, to perceptions of care and comfort, and challenges to evaluate your own emotions. Together, these processes are deeply intertwined with the practical components of team efficacy and cohesion. Shared perceptions of information and its interpretation (ofl‘ered through informational assistance) can help to foster a more realistic sense of shared confidence. A team high in efficacy may in turn foster more supportive norms. Likewise, expectations that one can rely on his/her teammates in times of emotional and 30 tangible need may enhance perceptions of unity around the group’s purpose. A cohesive group can also encourage these supports so as to strengthen shared pursuits. By definition, social support requires exchanges between teammates. These interactions involve the expression of needs and offers of assistance, as well as the negotiation of how and why support will be offered. Ifmany of the social dynamics studied within sport psychology rely on interpersonal relations, communication is at the heart of these interactions. Communication Research in Sport Psychology. In reviewing research on communication in sports teams, one is struck on the one hand by the many comments lauding what is considered to be effective communication, and on the other by the relatively few empirical studies which address the issue. Further, these research studies do little to bring forth a unified operationalization of team communication. Communication is a central issue in sports teams, as with other groups. In discussing sports teams, various authors have mentioned that team discussions should be open, honest, and direct (Schellenberger, 1981; Sullivan, 1993; Yukelson, 1997). The practical impact of communication is evidenced in the suggested contributions it makes to such established group level processes as cohesion (Widmeyer, et al., 1985), social support (Rosenfeld & Richman, 1997), goal setting (Widmeyer & Ducharme, 1997), and collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Zaccaro, et al., 1995). Widmeyer and his colleagues (1985) proposed that open discussion of roles and 31 expectations helps to facilitate a shared task-orientation. Subsequently, a cohesive group should be more likely to self-disclose, and become more receptive, thereby increasing both task and social cohesion (Carron & Denis, 1998). Verbal persuasion is appreciated as an explicit contributor to efficacy, both individual and collective (Bandura, 1997). Dale and Wrisberg (1996) used a performance profiling technique to describe how athletes characterize a successfirl team and coach. Team attributes included being able to communicate effectively, while the coach should be a good communicator. Overall, interpersonal exchanges within sports teams are quite influential on player satisfaction, team unity and individual and group performance. These effects may be what Dale and Wrisberg had in mind by using the term “effective” communication. Exactly what makes communication effective is unclear. In line with Bales’ (1950, 1965, 1970) conceptualization of intra-personal communication, some studies on communication within sports teams have emphasized a social versus task distinction. In 1966, Emerson analyzed the discussions of a mountain climbing team. He specifically focused on transcripts of verbal interactions, and only on task-oriented topics. These were further divided into positive or negative comments. Carron (1981) discussed the theoretical implications of a sports team as a small group. His discussion of communication also delineated all discussion into either task or social communication. Sport psychology is largely an applied field, and performance is a bottom line which motivates many researchers. It appears that an unfortunate (and improper) deduction has been made that task outcome (i.e., successful performance) is solely related 32 to task communication. Hanin (1992) chose to represent team communication in four dimensions: orientation, stimulation, evaluation, and task irrelevant. Orientation refers to those discussions by teammates regarding planning and coordinating activity (i.e., performance). Stimulation was defined as those messages aimed to motivate partners to maintain or increase activity level. Evaluation discussions were those that dealt with appraisals (either positive or negative) of the players’ performance. Task irrelevant communication was defined as those “positive or negative messages having no direct bearing on the activity or task at hand” (p. 17). The conceptualization of all social communication as “task irrelevant” bluntly presents the author’s value of such discussion. Hanin found that elite volleyball teams tend to display orienting communication prior to performance, stimulating communication during, and evaluating communication after performance. Overall, teams’ communication patterns appeared to be predominantly stimulation based, with relatively equal amounts of orientation and evaluation. The amount of task-irrelevant communication was minor. An even more restrictive view of communication was offered by Williams and Widmeyer in a series of studies with varsity golf teams (Widmeyer & Williams, 1991; Williams & Widmeyer, 1991). These authors defined intra-team communication as how often teammates gave each other tips about play during practices and tournaments. Despite this limited view, the authors still found communication to be effective in that it was a significant predictor of performance (W idmeyer & Williams, 1991) and cohesion 33 (Williams & Widmeyer, 1991). Given the complete view of effective communication discussed above, several difliculties are apparent with these reports. Even though a task versus social discrimination has a strong historical founding, sport psychology seems to have relegated social communication to a meaningless role. The result is a skewed conceptualization of a central social process. Further, the research has focused on quantitative analyses of verbal communication. Body language, tone of voice, and interpersonal spacing are not deemed relevant. How things are said is ignored while who says it and how often it is said are emphasized. The above studies have focused on the role of task-oriented interpersonal relations in sport performance. Other research has examined the efficacy of a more social and qualitative meaning of communication. Sullivan (1993) was motivated by the capabilities of interpersonal communication as a team building process. She described a communication primer for teams and coaches designed around four key values: genuineness; understanding; valuing; and acceptance. Genuineness refers to the group’s tendency to communicate in open and honest ways. Understanding refers to the degree to which the communication is clear and meaningfirl. Valuing refers to communication which promotes individual worth, while acceptance is the expression of inclusion (or rejection) of individual members. Specific suggestions for coaches and athletes to improve communication included effective listening (e.g., using eye contact, reflective listening and trying not to argue, but understand), and to recognize and resolve conflict, build on 34 previous ideas and create feelings of trust, respect and understanding. DiBerardinis, and colleagues (1983) instituted a training session for interpersonal relationships with a collegiate volleyball team. The authors found that improvements in communication skills were related to increased (individual) performance. Communication was operationalized through the Interpersonal Relationship Rating Scale (Hipple, 1970) which focuses on players’ perceptions of the team as a whole. Items include the ability to listen to each other in an understanding way, tendency to trust one another, reactions to expressions of affection and warmth from one another, and reaction to conflict and antagonism. This instrument was also used by Sullivan (1995), who found that several qualitative aspects of team communication were related to cohesion. While this scale provides an in-depth view of the social aspects of group communication, it was not specifically designed for athletes, and some items are not applicable to sports teams (e.g., our level of self-understanding, our degree of peace of mind). Further, the items do not discriminate between verbal and non-verbal layers of communication. One question asks the respondent to rate the team’s level of giving love. This communication would typically involve verbal expressions, the amount and intent of physical contact and personal spacing while talking, as well as body language and facial expression. Given the complete conceptualization of interpersonal communication, the scale itself seems quite inadequate to describe communication within a sports team. The study of communication has definite contributions to make to team dynamics in sports. These include the possibilities of enhancing team unity (Sullivan, 1993; Sullivan, 35 1995; Widmeyer et al., 1985; Williams & Widmeyer, 1991), individual performance (DiBerardinis et al., 1983) and group success (Dale & Wrisberg, 1995; Widmeyer & Williams, 1991). Taken as a whole, this research suggests that there exists a construct of effective communication which has probable consequences at the group and individual level within sport. Despite these findings, the overall measurement of communication within sports teams is quite narrow. Typically, only verbal task-oriented messages are assessed. Social communication, non-verbal behaviors, and qualitative aspects of discussions have been neglected and addressed inconsistently. Furthermore, the operationalization of effective communication within sport psychology varies fiom study to study, author to author, and is in dire need of a proven theoretical framework. Theorgtical Framework for Studjg'ng Effective Communication in Sports Teams. Social exchange models may ofi'er the most appropriate theoretical fi'amework to study communication within groups. As a school, these theories share certain concepts as social exchange frameworks. First, people are assumed to be outcome interdependent; people are involved in social relations in which one person provides outcome for another, in turn receiving outcomes from that partner. Second, the actors in these relationships are assumed to be motivated towards a profit. People act so that the rewards they receive outweigh the costs of the relationship. Third, people are motivated to reciprocate within these relationships. People will invest where they reap rewards. Fourth, these relationships need not be symmetrical. An actor with an abundance of a desired resource will find him/herselfin a position of influence or power. Finally, while these theories tend 36 to view all relationships in economic terms, the resources exchanged are not limited to economic resources. Any resources people value may be exchanged (McGlintock & Keil, 1982). Intra—team discussions may contribute to any number of valued outcomes in sport (e.g., performance, player satisfaction, team unity, ...). Individual interactions may be seen as the exchange of valued resources because they contribute to desired outcomes. If social exchange models agree that the exchange relationship is based on the transference of a resource, they offer different meanings for resource. Typical operational definitions have stressed the characteristics of rewards and punishments. Kelly and Thibaut (197 8) define a reward as “pleasures, satisfactions and gratifications the person enjoys” (p. 12). Subsequently, an exchange relationship is determined by “the capacity to reward (or punish) another specified actor” (p. 347). The value of these rewards depends on their inherent nature and the laws of supply and demand. One hundred dollars will not be as valuable to a millionaire as to a college student. However, a strictly economic view of social exchange rewards is inadequate. Compared to economic resources, social resources are subjective and ambiguous. Issues such as obligations and trust, which may dominate social exchange, are unspecified and have no determined value. Thus, while social exchange is an economic process of sorts, it is one in which participants do not prioritize equivalences in value, but attempt to achieve a state of reciprocity determined by social, individual and group values (Cole & Schaninger, 1999). Foa and Foa (1974) stated, regarding their resource theory, that a resource is any 37 commodity, material or symbolic, that may be exchanged through interpersonal behavior. These commodities may include social rewards such as personal attraction, social acceptance, social approval, instrumental services, respect/prestige, and compliance/power (Blau, 1964), as well as loyalty, affection, contribution, and professional respect (Liden, et al., 1997). Clarifying that any interpersonal exchange which may be deemed valuable does little to specify what a resource is. Foa and F oa provide a relatively parsimonious conceptualization of resources involved in social exchange. They determine six types of resources: love, status, services, goods, information and money. These are not meant to be the only kinds of resources, merely six broad types commonly exchanged through interpersonal relations. Love is any expression of afi‘ection, warmth or regard. Status is the expression of judgment which includes a degree of prestige. Information may include any messages of advice, opinion, instruction or enlightenment (so long as these messages are not love or status). Money refers to any currency with an objective value. Goods are tangible products or materials. Finally, services are any assistance of bodily efl‘ort or possessions. These six resources can be classified according to two dimensions: concrete- symbolic and particularistic-universal. The former dimension refers to how exchanges may range fiom being overtly tangible and concrete to being largely determined by social or cultural interpretation. The later dimension refers to the influence of interpersonal dynamics. Some resources may be powerfully influenced by who is providing them, others may be essentially the same regardless of the relationship. These two factors can represent 38 a two dimensional space in which the six resources may be placed. While it may be obvious that money is essentially a universal and concrete resource, and love mostly a symbolic and particularistic resource, it is important to remember that each resource is best understood as a range, not a discrete point, in this two dimensional space. There are two key concepts in F 0a and Foa’s (1974) two dimensional representation of resources. First, exchanges rarely take place in pure form. Social behavior is extremely complex, and even the most simple of interactions (e. g., a handshake) may actually contain two or more resources (e. g., love and status). Second, resources tend to be exchanged with similar resources. HoweVer, because each resource is actually a range, and these ranges may overlap, neighboring resources are exchanged more often than non-neighboring ones. With respect to the study of productive player-player communication in sports teams (specifically at non-professional levels), money, goods and services are not applicable. Love, status and information are three resources which can be exchanged through interpersonal discussions. If we examine some of the dimensions of communication already established in sports teams, they do fit these types of resources. Aspects such as supportiveness, openness and level of giving love (DiBerardinis et al., 1983; Sullivan, 1995) fit within Foa and Foa’s (1974) concept of love. Information includes such factors as tips on play (as measured by Williams & Widmeyer (1991); and Hanin’s (1992) orienting, stimulating and evaluating). Finally, Sullivan’s (1993) notions of valuing, genuineness, understanding and acceptance all convey status (as well as love). 39 Again, the three dimensions of money, services and goods (as defined by Foa and Foa) appear thus far to be inapplicable to communication in sports teams. Not only is Foa and Foa’s (1974) resource theory inclusive of intra-team communication as studied in sport psychology, its theoretical implications (e. g., that similar resources are more likely to be exchanged) offer a sound basis for deductive research. This model is proposed in the present study as the most applicable for the study of communication within sports teams. Summm and Discussion Despite the importance of communication as a social process and the noted need to study the process in sports, sport psychology suffers from the lack of a coherent and organized framework for studying communication. Research on the topic has been done in a piece-meal fashion. It is proposed that a theoretically based instnrment would offer a valid and reliable method of determining the state of intra-team communication. This is the purpose of this study. The social exchange theory of Foa and Foa (1974) serves as a sound theoretical framework, and a detailed review of studies of communication within sports teams will help to create a multi-dimensional, sports-specific measurement of effective communication. 40 CHAPTER 3 STUDIES ONE AND TWO Study Qne Participants One hundred and fifty seven athletes (80 female, 76 male) participated in this stage of data collection. All participants were solicited through their university or recreational league. These athletes represented the following sports at both the varsity and recreational levels: football (n = 19), hockey (p = 81), rugby (p = 8), basketball (p = 11), track (11 = 22), volleyball (r_r = 10), and curling (p-= 6). They ranged in age from 17 to 39 years (M = 23.3, SD = 4.64) , with an average of 23.3 years. They averaged 8.14 (S_D = 3.81) years with their current team, ranging from 1 to 17 years experience. Procedure Approval to conduct this study as well as Studies 2 and 3 was granted by the Institutional Review board (see Appendix A). After completing informed consent forms (see Appendix B), participants completed a one page open-ended questionnaire. The instructions asked them to “think for a minute about how members of a sports team communicate with each other and list everything about that communication which you think is important”. See Appendix C for a copy of the survey. All questionnaires were distributed after team events (e. g., games, practices). All participants completed them quietly in the presence of the primary author. Results These 157 participants produced a total list of 573 examples of important intra-team communication. Some items were listed more than once; see Appendix D for a 41 complete copy of these items. A panel of experts searched these items for common themes. Respondents were segregated by gender, and, because there were no apparent difi‘erences between genders with respect to these themes, then pooled together. All subsequent results and discussion of this phase of research are based on a pan-gender analysis of this data. The responses of both genders could be parsirnoniously represented in the following six issues. Actual quotes are listed in parentheses in support of each factor. In determining a title for each factor, consideration was given to the entire variety of the itesm given as examples, not just those most commonly mentioned. First, communication should be clear (e. g., “direct”, “specific”, “clear”, “reliable”, “coherent”...). Second, communication should be instructive (e. g., “educational”, “creative”, “help”, “motivational”, “discipline”, “feedback”...). Third, teams should communicate in ways that are supportive (e. g., “sympathetic”, “honest”, “open”, “sensitive”, “inclusive” ...). Fourth, teams should communicate in ways that handle conflict (e. g., “resolve problem 9, “ calmly”, “openly discuss solutions”, “explore options , no arguing on court” ...). Fifth, P, “ teams should communicate in ways that foster togetherness (e.g., “firn , slang”, ,3 u 3’ ‘8 “nicknames , togetherness , team unity”, “shared goals”...). Finally, teams should ’3 6‘ communicate with appropriate physical presentation (e.g., “body language , eye contact”, “tone of voice”, “vocabulary” ...). The present concepts of communication can all be seen as resources according to Foa and Foa’s (1974) theory. Because support and conflict resolution both deal with the 42 exchange of emotions and warmth within the team, they are both aspects of the class of love resources. Togethemess as a factor includes these types of messages as well as those of status (i.e., of belonging to the group). Since the resources of love and status are adjacent concepts, and because each is really a wide range of behaviors, togetherness can be seen as a resource on the border between them. Finally, instruction, clarity and physicality all are ways of imparting important knowledge and/or expectations to teammates. Thus they all fit within the class of resources termed information. To further clarify these six factors, and the boundaries and relationships between them, a focus group was conducted. Study Two Participants Seven athletes (4 male, 3 female), participated in a focus group on effective communication within sports teams. Participants ranged in age fiom 19 to 24 years with an average age of 22.3 years. Sports played included track, golf, hockey, rugby, football, and cross country. This variety of sports and gender mix was deemed appropriate because the results of the first study were based on several sports and a pan- gender data analysis. Procedure The main researcher served as moderator for this focus group. Because the purpose was to clarify the styles of communication which emerged from the first phase of research, the interview guide focussed on the six factors. The focus group was preceded by informal introductions and a brief social discussion, including refreshments. This was designed to reduce individuals’ hesitancy to contribute to the subsequent group 43 discussion about the research question. Upon beginning the focus group, all participants gave consent to participate. The interview guide was structured so that each factor (e. g., instruction, conflict resolution, support, clarity, physicality, and togetherness) would be discussed in turn. For each factor, main research questions, leading questions and testing questions were scheduled. Main research questions were designed to introduce the main issue of consideration to the group. Leading questions were designed to probe the topic at a deeper level. Testing questions were designed to test the limits of a concept or area (Knieger, 1994). Scheduled questions were fairly minimal (e. g., about two questions per type per factor). This was purposely designed to impinge as little as possible upon the participants’ perceptions of these aspects of team communication. See Appendix E for a copy of the interview guide. BELLE This phase of research resulted in further clarification of the resources exchanged in team communication. Firstly, the concept of instruction was divided into two components: motivation and instruction. Examples of instruction developed from Study 1 included issues of both exchanging information (e. g., formulating a gameplan), and exchanging arousal (e. g., shouting to get each other up). There was a consensus opinion in the focus group that these were two difl‘erent resources of efi‘ective communication. This point was stated nicely by a 21 year old male football player who said “well, it’s not exactly the same to tell somebody how to do something as to get him psyched up to do it”. Other comments to support instruction and motivation as separate 44 entities included the notion that not everything is a matter of instructing or teaching. “Sometimes you can psych someone up who doesn’t know how to do it, and they’ll get it done,” sometimes someone who can perform, “doesn’t feel up to it”. Then it is not a case of instructing, per se, but orienting and motivating. These perceptions were congruent with the current measurement in sports psychology. Hanin (1992) differentiated between stimulation (i.e., motivation) and orientation and evaluation (both of which are types of instruction). Widmeyer and Willams’ (1991) definition stresses the instructive communication of team communication while ignoring motivation, suggesting the two are separate resources. Secondly, some of the aspects which emerged from Study I seemed to depend on the topic of communication. Specifically, the degree of clarity and physical presentation all seemed to “depend on” what exactly was being communicated. As a 24 year old female rugby player noted “sometimes it’s appropriate to shout, and sometimes it isn’t”. The athletes agreed that clarity of communication served a function, particularly when one tries to instruct, but in some cases (e. g., joking between teammates, or when opponents might ‘steal’ information), it is valuable to be unclear. In the lexicon of the theoretical framework being used here, neither clarity nor physicality is a resource that is exchanged. Rather they are aspects of the exchange. The resources appear to be instruction, motivation, support, togetherness, and conflict resolution. Physicality and clarity are two aspects of the exchange, but not commodities which are valued and exchanged in themselves. 45 The remaining three factors (e. g., Conflict Resolution, Support, and Togethemess) were all supported by the focus group as appropriate resources of intra-team communication. Comments used to describe the factor of togetherness (e. g, jokes, socializing together as a team, acting like a family) and support (e. g., listen, be sympathetic, accept one another) were very similar to those seen in Phase 1. Likewise, these participants had a similar view of Conflict Resolution as did the athletes in Phase 1. It was noted that it is an important part of team functioning to handle conflicts, and if possible avoid them (e. g., “you don’t want to let personal fights spill over onto the floor”). Like the previous phase, athletes mentioned both positive (e. g., calm down, talk about it at appropriate times) and negative ways (e. g., shout, scream, “have it out” with him/her) to deal with conflict. General Discussion for Studies One and Two Based on these two phases of research, there are five main resources which appear to be exchanged through effective communication within sports teams. They are motivation, instruction, support, conflict management, and togetherness. Motivation is currently defined as the exchange of messages aimed at arousing, encouraging or focussing teammates. Instruction refers to any communicated effort to transfer procedural or declarative knowledge. Support is communication that validates and empathizes teammates. Conflict management refers to attempts to pro-actively or constructively handle intra-team disagreements. Finally, togetherness refers to those communications which are aimed at enhancing team unity and individual belongingness. Each of these 46 factors is a resource which can be exchanged between group members, the essence of F oa and Foa’s (1974) definition of resource. Teamrnates can give or receive messages of team togetherness, instruction on strategy and ability, and attempts to arouse (or calm) each other. The aspects of physicality and clarity as sub-components of a variety of messages is coherent with the methodology of communication studies. Physicality includes proxemics, non-verbal behaviour and kinesics, which havealready been noted to be important components of communication, regardless of topics. Likewise, clarity is distinct from the topic of conversation. Further, either of these are resources; one does not communicate clarity, he communicates a resource (e. g., instruction) clearly. While both of these issues will still be addressed in a complete conceptualization of intra-team communication, they will be included within each resource, and not included as resources on their own. The present concepts may all be sub-components of the six main types of resources outlined in Foa and Foa’s (1974) resource theory. The resources clarified by these authors were intended to be broad classes of exchanges. Each of the resources (for example, service) was broadly defined purposely so that the many exchanges which could be considered service would all be included. The five resources presented here all fit into the more particularistic and intangible types of resources. Specifically, support and conflict management may all be considered exchanges of love, while togetherness transmits both love and status (of being a team member). Motivation and information can 47 be seen as part of their concept of information. The Foas (1974) defined love as any expression of affection, warmth or regard. As presently defined, togetherness and social support both serve to enhance one’s feelings of self-respect and worth. Thus, both are ways of expressing “afl‘ection, warmth or regard”. Inasmuch as conflict resolution involves the exchange of resources to minimize threats to inclusion and acceptance, it may also be considered a type of love exchange. Similarly, motivation and instruction are both types of information (i.e., any messages of advice, opinion, instruction or enlightenment). As well as fitting into the chosen theoretical framework, the resources identified here are also consistent with previously noted factors of infra-team communication. Previous literature on communication in sports teams has noted the importance of social support (e. g., Rosenfeld & Richman, 1996; Sullivan, 1993); information sharing (e. g., Widmeyer & Williams, 1991; Williams & Widmeyer, 1991); and motivation (Dale & Wrisberg, 1996; Hanin, 1988). Conflict management was noted as an important component of team communication by both DiBerardinis et a1. (1983) and Sullivan (1995). Finally, the value of what is presently defined as togetherness can be seen in the wealth of literature on cohesion in sports teams (see Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). These two phases of research were designed to fulfill Poole and McPhee’s (1985) second step in designing communication scales: generation of a preliminary sample of items. After these studies, a five factor model of effective team communication is apparent. Further, the researcher has a rich pool of sample items (e. g., examples from 48 Study 1, comments from the focus group, and items from previous literature). The third and final study of this dissertation focused on the design, and empirical and psychometric evaluation of a scale for effective team communication in sports. 49 CHAPTER 4 STUDY 3 Based on these resources, a survey was designed to measure the frequency of efl‘ective communication for sports teams. Each of these resources was presented through 10 items that could be responded to on a range of how often they occurred within the team. This was the basis of the third study in this line of research. With respect to a measure of effective communication, the following hypothesis was made. 1. A five factor (e. g., instruction, motivation, conflict management, support, and togetherness) model of effective team communication will emerge fiom a confirmatory factor analysis. These factors may be (and will statistically be allowed to be) inter- correlated. In attempting to clarify the construct validity of effective communication, the relationships between communication and cohesion were also studied. Cohesion was chosen as a verifying construct because it is presently the only well operationalized group level construct within sport. The Group Environment Questionnaire (Widmeyer et al., 1985) is the most widely used and valid measurement of cohesion in sport psychology (Cota, Evans, Dion, Kilik & Longman, 1995). Widmeyer et al. (1985) represented cohesion as a four factor construct. These factors are difierentiated along two dimensions - social versus task cohesion; and the individual’s attraction to the group versus perceptions of group integration. The resulting four factors are group integration - task 50 (GI-T), group integration - social (GI-S); individual attraction to group — task (IATG-T), and individual attraction to group - social (IATG-S). GI-T refers to individual member’s perceptions of the group’s closeness around task-oriented issues (e. g., our team is united in trying to reach its goal for performance), while GI-S refers to those perceptions about the group as a social unit (e. g., our team would like to spend more time together in the off-season). IATG—T pertains to personal involvement with the group task (e.g., this team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance) while IATG-S is concerned with personal involvement and acceptance by and social interaction with the team (e. g., I enjoy other parties more than team parties). With respect to effective communication and cohesion, the following hypotheses were put forth: 2. Instruction and motivation, because they are both exchanges of information, will be positively correlated to both task cohesions. Previous research has found that task- based communication is related to task cohesion, supposedly through increasing pressure to group norms (Williams & Widmeyer, 1991) 3. Conflict resolution will be negatively correlated with all aspects of cohesion. Sullivan and Feltz (2000) found a negative relationship between use of conflict strategies (regarding intra-team conflict) and cohesion, and Brawley, Carron and Widmeyer (1988) stated that teams more resistant to conflict were more cohesive. 4. Togethemess and social support will be positively correlated with both social cohesions. These resources appear to be very similar to such issues as social support, self- 51 disclosure, and expressions of love and acceptance, all of which have been associated with social cohesion (e. g., DiBerardinis et al., 1983; Richman & Rosenfeld, 1996; Stokes et al., 1983; Widmeyer et al., 1985). M_et_hQ_