1. The Effect of Sports Team Cohesion on Aggression, Cheating and Alcohol Consumption Jenny Braun and Lauren Drew Hanover College

2. Team Sports The ‘need to belong’ is an innate feature of human nature (Spink, 1998, Baumeister & Leary, 1995) The ‘need to belong’ is an innate feature of human nature (Spink, 1998, Baumeister & Leary, 1995) Teams provide a forum for satisfying the fundamental human drive of needing to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) Teams provide a forum for satisfying the fundamental human drive of needing to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)

3. Definition of Cohesion When teammates subscribe to the team’s goals, socialize and pursue common goals outside the realm of athletic activity

4. Impact of Cohesion Many positive outcomes associated with cohesion (Spink, 1998; Prapavessis & Carron, 1997) “Cohesion is associated with increased conformity to group norms” (Prapvessis & Carron, 1997, 232) “High cohesive groups exerted more pressure on members toward compliance with group norms then did low cohesive groups” (Festinger, Gerard & Hymovitch, 1952 as cited in Prapavessis & Carron, 1997, p. 232)

5. Aggression and Team Sports Increased by zero-sum game structure (Lefebvre & Passer, 1974) One of the most important problems in contemporary sport (Lefebvre & Passer, 1974)  Cultural-spectators prefer events with more aggressive acts (Makela, 1975)

6. Cheating in Team Sports “Willful rule violation” - actions which are considered unacceptable are done on purpose to gain benefit, at the potential cost of a penalty (Roberts, 1996) Tone for acceptable behavior, including cheating, set by institution or team (Roberts, 1996)

7. Aggression and Cheating Cheating and aggression are more prominent:  By males  In older athletes  In individuals who have been playing the sport longer Team cohesion  positively related to expectations that teammates would cheat and aggress, and that coach would support behavior (Light Shields et al., 1995)

8. Team Sports and Alcohol Consumption oSports team participation is associated with high rates of substance use, including alcohol (Rockafellow & Saules, 2006). oA study by the NCAA found that over 80% of college athletes drink (Martens, Dams-O’Connor, and Beck, 2006)

9. Hypothesis Perception of higher team cohesiveness will be associated with more favorable attitudes towards aggression and cheating Perception of higher team cohesiveness will be associated with more favorable attitudes towards aggression and cheating Teams which are perceived to be highly cohesive will have higher rates of drinking Teams which are perceived to be highly cohesive will have higher rates of drinking

10. Method Participants  Obtained through emailing link for survey to Athletic Directors  College level athletes or former athletes 174 final participants  58 Females  116 Males  Ages 18 – 57 Median age = 19 years old Mean age = 20 years old

11. Method Procedure  Informed Consent  Participants indicate the following: Sports team(s) (e.g. basketball, soccer, etc.) Position on team Number of years participating per sport Basic demographics (age, gender, nationality)

12. Method Four Questionnaires Standard Likert Scale 1 “Very Strongly Disagree”, 7 “Very Strongly Agree ”  Aggression Questionnaire/Performance Attitudes (Buss & Perry, 1992)  =.917  Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), (Carron et al., 1985 )  =.847  Cheating Questionnaire/Performance Motivation  =.862  Alcohol Consumption Questionnaire

13. Results Non-significant findings  No significant relationship between GEQ with aggression or cheating  No significant relationship between GEQ and athletes’ frequency of drinking  No significant relationship between GEQ and contact vs. non-contact sports

14. GEQ  M = 93.36  Range: Minimum score=47.00 Maximum score = 126.00 Performance Attitudes/Aggression  M = 68.50  Range: Minimum score = 27.00 Maximum score = 146.00 Performance Motivation/Cheating  M = 21.94  Range: Minimum score=6.00 Maximum score= 42.0 Results

15. F(1,165) = 7.8, p =.006

16. r(174) =.652, p <.001

17. r(167) =.219, p =.004

18. r(170) =.243, p =.001

19. Discussion Cohesion was not shown to be related to any variable except who the athletes reported drinking with Limited exposure to others outside athletic realm (Martens et al., 2006)

20. Lack of Relationship Between GEQ, Aggression and Cheating Possible that cohesion does not specify particular attitude toward aggression and cheating Teams may have similar attitudes toward aggression and cheating if they are highly cohesive Perceived team cohesion Range of attitudes toward aggression and cheating

21. Discussion-Aggression and Cheating Line between aggression and cheating is often blurred Moral reasoning (Shields et al.,1995) Individuals may have different moral values on athletic field than in everyday life

22. Future Directions Measure cohesion in teams and variation in attitudes towards aggression and cheating Develop measurement to record aggression and cheating from behavior Explore potential disconnect between morality outside of athletic events and within athletic events

23. Questions?