1
Q
Which part of the course map do competition and cooperation fit into?
A
- team processes
- segment 3
2
Q
What are the different levels that we consider for competition and cooperation?
A
- Individual level
- Within-group level
- Between-group level
3
Q
Individual level
A
An individual’s orientation toward competition, cooperation, and groups shapes how they perceive and respond to interdependence
- Do you want to compete or cooperate?
- Does the task call for competition or cooperation?
4
Q
Within-group level (group environment)
A
- Interdependence structure (does group require teamwork)
- Member perceptions (do we rely on one another)
- Member interactions (do members cooperate)
5
Q
Between-group level
A
- Competition with a salient outgroup can strengthen the ingroup environment
- Effects of ingroup membership can reshape treatment of outgroups
***Are we cooperating with another team or competing against them
6
Q
2 general concepts of cooperation and competition
A
- Distribution of rewards
- Group goals
7
Q
Distribution of rewards- competition
A
- zero sum situation
- gains by one reduces gains available to others
- two people cannot win
8
Q
Distribution of rewards- cooperation
A
- non-zero sum situation
- participants share in rewards equally
9
Q
Distribution of rewards- individualism
A
Awards based on personal merit (ex. school, grades)
10
Q
Group goals- competition
A
Heterogenous goals (diff participants have different goals)
11
Q
Group goals- cooperation
A
Homogenous goals (same goals between the participants)
- success is possible for both people
12
Q
Why is there not individualism for group goals?
A
Individualism has nothing to do with cooperation and competition
- Cooperation and competition may help you get there
13
Q
Within group vs between group processes situation 1
A
- Intragroup cooperation for groups 1 and 2
- Intergroup competition
14
Q
Within group vs between group processes situation 2
A
- Intragroup cooperation for groups 1 and 2
- Intergroup cooperation
ex. 2 medical teams, working together to achieve same outcome
15
Q
Within group vs between group processes situation 3
A
- Intragroup competition for groups 1 and 2
- Intergroup competition
ex. olympic speed skating
16
Q
Within group vs between group processes situation 4
A
- Intragroup cooperation for group 1
- Intragroup competition for group 2
- Intergroup competition
ex. one team cooperates, while other competes within group and then against each other when they come together
17
Q
The robbers cave experiment purpose
A
- assess intra and inter-group interactions and relations in a natural environment
- 11 year old boys divided into two groups based on size and capability with similar age, race, SES religion and appearance
18
Q
Phases of the robbers cave experiment
A
- Ingroup formation
- Intergroup conflict
- Reduce conflict
19
Q
Phase 1 of robber cave experiment
A
Arbitrary assignment based on criteria
20
Q
Phase 2 of robber cave experiment
A
Intergroup exposure and win-lose competition
21
Q
Phase 3 of robber cave experiment
A
- get togethers without competition (ie. eat at food hall)
- provision of superordinate goals (ie. counsellor got truck stuck)
22
Q
What happened during robbers cave experiment?
A
- two groups started to compete against one another and got more aggressive (negative attitudes)
- only when they included superordinate goals did the boys understand the importance of cooperation
23
Q
What did not work to reduce prejudice between the groups?
A
Communication
- had to cut off water in the camp, and make them complete a task to get water back
24
Q
Ratings of ingroup and outgroup favourability at the end of phase 2 in robbers cave experiment
A
Boys rated outgroup more negatively than ingroup
- even after the conflict resolution
25
Key messages to take away from robbers cave experiment
1. Groups are real
2. Individuals naturally orient themselves into ingroups and outgroups
3. Groups have psychological validity and meaning to members
4. When 2 groups experience common goals, people categorize themselves more strongly with their ingroup
5. We can mitigate conflict between groups by introducing cooperative goals- intergroup contact alone is not enough
26
Theoretical foundations for jigsaw classroom
1. Sherif et al.- Robbers cave (concept of superordinate groups)
2. Contact hypothesis
3. Cognitive dissonance
27
Contact hypothesis
Intergroup interaction can reduce prejudice and improve relations under certain conditions
28
Which conditions does the contact hypothesis apply to? (Allport)
- Equal status between groups
- Intergroup cooperation
- Common goals
- Support from authorities
29
Cognitive dissonance
- people strive for consistency in attitudes, beliefs and behaviours
- when not consistent, you experience unpleasant cognitive dissonance
- if we change our behaviours, we will change our beliefs to avoid this dissonance
***Most impactful
30
Example of cognitive dissonance
- you have preconceived notions about if you think someone is mean
but you haven't seen them do anything mean for a long time
- start to change how you think about that person
31
What is most impactful for the jigsaw classroom?
Cognitive dissonance
32
What is a jigsaw classroom?
Every piece of the group is required to solve an academic task and achieve full understanding of a concept
33
Which factors were assessed in the jigsaw classroom? (Blaney)
- liking for group-mates
- liking for other classmates
- self-esteem
- competitiveness
- perception of peers as learning source
- perception of being liked by others
34
Jigsaw classroom results- liking for group mates
increased post test in experimental group
35
Jigsaw classroom results- liking for other classmates
increased post test in experimental group
36
Jigsaw classroom results- self-esteem
- increased post test in experimental group
- decreased post test in control group
37
Jigsaw classroom results- competitiveness
- decreased post test in experimental group
- increased post test in control group
38
Jigsaw classroom results- perception of peers as learning source
- increased post test in experimental group
- decreased post test in control group
39
Jigsaw classroom results- perception of being liked by others
increased post test in experimental group and control group
40
Stanne, Johnson and Johnson 1999 study purpose
Meta-analysis pertaining to success in performance motor task based on conditions involving cooperation, competition or individualism
41
Stanne, Johnson and Johnson 1999 study results
- Cooperation is superior to competition and individualism for achievement and productivity
- Competition is superior to individualism for achievement and productivity
***Cooperation is best, but if you cannot cooperate, competition is better than individualism
42
Moderators to consider when looking at competition and cooperation
1. Task inter-dependence
2. Task complexity
3. Group size
43
Task interdependence as a moderator
- cooperation is superior for interdependent sport (vball)
- competition superior for independent sport (wresting)
44
Task complexity as a moderator
- cooperation is superior for complex tasks
- competition superior for simple tasks (RT tests in lab)
45
Group size as a moderator
- cooperation superior for larger groups (>6 members)
- competition superior for smaller groups (<6 members)
46
Exchange relations
Monitor inputs and attempt to maximize rewards
47
Communal relations
More concerned with what the group receives, thus work as a joint force
48
Which study was done to assess whether competition is innate or socially learned?
- Paterson 1987
- Studied initially passive children in pre-school environment
49
3 situations that resulted from the initially passive children
1. Retaliated successfully against aggressor
2. Retaliated unsuccessfully against aggressor
3. Not object of aggressive attacks
50
Results of the 3 situations of the initially passive children
1. Became more aggressive
2. Remained passive
3. Remained passive
51
According to the study, is competition innate or socially learned?
not necessarily innate, can manifest in certain environments
- experiencing feedback from the environment can change our behaviour (determines whether we compete or cooperate)
52
Two main types of competition in sport specific research
1. Positional
2. Situational
53
What did Martens (1975) define competition in sports as?
A situational social comparison process
54
What does competition as a situational social comparison process involve?
- clear start and end point (season/game length)
- structured evaluation procedures (score board)
- several stages of appraisal and behavioural responses (responses to competition)
- awareness of competitors and evaluators (aware of evaluation process)
55
What is the purpose of situational competition?
Often evoked by coach to motivate players in practice
56
Inter-team competition
One group competes against another group
57
Intra-team competition
Competing for the same thing within a team (ex. playing time)
58
Who does situational competition occur between?
Assigned subgroups of players
59
What is the format of situational competition?
Subgroup vs subgroup
60
What is the duration of situational competition?
Usually short
- ex. within a practice
61
What is positional competition?
The process of teammates vying for the same limited playing time in one position
- competing for same resources within your team
- doesn't not when you make the top
62
What is the purpose of positional competition?
Playing time distribution
63
Who does positional competition occur between?
Players in the same position
64
What is the format of positional competition?
Longitudinal performance comparison
- line 1 or 2 in hockey
65
What is the duration of positional competition?
Ongoing, omnipresent
- not just on the field, locker room too
66
Mediators for positional competition
1. Information-related processes
2. Performance-related processes
67
Information-related processes
1. self-awareness (are they are aware they are in competition with their teammates)
- only become aware once status and position is threatened
2. social comparison
3. feedback from teammates
4. feedback from coaches
68
Performance-related processes
1. push teammates (can help push teammates to perform better and be aware)
2. push by teammates
3. improvement of individual abilities
4. contextual learning (what are you learning from practice that help you beat your teammates)
69
Key takeaways from this lecture
1. Humans have a tendency to form ingroup/outgroup perceptions and competition with the outgroup
2. Several seminal studies help describe these tendencies
3. Impact on performance is moderated by factors such as task and group size
4. Positional competition is a specific playing time competition that is inevitable in many sport settings
70
What did Driskell, Sales and Driskell (2018) discover?
Table on teamwork processes, dimensions and activities
71
Types of teamwork processes
1. Transition processes (preparing)
2. Action processes (doing)
3. Interpersonal processes (maintaining)
72
Teamwork dimensions of transition processes
- mission analysis
- formulation
- planning
- goal specification
- strategy formation
ex. snowbird, pre-brief
73
Teamwork dimensions of action processes
- monitoring progress toward goals
- systems monitoring (healthcare)
- team monitoring and backup behaviour
- coordination
74
Teamwork dimensions of interpersonal processes
- conflict management
- motivation and confidence building
- affect mangement
***maintaining and monitoring the teamwork
***after the task is done
75
Team monitoring
Doing your task, but also making sure others are doing their tasks
76
Backup behaviour
How can you get your tasks done to help your teammates
- extension of the team monitoring
77
Representative tasks
Courses of actions of each dimension
78
Representative activities of transition processes
- analyzing the task, constraints and resources
planning
- goal setting
- developing courses of action
***What do you need to do an how do you need to do it
79
Representative activities of action processes
- tracking progress
- identifying shortfalls
- providing feedback
- monitoring resources
- coordinating behaviour
- communicating info
80
Representative activities of interpersonal processes
- managing conflict
- resolving disagreements
- promoting and maintaining positive interpersonal relations
- regulating team member emotions
81
Teamwork definition (McEwan and Beauchamp 2014)
A dynamic process involving a collaborative effort by team members to effectively carry out the independent and interdependent behaviours that are required to maximize the team’s likelihood os achieving its purposes
82
How is teamwork a dynamic process?
Develops over time, have to put effort in
- can change in terms of structure (roster change)
83
McEwan and Beauchamp’s Teamwork model
1. inputs
2. mediators
3. outcomes
84
Where does teamwork fall under in McEwan and Beauchamp’s framework?
Mediators
- if you achieve all teamwork behaviours you will have positive teamwork outcomes
85
Two features of teamwork behaviours in the framework
1. Management of team maintenance
- how can you identify and smooth out conflicts before you get into team performance
2. Regulation of team performance
86
Management of team maintenance
1. Psychological support
2. Integrative conflict management
- when these increase, performance improves
87
Psychological support
Assistive behaviours between members
88
Integrative conflict management
Resolving disagreements/perspectives
89
What happens when psychological support and integrative conflict management increase?
Performance improves
90
Conceptual model of teamwork regulation of team performance steps
1. Preparation
2. Execution
3. Evaluation
4. Adjustment
91
Preparation
Preparing for the teams task
1. mission analysis (why are we here?)
2. goal specification (objectives?)
3. action planing (how are we going to succeed?)
92
Execution
Undertaking the task
1. communication (high levels interdependence? shared mental models?)
2. coordinated action
3. cooperative behaviours (is there mutual benefit to working together)
93
Evaluation
- performance monitoring (individual level - how did we perform)
- systems monitoring (processes of group- how did our systems work)
***were mental models put into place and work well?
94
Adjustments
- problem solving (why did the outcome occur?)
- innovation ( making alterations in novel ways)
- backing up (help people perform roles)
- intra-team coaching (providing performance feedback)
***Debrief
95
How did McEwan and Beauchamp measure teamwork in sport?
- multidimensional assessment of teamwork in sport (MATS)
- 66 item questionnaire that assesses teamwork across the 4 dimensions
96
Findings of MATS questionnaire
With increased perceptions of teamwork on the team there was increased satisfaction
mediated by cohesion and collective efficacy
97
McEwan and Beauchamp 2020 intervention study- Can teamwork be improved?
- 10 week pilot nonrandomized controlled intervention design
- 12 interdependent sports teams
98
When did teamwork training occur in the study?
Week 2 and 6
99
When did teamwork assessment occur in the study?
Week 1, 5 and 10
- measured the effects of teamwork on the teams
100
McEwan and Beauchamp study teamwork training strategies
1. feedback
2. team goal setting
3. individual goal setting
4. team charter
5. briefs
6. debriefs
7. simulations
101
Description of feedback strategy
Collecting relevant data and discussing results with team/individuals
102
Teamwork dimension targeted with feedback strategy
Any/all dimensions
103
Team goal setting strategy description
Specifying collective objectives, performance goals, and plans of action
104
Teamwork dimension targeted with team goal setting strategy
- mission analysis
- goal specification
- planning
- performance monitoring
- systems monitoring
- problem solving
- innovation
105
Individual goal setting description
Specifying collective objectives as well as individual performance goals (at least 1 specific to a teamwork skill)
106
Teamwork dimension targeted with individual goal setting strategy
- mission analysis
- goal specification
- planning
- intra- team coaching
- backing up
107
Team charter strategy description
Specifying behavioural norms related to managing conflict and providing interpersonal support
108
Teamwork dimension targeted with team charter strategy
- mission analysis
- psychological support
- conflict management
109
Briefs strategy description
Pre-competition team meetings where members reiterate the team’s main performance goals and action plans
110
Teamwork dimension targeted with briefs strategy
- goal specification
- planning
111
Debriefs strategy description
Post-competition team meetings where members review the team’s performance, including whether/why they achieved their goals
112
Teamwork dimension targeted with debrief strategy
- performance monitoring
- systems monitoring
- problem solving
- innovation
113
Simulations strategy description
Members first describe specific behaviours that maximize teamwork execution and devote specific time during practice to developing these behaviours
114
Teamwork dimension targeted with simulations strategy
- coordination
- cooperation
- communication
115
Results of McEwan and Beauchamp’s intervention study
- improvements in perceptions of teamwork from week 1-5
- perceptions remained from week 5-10
116
Additional considerations to Results of McEwan and Beauchamp’s intervention study
1. Over-reliance on cohesion
2. Need multi level assessment
3. Teams are dynamic
117
Over-reliance on cohesion
Goal setting had the strongest effect sizes
- maybe social or task cohesion or both was improve, not actually teamwork
118
Need for multi level assessment
Individuals exist within groups; simple assessing individual-level outcomes fails to account for broader influences
- need to look at individual perceptions as well as team perceptions
119
Summary of teamwork
1. teamwork training led to greater perceptions within a team
2. greater perceptions of teamwork are associated with satisfaction and this relationship is explained by improved cohesion and collective efficacy
3. teamwork will improve outcomes for athletes
120
Relationship between execution and cohesion
Perceptions of teamwork predicted collective efficacy and perceived team performance
- think your teamwork is good if you are winning all the time
- can have high levels of task cohesion of teamwork, but don't have the perceived teamwork
121
Leadership quality effect on execution and team resilience
Athlete leadership quality positively predicts execution phase of teamwork and team resilience
122
Coach impact in sport
Coach created a motivational climate
1. Low task/high ego (no real knowledge of coaching behaviours, and screaming)
2. Moderate task/moderate ego
3. High task/low ego (Want the best for your athletes, and humble)
123
Impact on high task/low ego coaches on teamwork behaviours
High task/low ego is associated with athletes achieving high levels of teamwork
124
What do coaches need to focus on to create an environment that facilitates teamwork?
1. athlete selections
2. team composition (who do you actually have on the team)
3. athlete roles (formal vs informal)
4. interpersonal relations
5. intra-team competition
125
Athlete selections
Behaviours the athletes have when you are selecting your team
126
Interpersonal relations
How is the team getting along? How is the coach relating to you?
127
Precursors to teamwork behaviours (What may have caused ineffective teamwork?)
1. Ineffective team prep during pre-competition warm-up
2. Ineffective team monitoring, problem-solving, actions planning, and conflict management during in-competition transition periods
3. Changes to team roster
4. Unhelpful leadership during game play
5. Poor unity amongst team members regarding objectives and relationships
6. Problematic levels of confidence
7. Poor performance during competition
128
Summary of main findings of McEwan & Crawford, 2022
1. Overcame limitation of not knowing why teams do not work together effectively
2. Effective team preparation is crucial
3. Task and motivational leaders are needed
4. Task cohesion may help organize teamwork while social cohesion sustains teamwork
5. May be nuanced relationship between team confidence and teamwork execution
6. Reciprocal effect between team performance and teamwork
KNPE 363
flashcards
Decks in class (11)
# Cards
