Being a group versus feeling united: An experimental study examining the effects of groupness and cohesion on intention to return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding group constructs has served as a useful foundation for examining sport adherence, with outcomes such as intention to return to a previous team receiving attention. Two group constructs that have been related to intention to return to a previous team are team cohesion (i.e., unity; Spink, 1995, 1998) and groupness (i.e., perceptions of being more like a group; Crozier & Spink, 2014). While there is recognized overlap between these two group constructs, it has been suggested that these constructs also are conceptually unique (Martin et al., 2014). Given the potential for both similarity and uniqueness between the constructs, what is less clear is how they might relate to an adherence outcome such as intention to return when examined together. To address this question, this study employed a within-subjects experimental design to examine the effect of varying levels of both cohesion and groupness on an individual athlete’s intention to return. Adult soccer players ( N = 68) read four vignettes describing hypothetical teams that differed in levels of both cohesion (high [HC] versus low [LC]) and groupness (high [HG] versus low [LG]). While imagining themselves as a member of each team, they rated their intention to return to that team based on the cohesion/groupness characteristics outlined in the vignette. Results indicated that the overall ANOVA model was significant ( p <.001) and the effect was strong (η p 2 = .72). Further, post-hoc analysis revealed that intentions to return were highest after imagining being a member of the HC/HG team, followed by the HC/LG, LC/HG, and LC/LG teams respectively, with participants reporting significantly lower intentions to return to each subsequent team. While in need of real-world replication, this provides initial support for the idea that cohesion and groupness are distinct constructs that appear to have independent and additive effects on intention to return.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".