CC BY
72
High league bench players and starters: differences in group interactions, group cohesion, role acceptance...
сформированное™ жизненных целей (целеобразования) и таким психологическим феноменом как «временная перспектива». Полученные результаты могут быть полезны не только для развития теории нейропсихологии и психофизиологии
индивидуальных различий, а также практически могут быть использованы для диагностики индивидуальных особенностей волевой регуляции в спортивной психологии при подготовке спортсменов высокой квалификации.
Список литературы:
1. Голдберг Э. Управляющий мозг: Лобные доли, лидерство и цивилизация/Пер. с англ. Д. Булгакова. -М.: Смысл, 2003. - 335 с.
2. Лурия А. Р. Основы нейропсихологии. - М.: Изд-во МГУ, 1973. - 374 с.
3. Москвин В. А. Межполушарные отношения и проблема индивидуальных различий. - М.: Изд-во МГУ, 2002. - 288 с.
4. Москвин В. А. Межполушарные асимметрии и индивидуальные различия человека/В. А. Москвин, Н. В. Москвина. - М.: Смысл, 2011. - 368 с.
5. Черниговская Т. В., Гаврилова Т. А., Воинов А. В., Стрельников К. Н. Сенсо-моторный и когнитивный латеральный профиль//Физиология человека. - 2005. - Т. 31. - № 2. - С. 35-44.
6. Чумаков М. В. Диагностика волевых особенностей личности//Вопр. психологии. - 2006. - № 1. -С. 169-178.
7. Sakano N. Latent left-handedness. Its relation to hemispheric and psychological functions.- Jena: Gustav Fischer Verlag, 1982. - 122 p.
Simonenkova Irina Petrovna, Russian State University of Physical Education, Sport, Youth and Tourism
postgraduate student, department of psychology E-mail: irina.simonenkova@gmail.com
High league bench players and starters: differences in group interactions, group cohesion, role acceptance and self-confidence in football teams
Abstract: Main staff players differ from bench players in their perceptions and demonstrate different responses. This research compares the situation of bench players with the situation of starters in high league Latvian football teams.
Keywords: bench players, starters, group interactions, group cohesion, role acceptance, selfconfidence
The general purpose of this research is to compare the situation of bench players with the situation of starters in high league football teams. The study covers following topics: group cohesion, the interaction in a team and more specific between bench players and starters, self-confidence, and role acceptance.
A questionnaire was compiled to inquire bench players and starters. One could hypothesize that Participants
starters and bench players would respond differently and have different perceptions concerning the research topics.
A supposition can be made that main staff players differ from bench players in their perceptions and demonstrate different responses based on the given aspects.
Country Participants Average age Starters Bench players
Latvia 52 24.2 33 19
65
Section 9. Sports Psychology
The subjects of the research are High League players of the four Latvian teams. The teams were selected according to their ratings at the moment of the research (1st, 2nd, 7th and 8th places in the national raiting).
The Latvian Football Federation granted its permission and with its support the research was allowed to take place in each club. Three clubs’ coaches expressed their desire to participate in the study, while the fourth coach was quite reluctant and it took much effort and time, calling and meetings to convince him into participating.
To select the appropriate athletes, the definition of bench players and starters, resulting from research at Lund’s University was used. Every athlete who played in more than 70% of the games is considered as a starter, every athlete who played in less than 30% of the games is a bench player.
The number of each clubs place was calculated and included in the questionnaire. These criteria served the basis for the coaches’ choice of the players for the research.
All the original English questionnaires have been translated into Latvian and Russian for the purposes of the research. The questionnaires were filled out in the presence of the researcher.
Research methods:
1. The group interaction questionnaire (Erwin Apitzsch, Sweden, Inekes Thiry, Belgium, 2004) 14 statements were presented and could be scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), until 5 (strongly agree).
Because the concepts ‘starters’ and ‘bench players’ were used in the statements, they were once more explained before presenting the first statement. The answer technique was recapitulated and again it was pointed out that the provided information would remain strictly confidential and that there were no right or wrong answers.
2. Self-confidence (Rainer Martens, Damon Burton, Robin S. Vealey, Linda A. Bump, and Daniel E. Smith,1983)
To assess this topic, a subscale of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory — 2, developed by Rainer Martens, Damon Burton, Robin S. Vealey, Linda A. Bump, and Daniel E. Smith in 1983, was used.
The CSAI-2 is a multi-dimensional instrument used to measure cognitive state anxiety, somatic state anxiety and state self-confidence in competitive situations. The subscale state self-confidence was used in this research.
The athletes rated statements with possible feelings before a competition by circling one of the presented answers: not at all (1), somewhat (2), moderately so (3), and very much so (4). Each of the three subscales of the CSAI-2 has its own total, and so does the self-confidence scale. For each player, the score on the nine statements can be added together, and bench players and starters can be compared on their level of self-confidence.
3. Cohesion (Albert Carron, Neil Widmeyer, and Lawrence Brawley, 1985)
The Group Environment Questionnaire, developed by Albert Carron, Neil Widmeyer, and Lawrence Brawley, was used to develop the team member’s perceptions of group cohesion.
GEQcontains 18 items, which can be divided into 2 main categories (ATG — Individual Attractions to the Group and GI — Group Integration) and 2 subcategories (Task — Social aspects ofcohesiveness).
4. Role Acceptance (Erwin Apitzsch, Sweden, Inekes Thiry, Belgium, 2004)
An eight question inventory was constructed to assess the athletes’ perceptions of their role in the team and to examine how players in different phases of their careers cope with being a bench player.
Analysis of the results
The data analysis was made with the SPSS program and independent t-test.
Group Interaction. The division of the players into main and bench ones presumes such factor as rivalry (competition) within a team. The questionnaire studies not only the intra-team competition but also co-operation within a team: six statements directly referred to competition situations, and five — to cooperation situations.
The present research hasn’t found out any significant differences in the offered 14 statements. Thus, there is no difference in perception of competition and co-operations situations between the main and bench players.
Group Cohesion. The study has found out significant differences in the points 2, 6 and 8.
66
High league bench players and starters: differences in group interactions, group cohesion, role acceptance...
I am not happy with the amount of playing time I get.
t (52)=-4,207, p< 0,01
This team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance. t (52)=-2,289, p<0,05
I do not like the style of game on this team. t (52)=-2,343,.p<0,05
An analysis with independent t-tests was conducted to examine possible differences between bench players and starters concerning these categories.
Starters showed more personal attractions to the group task, to the group as a unit, and to the social interactions within the group.
Concerning the GI-questions, there was no significant difference, neither for the social aspects of
According to the literature, the non-existence of a difference in self-confidence can be a positive result. Self-confidence helps to arouse positive emotions, it facilitates concentration, it can help to set appropriate goals and increase effort. Another important benefit of self-confidence is that it helps to focus on the game strategies and to maintain momentum.
Clearly, these are all important aspects in a game.
On the other hand, self-doubts should be avoided in a competitive situation like a football game, since they can undermine performance, just as they can create anxiety, cause indecisiveness and can break concentration.
Role Acceptance. The data concerning the roles in being a bench player was also analyzed using independent t-tests.
As already stated, there were eight questions. The first question asked the players about their specific
cohesiveness, nor for the task aspects of cohesiveness.
The results showed that starters only differ from bench players in their perceptions concerning the individual attractions to the group. They perceived the team more important for the satisfaction of individual needs.
Self-Confidence. It may be logical to presume that main staff players are more self-confident than bench players; their confidence stems from their regular presence on the field. Nevertheless, the CSAI-2, analysis of the 9 separate entries of the questionnaire and the response analysis lead to a laconic conclusion — significant differences between the main and bench players have not been found.
position in the team, and the second question was about the role they had to fulfil.
We could expect that bench players and starters do not differ on the first question (their position and how attractive that is for the player), but that they, however, do differ significantly on the second question (their starting position, and how attractive and satisfying it is).
The results confirmed this hypothesis very strongly.
For the first question, there was indeed no significant difference between bench players and starters (all p’s > 0.20). The second question, however, revealed a very strong significant difference: starters rate their role as much more attractive (t (52) = 4.40, p<.000l) and much more satisfying (t (52) = 7.73, p<.00000l) than bench players.
Mean Starters Mean Bench Players t-value p
I feel at ease 2.79 2.84 -0.284 0,778
I feel comfortable 2.85 3.05 -1.144 0,258
I feel self-confident 3.00 3,37 -1.910 0,62
I feel secure 2.91 3,26 -1.527 0,133
I’m confident I can meet the challenge 3.39 3,37 0.166 0,869
I’m confident about performing well 3,27 3,32 -0.245 0,808
I feel mentally relaxed 2.39 2.32 0.320 0,750
I’m confident because I mentally picture myself reaching my goal 3,18 3,32 -0.611 0,544
I’m confident of coming through under pressure 3,36 3,42 -0.350 0,728
67
Section 9. Sports Psychology
Starters Bench players t-value p
Attractiveness position 4.61 4.26 1.306 0.198
Satisfaction with position 4.52 4.26 1.095 0.275
Attractiveness starting position 4.82 1.89 9.533 0.000
Satisfaction with starting position 4.73 1.58 11.764 0.000
Furthermore, significant differences in both cases were also found in question 5 (How important is your role of a main-staff/bench player for the team’s success?) t (52)=2.919 (p<0.1); question 6 (How strong are your motives
for performing the duties of a main-staff/bench player?)
Besides, the players of both positions were asked to name the necessary characteristics of the mainstaff player.
Skills Mean Starters Mean Bench players
Physical skills 4,09 3,84
Good healh 4,18 3,95
Game reading skills 4,03 4,11
Taktical skills 4,09 4,00
Technikal skills 3,76 3,53
General Conclusions
• In the current study, we tried to find a better insight in a relatively undiscovered research topic.
• The general aim was to compare bench players with starters. A first objective was to find out if those groups differed in their group cohesiveness perceptions. Secondly, the interactions in the team with bench players and starters were studied. In a third research questionnaire, bench players and starters were compared on their level of self-confidence. The main focus of the fourth topic was role acceptance, role conflict and the age dimension in role acceptance.
• The Findings of this research did not contradict and partially support the findings of results reported in other sport psychology studies.
• We can conclude that starters and bench
players do not differ in their social cognitions of the group as a whole. However, the two groups differ significantly from each other in their personal attraction to the group task and in their personal attraction to the social aspects of the group. Starters are more personally attracted to the team in general.
• Bench players and starters do not differ in the attractiveness ratings of their position in the team and the satisfaction with their position, but, however bench players find their starting status significantly less attractive compared to starters and they also show significantly less satisfaction with this role.
• Bench players are significantly less motivated than starters to fulfil the role requirements of their role. Hence, we can conclude that bench players deal with a person-role conflict.
References:
1. Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1987). Assessing the cohesion of teams: Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 275-294.
2. Berkowitz, L. (1956). Group norms among bomber crews: Patterns ofperceived crew attitudes, “active” crew attitudes, and crew liking related to air crew effectiveness in Far Eastern combat. Sociometry, 19, 141-153.
3. Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., Widmeyer, W. N. (1997). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.)., Advancements in sport and exercise psychology measurement. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
4. Carron, A. V., & Hausenblas, H. A. (1998). Group Dynamics in Sport (2nd ed.) Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
5. Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
68
High league bench players and starters: differences in group interactions, group cohesion, role acceptance...
6. Granito, VJ., & Rainey, D. W. (1988). Differences in cohesion between high school and college football teams and starters and nonstarters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 471-477.
7. Gill, D. L. (2000) Psychological Dynamics of Sport and Exercise. Human Kinetics.
8. Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. (1990). The competitive state anxiety inventory-2 (CSAI-2). In R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton (Eds.), Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
9. Martens, R, & Peterson, J. A. (1971). Group cohesion as a determinant of success and member satisfaction in team performance. International review of sport sociology, 6, 49-61.
10. Shanthi-Jacob, C., & Carron, A. V. (1998). The association between status and cohesion in sport teams. Journal of sport sciences, 16.
11. Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology. Champaign (IL): Human kinetics.
69
