Chapter 1

+
Chapter
CONCEPTUAL ADVANCES IN ROLE
PERCEPTIONS IN SPORT
Alex J. Benson*, Mark W. Surya, and Mark A. Eys
Wilfrid Laurier University
ABSTRACT
The perceptions athletes hold about their role responsibilities are
proposed to influence their team’s success (Carron and Eys, 2012). The
general purpose of the present chapter is to highlight role concepts that
have only recently received research attention within the context of sport.
The specific objectives of this chapter are three-fold. First, the concept of
role satisfaction, which is the affective component of athletes’ role
perceptions, is introduced. Role satisfaction is defined as a pleasurable
emotional state resulting from the perception of one’s role as fulfilling or
allowing the fulfillment of one’s important role values (Locke, 1976). An
overview of previous empirical examinations pertaining to the construct
is provided, drawing heavily from organizational psychology literature.
Second, the concept of role acceptance, which is the willingness of an
athlete to perform his or her role responsibilities, is discussed in terms of
the conceptual issues limiting the current understanding of this
perception. Finally, the influence of informal roles on both individual
*
Address correspondence to: Alex Benson; c/o Mark Eys, Department of Kinesiology and
Physical Education; Wilfrid Laurier University; Bricker Academic Building, 75 University
Ave. W., ON, Canada, N2L 3C5; Telephone: (519) 884-0710 x4157; Fax: (519) 747-4594;
Email: [email protected].
2
Alex J. Benson, Mark W. Surya and Mark A. Eys
perceptions and group processes is presented. To date, the majority of
role research has focused on the concept of formally assigned roles (i.e.,
those assigned by an authority or leadership figure). However, recent
research has shed light on the need to consider the impact of informal
roles (i.e., those that emerge naturally from group interactions over time)
within sport teams. The potential implications with respect to how these
two types of roles develop concurrently over time are provided in
addition to future research directions. In summary, the present chapter
aims to organize past role research, and provide researchers as well as
practitioners with a better understanding of role perceptions in sport.
CONCEPTUAL ADVANCES IN ROLE PERCEPTIONS IN
SPORT
“A player can play an on-court role only if everyone agrees. Roles don't
come from a job description sheet. There is more to them than physical skill.
They must evolve within the context of the team so that creative spontaneity is
preserved while at the same time self-sacrifice is volunteered… A team cannot
have four comedians, five leaders, six fighters, three thinkers, and seven
darlings of the press. Each person must find his[/her] place and sense his[/her]
role within the group… The sudden rush of awareness that a group has
become a meshed team provides each member with a remarkable sense of
power. Each game is eagerly anticipated. Road games suddenly seem like a
paid vacation. You begin to see in your teammates good qualities that before
went unnoticed. The timing of plays becomes perfect.” (Bradley, 1977, para.
10-13).
Role theory research in sport has focused on the promotion of positive role
perceptions as it has been suggested that the completion/performance of roles
is critical for group success (Carron and Eys, 2012). The above quotation by
basketball legend Bill Bradley reinforces the importance of roles and lends
insight into the complexity of successful sport teams. The general purpose of
the present chapter is to highlight role concepts that have only recently
received research attention within the context of sport. These concepts are
alluded to within the quote above. For example, Bradley highlights the joy and
anticipation of contributing to a united and effective team, and the first
concept discussed in this chapter pertains to athletes’ satisfaction with their
role responsibilities. Furthermore, the quote illustrates the need for athletes to
be willing and agreeable to execute their roles within an interdependent
environment. The second concept covered in this chapter, role acceptance,
Role Perceptions in Sport
3
relates directly to the willingness of athletes to perform their expected role
responsibilities. Finally, Bradley suggests a number of roles that athletes may
hold in a sport environment (i.e., comedians, leaders, fighters, thinkers,
‘darlings of the press’). However, these roles (and others) differ in terms of
how they arise and the degree of formality associated with them. The last
concept discussed in the present chapter pertains to roles that emerge without
specific prescriptions for individuals (i.e., informal roles). Prior to presenting
these concepts in detail, a brief introduction highlighting various types of roles
and the transmission of role responsibilities within a sport environment is
offered. Overall, it is intended that the present chapter might spur greater
research attention and/or consideration by coaches/sport psychology
practitioners regarding the importance of role perceptions within an athletic
environment.
INTRODUCTION TO ROLES IN SPORT
The roles that individuals occupy contribute to the underlying structure of
a group (Carron and Eys, 2012) and are defined as the collection of behaviors
that are expected of an individual within a specific position (Biddle and
Thomas, 1966; Katz and Kahn, 1978). It is not the intention of this brief
communication to provide a comprehensive overview of every aspect of role
involvement (cf. Eys, Beauchamp, and Bray, 2006; Eys, Schinke, and Jeffery,
2007). However, three points are worth highlighting to provide the necessary
background for subsequent sections. First, roles are broadly differentiated with
respect to function and formality. As it pertains to function, role
responsibilities can primarily serve task (i.e., focus on the group’s instrumental
objectives) and/or social purposes (i.e., focus on developing harmony within
the group; Bales and Slater, 1955; Benne and Sheats, 1948). Alternatively, it is
possible to consider the degree of formality involved in conveying role
responsibilities or generating expectations for individual behavior. Formal
roles refer to those responsibilities that are directly prescribed to individual
group members, whereas informal roles evolve solely through the interactions
among group members (and are not specifically prescribed; Mabry and
Barnes, 1980).
A second point is that the development, transmission, and reception of
role responsibilities is a reasonably complex and cyclical process involving the
interactions between a role sender (e.g., a coach) and a focal person (e.g., an
athlete). Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964) developed a model
4
Alex J. Benson, Mark W. Surya and Mark A. Eys
of the ‘role episode’ involving a series of events occurring during this cyclical
process including the development and communication of role responsibilities
on the part of the role sender, and the experiences/reception and responses on
the part of the focal person. Overall, the work of Kahn and colleagues (1964)
and others within the field of organizational psychology has provided the basis
for more recent investigations in sport.
Finally, extending the previous point, the research undertaken within a
sport environment has been somewhat narrow in terms of the type of roles and
perceptions that have been critically examined. Specifically, the majority of
sport research in the past decade has focused on the concept of role ambiguity
(i.e., a lack of clear information pertaining to role expectations; Kahn et al.,
1964). These studies examined conceptual (Beauchamp and Bray, 2001; Eys
and Carron, 2001) and measurement (Beauchamp, Bray, Eys, and Carron,
2002) issues related to role ambiguity, as well as links with other variables
(e.g., intentions to return to one’s sport team; Eys, Carron, Bray, and
Beauchamp, 2005). Furthermore, with only few exceptions, these previous
studies centered on formal roles. However, there are a number of other
perceptions individuals hold about their responsibilities (e.g., role satisfaction,
acceptance, efficacy, conflict) and roles they occupy without formal
prescription. As noted previously, the objective of this chapter is to highlight
two of these perceptions (i.e., satisfaction and acceptance) as well as
summarize literature pertaining to informal roles in sport.
ROLE SATISFACTION IN SPORT
One role perception that has been linked to both individual and group
success is role satisfaction. Role satisfaction is the affective component of a
role and can be described as the degree of fulfillment the role gives an
individual (Eys et al., 2007); in essence, it is how content a player feels about
his/her role responsibilities. Eys et al. (2007) adapted this definition from the
organizational domain: “a pleasurable emotional state resulting from the
perception of one’s [role] as fulfilling or allowing the fulfillment of one’s
important [role] values” (Locke, 1976, p. 1342).
As with the definition, much of role satisfaction research is rooted in
organizational psychology. Early role theorists posited role satisfaction to be
the difference between one’s preferred role and one’s enacted role (Likert,
1961). Organizational researchers proposed several multi-dimensional
conceptual models with which we can consider satisfaction pertaining to an
Role Perceptions in Sport
5
individual’s responsibilities. As one example, Hackman and Oldham (1980)
conceptualized the job characteristics model of work motivation in an attempt
to predict conditions in which individuals experience positive personal and
work outcomes. Hackman and Oldham identified three psychological states
that, when satisfied, result in positive outcomes. The three critical
psychological states were (1) experiencing meaningfulness of the work, (2)
experiencing responsibility for the outcomes of the work, and (3) having
knowledge of the results of the work.
Hackman and Oldham further suggested that in order for the three
psychological states to be satisfied, the work must contain five core job
characteristics. In order for an individual to experience meaningful work, the
tasks at hand must encompass skill variety, task variety, and task significance.
The fourth core job characteristic of autonomy was proposed to positively
effect the second critical psychological state of responsibility for the outcomes
of the work. The final core job characteristic of feedback provides an
individual with the actual results of his/her work, which satisfies the third and
final psychological state. The theoretical constructs of Hackman and Oldham’s
job characteristics model of work motivation laid the foundation for role
satisfaction research in the sporting context.
An initial examination of role satisfaction in athletics was Rail’s (1987)
study with sport executives. Rail examined how role characteristics and other
individual level variables might impact role satisfaction. Four conditions were
found to be critical toward individuals experiencing satisfaction with their
roles. The first condition involved the competent use of specialized skills.
Essentially, individuals who perceived their role as matching well with their
abilities were more likely to experience satisfaction. The second condition
involved how important the role was within the group context. The third factor
affecting role satisfaction was feedback and recognition. In a related fashion,
Chelladurai and Kuga (1996) noted that individuals can only assess their level
of satisfaction after they have received adequate knowledge about their
performance. The final factor identified by Rail was autonomy. Autonomy has
been found to be one of the most important factors contributing to satisfaction
in the workplace. For example, Finn (2001) examined various components of
nurses’ responsibilities (e.g., task requirements, organizational policies,
autonomy) and found that the perceived level of autonomy was the most
influential variable concerning satisfaction. Finn concluded that decreased
autonomy in the workplace resulted in increased dissatisfaction.
Rail’s findings suggest that there are a number of dimensions relevant to
role satisfaction in the sport context. However, a second attempt to examine
6
Alex J. Benson, Mark W. Surya and Mark A. Eys
role satisfaction differed from Rail’s initial findings and utilized a
unidimensional approach. As part of his role efficacy research, Bray (1998)
created the Role Perception Scale and attempted to measure role satisfaction in
relation to other role perceptions. Assessing role satisfaction from a
unidimensonal perspective (i.e., how satisfied are you with your role as a
whole) is one possible approach. However, drawing upon organizational
literature, measuring role satisfaction using a more comprehensive approach
may yield a more accurate evaluation of role satisfaction.
Overall, an examination of the previous literature on role satisfaction in
sport has revealed the absence of a unified conceptualization and focus on the
topic. More recently, Surya, Benson, Eys, and Bray (2011) drew from both
sport (e.g., Bray, 1998; Rail, 1987) and organizational psychology (e.g.,
Hackman and Oldham, 1980) to propose a multidimensional conceptualization
of role satisfaction for sport. The initial model contains seven dimensions that
are concerned with athletes’ perceptions of their satisfaction with the various
aspects of role involvement: satisfaction with (a) the degree of skill utilization,
(b) the significance of the role for the team, (c) the significance of the role for
the athlete on a personal level, (d) feedback pertaining to the role, (e) the level
of autonomy, (f) recognition, and (g) the athletes’ overall responsibilities.
Considering the breadth of research concerning role satisfaction in
organizational and sport psychology, two general suggestions are made for
future research. The first general suggestion is for researchers to consider the
model put forth in this chapter and construct a questionnaire from which role
satisfaction can be assessed. Although satisfaction research in the sporting
context was examined previously, investigation of the topic has remained
relatively stagnant. This may be due to the absence of a conceptualization of
role satisfaction, as well as a lack of a psychometrically sound measurement
tool. Construction of a questionnaire would aid researchers in their theoretical
examinations of role satisfaction.
The second general suggestion is to investigate how role satisfaction
relates to other individual and team variables. Organizational research has
linked satisfaction to increases in performance, retention with the group, levels
of co-operation, and overall happiness (Saal and Knight, 1988; Saari and
Judge, 2003). Presently, little is known about the relationship between role
satisfaction and other group level constructs such as team cohesion. Gaining
an understanding of how role satisfaction impacts the team environment has
several implications for practitioners looking to improve group functioning.
Moreover, examining role satisfaction as it relates to other positive role
Role Perceptions in Sport
7
perceptions (e.g., role acceptance) would aid our theoretical understanding of
roles as they relate to sport teams.
ROLE ACCEPTANCE IN SPORT
As previously discussed, the performance of role responsibilities within
interdependent sport teams is suggested to be an integral process related to
group functioning. However, a necessary antecedent to the eventual
performance of role responsibilities is whether athletes choose to accept the
role responsibilities assigned to them. Despite the numerous anecdotal
accounts that illustrate the relevance of role acceptance in today’s sport
environment, the available academic literature concerning role acceptance in
sport is relatively sparse. Role acceptance is currently defined as “a dynamic,
covert process that reflects the degree to which an athlete perceives his or her
own expectations for role responsibilities as similar to, and agreeable with, the
expectations determined by his or her role senders” (Eys et al., 2006, p. 246).
The above definition highlights that role acceptance is anchored on the
cognitive appraisal athletes make in reference to their formally assigned role
responsibilities from a coach.
Discussion pertaining to role acceptance can be traced back to the
organizational domain where Biddle (1979) highlighted that there was no
appropriate terminology denoting when an individual is agreeable to the
prescribed expectations for a particular role set, for which he proposed the
term role acceptance. This proposition was the result of a review of attitudinal
change theories that focused on the examination of how individuals react to
the presentation of conflicting viewpoints (i.e., dissimilar expectations) as a
persuasive stimulus (McGuire, 1969). Despite the relevance of these findings
to the study of formally assigned role responsibilities, examinations attempting
to understand how individuals come to accept their prescribed role
responsibilities are lacking in the extant organizational literature. This may be
reflective of the inherent difficulty in attempting to study covert processes.
Despite the absence of a formal conceptualization of role acceptance in
sport, empirical examinations of the concept have surfaced several times
within the literature. Role acceptance first appeared as part of Grand and
Carron’s (1982) development of the Team Climate Questionnaire where it was
assessed in combination with the concept of role satisfaction. Bray (1998) was
the first to measure role acceptance independent of role satisfaction in his
development of the Role Perception Scale. However, role acceptance was
8
Alex J. Benson, Mark W. Surya and Mark A. Eys
tangential to the primary purpose of his study, which was to assess the
distinctiveness of role efficacy in relation to other role dimensions. More
recently, Jones (2006) utilized this same measurement tool (i.e., Bray, 1998) to
examine potential correlates of role acceptance, in which a moderate negative
correlation was demonstrated between role acceptance and role ambiguity.
However, Bray and Brawley (2002) cautioned that a more comprehensive
examination of role acceptance is required in order to accurately assess the
concept. Thus, the veracity of the findings pertaining to the potential correlates
of role acceptance must be considered, as the conceptualization of role
acceptance remains underdeveloped.
Aside from the previously highlighted attempts to measure role
acceptance, other researchers have included role acceptance in their qualitative
investigations of sport teams. Holt and Sparkes (2001) carried out an in-depth
ethnographic study investigating group cohesion over the course of an
intercollegiate soccer season. The researchers noted that the acceptance of
roles within the team under study appeared to coincide with the development
of cohesion over the course of the season. In addition, they suggested that
athletes were more likely to accept a role when it was clearly understood and
was perceived as being important to team success (Holt and Sparkes, 2001).
Mellalieu and Juniper (2006) also incorporated role acceptance in their
examination of the role episode in intercollegiate soccer players. Although the
primary focus of their investigation was the transmission of role
responsibilities, several themes emerged regarding the concept of role
acceptance. For example, assigned roles were more likely to be accepted when
they were perceived as effective, having personal importance, and viewed as
instrumental to team success by others in the group. In addition, athletes’
perceptions of their coach emerged as an important component in the role
acceptance process. Role acceptance was enhanced when a coach was
perceived as a competent and credible authority figure, and utilized a favorable
leadership style. It is worthwhile to note that both of the aforementioned
qualitative investigations suggested that role acceptance was related to positive
group processes as well as individual performance. These findings highlight
that although role acceptance is an individual role perception, the process of
accepting a role within a sport team is closely related to perceptions of
leadership as well as the group environment.
The available literature on role acceptance in sport reveals several
conceptual issues that have yet to be addressed within a focused investigation.
As a starting point, Eys et al. (2007) drew attention to the need to differentiate
role acceptance from related role concepts for theoretical as well as practical
Role Perceptions in Sport
9
purposes. For example, they emphasized that role acceptance refers to a
cognitive aspect of an individual’s role, which is conceptually different than
affective components (i.e., role satisfaction).
This distinction acknowledges that there are instances when athletes come
to accept a role despite being unhappy with it. In addition, a situation may
arise when an athlete wants to fulfill his or her responsibilities but lacks the
appropriate skill-set required to do so. As such, it is important to differentiate
an athlete’s willingness to perform role responsibilities (i.e., an issue of
acceptance) from the subsequent behavioural outcomes (i.e., an issue of
performance; Eys et al., 2006).
Given the potential implications of role acceptance in relation to team
success, it is surprising that the concept has only been included as a peripheral
component in research investigations.
Many of the aforementioned investigations have proceeded without
providing a concrete definition as to what role acceptance encompasses.
Moving forward it is crucial to establish a sound conceptual basis for role
acceptance. Researchers often move from descriptive to explanatory findings.
However, initial empirical examinations of role acceptance have proceeded
without garnering descriptive insights in order to clarify what constitutes role
acceptance in sport.
Although there are likely idiosyncrasies across different sport types
pertaining to role acceptance, it is sensible to first obtain a general
understanding of the concept as it applies to interdependent sport teams. If
these conceptual issues are addressed, then examining role acceptance can
provide valuable insights regarding complex inter-role relationships. For
instance, researchers have demonstrated links between role ambiguity and role
performance (Beauchamp et al., 2002).
However, there is still a great deal of potential variance in whether an
athlete will choose to accept a role even when it is clearly defined for them.
Understanding to what extent athletes accept their roles in relation to the
availability of information regarding role responsibilities may help to further
explain the relationship between role ambiguity and role performance.
Although our current knowledge base concerning how athletes come to accept
a role is in a stage of relative infancy, the preliminary investigations have
suggested that understanding this process will have practical as well as
theoretical implications from a group dynamics perspective.
10
Alex J. Benson, Mark W. Surya and Mark A. Eys
INFORMAL ROLES IN SPORT
The final area of discussion highlights the development and influence of
informal roles within sport teams. As previously mentioned, role related
research has predominantly focused on formally assigned role responsibilities
within groups. However, the development and presence of informal roles are
posited to be a fundamental aspect of interdependent groups that can influence
individual as well as group level outcomes. Informal roles arise from
expectations that develop and evolve as a result of interactions that take place
among group members over a period of time (Mabry and Barnes, 1980). This
description was borne out of the organizational literature from Mabry and
Barnes’s (1980) contention that the formation of roles within a group setting is
not merely dependent on the explicit communication of role responsibilities
between group members, and that the implicit formation of expectations
through experience is an essential component of the role-making process.
Given the nature of how these roles arise over time, researchers have
generally examined the presence of informal roles couched within models of
group development (Bales and Cohen, 1979; Farrell, Heinemann, and Schmitt,
1986). Researchers have suggested that informal roles can influence the
achievement of task-oriented objectives as well as the development of social
relationships within the group. For example, Farrell, Schmitt, and Heinemann
(2001) identified several informal roles within interdisciplinary health groups
that functioned to serve task-oriented purposes (e.g., superman/wonderwoman)
as well as social-oriented purposes (e.g., clown). Additional examinations
from the organizational sector clarified that informal roles serve two broad
functions with respect to the formal structure present within a group; they can
either (a) complement the existing formal structure, thereby positively
influencing group functioning; or conversely, (b) provide resistance to the
formal structure, thereby interfering with group productivity (Hare, 1994).
Eys et al. (2006) emphasized the potential importance of informal roles
within sport groups given the implications found within the organizational
literature. Subsequently, the first dedicated investigation in sport arose from a
descriptive study aimed at identifying the various informal roles present within
popular North American sport teams (Cope, Eys, Beauchamp, Schinke, and
Bosselut, 2011). Utilizing a content analysis of Sports Illustrated magazine
over a two year period, the researchers identified ten informal roles (i.e.,
comedian, spark plug, cancer, distracter, enforcer, mentor, informal leadernonverbal, informal leader-verbal, team player, and the star player), with an
additional two included based on suggestions from a group dynamics expert
Role Perceptions in Sport
11
(i.e., social convener and malingerer). The authors noted the apparent
similarities between some of the informal roles within a sport environment and
those found within the workplace. However, they further explained that some
informal roles are unique to the sport environment given the contextual and
environmental factors that are present. In addition, Cope et al. (2011)
conveyed that these roles were discussed in relation to both individual and
group level issues (i.e., task cohesion, social cohesion, personality,
performance, satisfaction). The finding draws attention to the fact that certain
informal roles may take on a heightened importance depending on the
situation at hand.
As an extension of the previous investigation, Cope, Eys, Schinke, and
Bosselut (2010) examined the presence of a “team cancer” in order to gain a
better understanding of how a negative informal role might impact the group
environment. Evidently, the coaches interviewed discussed several
ramifications such a role had within their respective teams. For example, some
of the more notable consequences included a negative impact on team
cohesion, distraction to others within the group, an increase in general
negativity across the group, and a decline in group performance.
While informal roles can provide resistance to the formal group structure
(e.g., team cancer), they can also serve to supplement and aid group
functioning. One example of a positive informal role is the peer leader. Cope
et al. (2011) noted that a number of informal roles generated in their content
analysis had leadership implications (e.g., mentor, informal leader–nonverbal,
informal leader-verbal, social convener). This supports previous research by
Loughead, Hardy, and Eys (2006), who found that peer leadership within sport
teams was typically of an informal nature. Moreover, informal leaders can
significantly influence the group, even when formal leaders are present
(Wheelan and Johnston, 1996). Previous research found that informal leaders
can influence a group’s goal setting and decision-making processes
(Pescosolido, 2001), which may explain in part the positive effects of informal
leaders.
However, the number of individuals occupying various informal roles and
the consistency with which members of a group view role occupancy can vary
widely, which could be a potential cause for confusion. One suggestion made
by Cope et al. (2011) is to give greater consideration toward the formalization
of important informal roles to avoid conflicting expectations for role
responsibilities within a group. For example, considering the importance of
informal leaders, seeking out individuals who can fulfill these important roles
would be beneficial to overall team functioning. In contrast, considering the
12
Alex J. Benson, Mark W. Surya and Mark A. Eys
potential consequences associated with negative informal roles, identifying
and addressing these roles may help coaches promote positive change and
reinforce desired behaviors.
With the relative paucity of research concerning informal roles in sport,
three general suggestions for future research are offered. The first general
suggestion is to establish an underlying theoretical framework from which
informal roles in sport can be examined. In a study examining coaches’
perspectives of the team cancer within sport teams, Cope et al. (2010) found
that coaches perceived the informal role of team cancer to be initiated by the
focal person (i.e., the athlete). That is, the first event in the creation of the
informal role was that an athlete exhibited behaviors associated with the
informal role, which clearly differs from the traditional role episode model in
which the role sender (i.e., coach) develops expectations within the first event.
Establishing an ‘informal’ role episode model would be an important first step
to understanding the emergence of these types of roles within sport teams.
The second suggestion for future research is to individually examine the
informal roles identified by Cope et al. (2011) in more depth. Informal roles
are not limited to those identified, but they can serve as a starting point for
future research. Moreover, closer examination of these roles may garner
valuable insight into the impact that they have on individual and group level
variables (e.g., how does a team mentor influence group cohesion?). Lastly,
future researchers need to be conscientious of the interplay between formal
role responsibilities and informal behavioral expectations. For example, one
role that may encompass both informal and formal aspects is the role of an
enforcer in hockey. It is likely that some athletes may take on the role of the
enforcer as a result of personality characteristics and a penchant for contact.
However, other athletes may be thrust into this role by coaches or teammates
in light of their physical attributes. Understanding how such a role emerges is
important when one considers the mental and physical toll associated with its
concomitant expectations (i.e., fighting on a regular basis). From a more
general perspective, the development of informal roles may influence athletes’
perceptions of their formally assigned role responsibilities. For instance,
linking back to the previous discussion of role satisfaction, an athlete
displeased with his or her formally prescribed role may attempt to counter
these feelings by taking on a more desirable informal role within the group. A
similar case for role acceptance can be made, as athletes’ abilities to find
meaningful informal roles within a group may serve to enhance the acceptance
of formally assigned roles that are not perceived in the same favorable light.
Role Perceptions in Sport
13
CONCLUSION
The general purpose of the present chapter was to highlight role concepts
that have only recently received research attention within the context of sport.
To that end, relevant literature in both organizational and sport psychology
pertaining to role satisfaction, role acceptance, and informal role involvement
was summarized and future research directions were suggested. Overall,
greater understanding and refinement with respect to the development,
transmission, and reception of role information should aid in creating a solid
foundation from which sport groups can operate.
REFERENCES
Bales, R. F., and Cohen, S. P. (1979). SYMLOG: A system for the multiple
level observation of groups. New York: NY: Free Press.
Bales, R. F., and Slater, P. E. (1955). Role differentiation in small decision
making groups. In T. Parsons and R. F. Bales (Eds), Family socialization
and interaction process (pp. 259-306). Glencoe, IL.: The Free Press.
Beauchamp, M. R., and Bray, S. R. (2001). Role ambiguity and role conflict
within interdependent teams. Small Group Research, 32, 133-157.
Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., and Carron, A. V. (2002). Role
ambiguity, role efficacy, and role performance: Multidimensional and
mediational relationships within interdependent sport teams. Group
Dynamics, 6, 229-242.
Benne, K. D., and Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members.
Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41-49.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York, NY:
Academic Press Inc.
Biddle, B. J., and Thomas, E. J. (1966). Role theory: Concepts and research.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Bradley, B. (1977, October 31). You can’t buy heart. Sports Illustrated.
Retrieved from: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine
/MAG1092971/index.htm
Bray, S.R. (1998). Role efficacy within interdependent teams: Measurement
development and test of theory. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
14
Alex J. Benson, Mark W. Surya and Mark A. Eys
Carron, A. V., and Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Chelladurai, P., and Kuga, D.J. (1996). Teaching and coaching: Group and
task differences. Quest, 48, 470-485.
Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., Schinke, R. J., and Bosselut, G.
(2011). Informal roles on sport teams. International Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 9, 19-30.
Cope, C. J., Eys, M. A., Schinke, R. J., and Bosselut, G. (2010). Coaches'
perspectives of a negative informal role: The ‘Cancer’ within sport teams.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 420-436.
Eys, M. A., Beauchamp, M. R., and Bray, S. R. (2006). A review of team roles
in sport. In S. Hanton and S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in
sport psychology (pp. 227-256). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science
Publishers, Inc.
Eys, M. A., and Carron, A. V. (2001). Role ambiguity, task cohesion, and task
self-efficacy. Small Group Research, 32, 356-373.
Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., and Beauchamp, M. R. (2005). The
relationship between role ambiguity and intention to return. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 255-261.
Eys, M. A., Schinke, R. J., and Jeffery, S. (2007). Role perceptions in sport
groups. In M. Beauchamp, and M. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics advances
in sport and exercise psychology: Contemporary themes (pp. 99-116).
Oxford: Routledge.
Farrell, M. P., Heinemann, G. D., Schmitt, M. H. (1986). Informal roles,
rituals and style of humor in interdisciplinary teams: Their relation to
stages of team development. International Journal of Small Group
Research, 2, 143-162.
Farrell, M. P., Schmitt, M. H., and Heinemann, G. D. (2001). Informal roles
and the stages of interdisciplinary team development. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 15, 281-295.
Grand, R. R., and Carron, A. V. (1982). Development of a team climate
questionnaire. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Canadian
Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology, Edmonton,
Alberta (pp. 217-229).
Hackman, J.R., and Oldham, G.R. (1980). Motivation through the design of
work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hare, A. (1994). Types of roles in small groups. Small Group Research, 25,
433-448.
Role Perceptions in Sport
15
Holt, N. L., and Sparkes, A. C. (2001). An ethnographic study of cohesiveness
in a college soccer team over a season. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 237259.
Jones, H. R. (2006). The relationships among role involvement, team cohesion,
and athlete satisfaction (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of North
Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., and Rosenthal, R. A.
(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New
York: Wiley.
Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd
ed. ). New York: Wiley.
Likert, R.L. (1961). The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Loughead, T. M., Hardy, J., and Eys, M. A. (2006). The nature of athlete
leadership. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 142-158.
Mabry, E. A., and Barnes, R. E. (1980). The dynamics of small group
communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McGuire, W. J., (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G.
Lindzey, and E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 3, pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Mellalieu, S. D., and Juniper, S. W. (2006). A qualitative investigation into
experiences of the role episode in soccer. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 399418.
Pescosolido, A.T. (2001). Informal leaders and the development of group
efficacy. Small Group Research, 32, 74-93.
Rail, G. (1987). Perceived role characteristics and executive satisfaction in
voluntary sport associations. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 376-384.
Saal, F.E., and Knight, P.A. (1995). Industrial/organizational psychology:
Science and practice. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole Publication
Co.
Saari, L.M., and Judge, T.A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction.
Human Resource Management, 43, 395-407.
Surya, M., Benson, A. J., Eys, M. A., and Bray, S. R. (2011, October). Role
satisfaction: A proposed conceptualization for sport. Poster presented to
the Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology
Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
16
Alex J. Benson, Mark W. Surya and Mark A. Eys
Wheelan, S.A., and Johnston, F. (1996). The role of informal member leaders
in a system containing formal leaders. Small Group Research, 27, 33-55.
KD

Download Report