Notes · Physical EducationUK · A-Levels

Group and Team Dynamics, Goal Setting and Attribution

This chapter examines the psychology of the group and the factors that shape confidence and persistence. It covers group formation and cohesion (including Steiner's model and social loafing), the theories and styles of leadership, the setting of effective goals, Weiner's attribution theory and its links to learned helplessness, and the self-efficacy and sport-confidence models - applying each to the optimisation of individual and team performance.

5 sections~18 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 2 · Advanced 2

T·101010 / 17

Exam profile

AO1 · Describe group dynamics, leadership, goal setting, attribution, self-efficacy and confidenceAO2 · Apply the named models to teams, leaders and performersAO3 · Analyse and evaluate the models and their implications for optimising performance

Operators:describeexplainapplyanalyseevaluatejustify

basic level

AS-Level requires the basics of group cohesion, leadership styles and goal setting.

higher level

The full A-Level requires Steiner's and Chelladurai's models, Weiner's attribution theory, attribution retraining and the self-efficacy and confidence models.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

Group and Team Dynamics, Goal Setting and Attribution

Group dynamics and cohesion#

StandardAQA 7582 3.2.4.2DfE GCE PE - group and team dynamics

Steiner's model of group productivity

Fig. 1A group's actual productivity is its potential productivity reduced by faulty processes - coordination losses and motivation losses (including social loafing).

A group is more than a collection of individuals: a sports team is a group because its members interact, share a common goal and see themselves as a unit. Groups form and develop over time, and Tuckman described four stages - forming (members come together and get to know one another), storming (conflict and competition as roles are contested), norming (cooperation develops and standards and roles settle) and performing (the group works effectively towards its shared goal). A coach who understands these stages can support a new team through the early conflict towards effective performance.

Cohesion is the tendency of a group to stick together and stay united in pursuit of its goals, and Carron identified two kinds. Task cohesion is the degree to which members work together to achieve a shared goal (a defence coordinating to keep a clean sheet); social cohesion is the degree to which members like one another and enjoy each other's company. The two are related but distinct: strong task cohesion is generally the more important for performance, and teams can succeed with high task cohesion even when social cohesion is modest, though good social relations often support task unity.

Steiner's model explains why a talented team may still under-perform. It states that actual productivity equals the potential productivity (the sum of the individual abilities and resources) minus the losses due to faulty group processes. These faulty processes are of two kinds: coordination losses, where members fail to work together effectively (poor timing, tactics or communication), and motivation losses, where members do not give full effort. A team is therefore never simply the sum of its parts - how well it coordinates and how motivated its members are determine how much of its potential it realises.

A key motivation loss is social loafing, the tendency of individuals to reduce their effort when working in a group because they feel their individual contribution is not identified or valued - a phenomenon related to the Ringelmann effect, in which average individual effort falls as group size increases. Social loafing is more likely when a player believes their effort is not being noticed, when others are seen to be loafing, or when they lack confidence. The practical response, and the applied task in the examination, is to reduce these losses: identify and reward individual contributions, set individual as well as team goals, develop cohesion and roles, and hold players accountable - so that more of the team's potential is realised.

Worked example

Diagnosing under-performance with Steiner

A relay team of four fast sprinters is beaten by a slower-looking team. Use Steiner's model to explain the result and suggest two improvements.

Identify the potential
The four fast sprinters give the team a high potential productivity - on paper they should win.
Coordination losses
Relay success depends on baton changes; poor timing and technique at the handovers are coordination losses that waste the potential.
Motivation losses
If a runner eases off believing their leg is not decisive, that is a motivation loss (social loafing).
Improvements
Practise the handovers intensively to cut coordination losses, and set individual split-time targets and accountability to reduce motivation losses.

Result: The team lost potential through coordination losses at the handovers and possible motivation losses; drilling changeovers and setting individual targets would recover the potential.

Typical mistakes

Confusing task cohesion (working together for a goal) with social cohesion (liking each other).
Stating Steiner's model without the faulty processes - it is potential productivity minus coordination and motivation losses.

Active revision

A talented squad consistently under-performs. Use Steiner's model to explain why, and suggest strategies to reduce social loafing.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for physical education (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Physical Education 7582 specification (AQA)

Leadership#

StandardAQA 7582 3.2.4.2DfE GCE PE - leadership

Chelladurai's multi-dimensional model of leadership

Fig. 2Performance and satisfaction are highest when the leader's actual behaviour matches both the required behaviour (situation) and the preferred behaviour (members).

A leader is someone who influences a group towards achieving its goals, and leaders emerge in two ways: a prescribed leader is appointed from outside the group (a club appointing a manager), while an emergent leader arises from within the group by consent (a player who becomes captain through the respect of team-mates). Theories of how someone becomes a leader mirror the personality debate. The trait ('great man') theory holds that leaders are born with innate leadership qualities; the social-learning theory holds that leadership is learned by observing and imitating other leaders; and the interactionist theory - the most accepted - holds that leadership depends on the interaction of the person's characteristics with the situation.

Leaders also adopt different styles. An autocratic (task-oriented) leader makes the decisions and dictates what is done; it is efficient and effective when quick decisions are needed, with large or hostile groups, with beginners who need clear direction, or in dangerous situations. A democratic (person-oriented) leader shares decision-making and consults the group; it suits smaller groups, more advanced performers and situations where cohesion and motivation matter. A laissez-faire leader stands back and lets the group make its own decisions; it can work with highly skilled, motivated experts but risks a lack of direction. Skilled leaders vary their style to suit the situation and the group.

Chelladurai's multi-dimensional model brings these ideas together to predict effective leadership. It proposes that the outcomes - the group's performance and satisfaction - are best when three types of leader behaviour match: the required behaviour (what the situation demands), the preferred behaviour (what the group members want) and the actual behaviour (what the leader does). These behaviours are shaped by three antecedents: the characteristics of the situation, of the leader and of the members. The closer the alignment of required, preferred and actual behaviour, the better the performance and the greater the satisfaction.

The model is evaluated as realistic and useful because it is interactionist - it recognises that no single style is always best and that effective leadership depends on matching behaviour to the situation and the group. Its practical value is direct: a leader should read the situation (the required behaviour) and the group's wishes (the preferred behaviour) and adapt their own behaviour to fit both, using an autocratic style when quick, clear direction is needed and a democratic style when consultation will build motivation and cohesion. Applying the leadership theories and Chelladurai's model to recommend and justify a style for a named situation is the standard task here.

Worked example

Choosing a leadership style

Using Chelladurai's model, advise on the leadership style for a coach taking a beginners' climbing session on an exposed crag, and for a coach running a session with an elite, self-motivated squad.

Beginners on a crag
The situation is dangerous and the members are beginners, so the required behaviour is clear, directive control; the preferred behaviour of anxious beginners is also strong direction, so an autocratic style matches both and maximises safety.
Elite squad
The situation is safe and the members are experienced and motivated, so the required behaviour is consultative and the preferred behaviour is involvement in decisions; a democratic (or at times laissez-faire) style matches both and builds motivation.
The principle
In each case the coach matches actual behaviour to the required and preferred behaviour, as the model predicts, to maximise performance and satisfaction.

Result: Autocratic for the beginners in danger and democratic for the elite squad - each matches the required and preferred behaviour, as Chelladurai's model recommends.

Typical mistakes

Claiming one leadership style is always best - the appropriate style depends on the situation and the group.
Describing Chelladurai's model without the match between required, preferred and actual behaviour that drives the outcomes.

Active revision

Recommend and justify a leadership style for (a) a lifeguard directing swimmers in an emergency and (b) a captain of an experienced, cohesive squad, using Chelladurai's model.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for physical education (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Physical Education 7582 specification (AQA)

Goal setting#

FoundationAQA 7582 3.2.4.2DfE GCE PE - goal setting

Types of goal and the SMART principles

Fig. 3Goals may be outcome, performance or process goals, and effective goals follow the SMART(ER) principles.

Goal setting is a powerful psychological tool because clear goals direct attention, mobilise effort, encourage persistence and provide a standard against which to measure progress - all of which raise motivation and confidence. Goals come in three types. Outcome goals concern the end result relative to others (winning the match, finishing first); performance goals concern the performer's own standard relative to their previous performances (beating their personal best time); and process goals concern the technique or actions needed (keeping the elbow high in a throw).

The relationship between the types matters. Outcome goals can be motivating but are risky because they depend on the opponent and are outside the performer's control, so failing to achieve them - even after a good performance - can damage confidence and raise anxiety. Performance and process goals are within the performer's control and focus attention on improvement and technique, so they tend to sustain motivation and confidence better, especially under pressure and for beginners. A balanced programme uses process and performance goals to underpin a longer-term outcome goal.

For goals to be effective they should follow the SMART principles: Specific (clear and precise, not vague), Measurable (so progress can be judged), Achievable (within reach), Realistic (challenging but attainable given the resources) and Time-bound (with a deadline). The extended version, SMARTER, adds Evaluated (reviewed against evidence) and Re-adjusted (revised in the light of progress). A goal such as 'get fitter' is poor because it is neither specific nor measurable; 'reduce my 5 km time by 30 seconds within eight weeks' is a SMART goal.

The evaluative point is that goal setting works only if the goals are well constructed and are of the right type for the situation. Well-set SMART goals raise motivation, effort and confidence and reduce anxiety by giving the performer a controllable focus; poorly set goals (vague, unachievable or purely outcome-based) can demotivate and increase anxiety. The applied task is to write appropriate SMART goals for a named performer and to justify the use of process and performance goals - rather than only outcome goals - to protect confidence and sustain motivation, especially under pressure.

Worked example

Rewriting a goal as SMART

A footballer sets the goal 'become a better player this season'. Explain why it is ineffective and rewrite it as a SMART performance/process goal.

Diagnose the weakness
'Become a better player' is vague (not specific), cannot be measured, has no deadline and is an unclear outcome - so progress cannot be judged and it gives no clear focus.
Make it specific and measurable
Choose a controllable, measurable target, e.g. completing a set percentage of passes or a number of successful tackles per game.
Add the remaining SMART elements
Make it achievable and realistic given the player's level, and set a time frame - for example, 'increase my pass-completion rate from 75% to 82% by the end of the first half of the season.'

Result: A SMART goal such as 'raise my pass-completion rate from 75% to 82% by the mid-season break' replaces the vague original with a specific, measurable, time-bound, controllable target.

Typical mistakes

Relying only on outcome goals - they depend on the opponent and can damage confidence even after a good performance.
Writing vague goals ('do better') that are not specific, measurable or time-bound.

Active revision

A swimmer's only goal is 'to win the county championship'. Explain the weakness of this goal and rewrite it as a set of SMART performance and process goals.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for physical education (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Physical Education 7582 specification (AQA)

Attribution theory#

AdvancedAQA 7582 3.2.4.2DfE GCE PE - attribution

Weiner's attribution model

Fig. 4The four classic attributions arise from combining the locus of causality (internal/external) with the stability dimension (stable/unstable).

Attribution is the process of assigning reasons or causes to an outcome - why a performer thinks they won or lost - and it matters because the reasons a performer gives strongly affect their future motivation, confidence and persistence. Weiner's model organises the possible attributions along two main dimensions. The locus of causality asks whether the cause is internal (within the performer, such as their ability or effort) or external (in the environment, such as the opponent or luck). The stability dimension asks whether the cause is stable (permanent, unlikely to change, such as ability or task difficulty) or unstable (temporary, changeable, such as effort or luck).

Combining the two dimensions gives four classic attributions: ability (internal and stable), effort (internal and unstable), task difficulty (external and stable) and luck (external and unstable). A third dimension, controllability, distinguishes causes the performer can control (effort) from those they cannot (luck, an opponent's brilliance). Where a performer places the cause of their result on these dimensions shapes how they feel and what they expect next time.

The pattern of attributions determines motivation. Successful performers, and those a coach wishes to keep motivated, should attribute success to internal, stable, controllable factors ('I won because of my ability and hard training'), which builds pride and the expectation of future success. Failure is best attributed to internal but unstable and controllable factors ('I lost because I did not train hard enough this time'), because effort can be changed, so the performer expects to do better next time. The self-serving bias - attributing success internally and failure externally - is common and can protect confidence, but attributing failure only to external, uncontrollable causes ('the referee cheated') removes the incentive to improve.

The danger is learned helplessness: the belief, built up from repeated failure, that failure is inevitable and beyond one's control, usually because the performer attributes their failures to internal, stable, uncontrollable causes ('I'm just no good at this'). This destroys motivation and leads the performer to give up. The remedy is attribution retraining - deliberately changing a performer's attributions so that they attribute failure to unstable, controllable factors, especially a lack of effort or the wrong strategy, which can be changed, restoring the expectation of success. Diagnosing a performer's attributions and using attribution retraining to protect or restore motivation is exactly the applied skill assessed here.

Worked example

Attribution retraining

A tennis player who has lost several matches attributes the losses to a lack of ability ('I'm just not good enough'). Explain the danger and outline how to retrain their attributions.

Classify the attribution
'Lack of ability' is internal, stable and uncontrollable on Weiner's model.
Identify the danger
Attributing repeated failure to a stable, uncontrollable cause leads to learned helplessness - the player expects to fail whatever they do and loses motivation.
Retrain the attribution
Reattribute the losses to unstable, controllable causes - insufficient or misdirected effort and the wrong tactics - which can be changed.
Rebuild expectancy
Set controllable process goals and reinforce improvements so the player attributes future success to their own effort and strategy, restoring motivation and confidence.

Result: Attributing failure to stable, uncontrollable ability risks learned helplessness; retraining the player to attribute it to controllable effort and tactics, backed by process goals, restores motivation.

Typical mistakes

Confusing the locus of causality (internal/external) with the stability dimension (stable/unstable).
Advising a performer to attribute failure to a stable, uncontrollable cause (ability) - this causes learned helplessness; failure should be attributed to unstable, controllable effort.

Active revision

A young athlete who keeps losing says 'I'm just not talented enough'. Explain the risk of this attribution using Weiner's model and describe how attribution retraining could help.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for physical education (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Physical Education 7582 specification (AQA)

Self-efficacy and confidence#

AdvancedAQA 7582 3.2.4.2DfE GCE PE - self-efficacy and confidence

Bandura's sources of self-efficacy

Fig. 5Self-efficacy is built from four sources - performance accomplishments (the strongest), vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and emotional/physiological arousal - which raise effort and persistence.

Confidence is central to performance, and sport psychology distinguishes general self-confidence from self-efficacy, which is the belief in one's ability to succeed at a specific task in a specific situation (a footballer's confidence in taking this particular penalty). High self-efficacy raises effort, persistence and the willingness to take on challenges, and it tends to become self-fulfilling because a confident performer is more likely to succeed, which in turn raises confidence further.

Bandura's self-efficacy theory identifies four sources from which a performer's self-efficacy is built. Performance accomplishments - the performer's own past successes at the task - are the most powerful source, because nothing builds belief like having done it before. Vicarious experience - watching others of similar ability succeed - builds efficacy through the sense that 'if they can, I can'. Verbal persuasion - encouragement and reassurance from a credible coach, team-mates or crowd - can raise efficacy, especially when it is genuine and well-timed. Emotional and physiological arousal - how the performer interprets their bodily state - affects efficacy: reading a racing heart as excitement and readiness raises efficacy, whereas reading it as fear lowers it.

Vealey's model of sport confidence adds that confidence is both a relatively stable trait (a performer's general disposition to be confident) and a state that varies with the situation, and that these, together with the competitive orientation of the performer, interact to produce the confidence brought to a given performance, which in turn affects the outcome and then feeds back to shape future confidence. This captures the way confidence both influences and is influenced by performance in a continuous loop.

The practical value of these models is that they tell a coach exactly how to build a performer's confidence, and this is the applied task. To raise self-efficacy a coach should engineer early success and remind the performer of past accomplishments (performance accomplishments), use demonstrations by similar performers (vicarious experience), give sincere, credible encouragement (verbal persuasion) and help the performer reinterpret their nerves as readiness (control of arousal). Because performance accomplishments are the strongest source, structuring practice and competition so that the performer succeeds - and attributes that success internally (linking to attribution theory) - is the single most effective way to build lasting confidence.

Worked example

Rebuilding a gymnast's self-efficacy

After a fall, a gymnast is afraid of a particular vault. Recommend four evidence-based strategies to rebuild their self-efficacy, using Bandura's sources.

Performance accomplishments
Break the vault into stages and engineer repeated success on easier progressions (using support and mats), so the gymnast experiences doing it well - the strongest source of efficacy.
Vicarious experience
Have the gymnast watch a similar-ability team-mate perform the vault successfully, building the belief 'if they can, I can'.
Verbal persuasion
Provide sincere, specific encouragement from a credible coach at the right moments.
Control of arousal
Teach the gymnast to interpret their pre-vault nerves as readiness rather than fear, and use relaxation to keep arousal at an optimal level.

Result: Staged success (performance accomplishments), a similar model (vicarious experience), credible encouragement (verbal persuasion) and reinterpreting arousal together rebuild the gymnast's self-efficacy.

Typical mistakes

Treating self-efficacy as identical to general confidence - self-efficacy is task- and situation-specific.
Listing Bandura's sources without applying them or without noting that performance accomplishments are the most powerful.

Active revision

A gymnast has lost confidence in a particular vault after a fall. Using Bandura's self-efficacy theory, recommend four strategies to rebuild their confidence.

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for physical education (Department for Education) · AQA A-level Physical Education 7582 specification (AQA)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for physical education

AQA

AQA A-level Physical Education 7582 specification

Group and Team Dynamics, Goal Setting and Attribution

5 sections~18 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 2 · Advanced 2

Group and Team Dynamics, Goal Setting and Attribution

Key points

Diagnosing under-performance with Steiner

Key points

Choosing a leadership style

Key points

Rewriting a goal as SMART

Key points

Attribution retraining

Key points

Rebuilding a gymnast's self-efficacy

Sources

Group and Team Dynamics, Goal Setting and Attribution

Key points

Diagnosing under-performance with Steiner

Key points

Choosing a leadership style

Key points

Rewriting a goal as SMART

Key points

Attribution retraining

Key points

Rebuilding a gymnast's self-efficacy

Sources