Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 3:159–170, 2012
Copyright © Association for Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 2152-0704 print / 2152-0712 online
DOI: 10.1080/21520704.2011.653047

ARTICLES

Team Building in Sport: Linking Theory

and Research to Practical Application

KYLE F. PARADIS and LUC J. MARTIN

School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, London,

Ontario, Canada

This article provides a general overview and presents various effec-
tive methods for developing and implementing team building pro-
grams based on different desired outcomes in sport. Specifically, a
background on team building is provided, followed by the presenta-
tion of different outcomes and benefits found in previous successful
team building programs. A team building conceptual model (Car-
ron & Spink, 1993) and a four-stage approach (Carron & Spink,
1993) are described. In addition, implementation and effectiveness
of various interventions are discussed based on the recommenda-
tions from a number of researchers (e.g., Eys, Patterson, Loughead,
& Carron, 2006). Finally, implications for practice are discussed.

A number of researchers have highlighted team building as an important ex-
ercise used to enhance the functioning of a group (e.g., Beer, 1980; Martin,
Carron, & Burke, 2009). Due to its importance, team building programs have
been widely utilized across a number of different disciplines including busi-
ness and industry (e.g., Buller & Bell, 1986), the military (e.g., Eden, 1986),
exercise classes (e.g., Estabrooks & Carron, 1999; Spink & Carron, 1993),
and sport teams (e.g., Voight & Callaghan, 2001). In the sport setting, team
building programs have been employed extensively for the improvement of
group processes such as cohesion (e.g., Stevens & Bloom, 2003), role un-
derstanding (e.g., Prapavessis, Carron, & Spink, 1996), communication (e.g.,
Newin, Bloom, & Loughead, 2008), leadership (e.g., Smith & Smoll, 1997),
satisfaction (e.g., Carron & Spink, 1993), and performance (e.g., Burton,

The authors would like to thank Dr. Albert Carron for his insights on this manuscript.
Address correspondence to Kyle F. Paradis, Rm. 2230 3M Centre, School of Kinesiology,

Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Road, London,
ON, Canada N6A3K7. E-mail: [e-mail]

159

160

K. F. Paradis and L. J. Martin

1989). Increasing confidence and reducing anxiety have also been objec-
tives for certain programs (e.g., Cogan & Petrie, 1995). Historically, team
building interventions have been popular due to the anecdotal accounts of
improvements in the aforementioned outcomes. Unfortunately, their effec-
tiveness has varied (e.g., Bloom & Stevens, 2002; Prapavessis et al., 1996).
Due to mixed research findings, a meta-analysis was conducted to deter-
mine the overall effectiveness of team building interventions in sport (Martin
et al., 2009). A total of 17 studies containing 180 effect sizes were included
in the analysis. From this review, team building was found to have signif-
icant (p

< .05) small to moderate positive effects on cohesion (task and

social), performance, roles (i.e., clarity, acceptance, and satisfaction), and
athlete cognitions (i.e., athlete satisfaction and self-confidence). In addition,
team goal setting interventions were found to be the most effective type of
team building activity. Finally, the longer the duration of the team building
program, the greater its effectiveness. A summary of the literature is an ideal
body of work to draw upon for practical application; therefore, based on
previous research and the results from the Martin et al. (2009) meta-analysis,
the following discussion offers recommendations and examples for imple-
menting effective team building interventions in sport.

TEAM BUILDING: WHAT IT MEANS AND HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT

Team building activities are the most common and effective method for de-
veloping group functioning in a sport team (Yukelson, 1997). Brawley and
Paskevich (1997) defined team building as “a method of helping the group
to (a) increase its effectiveness, (b) satisfy the needs of its members, and
(c) improve work conditions” (p. 13). In the sport setting however, coaches
have found team building techniques rather difficult to implement effectively
(Yukelson, 1997). A possible reason for this difficulty could relate to indeci-
sion or confidence in the implementation process. Programs can be delivered
by either a direct (e.g., Yukelson, 1997) or an indirect method (e.g., Carron,
Spink, & Prapavessis, 1997). A direct method involves the sport psychology
consultant working directly with the athletes, whereas an indirect method
involves the sport psychology consultant working solely with the coach, who
then implements the intervention. Research has demonstrated that both pro-
tocols are equally effective (Martin et al., 2009); therefore, coaches should
use the method with which they feel most comfortable.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF TEAM BUILDING IN SPORT

Lewin (1951) commented on the importance of cooperation between theo-
retical and applied psychology. He suggested that applied problems should

Team Building in Sport

161

Inputs

Throughputs Outputs

Team Environment

Distinctiveness

Togetherness

Proximity

Team Processes

Interaction

Communication

Cooperation

Sacrifice

Team goals

Team Outcomes

Cohesion

Performance

Satisfaction

Collective Efficacy

Adherence

Team Structure

Role clarity

Role acceptance

Conformity to norms

Leadership

Team Positions

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model for team-building in sport (adapted from Carron & Spink, 1993;
Carron, Spink, & Prapavessis, 1997).

not be averted by theorists, nor should theory be disregarded by practi-
tioners. His famous quote, “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”
(p. 169) certainly resonates with the theme of this article—linking theory
and research to practical application. Based on extensive research, Carron
and Spink (1993) developed a conceptual framework for implementing a
team building program (see Figure 1). The model is linear in nature and is
comprised of inputs, throughputs, and outputs. Specifically, there are two
inputs in the model. One is Group Environment, which can refer to such fac-
tors as the group’s distinctiveness (e.g., wearing team attire to away games)
and togetherness (e.g., travelling together). Second is Group Structure, which
can include such factors as group roles (e.g., team captain, social convener)
and group norms (e.g., team practice standards). The throughputs in the
model are Group Processes. These refer to factors like the group’s goals and
objectives (e.g., make playoffs). Finally, the outputs are the desired Group
Outcomes from the proposed intervention (e.g., improved performance, ath-
lete satisfaction, team cohesion). Coaches undoubtedly use team building for
different reasons, thus, the output variables or desired outcomes will change
depending on the team’s needs.

FOUR PHASE APPROACH TO TEAM BUILDING

In addition to the conceptual framework, coaches and practitioners should
follow an established four-stage program advanced by Carron and Spink

162

K. F. Paradis and L. J. Martin

(1993). The following section provides an outline of these four stages (i.e.,
introductory, conceptual, practical, intervention).

Introductory Stage

The purpose of the first stage is to (a) introduce the team building pro-
gram to the coaches and/or athletes and (b) provide a background on the
effectiveness of and benefits resulting from team building interventions. This
stage is important because participants exhibit greater motivation and ad-
herence when they understand the rationale and benefits of the intervention
program (Spink, 1988). Therefore, when possible, coaches should involve
their athletes, and at the bare minimum, keep them informed throughout the
process.

Conceptual Stage

The second stage introduces the conceptual framework (Carron & Spink,
1993). For visual learners, a framework may improve the comprehension
of complex constructs and help to better understand the areas of focus for
the program (see Figure 1). It is important to take into account the research
and theories as foundations that are central to knowledge transfer through
practical application (Carron, 1993). A conceptual model also helps to make
the transition from theory to practice (Carron, 1984, 1993). More specifically,
athletes may not necessarily be interested in the theory behind the program,
but rather, how their team will benefit from its use. The extent of Carron
and Spink’s (1993) team building model is explained to the coaches and/or
athletes through facilitated communication. The specific areas of the model
that will be included in the intervention are highlighted and decided upon.

Practical Stage

In the third stage, coaches and/or athletes become active agents in develop-
ing strategies for the team building program based on the areas deemed most
important from the model at the conceptual stage. Allowing participants to
be active agents has shown to contribute to increased commitment (Loug-
head & Bloom, 2011). It is important to note that these first three phases can
usually be accomplished in one relatively brief session. However, due to the
dynamic nature of sport, changes to the aforementioned stages can/should
be made when appropriate throughout the season.

Intervention Stage

In the intervention stage, the specific program developed from the previous
three stages by a sport consultant, a coach, or the combination of the two is
implemented.

Team Building in Sport

163

PRACTICAL APPLICATION BASED ON THE CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Inputs

Depending on the desired outcomes, different areas should be targeted from
the conceptual model. In terms of the group structure, targeting group roles
by ensuring that everyone on the team understands and accepts their roles
and responsibilities would increase athlete satisfaction and performance. Eys,
Patterson, Loughead, and Carron (2006) have outlined various interventions
to work on athlete role understanding (role clarity). One way to do this is
through the “coach–athlete interview.” This is a process whereby (a) coaches
write down their beliefs relating to each athlete’s roles on the team and (b)
athletes write down their perceptions of their respective roles, followed by
a discussion.

Another way to help with role clarity is using “anonymous teammate

feedback.” Each teammate writes “In order for us to be successful, Player X
must do this . . . ” for each player on the team. The team should then meet
to share responses and determine their congruency in beliefs. Coaches can
also assess athlete role satisfaction and role acceptance. Some athletes may
accept their roles but not necessarily be satisfied. Although this may not be
ideal, it reflects a “team player” mentality (e.g., I accept my role to benefit
the team). Athletes who do not accept their roles and are not satisfied can
be detrimental to team functioning. Creative thinking is required on the part
of the coaches and athlete leaders to retain group harmony. It is critical for
the leaders to provide feedback, sell the team’s vision, and highlight the
importance of each member’s respective role (Eys, Schinke, & Jeffery, 2007).
The coach should also acknowledge that roles are not necessarily static and
can evolve throughout the season (Carron & Eys, 2012). Finally, the “hot
seat” is a useful exercise to promote role clarity and role acceptance. Each
athlete takes a turn to say what the athlete in the “hot seat” brings to the
team. This raises the level of recognition and appreciation for all players on
the team (e.g., unsung heroes). Similarly, the contributions from every team
member are highlighted.

Another useful exercise for improving group structure is the establish-

ment of team norms. Norms are unwritten rules or guidelines (e.g., being on
time, not missing practice). Carron (1981) suggested that the development
and acceptance of team norms contributes to team success for two reasons,
namely (a) athletes who accept team norms come together to ensure the
maintenance of the group, and (b) norms provide insight with regard to
team processes and offer standards against which individuals can evaluate
themselves and others. Discussing what are believed to be important “guide-
lines” for the team to follow and having the leaders set the standard will
create a precedence while providing the whole team with a sense of own-
ership. For a coach, help from the core athlete leadership group is essential.
Eys et al. (2006) proposed four steps in establishing team norms, namely
(a) create a sense of ownership, (b) clarify expectations with athlete leaders,

164

K. F. Paradis and L. J. Martin

(c) clarify expectations with all team members, and (d) implement sanctions
and rewards. Team members are held accountable to adhere to group norms
based on mutual expectations and social pressures from the group.

Munroe, Estabrooks, Dennis, and Carron (1999) carried out an analysis

of dominant norms that form within a sport team. They found that norms
formed in four contexts, namely (a) competition, (b) practice, (c) social sit-
uations, and (d) the off-season. In all four contexts, the most frequently
cited norms included, showing respect to teammates, providing support,
maintaining contact with teammates, having positive interactions, and atten-
dance. An interesting study conducted by Patterson, Carron, and Loughead
(2005) assessed the influence of team norms on the cohesion–performance
relationship (Carron, Coleman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). They found that
teams with stronger norms for social interactions perceived higher social
cohesion and reported better performance. Therefore, not only can norms
improve the social dynamics of a team, they can also improve performance.

Finally, in terms of group structure, fostering and developing effective

leadership practices can have positive implications for building an effective
team. This is not just limited to coaching leadership, but extends to athlete
leadership as well (e.g., captains, veterans). Smith and Smoll (1997) sug-
gested that leadership development can be fostered through the practices
of self-monitoring and behavioral feedback. Self-monitoring aims to increase
awareness of leadership behaviors that are exhibited in practices and games.
Coaches and athlete leaders engaging in self-monitoring should attempt to
record the different leader behaviors (e.g., positive feedback) in a log book
immediately following practices and games. Behavioral feedback is utilizing
team members (coaches and players) to provide feedback on the behaviors
displayed by the coaches and athlete leaders. This can also raise awareness of
the leadership that is being demonstrated and provide direction on the lead-
ership style needed. The importance of athlete leadership has been found in
previous research. For example, Paradis and Loughead (in press) found that
athlete leader behaviors (i.e., training and instruction, democratic behavior,
positive feedback, and social support) predicted higher perceptions of cohe-
sion (task and social) and higher athlete satisfaction in youth sport athletes.

In terms of group environment, targeting team distinctiveness can in-

crease the sense of belonging in athletes (Carron et al., 1997). Having unique
team apparel and accessories (e.g., identical team shirts, socks, wristbands,
etc.) or a team motto (e.g., “as a team we win, as individuals we lose”) will in-
crease the sense of group and develop an “us versus them” mentality. Being
recognizable and distinguishable from other teams in the community instills
a sense of groupness. In addition, trying to increase team togetherness pro-
motes team bonding and team closeness. Travelling to competitions together,
sharing hotel accommodations, having close proximity in the locker rooms,
and spending time together outside of the sport will help to increase a sense
of togetherness (Carron et al., 1997). The use of team activities not directly

Team Building in Sport

165

related to team performance (e.g., laser tag, ropes courses) are also useful
ways for teammates to interact outside the usual game or practice settings.

Throughputs

Research has demonstrated that the most effective team building intervention
in relation to developing or maintaining group outcomes in sport is team goal
setting (Martin et al., 2009). Team goals fall under Team Processes in Carron
and Spink’s (1993) model. The general effectiveness of goal setting has been
demonstrated (see Kyllo & Landers, 1995 for a complete review). Due to its
effectiveness in sport, this has been a popular and useful team building tool
and has yielded positive outcomes for coaches, athletes and teams alike.
Some of the benefits have included increased perceptions of team cohesion,
better communication and feedback for coaches, positive affect and better
focus for athletes, as well as better teamwork and team bonding (Newin et al.,
2008). Typically, with goal setting programs, a specific set of behaviors are
targeted and athlete attention is directed (Locke & Latham, 2006). Therefore,
to help individuals set goals, a number of different guidelines have been
advanced. For example, the SMART goal acronym (Weinberg & Gould, 1999)
suggests that goals should be specific, measureable, action oriented, realistic,
and time oriented. In addition, a combination of process (e.g., show up
early for practice), performance (e.g., have an 80% free throw percentage)
and outcome (e.g., win championship) goals, and moderately difficult goals
(not too easy or too hard) are said to be most effective (Kyllo & Landers,
1995). Expert coaches have suggested that optimal team-building programs
would bring the group together, establish mutual goals, and unify individuals
toward these goals (Bloom, Stevens, & Wickwire, 2003). Therefore, a number
of researchers have outlined protocols for implementing team goal setting
interventions. Two examples from the literature are discussed.

First, Widmeyer and Ducharme (1997) advanced a series of six guide-

lines that should surround a team goal setting session, namely (a) establish
long term goals first, (b) establish clear paths to long term goals, (c) involve
all team members in establishing team goals, (d) monitor progress toward
team goals, (e) reward team progress toward team goals, and (d) foster col-
lective efficacy for team goal attainment. Essentially, these guidelines suggest
working backwards. For long-term goals (e.g., to win the league title) to be
accomplished, short-term goals (e.g., training and practicing twice a week)
need to be fulfilled. They also highlight the importance of involving all team
members in establishing team goals.

Second, Eys et al. (2006) recommended a protocol for consultants when

implementing a team goal setting program. Note that although this protocol
was advanced for consultants, coaches or practitioners can adopt it. The first
step is the selection of team goals. The athletes collectively come up with
a list of performance indices or standards they would like to achieve (e.g.,

166

K. F. Paradis and L. J. Martin

number of shots per game). The athletes then choose the top three to five
most important indices. These are the indices upon which the team goals
will be set. Once the indices are decided, the group sets performance targets.
Coaches and players need to remind each other of the goals throughout the
season. Each athlete should be given a copy of the team goals that should
also be posted in a visible place in the locker room. Finally, goals need to
be reviewed. Evaluation, revision, and feedback are essential for team goal
setting to be effective (Loughead & Hardy, 2006).

Outputs

As mentioned in the model, the outputs are the desired outcomes from the
team building program (e.g., cohesion, performance, satisfaction). The effec-
tiveness of the team building program is assessed based on the improvement
of these desired outcomes. The model is designed so the input variables (i.e.,
group structure, group environment) and the throughput variables (i.e., team
processes) affect the output variables. Therefore, to improve the likelihood
of having a successful team building program, careful consideration and con-
centration is essential when dealing with the input and throughput variables.

Other Team-building Methods

Recently, team building through Personal Disclosure and Mutual Sharing
(e.g., Crace & Hardy, 1997; Yukelson, 1997) has garnered research atten-
tion (see Dunn & Holt, 2004; Holt & Dunn, 2006; Pain & Harwood, 2009).
Crace and Hardy (1997) suggested that mutual understanding between team
members is the cornerstone of the team building process. Similarly, Orlick
(1990) stated that many personal problems that arise in team settings stem
from teammates’ lack of understanding of each other’s needs, motives, and
feelings. Further, he argued that it is difficult to be responsive to teammates’
needs or understand their perspectives if those needs are not known and the
perspectives are not understood. Athletes should gather around and share
information about themselves with their teammates. Typically, in terms of
Dunn and Holt’s (2004) work, athletes were asked so share a personal story
about why they played the sport they did, how they got started, and the rea-
son for their continued participation. Athletes have reported coming out of
these meetings (usually lasting several hours) (a) feeling as close as ever, (b)
having increased collective efficacy, and (c) having a sense of invincibility
(i.e., we cannot lose). Results from these meetings are usually impactful and
immediate; however, the authors cautioned against the use of this method
and only recommend it for certain levels of maturity and competition (see
Holt and Dunn for complete recommendations).

Other specific team building intervention methods have been suggested.

For example, Cox (2006) outlined various strategies for effective team build-
ing. He suggested (a) acquainting each player with the responsibilities
of other players, (b) taking time to learn something personal about each

Team Building in Sport

167

athlete on the team, (c) developing pride throughout the team and within
sub units of larger teams, (d) developing a feeling of ownership among
the players, (e) setting team goals and taking pride in accomplishments, (f)
ensuring each player on the team learns his/her role and believes in its im-
portance, (g) not demanding or expecting complete social tranquility, (g)
avoiding the creation of cliques, (h) developing team drills and scrimmages
that encourage member cooperation, and (i) highlighting areas of team suc-
cess (positives) especially after a loss.

COULD MY TEAM BENEFIT FROM TEAM BUILDING?

Woodcock and Francis (1994) have outlined benefits associated with team
building programs. They found that, (a) team leadership is seen as being co-
herent, visionary, and acceptable, (b) team members understand and accept
their responsibilities and roles within a team, (c) members dedicate their
efforts to collective achievements, (d) there is a positive, empowering cli-
mate surrounding the group, (e) members make good use of their time and
resources during meetings, and (f) the team is able to conduct self-diagnosis
to identify and correct weaknesses within the team. That being said, no sport
team is perfect, and therefore, improvement is always possible. The previous
sections have outlined a conceptual model and a four-stage approach to team
building, as well as some practical applications. Unfortunately, although they
provided important information for better understanding the team building
process, a common problem with coaches is the indecision on whether or
not, and in what area their team needs improvement. This can be a daunting
task for any coach or practitioner. A possible solution is to assess the team
based on qualities said to be essential for team effectiveness. Beich (2001)
suggested that in order for a team to be successful, it should possess; (a)
clear goals, (b) defined roles, (c) open and clear communication, (d) ef-
fective decision-making, (e) balanced participation, (f) valued diversity, (g)
managed conflict, (h) a positive atmosphere, (i) cooperative relationships,
and (j) participative leadership.

EXAMPLE OF A SUCCESSFUL TEAM-BUILDING PROGRAM

The overall goal in research is to expand the knowledge in areas of inter-
est but also to enable the research process to be reproducible. Therefore,
because the theme of this paper is linking theory and research to practical ap-
plication, and given that goal setting has empirically proven to be the most ro-
bust method to team building, the following is a detailed description of a suc-
cessful team goal setting intervention conducted by Sen´ecal, Loughead, and
Bloom (2008). Secondary school athletes aged 14–18 years participated in
the intervention. Four teams in the experimental group took part in the team
goal setting intervention which followed the recommendations by Eys et al.

168

K. F. Paradis and L. J. Martin

(2006), whereas four teams in the control group had no contact with the
consultants (see Sen´ecal et al., 2008 for complete protocol). Beginning and
end of season measures of cohesion (i.e., the outcome variable) were taken
using the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron, Widmeyer, &
Brawley, 1985).

The results were promising. At the start of the season, there were no

significant differences between groups in perceptions of cohesion; however,
at the end of the season, the experimental group had significantly higher per-
ceptions of cohesion compared to the control group. This study is an excel-
lent example of converting theory into practice and demonstrates that team
building is an effective way of maintaining or improving desired outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The present article has provided some insight for those interested in conduct-
ing effective team building programs. Given the reported success of team
building interventions in the literature (see Martin et al., 2009), it would seem
that many of these team building methodologies (e.g., team building through
goal setting) are replicable and generalizable across many different sporting
contexts (e.g., competition levels, age levels, and genders). Selecting an ap-
propriate method to team building depends on the needs or objectives of
the team involved.

REFERENCES

Beer, M. (1980). Organizational change and development: A systems review.

Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Beich, E. (2001). The Pfeiffer book of successful team-building tools: Best of the

annuals. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Bloom, G. A., & Stevens, D. E. (2002). A team building mental skills training

program with an intercollegiate equestrian team. Athletic Insight: The On-
line Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(1). http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss1/
EquestrianTeamBuilding.htm.

Bloom, G. A., Stevens, D. E., & Wickwire, T. L. (2003). Expert coaches’ perceptions

of team building. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 129–143.

Buller, P. F., & Bell, C. H. (1986). Effects of team building and goal setting on

productivity: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 305–328.

Burton, D. (1989). Winning isn’t everything: Examining the impact of performance

goals of collegiate swimmers cognitions and performance. The Sport Psycholo-
gist, 3, 105–132.

Brawley, L. R., & Paskevich, D. M. (1997). Conducting team building research in

context of sport and exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 11–40.

Carron, A. V. (1981). Processes of group interaction in sport teams. Quest, 33,

245–270.

Team Building in Sport

169

Carron, A. V. (1984). Motivation: Implications for coaching. London, ON, Canada:

Sports Dynamics.

Carron, A. V. (1993). The Coleman Roberts Griffith address: Toward the integration

of theory, research, and practice in sport psychology. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 5, 207–221.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and

performance in sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
24, 168–188.

Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.), Morgantown,

WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1993). Team building in an exercise setting. The Sport

Psychologist, 7, 8–18.

Carron, A. V., Spink, K. S., & Prapavessis, H. (1997). Team building and cohesiveness

in the sport and exercise setting: Use of indirect interventions. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 9, 61–72.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an

instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Ques-
tionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244–266.

Cogan, K. D., & Petrie, T. A. (1995). Sport consultation: An evaluation of a season

long intervention with female collegiate gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 9,
282–296.

Cox, R. H. (2006). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). New York,

NY: McGraw-Hill.

Crace, R. K., & Hardy, C. J. (1997). Individual values in the team building process.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 41–60.

Dunn, G. H., & Holt, N. L. (2004). A qualitative investigation of a personal disclosure

mutual sharing team building activity. The Sport Psychologist, 18, 363–380.

Eden, D. (1986). Team development: Quasi-experimental confirmation among com-

bat companies. Group and Organizational Studies, 11, 133–146.

Estabrooks, P. A. & Carron, A. V. (1999). Group cohesion in older adult exercis-

ers: Prediction and intervention effects. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 22,
575–588.

Eys, M. A., Patterson, M. M., Loughead, T. M., & Carron, A. V. (2006). Team building

in sport. In J. Duda, D. Hackfort, & R. Lidor (Eds.), Handbook of research in
applied sport psychology: International perspectives (pp. 219–231). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Eys, M. A., Schinke, R. J. & Jeffery, S. M. (2007). Role perceptions in sport groups.

In M. Beauchamp & M. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics in exercise and sport psy-
chology: Contemporary themes (pp. 99–115). New York, NY: Routledge.

Holt, N. L., & Dunn, G. H. (2006). Guidelines for delivering personal disclosure

mutual sharing team building interventions. The Sport Psychologist, 20, 348–367.

Kyllo, L. B., & Landers, D. M. (1995). Goal setting in sport and exercise: A research

synthesis to resolve the controversy. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17,
117–137.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal setting theory. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265–268.

170

K. F. Paradis and L. J. Martin

Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2011). Team building for coaches: Developing

cohesion to build an effective team. In J. Denison, P. Potrac, & W. Gilbert (Eds.),
The Routledge handbook of sports coaching. New York, NY: Routledge.

Loughead, T. M., & Hardy, J. (2006). Team cohesion: From theory to research to

team building. In S. Hanton, & S. D. Mellalieu (Eds.), Literature reviews in sport
psychology (pp. 257–287). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., & Burke, S. M. (2009). Team building interventions in

sport: A meta-analysis. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 5, 3–18.

Munroe, K., Estabrooks, P. A., Dennis, P., & Carron, A. V. (1999). A phenomenologi-

cal analysis of group norms in sport teams. The Sport Psychologist, 13, 171–182.

Newin, J., Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2008). Youth ice hockey coaches’

perceptions of a team building intervention program. The Sport Psychologist,
22, 54–72.

Orlick, T. (1990). In pursuit of excellence (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Pain, M., & Harwood, C. (2009). Team building through mutual sharing and open

discussion of team functioning. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 523–542.

Paradis, K. F., & Loughead, T. M. (in press). Examining the mediating role of cohesion

between athlete leadership and athlete satisfaction in youth sport. International
Journal of Sport Psychology.

Patterson, M. M., Carron, A. V., & Loughead, T. M. (2005). The influence of team

norms on the cohesion-self reported performance relationship: A multi-level
analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 479–493.

Prapavessis, H., Carron, A. V., & Spink, K. S. (1996). Team building in sport groups.

International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 269–285.

Sen´ecal, J., Loughead, T. M., & Bloom, G. A. (2008). A season-long team building

intervention: Examining the effect of team goal setting on cohesion. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 186–199.

Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1997). Coach-mediated team building in youth sports.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 114–132.

Spink, K. S. (1988). Facilitating endurance performance: The effect of cognitive

strategies and analgesic suggestions. The Sport Psychologist, 2, 97–104.

Spink, K. S., & Carron, A. V. (1993). The effects of team building on the adherence

patterns of female exercise participants. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
15, 39–49.

Stevens, D. E., & Bloom, G. A. (2003). The effect of team building on cohesion.

Avante, 9, 43–54.

Voight, M., & Callaghan, J. (2001). A team-building intervention program: Application

and evaluation with two university soccer teams. Journal of Sport Behaviour,
24, 420–431.

Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology

(3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Widmeyer, W. N., & Ducharme, K. (1997). Team building through team goal setting.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 97–113.

Woodcock, M., & Francis, D. (1994). Team building strategy. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport. A

direct services approach at Penn State. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9,
73–96.

Copyright of Journal of Sport Psychology in Action is the property of Routledge and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.