Science Question

Description

Research Manuscript
The research manuscript assignment in the course is a research proposal that is
developed and written. Each student will establish a research question of personal
interest in the area of group dynamics in sport or exercise, have it approved, and then
write it up in a manuscript format. Thus, the proposal must contain sections oriented to
the introduction (using the components on how to write an introduction (i.e.,
motherhood, literature review, qualifiers, purpose, hypotheses)) and methods—
including data analyses (see Writing Workshop for components). All this will have to be
done in about 10 pages (excluding references, tables, figures). It is expected that
students will produce a high-quality product, one that is suitable for submission to a
reputable peer-reviewed journal. You will follow APA 7 publication guidelines using 12-
point Times New Roman font, and double line spacing with 1-inch margins.

This assignment is for a Master’s Course at a Canadian University!

Please Look at all the documents I have to help you!

I will be sending more documents to aid!

Please go deep into this review, very detailed!

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Peer Reviewer Training
What do we know about
peer review?
How some researchers view the
peer-review process
Manuscript Submission
• Electronic submission of papers for publication: the days of a complicated, hardcopy paper trail are gone … good riddance!
• After deciding on the journal, carefully READ the “Instructions to Authors” for
that particular journal.
• Pay attention to formatting requirements, manuscript structure, citation style,
and allowable file types for figures, illustrations, and tables.
• Ignoring the specific requirements for manuscript formatting and style can result
in your paper being returned for correction or put reviewers and editors in a bad
mood even before they judge the quality of the science – not a good move!
Manuscript Submission and Review Flow Chart
Electronic submission
Assignment of manuscript to a specific Editor
Editor decides if ms is appropriate for journal
No
Return to author(s) un-reviewed
Yes
Editor sends manuscript to two or three reviewers
(one or more of which may be a member of journal’s editorial board while
one or more may not)
Editor reads reviews and
makes initial decision
Reviewers read ms and generate feedback and comments
(aka, “The Waiting Game”)
… and after the
reviews come back!!
(well, maybe not quite
that dramatic …)
Possible Outcomes of the Manuscript Review Process
1) Acceptance without revisions (a rare event)
2) Acceptance with minor revisions
3) Revise with major changes (usually with major changes
required; Editor usually sends the revised manuscript back
to one or more of original reviewers)
4) Reject (submit to another journal)
Revising Your Manuscript in Response
to Reviewers’ Comments
The goal is to improve the paper AND get it accepted for publication.
If additional writing/analysis are required, make sure they DIRECTLY
address the reviewer’s specific criticism(s).
For rebuttal arguments, use facts and literature citations to support
your points, NOT emotion, annoyance, or displeasure.
Remember that your revised manuscript and your responses to the
reviewers’ comments will most likely be sent back to one or more of
the original reviewers; so be prudent in your choice of words and in
the tone of your rebuttal comments.
What Happens After Your Manuscript
is Accepted for Publication?
First, the celebration …
Then:
Most journals now publish the paper online as a PDF file ahead of it being
in print (advance publication).
Journal sends page proofs of your article as it will appear in printed or final
electronic form. These proofs need to be read very carefully to check for
printer’s errors or other items that need to be corrected. Journals usually
want the corrected proofs back within a few days.
Take-Home Messages about Submitting as an Author
Pay attention to journal formatting, style, and figure/illustration
requirements.
The journal Editor is your conduit to the review and publication process.
The reviewing process is intended to ensure that only high-quality papers
populate the peer-reviewed literature.
The pathway to publishing your paper is not always painful, and it can even
be illuminating and rewarding!
Being a Reviewer: Tips and Suggestions
Characteristics of a good review
1) Written in a collegial tone
2) Reviewers see themselves as a ‘mentor’ rather than a ‘judge’
3) Good reviews focus on major issues:
a) Conceptual (i.e., introduction)
b) Methodological (i.e., participants, methods, procedures, data analysis)
c) Interpretative (i.e., results, discussion)
4) Should not disproportionately comment on minor issues
KINE 8110
Group Dynamics in Sport and Exercise
THE ART OF RESEARCH WRITING
Writing is an art that is perfected through repeated practice. Essentially the
written presentation of a study or experiment—whether it is a laboratory experience, an
independent study, a graduate dissertation, or a manuscript for publication—is in the
form of an essay. It is an essay, however, which has traditionally conformed to a
predetermined formal structure.
The formal structure of a research report consists of five general sections:
Introduction (including literature review, statement of the problem, and hypotheses
examined), Methods, Results, Discussion, and References. Each of these is essential if
the reader is to understand the five Ws of good reporting—Who?, What?, Where?,
When?, and Why?
In the present workshop experience, a potential template or structure to guide in
the writing of the Introduction of a research report is presented. Why focus on the
Introduction to the exclusion of the other four sections? Because, for a number of
reasons, it is the most difficult to write. The first, and most important reason for this is
that the Introduction is the section that requires the most creativity. Unlike other sections
like the Methods and References, there are no style manuals to consult to determine what
should be included, excluded, and/or how the written presentation should be structured.
Each Introduction is different in form and content. The writer must present the
background and rationale for his/her specific study in a clear and logical manner.
Second, under the assumption that the researcher knows how to develop a good
research design (or has a good Advisor), the Introduction is the section that ultimately
determines whether a reviewer will conclude that the study is of a high quality. A study
outstanding from the perspective of the question asked, design used, and results obtained
could be dismissed or rejected for publication if the rationale outlined in the Introduction
is unclear, illogical, or inappropriate.
Finally, the Introduction is the most difficult section because it’s the one that is
written first. The Discussion section also involves a great deal of creativity. By the time
the Discussion is written, however, the researcher is familiar with the results of previous
research, his/her own findings (and how they differ from previous research), and has a
relatively clear idea of what needs to be said and why.
Beginning is always difficult; there is no momentum, no template to use to guide
your efforts, and the challenge seems daunting. Beginning the Introduction may be
easier, however, if the writer utilizes a general structure which involving the following
components presented in sequential order: (a) Motherhood/Definition, (b) Literature
Review/Conceptual Framework, (c) Qualifier(s), (d) Statement of the Problem, and
possibly (e) Hypotheses. The Introduction should proceed from general to the specific.
Thus, the content in each of these five sequential components should become more and
more specific.
Motherhood/Definition. The first component is very general in nature. With good
research writing, the introductory paragraph or paragraphs are used to orient the reader to
the general focus of the report. One way to do this is through the use of “motherhood”
statements: e.g., “If a group exists, it must possess some cohesion”, or “Motivation is the
foundation for every human endeavor”, or “The nature of the home advantage has
attracted the attention of the popular media, coaches, athletes, spectators, and sport
scientists ”. Through the use of this type of sweeping generalization, the reader comes to
understand immediately what the report is all about in general. Thus, in the first
example, the reader would come to understand that the study deals with cohesion; in the
second, with motivation; and, in the third, with the home advantage.
A second way to begin the research report is by providing a definition of the main
construct under investigation; e.g., “Cohesion is a dynamic process which is reflected in
the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its
instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs” (Carron,
Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 213), or “Motivation is a theoretical construct used to
represent the selectivity, intensity and duration of behavior”, or “The home advantage is
defined as the consistent finding that home teams in sport competitions win over 50% of
the games played under a balanced home and away schedule” (Courneya & Carron, 1992,
p. 13). As was the case above, the reader would come to understand immediately what
the report is all about in general.
Literature Review/Conceptual Framework. The second component provides
specific information about the general area under investigation in the study. One way this
is done is through a literature review. It is important to understand, however, that the
literature reviewed must be specific to the study being carried out. It should not be an
“all you wanted to know about X but were afraid to ask” overview. Only those studies
that pertain directly to your research are presented. Thus, if the purpose of your study
was to examine the relationship between cohesion and performance, previous research
which focused on this issue should be presented. Or, if the purpose of your study was to
examine the influence of a boisterous crowd on the home advantage, previous research
which focused on this issue should be presented.
A second way to introduce your reader to the general area under investigation in
your study could be to provide the conceptual framework that underlies the construct.
Thus, in a study dealing with cohesion and performance, you might introduce the
conceptual model advanced by Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer. Similarly, in a study
dealing with a boisterous crowd and the home advantage, you might introduce the
conceptual model advanced by Courneya and Carron.
Qualifier(s). The third component represents the raison d’être for your study.
Through the use of the Motherhood/Definition section, the reader has been introduced to
the general area under investigation. Through the use of the Literature Review/
Conceptual Framework section, the reader also has been introduced to what is currently
known as a result of previous research. Obviously if everything is known, if there are no
gaps in our understanding, then there would be no need for your research. Consequently,
it becomes important to point out to the reader what limitations exist in the literature.
That’s why I often refer to this section as the but statement. What the writer does is
create a need for his/her research by pointing out that “we know X, Y, and Z about the
cohesion-performance relationship but …”
Statement of the Problem. The writer informs the reader what the specific
question of interest is in the study. To do so, two or three statements are often necessary.
The first statement should be somewhat general in nature, the second and third should be
very specific. As an example, consider the following: “The general purpose of the present
study was to determine if task type or age moderated the relationship between cohesion
and performance. In order to achieve this general purpose teams composed of elite
athletes at the high school and college level competing in the sports of volleyball and
track were tested for cohesion at early, mid and late season”. Through the statement of
the problem, the reader is informed about the specific parameters of the study.
Hypothesis. In the final section of the Introduction, the writer presents the specific
hypotheses (predictions) that were tested and their accompanying rationale.
Purpose
The purpose of the present workshop experience is to identify the structure of the
Introduction in a number of published articles in sport psychology journals.
Method
The introductory sections for the following research article is provided. Read and
identify the portion that deal with (a) Motherhood/Definition, (b) Literature
Review/Conceptual Framework, (c) Qualifier(s), (d) Statement of the Problem, and if
present (e) Hypotheses.
Loughead, T. M., Colman, M. M., & Carron, A. V. (2001). Investigating the mediational
relationship of leadership, class cohesion, and adherence in an exercise setting. Small
Group Research, 32, 558-575.
KINE 8110-Peer Review Assignment
Manuscript to Review
Page 1 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES
Do appraisals mediate the relationship between group cohesion, satisfaction and attainment of
achievement goals? A multilevel study.
Abstract
The study is aimed to explore the relationship between group cohesion, appraisal, satisfaction
and goal attainment. A sample of 233 French athletes (Mage = 18.15; SD = 1.33; 140 men and
96 women) participated in the study and completed distinct self-report measures to evaluate:
group cohesion, appraisal, satisfaction and attainment of achievement goals. Results of
mediation analyses revealed that: (a) Challenge significantly mediated the relationship between
group integration task (Level 2; between-person level of analysis) and satisfaction; (b)
Challenge significantly mediated the relationship between group integration task (Level 2) and
goal attainment; (c) Challenge marginally significantly mediated the relationship between
attraction to the group task (Level 2) and goal attainment; (d) Challenge significantly mediated
the relationship between attraction to the group social (Level 2) and goal attainment; (e) Loss
significantly mediated the relationship between attraction to the group social (Level 2) and goal
attainment. As a whole, challenge appraisal played a major role in the significant relationships
between group cohesion, satisfaction and goal attainment. From an applied perspective,
enhancing attraction to the group (social and task) and group integration using interventions
targeting the training group would lead to positive sport outcomes in terms of performance and
wellbeing (satisfaction and goal attainment).
Keywords: competitive settings, coaching, goals, wellbeing.
Page 2 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES
Do appraisals mediate the relationship between group cohesion, satisfaction and attainment of
achievement goals? A multilevel study.
Throughout the last fifty years, research revealed the salient role played by group cohesion
on variables related to performance and wellbeing in sport (Carron et al., 2002; GonzálezGarcía et al., 2021; Martens & Peterson, 1971; Ohlert et al., 2015). The theoretical model that
has attracted most of the attention in sporting context is Carron’s model of group cohesion
(Carron, 1982). In line with this model, cohesion is understood as a multidimensional construct
based on its instrumental and affective characteristics (Carron & Eys, 2012). In addition, Carron
et al. (1985) revealed that group cohesion may be dichotomised into social versus task cohesion.
As a consequence, a four-taxonomy group cohesion theory was created within Carron’s model
(1985): Individual Attractions to the Group-Social (ATG-S), Individual Attractions to the
Group-Task (ATG-T), Group Integration Social (GI-S) and Group Integration-Task (GI-T).
ATG-S refers to the degree of social implication of a person within the group whereas ATG-T
indicates the degree of involvement of a member in carrying out the distinct group tasks. GI-S
refers to the inclusion and unity of the group, whereas GI-T is the inclusion and unity of the
group to pursue goals and carry out distinct tasks. Group cohesion is largely acknowledged by
practitionners and researchers as a group variable leading to recommendations addressed at the
level of the training group for optimising group cohesion and in turn athletes’ performance
(Bennett-Levy & Finlay-Jones, 2018; Maaß et al., 2021; McCarthy et al., 2014). Nevertheless,
almost all the studies focusing on group cohesion in sport assessed and analysed the construct
of group cohesion at the individual level (athletes’ point of view) (González-García et al., 2021;
Ohlert et al., 2015; Pacewicz et al., 2020). In the present study, the group cohesion construct
was operationalised at the level of training group using a multilevel approach in order to clearly
depict the impact of group cohesion at the training group level on stress appraisals, athletes’
satisfaction and attainment of achievement goals (at the individual levels). This might provide
Page 3 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES
new insights on the group cohesion literature likely to bring applied interventions at the level
of the training group.
Athletes are confronted with several stressors in competition triggering by a variety of
physical, psychological and social demands (Doron & Martinent, 2017; Saby et al., 2020).
Athletes adjust to these constantly changing situational demands through appraisal process
(personal significance of adaptational encounters with others and the environment) (Lazarus,
1991). According to the transactional theory of stress of Lazarus and Folkman (1984), there are
two types of appraisal processes: primary appraisals and secondary appraisals. Whereas primary
appraisals refer to the identification and evaluation of the significance of the event for the
wellbeing of the individual, secondary appraisals are related to the perceived resources for
dealing with the situation and the degree of control that a person has to those processes (Lazarus,
1991). Within this theoretical framework (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), three type
of stress appraisals may be identified: harm/loss (a situation implies a damage to wellbeing),
threat (the damage may occur in the near future), or challenge (the situation may let to selfgrowth). Previous studies provided evidence for the major role played by stress appraisals in
athletes’ performance (e.g., attainment of achievement goals) and well-being (e.g., sport
satisfaction) (Britton et al., 2019; Nicholls et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2020). Indeed, a few
studies examined the relationship between appraisals and sport satisfaction (Britton et al., 2019;
Didymus & Fletcher, 2017). Sport satisfaction can be conceptualised as the cognitive and
subjective evaluation of well-being in sport settings (Diener, 2000; Dodge, 2021). Britton et al.
(2019) revealed that threat, unplesant emotions and maladaptive coping were significantly
negatively related to performance satisfaction. Nicholls et al. (2012) showed a negative
correlation between threat and pleasant emotions and a positive correlation between pleasant
emotions and challenge. Similarly, athletes who were more likely to be satisfied were those that
Page 4 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES
appraised competitive stressors as challenge and use problem-solving ways of coping (Didymus
& Fletcher, 2017).
Several works examined the relationship between appraisals and goal attainment (Adie et
al., 2008; Nicholls et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2020). Challenge and threat appraisals partially
mediated the relationships between mastery-based goals and well-being indicators (Adie et al.,
2008). Moreover, Nicholls et al. (2016) revealed that goal reengagement was positively
associated with challenge appraisals, which in turn was linked to task-oriented coping, and in
fine to well-being. In addition, challenge appraisal was significantly related to perceived goal
attainment and this relationship was mediated by pleasant emotions and task-oriented coping
(Thompson et al., 2020). Similarly, threat appraisal was significantly negatively related to goal
attainment and this relationship was mediated by unpleasant emotions, distraction- and
disengagement-oriented coping (Thompson et al., 2020).
Although most of the research in sports psychology examined the role of individual-related
factor (e.g., motivation, personality) as antecendents of appraisals, studies examining the role
of environmental factor (such as group cohesion) in predicting stress appraisals is rather scant.
Nevertheless, an examination of psychological underpinnings of group cohesion and stress
appraisals based on Carron (Carron et al., 1985) and transactional (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984)
theoretical frameworks indicates a potentially crucial connection between such variables.
Indeed, stress appraisals are dependent on the environment in which athletes are involved
(González-García & Martinent, 2020). As group cohesion plays a central role in athlete’s
environment, group cohesion could predict stress appraisals. It seems that only one study (Wolf
et al., 2015) examined the influence of group cohesion on stress appraisals before competition.
ATG-T was significantly related to the appraisal of importance in the next competition whereas
ATG-S significantly predicted higher prospect of coping in the next competition. As a whole,
the results of this study suggested that ATG-T and ATG-S were significantly and positively
Page 5 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES
related to the perception of challenge appraisal in competition. However, the construct of group
cohesion was operationalised at the individual level whereas the recommendations were
proposed at the group level. Thus, it would be particularly useful to further this line of research
by examing the relationship between group cohesion at the group level on stress appraisals at
the individual level.
In sum, this study aimed to examine the mediating role of stress appraisals in the
relationships between group cohesion, goal attainment and sport satisfaction. The concept of
group cohesion was operationalised at the training group using a multilevel approach in order
to clearly depict the impact of group cohesion at the training group level on stress appraisals,
athletes’ satisfaction and attainment of achievement goals (at the individual levels). According
to the sport literature (Adie et al., 2008; Britton et al., 2019; Didymus & Fletcher, 2017; Nicholls
et al., 2016; Thompson et al., 2020; Wolf et al., 2015), we hypothesised that challenge will
mediate the relationships between group cohesion (especially ATG-T and ATG-S), and sport
satisfaction and goal attainment.
Method
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Participants
A sample of 233 French athletes (Mage = 18.15; SD = 1.33; 139 men and 92 women)
participated in the study. The sports practiced by the athletes were athletics (9.01%), football
(18.88%), rugby (12.87%), basketball (14.16%), judo (18.88%), olympic fight (3.00%),
swimming (6.00%), roller (9.44%) and others (7.76%). Most of their coaches were men
(89.27%). The athletes competed at regional (15.87%), national (67.38%) and international
(13.73%) level. The average hours in weekly training were 11.62 (SD = 5.91) and athletes
competed in their sport for an average of 8.08 years (SD = 3.89). A heterogeneous sample from
various sports, weekly hours of training and competing past history participated in the study, to
maximize the external validity and generalizability of the study results.
Page 6 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES
Measures
The French version of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ; Carron et al., 1985;
Heuzé & Fontayne, 2002) was used to measure group cohesion. This instrument is made up of
18 items which are divided into four subscales: Individual attractions to the group-social (ATGS; 5 items; α = .70), individual attractions to the group-task (ATG-T; 4 items; α = .81), group
integration – social (GI-S; 4 items; α = .70), and group integration – task (GI-T; 5 items; α =
.60). Although the alpha coefficient was acceptable for ATG-T, GI-S and ATG-S, it was rather
low for GI-T. Nevertheless, Cronbach’s alpha tends to increase with a higher number of items
in a scale (e.g., Clark & Watson, 1995), leading several scholars recommending the use of the
raw mean inter-item correlation as a statistical marker of internal consistency (Clark & Watson,
1995). Clark and Watson (1995) offered a rule of thumb that recommends an average inter-item
correlation that ranges from .15 to .50. The mean inter-item correlation for GI-T was .21,
providing evidence for the reliability of this factor.
The French version of the appraisals of life events scale (ALE; Ferguson et al., 1999;
Quintard, 2001) was utilised to measure appraisals. This scale is made up of 16 adjectives
checklist that assesses appraisals (threat, challenge and loss) of recalled sporting events during
competition. Each adjective is scored on a six-point rating scale (from 0 = ‘not at all’ and 5 =
‘very much’). The Cronbach alpha were acceptable for threat (T1α = .78; T2 α = .82; T3α = .80;
T α = .80; T α = .84; T α = .88), challenge (T α = .92; T α = .86; T α = .88; T α = .90; T α =
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
.91; T6α = .92) and loss (T1α = .83; T2α = .71; T3α = .77; T4α = .81; T5α = .80; T6α = .88).
The Attainment of Sports Achievement Goals Scale (A-SAGS; Amiot et al., 2004) is a
French questionnaire that consists of a 12-item scale that evaluates three factors that are
included in the construct of goal attainment which are: mastery goal achievement, selfreferenced goal achievement and normative goal achievement. The athletes were asked to
indicate the extent to which each item represented how they had performed during the
Page 7 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES
competition on a 6-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree).
According to Amiot et al. (2004), a total score was computed including the three factors to
measure goal attainment in the present work (T1α = .91; T2α = .91; T3α = .91; T4α = .92; T5α =
.94; T6α = .94).
The adaptation to sport context (Nicolas et al., 2014) of the Satisfaction with Life Scale
(SWLS; Diener et al., 1985) was used as a measure of sports satisfaction. The scale is a 5-items
instrument rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(7). This instrument is a one-factor scale (T1α = .90; T2α = .86; T3α = .88; T4α = .90; T5α = .88;
T6α = .92).
Procedure
The work was approved by our institutional review board and follows international ethical
standards including the preservation of the anonymity. Participants were asked to sign an
informed consent to ensure they know the conditions of the study and the ethical standards. A
longitudinal design was followed in the study, in which, participants responded to the GEQ two
days before the first competition. Secondly, the athletes completed across six waves the ALE,
SWLS and A-SAGS within two hours after the competition, asking for their experience during
the competition. This protocol was taken to do not interfere with the athletes’ performance.
Data Analysis
A hierarchical linear modelling approach (HLM) was utilised to examine the relationships
between the variables examined using the lme4 package of R (Bates et al., 2014). First, the data
were screened for multicollinearity of scales, the assumption of homoscedasticity as well as
normality of the residuals. Second, we examined the intra-class correlations with the computing
of the nulls models for the dependent variables (i.e., appraisals, goal attainment and athletes’
satisfaction). Thirdly, a series of multilevel models were computed in which: (a) appraisals
were regressed onto level 2 group cohesion; and (b) goal attainment and athletes’ satisfaction
Page 8 of 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES
were regressed onto level 2 group cohesion and appraisals. It is noteworthy that grand mean
centring was used for Level 2 predictor (i.e., GI-T, GI-S, ATG-T, ATG-S) whereas group mean
centring was used for Level 1 predictor (i.e., harm, threat and challenge appraisals) based on
the rationale that no centring may produce biased point estimates (Doron & Martinent, 2017).
Fourthly, a series of Sobel tests was performed to investigate whether appraisals mediated the
relationships between group cohesion and goal attainment and/or athletes’ satisfaction (Sobel,
1982).
Results
Prior to hypotheses testing, the training group (level 2) and individual (level 1) variances of
the dependent variables (appraisals, goal attainment and sport satisfaction) were examined in
computing the nulls models. Results (Table 1) indicated that there was substantial level 2
variance: τ00 (i.e., variance in level-2) ranged from .20 to .86. Thus, the intra-class correlations
(ICC = τ00/ (τ00+σ²)) revealed that level 2 variance represented 25%-67.19% to the total variance
(Table 1).
When the four dimensions of group cohesion (level 2) were entered as predictor of
appraisals, the results revealed that: (a) ATG-S predicted negativelly threat and loss (β = -0.15
and -0.16, p < .01 and .05) and positively challenge (β = 0.14, p < .05); (b) ATG-T predicted negativelly loss (β = -0.10, p < .05); and (c) GI-T predicted positively challenge (β = 0.21, p < .001) (Table 2). When the four dimensions of group cohesion (level 2) and the three stress appraisals (threat, loss, and challenge) were simultaneously entered as predictors of sport satisfaction and attainment of achievement goals, results (Table 3) revealed that sport satisfaction was positively predicted by challenge (β = 0.21, p < .001), GI-T (β = 0.22, p < .01), GI-S (Level 2) (β = -0.18, p < .05) and ATG-S (Level 2) (β = 0.41, p < .001). In addition, goal attainment was positively predicted by challenge (β = 0.48, p < .001), loss (β = 0.48, p < .05), GI-T (Level 2) (β = 0.17, p < .001) and ATG-T (Level 2) (β = -0.12, p < .01). Page 9 of 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 RUNNING HEAD: APPRAISALS MEDIATION IN ATHLETES Finally, the results of Sobel test revealed that: (a) challenge significantly mediated the relationship between GI-T and sport satisfaction (Sobel test = 3.13; p < 0.001); (b) challenge significantly mediated the relationship between GI-T and goal attainment (Sobel test = 3.41; p < 0.001); (c) Challenge marginally significantly mediated the relationship between ATG-T and goal attainment (Sobel test = 1.78; p < 0.07); (d) Challenge significantly mediated the relationship between ATG-S and goal attainment (Sobel test = 2.3; p < 0.001); and (e) Loss marginally significantly mediated the relationship between ATG-S and goal attainment (Sobel test = 1.69; p < 0.08) (Figure 1). Discussion The study is aimed to explore the relationships between group cohesion, appraisal, satisfaction and goal attainment using a multilevel approach allowing to operationalize the construct of group cohesion at the training group level. Results of the multilevel analyses revealed that ATG-S predicted negatively threat and loss, and positively challenge. These results are in line with those previously obtained by Wolf et al. (2015) in which ATG-S was significantly positively associated with challenge. Similarly, support from peers and the group was positively related to challenge and negatively related to threat among young athletes (Sheridan et al., 2014). As a whole, results of the present study provided evidence that the enhancement of ATG-S at the training group level might turn into the increased perception of challenge and decreased perceptions of threat and loss regarding competition at the individual level. This empowers the importance of promoting a social climate of attraction within the sports club in order to foster performance in competition and sport satisfaction (Wolf et al., 2015). As such, strategies that emphasise the social component of sports, such as carrying out activities in a group, hanging out time with the group and experiencing a social atmosphere may be boosters of adaptive (challe