Abstract

This study investigated the connection between motivation and team unity in the context of women's cricket, involving a sample of 100 cricketers from three clubs in Lahore city, spanning ages 18 to 32. Each participant filled out two questionnaires: the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron et al., 1985) and the Sports Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995). The study was designed with a cross-sectional approach and is rooted in quantitative research methodology. The purposive sampling approach was adopted. Descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlation were used to evaluate the data in SPSS version 23.0. A noteworthy correlation was reported between intrinsic motivation and team cohesion (r=0.638**, p<0.001) and between extrinsic motivation and team cohesion (r=0.623**, p<0.001). Furthermore, overall motivation scores also displayed a substantial correlation with the cohesion of the team (r=0.633**, p<0.001). These findings provide early evidence that it's essential to encourage and inspire the players in order to have an influence on the team atmosphere.

Key Words

Extrinsic Motivation, Intrinsic Motivation, Team Cohesion, Women Cricketers

Introduction

Sports can help young people grow positively and improve their well-being by giving them chances to interact with others, connect with their peers, and form lasting connections (Almagro B. J., et al., 2020; Weiss, 2013). Athletes are teammates or members of teams in competitive sports. The team members are strongly impacted by these groups. One of the most crucial factors that results from the development of group culture is cohesion. It displays the degree of group cohesion and coordination as well as a key internal component that has an impact on the achievement of the objective. Cohesion has been one of the most extensively researched group attributes over the past several decades (Carron & Brawley, 2012; Sabin & Marcel, 2014). In recent decades, cohesion has been considered as the most thoroughly examined attribute of a group over the past decades, as highlighted by studies conducted by Carron and Brawley (2012) and Sabin and Marcel (2014). Cohesion can be seen as an ongoing process where a group's inclination to stay connected and work together towards their goals and the well-being of group members is evident (Bell & Brown, 2015; G Song & Xue L, 2022). 

Cohesion can be conceptually separated into two clear dimensions: social cohesion, which pertains to interpersonal relationship indicators like friendships, emotional attachments, and social support, and task cohesion, which focuses on the dedication to achieving team objectives. Moreover, four dimensions have emerged prominently: Attraction to the Group-Task, Group Integration-Task, Attraction to the Group-Social, and Group Integration-Social. These dimensions reflect how individuals perceive their roles in the group and their feelings about the particular task, as noted in studies (Carron et al., 2002; Najafi et al., 2018; & Schurer et al., 2021). According to Carron, Hausenblas, & Eys, (2005), group cohesiveness occurs at the personal level, with members of the group experiencing both a social and task pull. He was unable to articulate why some individuals felt a connection to various groups along each dimension. According to Carron (2005), numerous pressures operating on groups led to the emergence of diverse sorts of groups. These factors show up in a group's attention to a task and individual demands (Bell & Brown, 2015; Goffena & Horn, 2020). 

Motivation stands out as a prominent area of study within the realm of sports psychology, likely because it consistently emerges as a crucial element influencing individuals' well-being and their fundamental engagement in various endeavours. This is especially true for sports, where the need for motivation is paramount (Blynova et al., 2022). A person's motivation is a quality that drives them to grasp new concepts, and ideas, achieve greatness, overcome difficulties, perform better than others, and feel proud of their sporting process (Kardi, 2020). Sports-related negative outcomes, such as athlete fatigue, may be diminished by motivation (Smith, Pacewiz, & Raedeke, 2020). When delving into motivation, a common differentiation is made between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. In cases where an athlete's drive stems purely from their personal enjoyment of the sport, it is described as intrinsic motivation.  This behaviour is the most robust and persistent, offering a sense of satisfaction when participating in it, such as through playfulness, curiosity, interest, or enjoyment. Extrinsic motivation originates from discipline and praise, a combination of awards (such as public acknowledgement, medals, incentives, and diplomas) and penalties (withholding of prior benefits or harder training), although this type of motivation is transient and less effective (Iglesias-Martinez, 2021). Athlete's performance may suffer significantly when the extrinsic element is eliminated. Amotivation refers to the lack of interest or intention to engage in a behaviour. In some aspects, amotivation is comparable to the idea of learned helplessness. It is often accompanied by feelings of incompetence and a perceived disconnection between one's actions and the anticipated results. For example, an athlete experiencing amotivation may convey sentiments like, "I can't perceive any worth or advantage in my training." These individuals often exhibit a sense of helplessness, frequently necessitating counselling, and are at a heightened risk of discontinuing their training altogether. Due to their absence of both internal and external motivation and their inability to find a compelling reason to engage in sports, individuals in this state often perceive themselves as lacking competence and control (Deci & Ryan, 2000). 

Multiple research studies have reported that motivation can improve team cohesion and sports performance (Godfrey M. et al., 2020; Mark Eys et al., 2019,2020). The relationship between motivation has team cohesion has been addressed in many studies (Hu S. N. 2014; Karanika-Murray et al., 2015; Song Gu & Lan Xue 2022). According to research, athletes who participate in a team or group setting are far more motivated than those who play individual sports (M Yildirim, 2021). According to these researches, athletes who have a strong connection to their own sports teams experience a higher level of team cohesiveness, which appears to be supported by the presence of motivated group members. The major goal of the present study was to analyze the correlation between motivational elements and team cohesion in female cricketers originating from Lahore City.




Objective of the study

The research was initiated to assess the relationship between motivation and team cohesion among female cricket players.




Hypothesis 

H1: Intrinsic motivation has a significant relationship with team cohesion of women cricketers

H2: Extrinsic Motivation has a significant relationship with team cohesion of women cricketers

H3: Motivation has a significant relationship with team cohesion of women cricketers

Method

The study adopted a descriptive survey design. The participants were 100 women cricketers of Lahore city (Punjab). The Demographic information was also collected including age (M = 23.58, SD = 2.34) and years spent on their respective teams (M = 2.51, SD = 1.37).




Measures

Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)

This research utilized GEQ, established by Carroll, Widmeyer, & Brawley (1985) which is a widely accepted and frequently employed instrument within sports settings. It comprises an 18-item survey utilizing a 9-point Likert scale, a score of 1 represents “strongly agree” and 9 refers to “strongly disagree”. It's worth emphasizing that, in the specific context of this study, the GEQ exhibited satisfactory reliability, with Cronbach's alpha values reaching 0.813.




Sports Motivation Scale (SMS-28)

The study assessed the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation of the participants by using the DSports Motivation  Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995). Originally formulated in French, this scale was later translated into English by Pelletier et al. (1995), with the translated version demonstrating psychometric outcomes equivalent to the original scale. A 28-item scale with 7-point subscales indicating motivation is used to respond to the question, "Why do you play your sport?" The scale goes from 1 (does not at all correspond) to 7 (perfectly corresponds). Twelve items assessed intrinsic motivation, twelve items were relevant to extrinsic motivation, and four items investigated amotivation. The scale's dependability according to Cronbach's alpha was 0.932 which is excellent.




Procedure

As per Sekaran & Bougie (2016), quantitative research typically employs questionnaires to gather information or data. In this study, athletes were asked to complete two specific questionnaires, namely the Sports Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) and the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron et al., 1985). The researcher distributed these questionnaires to the athletes in the team's dressing or meeting room before the start of their practice sessions. Prior to collecting the data, the researcher presented a brief introduction explaining the study's aims. Towards the conclusion of the regular season, the athletes completed the questionnaires, a task that occupied about 20 minutes of their time. Subsequently, the researcher gathered the completed questionnaires.

Data Analysis

The collected data of the study was analyzed using SPSS version 23.0. The association between motivation and team cohesiveness was explored by inferentially analyzing the obtained data using Pearson correlation. Before data analysis, internal reliability scores were calculated for the study's instruments (Group Environment Questionnaire and Sports Motivation Scale). Descriptive statistics were also examined to observe if there were any unusual values that were mentioned, as well as to ensure that measures had their appropriate ranges. 

Results

The study sample size was 100 women cricketers from Lahore. Table 1 presents the descriptive of demographic characteristics, Table 2 shows the Cronbach's alpha reliability of study instruments while Tables 3 and 4 explain the data normality and descriptive of study variables respectively. Table 5 and 6 illustrates the correlation between study variables.




 

Table 1

Demographics-Frequencies

Characteristics	Categories	n
Age of participants	18 to 22 Years 23 to 27 Years 28 to 32 Years	48 32 20	48 32 20
Role of participants	Batter Bowler Wicket Keeper All Rounder	30 38 05 27	30 38 5 27
Experience of participants	Less than 2 Years More than 2 Years	31 69	31 69

 




According to Table 1, most of the participants (n=48) were in between the age group of 18-22 years while very few (n=20) participants were above 27 years of age. The bowlers were high in number (n=38) while wicket-keepers were less in number (n=05) among all participants. Most of the participants had more than 2 years of playing experience (n=69).




Table 2

Reliability Statistics of the Scales

Scales	No. of Items
Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)	18	0.769
Social Cohesion	09	0.630
Task Cohesion	09	0.797
Sports Motivation Scale (SMS-28)	28	0.975
Intrinsic Motivation	12	0.911
Extrinsic Motivation	12	0.950
Amotivation	04	0.952

 




The Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) achieved a satisfactory reliability score of 0.769 as well as its subscales (Social Cohesion 0.630, Task Cohesion 0.797). All the subscales of the Sports Motivation Scale had a good scale reliability for responses of 0.911, 0.950, and 0.952. The Sports Motivation Scale exhibits a robust level of reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.975.




 

Table 3

Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality

Study Instruments	Statistics
Sports Motivation Scale (SMS-28)	0.977	100	0.487
Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)	0.988	100	0.493

 

df= degree of freedom

The findings of the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality test indicate that the data is normally distributed as P<0.05 of study instruments.

 

Table 4

 Descriptives of Study Variables

Variables	No. of Items	M	SD
Intrinsic Motivation	12	3.931	1.067
Extrinsic Motivation	12	3.969	1.208
Amotivation	4	3.872	1.072
Group Integration-Task	4	4.110	0.752
Group Integration-Social	5	3.917	1.489
Attraction to the group-Social	5	3.997	0.838
Attraction to the group-Task	4	3.775	1.936

 




** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).  = Mean, = Standard deviation         

Table 4 presents the description of three dimensions of motivation and four dimensions of cohesion. The highest scores were obtained for extrinsic motivation (M=3.969, SD=1.208 among motivation subscales. The highest value among GEQ Subscales was Group Integration-Task (M=4.110, SD=0.752).




 

Table 5

Correlation between subscales of motivation and team cohesion of respondents

Variables
Intrinsic Motivation	0.802**	<0.001
Intrinsic Motivation	0.948**	<0.001
Intrinsic MotivationAttration to the Group Integration-Social	0.933**	<0.001
Intrinsic Motivation Attraction to the Group Integration-Task	0.983**	<0.001
Extrinsic Motivation	0.688**	<0.001
Extrinsic Motivation	0.985**	<0.001
Extrinsic Motivation Attration to the Group Integration-Social	0.899**	<0.001
Extrinsic Motivation  Attraction to the Group Integration-Task	0.969**	<0.001




The findings demonstrate that all intrinsic motivation variables exhibit a positive correlation with the team cohesion variables among the respondents. The most substantial correlation was observed between intrinsic motivation and Attraction to Group Integration-Task (r=0.983**, p<0.001). Additionally, the highest correlation for extrinsic motivation was found with the group-integration task (r=0.985**, p<0.001).




 

Table 6

Relationship between motivation and cohesion of respondents

Variables
Intrinsic Motivation	0.638**	<0.001
Extrinsic Motivation	0.623**	<0.001
Motivation	0.633**	<0.001

 




Table 6 provides an overview of the correlation between motivational factors, specifically intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, and Team Cohesion. The findings reveal a strong positive correlation between intrinsic motivation and team cohesion among the respondents (r=0.638**, p<0.001). Further, a moderate level of relationship is observed between extrinsic motivation and cohesion (r=0.623**, p<0.001). Moreover, the overall motivation score demonstrates a positive relationship with team cohesion (r=0.633**, p<0.001) among the respondents.

Discussion

As a variety of competition levels, group cohesiveness is undoubtedly one of the most crucial structures for sports teams (Eys et al., 2019; Goffena & Horn, 2020). The reason behind conducting this study was to identify the motivation level and its association with team cohesion among women cricketers of Lahore city. To achieve this purpose, three hypotheses were formed. H1 Intrinsic motivation has a significant relationship with the team cohesion of women cricketers. H2 Extrinsic Motivation has a significant relationship with the team cohesion of women cricketers.  H3 Motivation has a significant relationship with the team cohesion of women cricketers. The first hypothesis was about the relationship of intrinsic motivation and team cohesion and the results identified a positive and strong relationship (r=0.638**, p<0.001) among both variables (Table 6). It shows that respondents have a high internal desire to stay connected within the group and to achieve their goals. The second hypothesis was about the relationship between extrinsic motivation and team cohesion and Table 6 reported a significant relationship (r=0.623**, p<0.001) among respondents. Hypothesis number three also showed a positive relationship (r=0.633**, p<0.001) between motivation and team cohesion.

The current study found a connection between cohesiveness (task and social) and motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic), both of which were based on self-determined theory (Deci & Ryan,2000). The findings show that the impression of team cohesion among female cricket players was a factor in the motivational boost. Additionally, the findings imply that task and social cohesiveness have a strong association with intrinsic motivation, whereas cohesion and extrinsic motivation have a modest relationship. 

The findings are consistent with other research showing a beneficial association between task cohesiveness and motivation (Blanchard et al., 2009; Khurram, M. H. 2022; Rosendo et al., 2021), although social cohesion is less frequently investigated. Notably, the findings indicated that intrinsic motivation, as opposed to extrinsic incentive, was a stronger contributor to team cohesiveness. This indicated that group internal motivation views may be more important than extrinsic motivating variables in sports. The sense of team cohesiveness may be improved by making friends on the team, staying in touch frequently, hanging out with teammates during and after practice, and having fun together. Promoting emotional well-being and good motivating outcomes may need strengthening cohesiveness in particular (Al-Yaaribi & Kavussanu,2017; Burner & Spink, 2011; Gunel & Duyan, 2020). The results of this study are in line with prior studies examining both factors within a sports context and have uncovered connections between motivation and team cohesiveness.

Limitations to Address for Future Study

1. The present study was primarily limited to the geographical location of Lahore as only Lahore-based female cricketers with at least two years of playing experience were included. Results might not be generalized to other sports contexts. To provide better generalizability, the study should be applied to other areas of Players at the college/university level. It is suggested that adding certain types of students from school and college levels will strengthen the reputation of potential work in the field of women's cricket.

2. The research variables were only looked at once, which limited our capacity to draw conclusions about causation. To evaluate if the link between team cohesiveness, self-determined motivation, and performance is causally related, more research is required. 

3. Additionally, taking a large sample size of female and male athletes as well, as gender disparities would help in the generalizability and credibility of the findings.

4. Notwithstanding these limitations, the current study significantly adds to the existing body of knowledge regarding the interplay between team cohesiveness and motivation. It emphasizes the critical role of team cohesiveness as a central social-environmental factor when assessing athlete motivation.

Future Directions

1. In future research, an exploration of the unique dynamics within sports teams at both club and national levels could be undertaken by incorporating a broader range of sports or by contrasting team sports (such as football, volleyball, handball, and basketball) with individual sports (like swimming, tennis, golf, and track and field). This approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the varying contexts of team cohesion across different sports.

2. Future research in both individual and team sports should identify how additional factors, like the environment created by teammates and coaches, impact the cohesiveness of the group and the sense of connection among athletes. Such investigations would expand the range of potential recommendations for addressing athlete motivation and enhancing performance.

Conclusion

This study investigates the interplay between team cohesiveness and athlete motivation, making a valuable addition to the existing body of knowledge within the domains of sports psychology and sports development. Recent research underscores a robust connection between an athlete's motivation and the cohesion within their team, with cohesion emerging as a pivotal factor in driving player motivation.

References

• Almagro, B. J., Sáenz-López, P., Fierro-Suero, S., & Conde, C. (2020). Perceived Performance, Intrinsic Motivation and Adherence in Athletes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(24), 9441. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17249441
• Al-Yaaribi, A., & Kavussanu, M. (2017). Teammate Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors Predict Task Cohesion and Burnout: The Mediating Role of Affect. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 39(3), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0336
• Berengüí, R., Carralero, R., Castejón, M. A., Campos-Salinas, J. A., & Cantón, E. (2021). Values, motivational orientation and team cohesion amongst youth soccer players. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 174795412110556. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211055690
• Bell, S. T., & Brown, S. G. (2015). Selecting and Composing Cohesive Teams. Team Cohesion: Advances in Psychological Theory, Methods and Practice, 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1534-085620150000017008
• Berengüí, R., Carralero, R., Castejón, M. A., Campos-Salinas, J. A., & Cantón, E. (2021). Values, motivational orientation and team cohesion amongst youth soccer players. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 174795412110556. https://doi.org/10.1177/17479541211055690
• Blanchard, C. M., Amiot, C. E., Perreault, S., Vallerand, R. J., & Provencher, P. (2009). Cohesiveness, coach’s interpersonal style and psychological needs: Their effects on self- determination and athletes’ subjective well- being. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(5), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.02.005
• Blynova, O., Popovych, I., Hulias, I., Radul, S., Borozentseva, T., Strilets-Babenko, O.,
• Minenko, O. (2022). Psychological safety of the educational space in the structure of motivational orientation of female athletes: a comparative analysis. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 22(11), 2723–2732. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2022.11346
• Bruner, M. W., & Spink, K. S. (2011). Effects of team building on exercise adherence and group task satisfaction in a youth activity setting. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15(2), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021257
• arron, A. V., & Brawley, L. R. (2012). Cohesion. Small Group Research, 43(6), 726–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412468072
• Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(2), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/026404102317200828
• Kleinert, J., Ohlert, J., Carron, B., Eys, M., Feltz, D., Harwood, C., Linz, L., Seiler, R., & Sulprizio, M. (2012). Group Dynamics in Sports: An Overview and Recommendations on Diagnostic and Intervention. The Sport Psychologist, 26(3), 412–434 . https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.26.3.412
• Clancy, R. B., Herring, M. P., MacIntyre, T. E., & Campbell, M. J. (2016). A review of competitive sport motivation research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27, 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.09.003
• Eys, M., Bruner, M. W., & Martin, L. J. (2019). The dynamic group environment in sport and exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.001
• Eys, M. A., Evans, B., & Benson, A. (2020). Group dynamics in sport (5th ed.). Fit Publishing
• Godfrey, M., Coleman, T., & Eys, M. (2020). Ethnic diversity and cohesion in interdependent youth sport contexts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 101881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101881
• Goffena, J. D., & Horn, T. S. (2020). The relationship between coach behavior and athlete self- regulated learning. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,174795412095190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954120951903
• Gu, S., Bi, S., Guan, Z., Fang, X., & Jiang, X. (2022). Relationships among Sports Group Cohesion, Passion, and Mental Toughness in Chinese Team Sports Athletes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), 15209. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215209
• Günel, Ä°., & Duyan, M. (2020). THE EFFECT OF SERVICE QUALITY ON ATHLETE SATISFACTION: AN EMPIRICAL RESULTS FROM SPORTS FACILITIES OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS. European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies, 5(3). https://doi.org/10.46827/ejmms.v5i3.830
• HU, S., & WANG, Y. (2014). Concept, Measurements, Antecedents and Consequences of Work Engagement. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(12), 1975. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1042.2014.01975
• Karanika-Murray, M., Duncan, N., Pontes, H. M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2015). Organizational identification, work engagement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(8), 1019–1033. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-11-2013-0359
• Kardi, I. S. (2020). Psikologi Olahraga: Persfektif sea games. The Journalist Publishing.
• Khorram, M. H. (2022). Goal orientation-based relationship between coaching efficiency, athlete satisfaction, and team cohesion. Scientific Journal of Sport and Performance, 2(1), 70-82. https://doi.org/10.55860/XAQQ9577
• lglesias-Martínez, E., Roces-García, J., & Méndez- Alonso, D. (2021). Predictive Strength of Contextual and Personal Variables in Soccer Players’ Goal Orientations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(17), 9401. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18179401
• Yıldırım, M. (2021). Investigation of Sports Participation Motivations of Physical Education and Sports School Students. International Education Studies, 14(8), 43. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n8p43
• Najafi, F., Heydarinejad, S., & Shetabbushehri, S. N. (2018). The Relationship Between the Leadership Style of Coaches, Group Cohesion and Competitive Anxiety in Women's Futsal Premier League. Sport Management studies, 10(47), 185-204. https://doi.org/10.22089/smrj.2018.1670.1378
• Holle, N. (2021). Perceived Group Cohesion and its Relation with Individual and Team Performance in Sports. Asu-Ir.tdl.org. https://hdl.handle.net/2346.1/37950
• Pacewicz, C. E., Smith, A. L., & Raedeke, T. D. (2020). Group cohesion and relatedness as predictors of self-determined motivation and burnout in adolescent female athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 50, 101709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101709
• Pierpaolo, L., & Giusi Antonia, T. (2018). Original Article The psychological constructs and dimensions applied to sports performance: a change of theoretical paradigms. Journal of Physical Education and Sport ® (JPES), 18, 2034–2038. https://doi.org/10.7752/jpes.2018.s5302
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
• Sabin, S.I., & Marcel, P. (2014). Group cohesion important factor in sports performance. European Scientific Journal, 10(26), 163-17 4. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4593.4165
• Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-building Approach (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Weiss, M. R. (2013). Back to the future: Research trends in youth motivation and physical activity. Paediatric exercise science, 25, 561–572. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.25.4. 561