Intolerance of Uncertainty and Collective Efficacy Within Soccer
Teams: A Test of Mediation by Team Identification
Kelvin M. Boogaard and Svenja A. Wolf University of Amsterdam
Abstract
Collective efficacy in sport is important because it relates to performance. One factor that influences collective efficacy is team identification. Team identification can also help reduce uncertainty that is connected to sport performance. Athletes who have a high intolerance of uncertainty may therefore identify particularly strongly with their team and hence, show increased collective efficacy. In this study we examined if intolerance of uncertainty related to collective efficacy and if team identification mediated this relationship. We asked 264 male and female soccer players to complete questionnaires of intolerance of uncertainty, team identification, and collective efficacy in a practice setting. Although we found no relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy, we did find that both intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy link with team identification on different subscale levels. The applied implication of this study is that the focus should be on improving team identification which links with both intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy.
Keywords: intolerance of uncertainty, team identification, collective efficacy,
Intolerance of Uncertainty and Collective Efficacy Within Soccer Teams: A Test of Mediation by Team Identification
For the Australian soccer team to qualify for the World Cup 2006 in Germany the Football Foundation Australia appointed the Dutch soccer trainer Guus Hiddink as their head coach. The coach’s philosophy for the Australian soccer team to get better results was to obtain the team confidence that other Australian sport teams (e.g., the rugby team) displayed. One of the tools Hiddink used was to show the team a video of other Australian athletes being victorious with the hope that the players would identify with their nationals and that this would increase their team confidence. It was this team confidence that was the base for getting through the qualifiers and resulted in participating in the World Cup for the second time in the history of Australian soccer (Meulenhoff, 2006). The philosophy of the Dutch coach has been confirmed by previous research which stated that team confidence makes players perform on high levels (Bandura, 1997; Fransen et al., 2015). Research also supported his approach to increase team confidence by increasing team identification (Tajfel, 1982). In addition, increased team identification also has the potential to reduce the uncertainty that is naturally connected to sport competitions (Hogg, 2007), especially for those players are intolerant of uncertainty.
Generally, the degree of confidence team members have in their ability to achieve a common goal or objective within sports is referred to as collective efficacy (Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2007). Collective efficacy has been defined by Bandura (1997) as the “group’s shared belief in its conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (p. 477). Collective efficacy is an extension of the self-efficacy theory of Bandura (1977). Where self-self-efficacy focuses on the perception of confidence on an individual level, collective efficacy focuses on the perception of confidence on a group level. Previous research has shown that work teams with higher collective efficacy
perform better compared to teams with lower collective efficacy (Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002; Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009). Myers, Feltz, and Short (2004) found this same result with intercollegiate football players.
According to Bandura (1977), there are four different sources of collective efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasion, and affective states. More recent research further states that leaders within teams have an impact on their team members’ collective efficacy (Fransen et al., 2014, 2015). Finally, Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, and Zananis (1995) suggested that qualities of all team members also have great potential to contribute to a team’s belief in its own capability. However, little research has focused on the specific relationship between team members' traits and their collective efficacy beliefs (Tasa, Sears, & Schat, 2010).
Athletes' personality is important with regard to performance. For example, longitudinal research has found that personality traits influence the level of performance in soccer players (Aidman, 2007). Further, athletes' personality traits have been documented to influence their emotional responses to competition (Robinson & Freeston, 2015), which, in turn may have an unfavorable impact on sport performance if these responses take on the form of increased levels of anxiety (Jones, 2003). Also the Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1997) states that negative emotional arousal such as anxiety can reduce collective efficacy. Therefore having a personality that enhances an individual’s feeling of anxiety may be maladaptive.
One of the personality traits that have been linked to enhanced performance anxiety is intolerance of uncertainty (Robinson & Freeston, 2015). Ladouceur, Gosselin, and Dugas (2000) defined intolerance of uncertainty as “the predisposition to react negatively to an uncertain event or situation, independent of its probability of occurrence and of its associated consequences” (p. 934). When a person has a high intolerance of uncertainty this person is
likely to appraise an uncertain situation negatively and therefore respond dysfunctionally or negatively on cognitive, emotional, and behavioral levels (Dugas, Buhr, & Ladouceur, 2004). Encountering a situation that has a lot of unknown factors provokes uncertainty and this enhances the need for certainty (Helsen, Van Den Bussche, Vlaeyen, & Goubert, 2013; Weary & Edwards, 1996). In the context of the uncertainty that is innate to competitive sport (Hick, 1952; Hymen, 1953), athletes have different kinds of coping resources to obtain the certainty they desire or to reduce the stress that is caused by uncertainty. Stress management (e.g., relaxation exercises) is one of the coping resources that can reduce the perceived stress resulting from uncertainty and that is associated with enhanced performance (Rumbold, Fletcher, & Daniels, 2012). Another way to cope with uncertainty (on conscious or unconscious levels) is to identify more strongly with one's team. Specifically, uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg, 2007) states that team identification is one of the most powerful and effective ways to achieve certainty and reduce uncertainty.
Team identification is defined as the part of an individual’s self-concept in which they acknowledge and value being part of a team and the shared norms and behavioral codes which develop into a sense of cohesion and interdependence (Solansky, 2011; Tajfel, 1981). In order for team identification to occur amongst individuals, they must be motivated to belong to a group (Fiol & O’Conner, 2005) and one of the motives for individuals to identify with a group is to reduce uncertainty (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Whenever persons identify with a team, they will compare their insights with those of the other team members' and hence, reduce their own uncertainty (Hogg & Terry, 2000).
Strong team identification also enhances the shared belief in realizing the group goals, that is, collective efficacy (Ashforth & Meal, 1989; Wang & Howell, 2012). This occurs because athletes who identify with a group will attribute positive features to this group and this will enhance their belief in the group's ability to achieve goals (Tajfel, 1982). The Social
Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1997) states that negative emotional arousal states such as stress can reduce collective efficacy. Team identification can act as a buffer between these negative emotional arousal states and collective efficacy (Wang & Howell, 2012). Since intolerance of uncertainty can provoke stress and team identification can reduce this the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy can be mediated by team identification. Previous research by Fransen et al (2014) found a partially mediating role for team identification in the relation between athlete’s leadership and collective efficacy.
Because of the growing financial interest within soccer it is important for a club to set a good performance to ensure a higher end of the season ranking and therefore increase their annual budget (Lago-Penas & Sampaio, 2014). Previous research has documented that collective efficacy may increase the chances of performing on high levels (Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009) and that stronger team identification is a predictor of greater collective efficacy (Fransen et al., 2014). In addition, research posits that the individual qualities within a team are important for a team’s sense of belief in its own capability (Zaccaro, Blair, Peterson, & Zananis, 1995) and that the individual quality of intolerance of uncertainty in particular may be linked to greater team identification (Hogg, 2007). The current study attempts to extend the knowledge about the personality trait intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy and attempts to find the underlying mechanisms within soccer teams. An overview of the hypotheses is shown in Figure 1.
The first research question is: Is there a relationship between athletes’ intolerance of uncertainty and the teams’ collective efficacy? We hypothesize that intolerance of uncertainty positively predicts collective efficacy (H1). The second research question is: Is there a relationship between athletes’ intolerance of uncertainty and athletes’ team identification? We hypothesize that team identification positively predicts team identification (H2). The third research question is: Is there a relationship between athletes’ team identification and athletes’
Figure 1. Hypotheses concerning intolerance of uncertainty, team identification, and
collective efficacy.
collective efficacy? We hypothesize that team identification positively predicts collective efficacy (H3). The fourth and final research question is: Is the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy mediated by team identification? We hypothesize a partially mediating role for team identification in the relation between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy (H4).
Method Participants
In total 264 soccer players provided valid responses. Their mean age was 24.62 years (SD = 4.43) and 231 participants (87.5%) were male. Furthermore, the participants had on average 17.90 years (SD = 5.03) of competitive experience and 3.13 years (SD = 2.62) of team tenure. The athletes belonged to 22 teams (19 men’s teams). These teams had an average of 17 players (SD = 2.39).
Measures
Intolerance of Uncertainty. The Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, short version by Carleton, Norton, and Asmundson (2007) contains 12 items regarding uncertain or ambiguous situations. The items were adapted to a sport context, for example by adding "in competition"
(e.g., "Uncertainty keeps me from living a full life." was changed to "Uncertainty in competitions keeps me from living a full life."). These items are part of two subscales Prospective Anxiety (e.g., "Unforeseen events associated with competitions upset me greatly.") and Inhibitory Anxiety (e.g. “I must get away from all uncertainty in competitions.”). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all characteristic of me) to 5 (entirely characteristic of me). Finally, the questionnaire was translated into Dutch by two bilingual individuals based on the Dutch version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, short version from Helsen et al. (2013).
Team Identification. The Revised Social Identity Measure for Sport by Bruner, Boardley, and Côté (2014) was used to measure this variable. This questionnaire has been adapted from Cameron (2004) and contains of 12 items divided in three subscales, Ingroup Ties (e.g. “I have a lot in common with other members in this team.”), Cognitive Centrality (e.g. “In general, being a member of this team is an important part of my self-image.”), and Ingroup Affect (e.g. “I rarely regret that I am a member of this team.”). Participants assess the items on a 7-point scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree). The questionnaire, too was translated into Dutch by two bilingual individuals who were aided by Leach et al.'s (2008) translation of Cameron's (2004) original scale.
Collective efficacy. The Collective Efficacy Questionnaire for Sports (Short, Sullivan, & Feltz, 2005) is a questionnaire with 20 items that are divided into five subscales, Ability (e.g., “…play more skillfully than the opponent.”), Effort (e.g., “…demonstrate a strong work ethic.”), Persistence (e.g., “…persist when obstacles are present.”), Preparation (e.g., “…physically prepare for this competition.”), and Unity (e.g., “…be united.”). Each item is preceded by the stem “Rate your confidence, in terms of the upcoming game or competition, that your team has the ability to…”. Participants assessed the items on a 7-point scale
anchored by -3 (not at all confident) to 3 (extremely confident). As before, the questionnaire was translated into Dutch by two bilingual individuals.
Additional information. In addition to the previous mentioned questionnaires, athletes completed a demographic survey (asking about their age, sex, competitive experience, team tenure, etc.) and other relevant information (e.g., ranking, game location, previous performance) was obtained via the internet.
Procedure
After having obtained approval from the relevant institutional ethics board, we started contacting teams' head coaches and explained the nature of our research to them. If they consented with approaching their players, we scheduled a meeting with the team before or after a practice session. In this meeting, we explained the nature of our research and asked the players formally to participate. After providing informed consent, players responded to a questionnaire including all constructs.
Data Analyses
After obtaining the data we created the subscales of intolerance of uncertainty, team identification, and collective efficacy by calculating the mean of the corresponding items. Within the subscales we checked the standardized values; if the values where higher or lower than the absolute of 3.29, they were considered outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and changed to missing data so they were not included in the data analyses. To test the hypotheses, we ran a series of regression analyses. Therefore, we checked if the data met the assumptions for regression (Fields, 2009). We did a test for normality and even though the data is does not follow the normal bell curve we proceeded with the regression, because it is quite normal for athletes to be highly identified with their teams or display high values of collective efficacy. Also, we checked the VIF score of all the subscales and no multicollinearity was found between the subscales.
Further, all participants were part of a team and therefore had a shared social and environmental context with their teammates (e.g., competition rank, team tenure, previous performance). This social and environmental context might influence their perceptions and evaluations on team identification as well as collective efficacy (Bandura, 1997; Bickel, 2007). Therefore, we tested for team-related dependencies in athletes’ team identification and collective efficacy (i.e., variables that would constitute the criteria in the regression analyses). As displayed in Table 1, within team identification we found significant intraclass correlations for the subscales Ingroup Ties and Ingroup Affect. This indicates that team membership alone explained 14.1% and 17.3% of the variance, respectively in the mentioned subscales. Within collective efficacy the subscales Ability, Persistence, and Unity had a significant intraclass correlation (see Table 1) and team membership explained 25.0%, 19.8%, and 17.4% of the variance, respectively.
Because these subscales have team-related dependencies restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimators were needed when these subscales were the criterion variable for H1, H2, and H3 (Bickel, 2007). When using REML estimators, predictors are most interpretable when they are centered at the grand mean (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). Therefore, all the predictors within the REML models were centered at the grand mean. For the subscales that did not show any team-dependency (i.e., team identification-Centrality and collective efficacy-Effort) we used ordinary least squared regression estimators and raw scores of predictors in all analyses.
To test H1 we specified dimensions of collective efficacy as the criteria and dimensions of intolerance of uncertainty as the predictor variables. To test H2 we specified dimensions of team identification as criteria and dimensions of intolerance of uncertainty as predictor variables. To test H3 we specified dimensions of collective efficacy as the criteria and dimensions of team identification as the predictor variables.Finally, as displayed in more
detail below, data analyses for H4 were not relevant because there was no significant relation between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy.
Results
Descriptive statistics, internal consistency, and intrateam correlation coefficients for intolerance of uncertainty, team identification, and collective efficacy are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics, internal consistency, and team-related dependencies for intolerance of uncertainty, team identification, and collective efficacy
Variable Scale Range M SD Cronbach's α ICC
Intolerance of Uncertainty 1. Prospective Anxiety 1 to 5 2.18 0.66 .75 .00 2. Inhibitory Anxiety 1 to 5 1.95 0.66 .65 .00 Team Identification 3. Ingroup Ties 1 to 7 5.19 1.08 .84 .14* 4. Centrality 1 to 7 3.88 1.38 .82 .00 5. Ingroup Affect 1 to 7 5.63 1.04 .83 .17* Collective Efficacy 6. Ability -3 to 3 1.78 0.82 .82 .25* .00 .20* .00 .17* 7. Effort -3 to 3 1.60 0.87 .82 8. Persistence -3 to 3 1.47 0.98 .79 9. Preparation -3 to 3 1.52 0.88 .83 10. Unity -3 to 3 1.26 0.92 .76
Note. ICC = unconditional intraclass correlation coefficient
H1: Intolerance of Uncertainty and Collective Efficacy
Regarding the first hypothesis, we expected that athletes' intolerance of uncertainty would positively predict their belief in the collective capabilities of their team. As displayed in Table 2, our results did not support this hypothesis. Neither prospective anxiety nor inhibitory anxiety were significantly related to any of the subscales of collective efficacy. Table 2
Results of regression analyses predicting collective efficacy by intolerance of uncertainty Subscales CE as criterion Subscales IU as predictors p Estimate SE
Abilitya Prospective Anxiety .488 -.04 0.05
Inhibitory Anxiety .714 .10 0.06
Effortb Prospective Anxiety .793 .03 0.11
Inhibitory Anxiety .942 -.01 0.11 Persistencea Prospective Anxiety .099 -.02 0.07 Inhibitory Anxiety .270 .10 0.08 Preparationb Prospective Anxiety .871 -.02 0.11 Inhibitory Anxiety .929 -.01 0.11
Unitya Prospective Anxiety .347 .01 0.06
Inhibitory Anxiety .497 .05 0.06
Note. CE = collective efficacy, IU = intolerance of uncertainty. Estimates are unstandardized.
aRestricted maximum likelihood estimators were used and predictors were grand-mean centered. bOLS estimators were used.
With regard to the second hypothesis, we expected that intolerance of uncertainty would positively predict team identification. As displayed in Table 3, we found support for our hypothesis within two of the identification subscales. Regarding ingroup ties, intolerance of uncertainty accounted for 12.2% of the variance with prospective anxiety being the main predictor (see Table 3). Within centrality both prospective and inhibitory anxiety where significant predictors and explained 19.1% of the variance. In contrast to ingroup ties and centrality, we found no significant relations between the subscales of intolerance of uncertainty and ingroup affect.
Table 3
Results of regression analyses predicting team identification by intolerance of uncertainty Subscales TI as criterion Subscales IU as predictors p Estimate SE
Ingroup Tiesa Prospective Anxiety .043 -.30 0.13 Inhibitory Anxiety .114 .25 0.09 Centralityb Prospective Anxiety .022 .39 0.17 Inhibitory Anxiety .035 .35 0.17 Ingroup Affecta Prospective Anxiety .781 .04 0.17 Inhibitory Anxiety .860 .17 0.18
Note. TI = team identification, IU = intolerance of uncertainty. Estimates are unstandardized.
a
Restricted maximum likelihood estimators were used and predictors were grand-mean centered.
bOLS estimators were used
H3: Team Identification and Collective Efficacy
Regarding the third hypothesis, we expected that team identification would positively predict collective efficacy. We found partial support for this hypothesis. As can be found in
Table 4, team identification explained 14.8% of the variance in ability, 13.1% of the variance in effort, 11.2% of the variance in preparation, and 19.5% of the variance in unity, all with ingroup affect being the main predictor. In contrast, we found no significant relationships between team identification and the collective efficacy subscale of preparation.
Table 4
Results of regression analyses predicting collective efficacy by team identification
Subscales CE as criterion
Subscales TI as predictors
p Estimate SE
Abilitya Ingroup Ties .745 -.02 0.04
Centrality .977 .00 0.03
Ingroup Affect .000 -.21 0.04
Effortb Ingroup Ties .793 .02 0.06
Centrality .550 .03 0.04
Ingroup Affect .000 .28 0.06
Persistencea Ingroup Ties .545 -.04 0.05
Centrality .613 -.03 0.04
Ingroup Affect .179 -.24 0.07
Preparationb Ingroup Ties .372 .05 0.04
Centrality .563 -.27 0.04
Ingroup Affect .000 .27 0.06
Unitya Ingroup Ties .824 -.02 0.03
Centrality .238 -.06 0.04
Ingroup Affect .001 -.25 0.04
Note. CE = collective efficacy, TI = team identification. Estimates are unstandardized.
aRestricted maximum likelihood estimators were used and predictors were grand-mean centered. bOLS estimators were used.
H4: Intolerance of Uncertainty and Collective Efficacy Mediated by Team Identification Finally, with regard to the fourth hypothesis, we expected team identification to partially mediate the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy. In order for mediation to occur the previous significant relation between the predictor and the criterion variable will be substantially reduced (potentially to the point of non-significance) when the mediator variable is added to the equation (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Because we found no significant relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy to begin with (see Table 2), no further analyses were needed to conclude that team identification did not mediate the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy in the present data.
An overview of all results is displayed in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Significant results REML and OLS of intolerance of uncertainty, team
identification, and collective efficacy.
In the current study, we investigated the relationships among intolerance of uncertainty, team identification, and collective efficacy. We expected greater intolerance of uncertainty to predict greater collective efficacy and for increased team identification to mediate this relationship. We found, however, that intolerance of uncertainty was not related to collective efficacy. Nonetheless, the individual links from intolerance of uncertainty to team identification and from team identification to collective efficacy were partially supported.
Specifically, in line with our expectations, subscales of intolerance of uncertainty positively predicted team identification in the form of ingroup ties and centrality. This result is in line with previous research which states that team identification reduces uncertainty (Hogg & Terry, 2000). This finding can be explained by the fact that an individual wants to reduce uncertainty by becoming (or being) part of a team (Hogg, 2007). The uncertainty-reduction theory states that uncertainty is an aversive state which generates cognitive stress and the goal is to reduce this stress (Turner & West, 2010). Because intolerance of uncertainty generates cognitive stress it makes sense that it links with the cognitive components of team identification. Ingroup ties and centrality are constructs that capture how important it is for an individual to bind the self to a group and are therefore the cognitive components of team identification (Cameron, 2004). As opposed to ingroup ties and centrality, we found no relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and ingroup affect. Ingroup affect captures the extent to which individuals evaluate themselves as team members and constitutes the emotional component of team identification (Cameron, 2004). Because this is an emotional component of team identification, it could explain why we found no relationship with intolerance of uncertainty, a cognitive phenomenon.
Regarding the links between team identification and collective efficacy, our findings again align with previous research. Notably, we found that greater team identification in the
form of ingroup affect predicted stronger collective efficacy in the form of ability, effort, preparation, and unity. This is partially in line with work by Fransen et al. (2014), which documented that team identification as complete construct positively predicted collective efficacy. The positive links between identification and collective efficacy make sense because ingroup affect measures which emotion-like feelings (e.g., happiness or frustration) arise from being part of a group (Cameron, 2004). Affective feelings and arousal, in turn, act as sources of collective efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Specifically, aversive arousal can decrease perceived collective efficacy and positive arousal can increase perceived collective efficacy (Bandura, 1977), which aligns with our finding that more positive group-related affect links with greater team identification. In contrast, we found no relationships between ingroup ties and centrality and any of the subscales of collective efficacy. Because ingroup ties and centrality are the cognitive components of team identification (Cameron, 2004), this fits with our argument that (only) affective states and arousal act as predictors of collective efficacy.
Because we found no relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy, we have to conclude that, counter to our expectations, team identification cannot play a mediating role in this relationship. We did find that intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy both relate to team identification, which indicates that they have an indirect link. However, we see that these links do not align when inspecting the constructs on a subscale level. Intolerance of uncertainty predicts the cognitive aspects of team identification, whereas the emotional aspect of team identification predicts collective efficacy. These findings explain why we found no mediating role for team identification in the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy in our model.
On a theoretical level, our findings provide further evidence that personality relates to the social behavior of athletes. We found that the trait intolerance of uncertainty relates to the cognitive aspect of team identification. These results also provide additional support for the
uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg, 2007), which posits that team identification is a way to reduce uncertainty on a cognitive level. Finally, our findings align with efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) in that they support positive affect, here as the result of stronger team identification, as a predictor of a more positive appraisal of collective capabilities.
On an applied level, our findings offer implications for sport psychology practitioners, coaches, and even athletes that are working or competing in a team context. We found that the emotional aspect of team identification relates to collective efficacy. Because collective efficacy has a link with performance (Stajkovic, Lee, & Nyberg, 2009), these finding could encourage sport psychology practitioners, coaches, and athletes to improve the emotional aspect of team identification and therefore their collective efficacy. When experiencing a lack in affective issues, such as team identification, teams can benefit from team building (Shuffler, DiazGranados, & Salas, 2011). One team building exercise could be establishing norms within the team. By establishing team norms you can improve the group structure which in turn keeps up the groups maintenance and gives insight to the processes on which athletes can evaluate themselves and others (Carron, 1981; Paradis & Martin, 2012). To establish these team norms there are four methods: Creating a sense of ownership within the team members, clarify the expectations of the team leaders, clarify the expectations of all the team members, and implement punishment and reward (Eys, Patterson, Loughead, & Carron, 2006). For example, a coach let the group decide among themselves what their beliefs are to help guide their motivation and behavior for the upcoming season and write them down. Subsequently the coach lets every player sign the list with their name to show they agree with the beliefs. During the season the coach can fall back on the beliefs his team wrote down before and can reward those team members who follow the beliefs or punish the team members who don not follow the beliefs. Our findings suggest that team identification is not only related to collective efficacy but also that team identification is a way to deal with
uncertainty and reduce the associated stress or anxiety. So whenever an athlete is high in intolerance of uncertainty coaches, sport psychology practitioners and athletes themselves can take action to increase team identification by team building as well. For example, a coach has to provide an environment in which athletes can give input. The athlete will feel more trust and respect from the team and coach (Yukelson, 1984) and this can decrease the amount of experienced uncertainty.
Although our findings indicate that there is no relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy, future research is necessary due to certain limitations. Our current research was done at a recreational level where many of the players competed at the local club out of convenience or joined a club because friends were already playing on that team. Previous research stated that there was a relation between group cohesion and collective efficacy in elite teams, but not in recreational teams (Spink, 1990). This indicates that there might be a different result when using elite teams. Hence, future research should investigate different levels of performance. Also, the sample comprised of mostly male participants, which is representative of the soccer population in the Netherlands where this study was conducted. Previous research by Fink, Trail and Anderson (2002) showed that male fans exhibit a higher team identification with their favorite sport team compared to female fans. This indicates that there might be a difference between males and females in team identification. In addition Wann, Haynes, Mclean and Pullen (2003) stated that males had a higher team identification than females, resulting in higher willingness to consider anonymous acts of hostile aggression. The difference in team identification between male and female could therefore influence intolerance of uncertainty or collective efficacy. Accordingly, future research should also further examine the role of gender with regard to the relationships between team identification and intolerance of uncertainty or collective efficacy,
respectively. Finally, this study should be replicated and potentially tested more specifically with regard to causality.
Currently, we can conclude that there seems to be no direct relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and collective efficacy and hence, no mediating role of team identification. Nonetheless, our study found support for uncertainty-identity theory (Hogg, 2007) and suggests that athletes' personality may influence their social behavior on a cognitive level. Additionally, we found support for the efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) in that positive affect can increase the collective efficacy. Sport psychology practitioners, coaches, and athletes could be interested in fostering team identification as a way of reducing uncertainty and they should try to improve the emotional component of team identification for a higher collective efficacy.
References
Aidman, E. V. (2007). Attribute-based selection for success: The role of personality attributes in long term predictions of achievement in sport. The Journal of the American Board
of Sport Psychology, 3, 1-18.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20-39.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bickel, R. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It’s just regression! New York: Guilford Press.
Bruner, M. W., Boardley, I. D., & Côté, J. (2014). Social identity and prosocial and antisocial behavior in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 56-64.
Cameron, J. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239-262. Carleton, R. N. (2012). The intolerance of uncertainty construct in the context of anxiety
disorders: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Expert Review of
Neurotherapeutics, 12, 937-947.
Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 105-117.
Dugas, M. J., Ladouceur, R., Léger, E., Freeston, M. H., Langolis, F., Provencher, M. D., & Boisvert, J. M. (2003). Group cognitive-behavioral therapy for generalized anxiety disorder: Treatment outcome and long-term follow-up. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 71, 821-825.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138. Eys, M. A., Patterson, M. M., Loughhead, T. M. & Carron, A. V. (2005). Team building in
sport. In D. Hackfort, J. L. Duda & R. Lidor (Hrsg.), Handbook of research in applied
sport and exercise psychology. International perspectives (S. 219–231). Morgantown,
USA: Fitness Information Technology.
Feltz, D. L., Short, S., & Sullivan, P. J. (2007). Self-efficacy in sport: Research strategies for
working with athletes, teams and coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London, England: SAGE publications. Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). An examination of team identification:
Which motives are most salient to its existence? International Sports Journal, 6, 195-207.
Fiol, C. M., & O'Connor, E. J. (2005). Identification in face-to-face, hybrid, and pure virtual teams: Untangling the contradictions. Organization Science, 16, 19–32.
Fransen, K., Coffee, P., Vanbeselaere, N., Slater, M., De Cuyper, B., & Boen, F. (2014). The impact of athlete leaders on team members’ team outcome confidence: A test of mediation by team identification and collective efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 28, 347-360.
Fransen, K., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Vanbeselaere, N., Vande Broek, G., & Boen, F. (2015). We will be champions: Leaders' confidence in ‘us’ inspires team members'
team confidence and performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports, 26, 1455-1469.
Freeston, M. H., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry?. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 791-802.
Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beaubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 819-832. Helsen, K., Van den Bussche, E., Vlaeyen, J. W., & Goubert, L. (2013). Confirmatory factor
analysis of the Dutch Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale: Comparison of the full and short version. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 44, 21-29. Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty–identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 69-126.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity theory and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.
Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 4, 11-26.
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 45, 188-196.
Jones, M.V. (2003). Controlling emotions in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 471–486. Ladouceur, R., Gosselin, P., & Dugas, M. J. (2000). Experimental manipulation of intolerance
of uncertainty: A study of a theoretical model of worry. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 38, 933-941.
Lago-Peñas, C., & Sampaio, J. (2015). Just how important is a good season start? Overall team performance and financial budget of elite soccer clubs. Journal of Sports
Leach, C. W., Van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., ... & Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 144-165.
Mahoney, A. E., & McEvoy, P. M. (2012). Trait versus situation-specific intolerance of uncertainty in a clinical sample with anxiety and depressive disorders. Cognitive
Behaviour Therapy, 41, 26-39.
Meulenhoff, J.M. (2006). Saint Gus Biografie van Guus Hiddink. Amsterdam, Nederland: de Volkskrant
Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., & Short, S. E. (2004). Collective efficacy and team performance: A longitudinal study of collegiate football teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 8, 126-138.
Piedmont, R. L., Hill, D. C., & Blanco, S. (1999). Predicting athletic performance using the five-factormodel of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 769-777. Robinson, G., & Freeston, M. (2015). Intolerance of uncertainty as a predictor of performance
anxiety and robustness of sport confidence in university student-athletes. Journal of
Clinical Sport Psychology, 9, 335–344.
Rumbold, J. L., Fletcher, D., & Daniels, K. (2012). A systematic review of stress management interventions with sport performers. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 173-193.
Solansky, S. T. (2011). Team identification: a determining factor of performance. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 26, 247-258.
Short, S. E., Sullivan, P., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). Development and preliminary validation of the collective efficacy questionnaire for sports. Measurement in Physical Education
Shuffler, M. L., DiazGranados, D., & Salas, E. (2011). There’sa Science for That Team Development Interventions in Organizations. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 20(6), 365-372
Spink, K. (1990). Cohesion and collective efficacy of volleyball teams. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 12, 301-311.
Stajkovic, A. D., Lee, D., & Nyberg, A. J. (2009). Collective efficacy, group potency, and group performance: Meta-analyses of their relationships, and test of a mediation model. Journal of Applied Ppsychology, 94, 814-828.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge University Press Archive.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of
Psychology, 33, 1-39.
Tasa, K., Sears, G. J., & Schat, A. C. (2011). Personality and teamwork behavior in context: The cross‐level moderating role of collective efficacy. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 65-85.
Turner, L.H. & West, R. (2010). Introducing Communication Theory (4th ed). New York: McGraw Hill.
Wang, X. H. F., & Howell, J. M. (2012). A multilevel study of transformational leadership, identification, and follower outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 775-790. Wann, D. L., Haynes, G., McLean, B., & Pullen, P. (2003). Sport team identification and
willingness to consider anonymous acts of hostile aggression. Aggressive
Weary, G. & Edwards, J. E. (1996). Causal uncertainty and related goal structures. In R. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition (Vol.
3): The Interpersonal Context. (pp. 148-181). New York: Guilford Press.
Zacarro, S. J., Blair, V., Peterson, C., & Zazanis, M. (1995). Collective efficacy. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and
