Search

This investigation examined the relationship of group cohesion to mood disturbance, stress, and athletic performance in a female collegiate basketball team. Twenty players from a Division I college basketball team were administered a battery ofself-reportquestionnaires, including the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), the Profile of Mood States (POMS), and the Social and Athletic Readjustment Rating Scale (SARRS). Significant results were observed in relation to the Group Integration-Task (GI-T) and Group Integration-Social (GI-S) subscales of the GEQ. Participants perceiving high GI-T were less depressed, less confused, and showed less total mood disturbance on the POMS. Individuals reporting high GI-S experienced less personal, academic, coaching, sport, and injury-related stress, and subjects scoring high on GI-T or GI-S subscales reported lower levels of total stress as measured by the SARRS.

To determine the incidence of freeloading by college students and to compare the locus of control of freeloaders versus nonfreeloaders, 25 female and 20 male volunteers from introductory psychology were administered Levenson's Locus of Control Scale and were fingerprinted. The subjects were then allowed to cleanse their hands. Unobtrusive measures of whether the subjects obtained paper towels by operation of a crank towel dispenser or freeloaded from a stack of folded towels placed above the dispenser were obtained. 25 nonfreeloaders and 15 freeloaders were identified and compared on Levenson's Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales. Freeloaders were significantly lower on the Chance Locus of Control scale than were the nonfreeloaders.

Sumnrmy.-Previous research has supported the efficacy of combining the constructs of locus of control and psychological differentiation. The present study related this combination to personalicy adjustment as measured by Lanyon's Psychological Screening Inventory and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Analyses (a = 113) did not support the hypothesized relationship between congruence-incongruence of locus of control and psychological differentiation and personality adjustment. A discussion of methodological problems inherent in this area of research was presented. While the behavioral and personality referents of locus of control and psychological differentiation are similar, the measures of psychological differentiation were not derived from expectancy statements as were those of locus of control. Researchers have therefore been able to use both constructs simultaneously as co-determinants of many modes of behavior. Lefcourt and Telegdi ( 197 1 ) investigated the relationship between combined measures of locus of control (internal or external) and psychological differentiation (field-independent or field-dependent) and cognitive activity as measured by the Remote Associates Test, Barron's Himan Movement Threshold Inkblot Test, and an incomplete sentences blank. Subjects were grouped according to their performance on a field independence-dependence measure and a locus of control measure. This procedure resulted in two groups which held congruent perceptual skills and expectancies (field-independent-internal and field-dependent-external) and two groups which held incongruent perceptual skills and expectancies (field-independent-external and field-dependent-internal) . Results indicated that congruent subjects performed better on the identified cognitive tasks than incongruent subjects. The authors attributed the noted difference to the fact that congruent subjects were most

Much attention has been focused recently on the relationship between biofeedback and locus of control. Biofeedback refers to any technique using instrumentation to provide a person with instantaneous information on a bodily function, of which he is usually not aware, e.g., heartrate, GSR. Locus of control (Rotter, 1966) refers to the degree to which one sees reinforcements as contingent on his own behavior (inrernals) or determined by fate, chance, or powerful others (externals). Fotopoulos ( 1970) and Ray ( 1971) smdied the relationship between locus of control, biofeedback, and the ability to control heartrate. Using Rotrer's I-E scale, they found that inrernals were able to incrme their heartrates significantly more than externals. However, one cannot ascertain from these results if internals were more successful because they believed in self-control or because they believed chance was not an important factor in their lives. Several investigators have presented evidence indicating that the I-E scale is not unidimensional and have suggested that to be a valid instrument, the I-E scale must undergo further refinements. Levenson (1973) has developed three independent scales which attempt to measure different aspects of locus of control+xpectancies of control by self (I scale), powerful others (P scale), and chance (C scale). The purpose of this smdy was to use the new multidimensional scales in order to understand more precisely the relationship berween personality and biofeedback and to examine this relationship in terms of a measure other than heartrate. It was predicted that only scores on the I scale (personal control) would be significantly related to ability to control one's GSR. During a regular class period, 100 male and female undergraduates enrolled in an introductory psychology course, were administered the three scales. Of this number, 30 volunteered to participate in the biofeedback sessions. Ss were provided with a definition of GSR and were instructed to try to lower their GSR responses over a 2-min. interval with visual feedback provided in the form of a display meter. This procedure was repeated five times interspersed with l-min. rest intervals. A Smelting Psychogalvanoscope was used. The scale scores of the 10 Ss who were best able to lower their GSR responses (mean change = -2.75 reaction unin) were compared with the scores of those 10 Ss who were least able to lower their GSR (mean change = +. 13 ) . As expected, results indicated that those Ss who were more successful at using biofeedback had significantly higher I (personal control) scale scores (M = 38.4) than those who could not make use of the biofeedback (M = 32.3, t = 2.61, p < .01). There was no relationship between ability to control GSR and scores on the P (powerful others) or the C (chance) scales. Thus, personality differences are related to biofeedback performance. Furthermore, only beliefs about self-control and not about chance or powerful others appear to be relevant to voluntary coorrol of autonomic functions.