Peter Down & Emory Paine

Com 300: Communication Research Methods

Final Research Paper

Peter Oehlkers

 

Does more in-game contact between teammates lead to greater success in basketball?

Introduction

Improving sports performance, especially among collegiate sports teams, is an important topic of conversation for many researchers and professionals. In a time where just one division of athletic programs is a “$6 billion enterprise,” (Desrochers 2013) it’s no wonder that a great amount of money is spent every year in an attempt to increase performance. Athletic departments spend far more – three to six times as much – on athletes than the institutions do to educate average students, with schools in one athletic conference spending an average 12.2 times more ($163,931 compared to $13,390). With all this money being spent, and with at least 92 different sports science journals currently active since 2010 (Journal Ranking 2010) it would be odd to think that there was a simple method of improving sports performance that researchers and collegiate sports programs are overlooking. However, the use of in-game contact as a method to lead to greater success in sports seems to be currently unnoticed.

The use of touch as a performance indicator for basketball is not an area of sports and movement science that has received much attention. Kraus et al. 2010, which explored this specific connection between touch and performance concluded that “touch is crucial for predicting performance in competitive group settings” and that “teams that went on to enjoy winning records directly following the coded game engaged in more touch (M = 23.79) than teams with losing records after the coded game (M = 16.14)” where the difference in touch was measured in seconds (Kraus et al. 2010). However, most studies, such as Rajan 2009, focus on the effects of nonverbal communication as a whole rather than individual mediums, and though nonverbal communication has been proven to increase confidence and camaraderie between team members, these results are not specific enough to identify the exact causes of increased performance. In our study, we are focusing solely on the effects of touch between members of collegiate basketball teams to see if there is a link the amount of contact and the amount of success teams have.

Touch has the ability to influence and infer many things, from thoughts and perceptions to feelings of trust (Hertenstein 2002, Williams & Bargh 2008). Trust has been cited as an indicator of increased commitment between people and can increase a person’s ability to depend on others when necessary (Wieselquist et al. 1999), which is vital in sports; this is especially true in team sports such as basketball where the ability to depend on other players for constructing plays and throwing passes the game is played and won. Team cohesion positively influences overall performance, especially in team sports where teammates depend on one another for success (Jones & Kijeski 2009). Thus, there is a clear line of logic that connects touch to various avenues of increased success.

The goal of our research was to see if greater amounts of in-game contact between teammates on a basketball team led to greater success of the team in terms of score and number of wins. This was be measured by watching publicly available archived footage of 10 Salem State University home basketball games from Salem Access television and recording, on a checklist, the various forms the in-game contact takes and how often it occurs for both teams. We hypothesized that greater in-game contact between teammates does lead to greater success in basketball.

The results of this study provide insight into the effects of non-verbal communication and motivation among sports team members. The results could be given to basketball teams or adopted for other sports in order to achieve greater success; the possibilities for the implementation of these results are legion. Teams that go out of their way to make more contact may not only find greater performance on the court but may also feel better about their fellow players and themselves.

Literature Review

Does more in-game contact between teammates lead to greater success in basketball?

Basketball is a team sport that requires teammates to possess a collaborative skill set. Team cohesion is developed as a result of collaborative efforts between teammates participating in an interactive sport such as basketball. Both verbal and non-verbal communication within an interactive sports team setting inspires confidence and motivation among teammates, further enhancing team cohesion. A mutually supportive, interactive team environment where encouragement is communicated by teammates both verbally and non-verbally through physical touch, promotes cooperation leading to improved performance and team success.

In a business environment, individuals are often grouped into teams to work on collaborative projects without having first developed or practiced collaborative skills. (Snyder, 2009) The absence of collaborative skills leads the individuals on the team to apply individual approaches to a group experience. This of course would defeat the purpose of being grouped into a team and could potentially lead to conflict within the group as varying individual approaches can either jeopardize the project or exclude other group members. Instructing teams about teamwork provides participants with the tools to perform well within a collaborative setting.

A great deal of effort is often put into preparation and practice to improve individual skills and performance. In addition, individuals require safe environments in which they can practice communication skills prior to performance and evaluation. A safe environment would also include a setting where team membership would remain consistent from practice to performance. If individuals are prepared and practice their team skills, they are more likely to effectively apply their skills in group assignments. In order to practice and model effective collaboration; attention was focused on the purpose of the project, participation and positive collaboration was encouraged, timelines were established, the projects were kept on track and conflicts were negotiated.

Individuals were given the opportunity to review and revise their collaborative performance through a questionnaire which upon reflection allowed them to be more effective team members. Self reflection is a method of performance evaluation that can provide valuable perspectives. Specific questions were used to help students review and reflect on their performance: After students have a foundational understanding of the collaborative skills, they practice these skills in a collaborative, yet supportive, environment. (Snyder, 2009) The focus on preparation, practice and performance review in teaching teams about teamwork was effective in developing and improving collaborative skills resulting in a positive group experience.

Collaboration is essential to success as it allows a group of individuals to aspire and work towards a common goal. A major part of the collaborative process is communication which can be relayed in many different forms. When all members of a group are collaborating on a project or task and are communicating effectively, efficiency towards goal accomplishment is heightened. Cohesion is displayed within a group setting when the grouped individuals are able to work towards a common goal while communicating effectively. Coactive settings require individuals to take on all the responsibilities and approach tasks without seeking collaboration. Interactive settings require individuals to collaborate with each other to accomplish tasks through communication and this cohesion often leads to success.

The existence of a relationship between group cohesion and success is explored when both task and social cohesion deal with member-to-member relations within a team environment. (Jones & Kijeski, 2009) Group cohesion applies to social structure within a group, social exchanges between members in the group, role clarity and commitment to the group, common goals between group members, and the relationship of the above to task performance. Interactive team sports such as soccer, basketball, football where members only competed for the good of the team and only received a team score for their efforts exhibited the strongest relationship between team cohesion and team success. Coactive or individual sports such as golf, tennis and gymnastics where athletes can succeed with or without their team, performance is not entirely dependent on team cohesion.

The purpose of the research was to determine if there was a positive relationship between team cohesion and team success in coactive sports. The research further sought to determine if team cohesion correlates with team performance to a greater degree among teams competing in interactive team sports than among teams competing in coactive team sports. Surveys were used to collect data from a sample of athletes competing on both interactive and coactive sports teams. The sample was collected by administering surveys to the athletes just prior to scheduled practice times, with the prior knowledge and approval of the coaching staff of each team. Task team cohesion and social team cohesion were individually examined to determine if one influences team success more. Team success was defined as the winning percentage of each team in the study and was measured using the publicly available data win/loss records.

The research study found that team cohesion influences overall success differently between interactive and coactive sports. The findings supported a negative correlation between team cohesion and team success between coactive sports teams and a positive correlation among interactive sports teams. The results are indicative of differences between coactive and interactive sports where coactive athletes are recognized for individual achievements and success. There is less emphasis on recognition of an athlete’s individual achievement and success in interactive sports. Cohesion among athletes may be hindered by inter-team competition in coactive sports as athletes from the same team often compete against each other.

In coactive settings that require individuals to take on tasks and challenges without the support of others the development of communication and collaborative skills is limited. Coactive individuals are not only faced with the tasks at hand but must also be self confident and motivated to proceed. Interactive settings automatically present a support system where individuals can rely upon each other to work together towards task accomplishment. Individuals grouped together in an interactive situation provide encouragement, confidence and motivation as part of the collaborative process. This support which goes beyond communication and collaborative skills is essential to success and further promotes cohesion within the group.

There is a relationship between language usage in spectator sports and how the nonverbal works in increasing the solidarity of team members and admirers. (Rajan, 2009) Stating that sports psychology can be considered as an applied science, the author explains the way psychology is working in the field of sports and training. There are many metaphors that are used in sports that compare it to war; this is especially evident when an athlete trains with the discipline of a soldier in preparation for competition. Athlete uniforms take the place of soldier armor and terms such as win, defeat and battlefield take on the same meaning as they would in a combat warzone. Nonverbal communication increases the confidence and solidarity of team members to perform cohesively leading to a successful outcome.

The extremely competitive nature of sports requires intense motivation, preparation and practice to achieve a desired level of performance. Beyond physical preparation as an aid to success, athletes need to be mentally prepared and confident in their ability to perform during competition. Sports and exercise psychology has evolved as an interdisciplinary field involving sports psychologists’ use psychological assessment techniques and intervention strategies in an effort to help individuals to achieve their optimal physical performance by focusing on the mental aspects of performance. Psychology as a behavioral science has made its contribution towards improving sports performance by helping coaches to coach more athletes to perform efficiently and enhance athletic performance by reducing stress.

Anxiety can be a deterrent that impedes athletes from achieving success by hampering their decision making ability. Regardless of individual skill level, anxiety has been found to exert a powerful influence on athlete performance in sports. The most powerful quality that elite athletes posses, is a high level self-confidence which may act as a protective shield from anxiety. Success in sports depends on trust in your own strength and ability this is especially important in coactive sports. If an athlete is well prepared for competition from the physical, technical and tactical point of view, the most important factor deciding about his/ her degree of success is self confidence. In an interactive sports team environment, team cohesion promotes athlete confidence as teammates provide encouragement and motivation through trust in their combined ability to achieve success.

The encouragement and support necessary to provide confidence and motivation to individuals within an interactive setting is a driving force for success. It is through verbal and nonverbal displays that this support is communicated among individuals within a group and trust is established. This mutually supportive approach that establishes trust within an interactive group setting further enhances cohesion and collaboration. The absence of collaboration in an individual approach to task accomplishment is characteristic of a coactive setting where there is a strong emphasis on competition. An interactive approach emphasizes mutual empowerment and team building which provides the foundation for success through encouragement and support.

There is a connection between an individual’s first experience and their first opportunity to tap into their
competitive drive as self-motivation. (Way, 2009) Exposure to competition allows individuals and team members to become aware of their skills and abilities. In addition to this awareness, individuals and team members are faced with the need to develop techniques that address the resulting emotions which range from pride to disappointment. By deemphasizing competition in favor of a mutually supportive approach, individuals and teams develop strength, trust and cohesion through a framework of cooperation and teamwork which leads to success.

The research paper provides a case study of a girls running team that emphasizes competition as a secondary objective in favor of a mutually supportive and team oriented approach. The primary goal for the running team is to develop self awareness of skills and abilities while developing strength and motivation through a framework of cooperative teamwork. Through outward displays of praise and recognition for their efforts, the coaches instruct the girls to support and encourage their teammates. The need for developing techniques to channel the emotions associated with competition which ranges from pride to disappointment are not addressed by the coaches. Outward displays of praise and motivation within a cohesive team oriented environment incorporate the use of emotion in relaying a mutually supportive approach among individuals and teams.

The research study found that the practice teammates encouraging each other for their accomplishments- even when the accomplishments are not about supporting others, could lead to mutual empowerment and team building. (Way, 2009) Greater recognition of teammates’ contributions to organizational team success can be achieved through acknowledgement and pride in individual accomplishments. By emphasizing goal setting over competition allows individuals to examine their performance and develop strategies on how to improve while keeping the mutual focus on team success. Outward displays of praise and motivation that are driven by emotion which can take the form of excitement or frustration present individuals with the opportunity to channel those feelings towards fuelling team progress.

The mutually supportive approach that deemphasizes competition in favor of teams developing strength, trust and cohesion through a framework of cooperation and teamwork leads to success. Physical touch is a nonverbal form of communication characteristic of interactive settings that can transmit feelings of trust, encouragement and support. Emotions that range from pride to disappointment can be relayed both verbally and nonverbally; however, it is through outward displays of praise and recognition for their efforts, that support and encouragement is relayed among teammates. When the outward displays among teammates in an interactive setting take the form of physical touch, it results in an increase of individual and group performance.

Tactile communication, or physical touch, promotes cooperation between people, communicates distinct emotions, soothes in times of stress, and is used to make inferences of warmth and trust. (Kraus et al. 2010) The researchers predicted that physical touch in group competition contributes to increased individual and group performance. Teamwork and cooperative behaviors between teammates further explained the association between touch and team performance in the National Basketball Association. As the most highly developed sense at birth, touch in human beings promotes and communicates trust, cooperative bonds and group functioning. In interactive team sports such as basketball, touch is used to convey support, praise and recognition for individual efforts while contributing to a cohesive team environment.

The researchers tested two hypotheses, there was the expectation that touch early in the basketball season to influence both individual and team performance later on in the season. They reasoned that better group performances are achieved as a result of increased cooperative behaviors brought about by the association between touch and trust. The second expectation was that cooperative behaviors between teammates would be enhanced and lead to improved team performance in competition. The extent to which teammates engaged in cooperative behaviors is mediated by the association between touch and performance where increased touch between teammates would contribute to greater performance. The tactile behavior of 294 players from all 30 National Basketball Association (NBA) teams was coded for physical touch and cooperation during one game played within the first two months of the start of the 2008-2009 NBA regular season.

The researchers found that performance in competitive group settings is enhanced by physical touch as demonstrated by teams during NBA games. Touch was also associated with higher performance at the individual and group level. In analyzing the cooperative functions of touch, the study showed that touch is a contributing factor to performance through promoting trust and cooperation between teammates. In conveying praise and recognition for teammate’s efforts, touch is used to communicate support and encouragement which enhances group performance through building cooperation. It is suggested that because touch may promote group functioning during competition by enhancing cooperation and performance, touch interventions could be used to promote relationships between students and teachers, or to strengthen bonds between romantic partners. In addition, certain forms of touch that are associated with elevated status may help individuals ascend status hierarchies within team settings and promote further cohesion.

Touch amongst players on sports teams is one of the most common and beneficial forms of non-verbal communication between teammates, especially basketball. Mainly occurring in celebration of a positive play, examples of touch include “fist bumps, high fives, chest bumps, leaping shoulder bumps, chest punches, head slaps, head grabs, low fives, high tens, full hugs, half hugs, and team huddles” (Kraus et al. 2010). Through its ability to transmit information and feelings among players, touch increases cooperation and trust between them as well and increases in trust, most notably, translate to increases in sports performance.

Touch has the ability to improve group coordination and harmonization due to its ability to convey “perceptions, thoughts, and/or feelings” (Hertenstein 2002). Thus, if one teammate wanted to congratulate another on a good play or wanted another player to understand what they were thinking or feeling, touch would be an effective medium of communication. This communication often occurs after one teammate has done something worth congratulation, such as a good point or a successful play.

The repeated use of touch for these situations, however, may lead some to think that the value of touch for the receiver may diminish. It is an understandable conclusion – if the use of touch becomes almost autonomous among players after a point is scored or a play made, is there truly any feeling to be received? In a word: yes. Even if the person giving the touch is simply going through the motions of it, it can still be meaningful to the person receiving it. The giver of the touch “may not be mindful that they are providing tactile stimulation…for communication to occur” (Hertenstein 2002).

Additionally, Hertenstein notes that if touch is consistently used in a similar situation (again, such as in the case of a good pass or difficult shot pulled off), then it will be associated with the feelings that accompany that situation; “memory for the particular context of tactile experiences likely influences the meaning of a given stimulus” (2002). Thus, since basketball players consistently employ touch in beneficial situations to them, the player receiving the celebratory touch will come to associate touch with good feelings and success.

Touch has traditionally been found to increase and strengthen cooperation. For example, in one economic game where the goal of the research was to determine if various forms of non-verbal communication caused an increase in cooperation and create relationships between originally separated players, it was established that “being touched is a cue that one is in a close social relationship with the person touching,” and a great deal of “evidence exists that touch can increase cooperation” (Kurzban 2001). These two cues signify the ability of touch to enhanced closeness and, perhaps more importantly, create trust among teammates.

Touch creates and improves trust, which is key in promoting increased performance for sports teams. Williams and Bargh explored how trust was created through short tactile sensations of warmth, similar to the kind that can be produced by the quick touches between basketball players. They first looked at the brain, noting that the insular cortex, which is responsible for “processing both the physical and the psychological versions of warmth information…is also involved in feelings of trust, empathy, and social emotions” (2008). Then, in a study which used a cup of hot coffee as a quick warmth stimulus, found that “people who had briefly held the hot coffee cup perceived the target person as being significantly warmer” (where interpersonal warmth is defined as trust). Thus, “a brief warm or cold physical experience influenced participants’ subsequent interpersonal judgments of a target person” (2008). Not only did the warm cup of coffee – which again can be associated with the warm touch of a teammate – create a quick sensation of trust between two people, it created a long-lasting feeling of trust.

Following the results of this study, it can be concluded that touch between teammates would also improve the trust between them. Trust has been noted to improve commitment between people and increase a person’s ability to depend on others when necessary (Wieselquist et al. 1999). This can lead to better strategic plays within the basketball game itself, where players allow themselves to utilize their teammates better. One way this could occur within the game is with passing the ball, especially with an “inside pass” or a pass that occurs within the free-throw line; passing the ball this close to the opposing team’s basketball hoop would require a certain amount of trust from the player passing the ball to the person they pass it to. And after a study done which compared the amount of inside passes to the amount of points scored, “results suggest to consider the inside pass as a performance indicator in basketball” (Courel et al. 2013).

Following these studies and the research done, it can concretely be concluded that touch sparks and builds trust. More important, however, is the fact that trust between team mates is an indicator of performance.

It is a simple, common-sense conclusion, best summed up by this statement: “trust is an integral part of teamwork because team tasks require a high level of interdependence between members” (Mach et al. 2010). You cannot have a sports team that functions in any capacity if they do not trust each other. Without trust, team mates would act independently and performance would suffer greatly compared to those other teams who utilized trust to achieve better performance – such as better plays within the game (see Courel et al. 2013). There is a definite link between “a commitment to the team’s objectives, team performance, and increased coordination and cooperation” (Mach et al. 2010). As Ken Jones puts it, “with trust comes a new attitude that will encourage you to do what you have to do to succeed. Mere reliance will not be motivationally sufficient” (Mach et al. 2010).

One study was performed where researchers used questionnaires and interviews to determine trust levels between teammates on various professional sports teams (including basketball) and then compared the results to performance; performance was measured by taking the “total points won for every game by each team at the end of the season, [dividing] by the points they could have earned potentially if they had won all their games, then multiplying this figure by 100.” The results determined that “trust in teammates was positively related to performance measures” (Mach et al. 2010).

In conclusion, there is a definite line of logic that can be followed regarding touch and its effect on performance. Touch between team mates has the ability to transmit information and good feelings which culminate in trust; touch can also create trust through sensory information – in this case warmth – sent to the brain. This trust then translates into increased performance through enhanced cooperation and commitment.

Research Question

Based on the relationship between touch, team competition, team relationships and performance thus far, our research hypothesis was that greater in-game contact between teammates leads to greater performance and success in basketball.

Method

Does more in-game contact between teammates lead to greater success in basketball?

We sought to determine whether there was a relationship between the amounts of in-game contact between teammates on a basketball team over the duration of a season and greater success in their record of winning games. The independent variable, in game-contact, was coded for the Salem State University men’s basketball team and their opponents, the visiting basketball teams, to test our hypotheses. The basketball team’s in-game contact was coded during the home games of the 2012-2013 men’s basketball season. Games were coded and measured for in-game contact by two separate coders by watching publicly available archived footage of home basketball games from Salem Access television and recording, on a checklist of various possible touches derived from a similar study, in-game contact for the two teams competing.

The coders judged the occurrence of in-game contact of the Salem State University men’s basketball and their opponents. Coders recorded each touch between players and the type of touch. Coding focused on intentional forms of touch; thus, contact resulting directly from playing basketball (e.g., fighting for position, setting screens) was not coded. In addition, due to unreliable camera angles we chose not to code touch during timeouts, or during the end of game quarters. We focused our analysis on twelve distinct types of touch that occurred when two or more players were in the midst of celebrating a positive play that helped their team (e.g., making a shot). These celebratory touches included fist bumps, high fives, chest bumps, leaping shoulder bumps, chest punches, head slaps, head grabs, low fives, high tens, full hugs, half hugs, and team huddles. (Kraus, Huang & Keltner, 2010) Once our data was compiled, we searched for statistical correlation between touches and performance.

Performance and success in basketball can be assessed using a number of indicators but scoring points has typically been considered one of the best ways to measure performance. The dependent variable, greater success in basketball, or more specifically the Salem State University men’s basketball team’s winning record including the scoring totals for home games was compiled for the 2012-2013 season. Scoring totals are a practical measure of performance and success in basketball because they can be calculated using statistics readily available on the Salem State University athletics websites. Conceptually, scoring totals are a valid measure of performance because they measure efficiency in terms of gaining and using possessions, a necessary part of scoring points and winning games.

There are many other variables that may influence and determine a basketball team’s level of success over the duration of a season while contributing to a winning or losing record. These variables include, but are not limited to, crowd support, player fatigue, skill level of the team, length of season, and team chemistry. Salem Access Television in conjunction with Salem State University is responsible for providing coverage of all the university sporting events including hockey and the recently concluded basketball season. These games are recorded for both the Salem State University sports team coaching staffs and for broadcast on Salem Access Television. For the purpose of the research study, publicly available archived season footage of all the Salem State University men’s basketball home games was obtained from Salem Access Television and reviewed.

Results

After coding a total of eight of the 2012-2013 men’s college basketball season home games between Salem State and their opponents for in-game contact, number of points scored and their record of winning games we found that Salem State had won seven out of the eight games coded. In each of the eight games, the in-game contact between Salem State teammates exceeded the amount of contact between the teammates on their opponents visiting teams. At face value, these results positively answered our research question- Does more in-game contact between teammates lead to greater success in basketball?

Due to the many other variables that may influence and determine a basketball teams level of success over the duration of a season while contributing to a winning or losing record. We sought to establish whether there was a correlation between the amount of in-game contact and the number of points scored for the number of games coded (eight) and the number of teams coded for each game (16).

When it comes to Inferential Statistics, The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is measured on a standard scale it can only range between -1.0 and +1.0. As such, we can interpret the correlation coefficient as representing an effect size. It tells us the strength of the relationship between the two variables. A correlation coefficient of .10 is thought to represent a weak or small association; a correlation coefficient of .30 is considered a moderate correlation; and a correlation coefficient of .50 or larger is thought to represent a strong or large correlation. The results of our correlation study (N=16) between the amount of in-game contact and the number of points scored resulted in a Weak-Positive outcome (0.204637431)

Based on the logic of hypothesis testing, we were unable to reject the null hypothesis- There is no relationship between the amount of in-game contact and the number of points scored- because the association we found in our study was not statistically significant. In other words: we had not demonstrated that the association we had found was too large to simply have occurred by chance.

Discussion

This study attempted to find a positive connection between the amount of contact a team has between its members and the teams overall performance. Our findings have shown that, while we may not be able to reject our null hypothesis, there may be some connection between the amount of contact and an increase in performance for a basketball team. This result is one which begins to emulate the findings of similar studies (Kraus et. al 2010) and is the natural result of conclusions previously drawn regarding touch. The literature on contact, touch, and team sports shows a simple and logical line of reasoning regarding the effect that touch can have on trust, interteam relations, and team performance. This is an important connection that may be overlooked by collegiate sports departments and professional leagues. Our study tapped into this line of reasoning, but did not fully deliver on its premise.

Our study did have its strengths. After a careful review of the available literature, we drew conclusions that were backed up, though mildly, by our findings. We had immediate access to several Salem State basketball games to review, and our coding sheet – taken from a very similar study published in a scholarly journal – was solid. To make sure the coding between both us was similar, we overlapped coding one game and compared the results; our results were 87.9% similar, which gave us the confidence to be able to code the rest of the games separately.

There were, however, various weaknesses in our study as well. First, we did not have many games available to look at. With only 8 games, we did not have a large enough pool of results to draw from to confidently be able to reject the null hypothesis even with a potentially stronger correlation. In addition to this, Salem State won 7 of the 8 games; with this result, we were unable to compare accurately the effect that touch had on wins and losses and thus had to discard one of our initial variables.

Another weakness in our study was the fact that not every game was recorded by the same camera man, and thus there were differences in how the games could be viewed by the coders. Some cameramen would zoom out and show a larger portion of the court, while others would zoom in on the current action. This, obviously, changes how much contact the coders can see at any given time and thus might skew the results. Some cameramen also faded in and out at different times, some showing more downtime between timeouts and halftime and others showing less.

Another weakness lies in the fact that every single one of the games that we viewed and had access to were home games. One study, done to calculate the advantage of home teams and “quantify the advantage of a home victory” found that “A significant advantage for home teams was observed across all conditions” (Jameson 2010). Thus, the fact that Salem State won so many times and scored as well as it did might be attributed more to the fact that these games were home games and less to the fact that there was a good amount of contact. Alternatively, there is a chance that there was more contact because they were home games as well, but any supposition is merely speculation at this point. Along with this point on home games, another thing which must be considered is crowd support for teams – some away teams had audible and visible crowd support while others had little to none.

One must also consider the fact that some teams are simply better than others and are going to score more points regardless of the amount of contact that is made between their team or the other’s. There are schools who pour, as mentioned in the introduction, large amounts of money into athletic programs and do their best to attract the greatest athletes into their departments; these schools simply will, in the majority of cases, have the best teams and score more points against a team which has less resources at its disposal no matter what.

Finally, there are other small things which could possibly affect the results of this study. The fatigue level of a team, for example, could affect the amount of contact: extra energy could cause team mates to engage in more contact with each other, whereas a team with little energy could use less contact to conserve what they have but still score well because they conserved it.

We would advise other researchers to continue in our line of study due to the potential for real, concrete results that we may have scratched the surface of. However, we would want them to make some major changes in how they approach the study to eliminate the various weaknesses we had in ours. First, they should view a larger number of games between many different teams, both home and away. Second, they should record the games themselves and use a constant, wide out zoom so they can view the entirety of the court and catch all of the contact on camera for later coding. Third, researchers should go to greater lengths to standardize and homogenize the coding between the various coders so there is less of a difference between the coding and a greater chance for genuine, accurate results; another way to go about this is to have every game coded a number of times and to average the number of contacts recorded.

Conclusion

Based on the research question – Does more in-game contact between teammates lead to greater success in basketball? – we sought to determine whether there was a relationship between the amounts of in-game contact between teammates on a basketball team over the duration of a season and greater success in their record of winning games. The Salem State University men’s basketball team and their opponents in-game contact was coded during the home games of the 2012-2013 men’s basketball season. Games were coded and measured for in-game contact by two separate coders by watching publicly available archived footage of home basketball games from Salem Access television and recording, on a checklist, in-game contact for both teams in its various forms.

The coders judged the occurrence of in-game contact of the Salem State University men’s basketball and their opponents. Coders recorded each touch between players and the type of touch. We focused our analysis on twelve distinct types of touch that occurred when two or more players were in the midst of celebrating a positive play that helped their team (e.g., making a shot). These celebratory touches included fist bumps, high fives, chest bumps, leaping shoulder bumps, chest punches, head slaps, head grabs, low fives, high tens, full hugs, half hugs, and team huddles. (Kraus, Huang & Keltner, 2010)

Performance and success in basketball can be assessed using a number of indicators but scoring points has typically been considered one of the best ways to measure performance. We sought to establish whether there was a correlation between the amount of in-game contact and the number of points scored for the number of games coded and the number of teams coded for each game. The results of our correlation study between the amount of in-game contact and the number of points scored resulted in a Weak-Positive outcome.

Although results of our correlation study  between the amount of in-game contact and the number of points scored resulted in a Weak-Positive outcome, we found that Salem State had won seven out of the eight 2012-2013 men’s college basketball season home games that were coded. In each of the eight games, the in-game contact between Salem State teammates exceeded the amount of contact between the teammates on their opponents visiting teams. At face value, these results positively answered our research question- Does more in-game contact between teammates lead to greater success in basketball?

 

References 

Courel, J., Suárez, E., Ortega, E., Piñar, M., & Cárdenas, D. (2013). Is the inside pass a

performance indicator? Observational analysis of elite basketball teams. Revista De Psicología Del Deporte, 22(1), 191-194.

Desrochers, M. (2013). Academic Spending Versus Athletic Spending: Who Wins? American Institutes for Research, 1-16.

Hertenstein, M. J. (2002). Touch: Its communicative functions in infancy. Human

            Development, 45, 70-94.

Jamieson, J. P. (2010). The Home Field Advantage in Athletics: A Meta-Analysis. Journal Of

            Applied Social Psychology, 40(7), 1819-1848

Jones, A., & Kijeski, T. (2009). The Relationship of Team Cohesion on Performance among Collegiate Athletic Teams Competing in Coactive Team Sports. Conference Papers — National Communication Association, 1.

Jones, K. (2001). Trust in Sport. Journal Of The Philosophy Of Sport, 28(1), 101.

Journal Ranking. (2010). Journal-Ranking. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from

http://www.journalranking.com/ranking/listCommonRanking.html?citingStartYear=1901&externalCitationWeight=1&journalListId=442&selfCitationWeight=1#

Kraus, M. W., Huang, C., & Keltner, D. (2010). Tactile communication, cooperation, and performance: an ethological study of the NBA. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), 10(5), 745–749. doi:10.1037/a0019382

Kurzban, R. (2001). The social psychophysics of cooperation: Nonverbal communication in

a public goods game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 241-259.

Mach, M., Dolan, S., Tzafrir, S. (2010). The differential effect of team members’ trust on

team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal Of Occupational & Organizational Psychology,83(3), 771 – 789.

Rajan, A. K. (2009). The Quintessence of Sports Psychology and Language. Language in India, 9(12), 95–103.

Snyder, L. G. (2009). Teaching Teams About Teamwork: Preparation, Practice, and Performance Review. Business Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 74–79.

Way, A. (2009). There’s No “I” in Team: Destabilizing the Gendered Emotions of Competition, Motivation and Social Support. Conference Papers — National Communication Association, 1.

Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999). Commitment, pro-

relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 942 – 966.

Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes

interpersonal warmth. Science, 322, 606-607.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

<a rel=”license” href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/deed.en_US”><img alt=”Creative Commons License” style=”border-width:0″ src=”http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/88×31.png” /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a rel=”license” href=”http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/deed.en_US”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License</a>.