THE IMPACT OF SPORTS TEAM PLAYERS KNOWING EACH OTHER WELL:
NONVERBAL DISTINCTIVENESS AND INTRA-TEAM COMMUNICATION
A Thesis
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Erica Elise Wilson
August, 2013
THE IMPACT OF SPORTS TEAM PLAYERS KNOWING EACH OTHER WELL:
NONVERBAL DISTINCTIVENESS AND INTRA-TEAM COMMUNICATION
Erica Elise Wilson
Thesis
Approved:
Accepted:
Advisor
Dr. Kathleen D. Clark
Dean of the College
Dr. Chand Midha
Committee Member
Dr. Patricia S. Hill
Dean of the Graduate School
Dr. George R. Newkome
Committee Member
Dr. Yang Lin
Date
School Director
Dr. Elizabeth E. Graham
ii
ABSTRACT
This study examines how team sport members who have played together more than two
years describe their strategic use of distinctive verbal and nonverbal behaviors on and off the
court to coordinate plays during a game. This study extends and utilizes the framework from
Sullivan and Feltz (2003) and Sullivan and Shorts (2011) guided by Foa and Foa’s (1974) Social
Exchange Theory to explore distinctive verbal and nonverbal behaviors. Five team sport
members were observed ethnographically during play and then interviewed to assure the
observations. The findings revealed four themes relating to the team members’ strategic use of
distinctive verbal and nonverbal behaviors on and off the court to coordinate plays during a
game. These themes were (1) universal gestures, unique meanings, (2) using eye contact to
coordinate plays, (3) coded team language, and (4) brotherhood vibes.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost I would like to start off by acknowledging my mother (Terrica
Wilson), father (Cornell Wilson), sister (Tasha), and brother (Corey) for their constant support
during my time in graduate school. Special thanks to my aunt and uncle for being there for me
my first year of graduate school. Their support helped me complete my first year.
I would like to acknowledge Ms. Sybil West for all of her support and mentoring during
my thesis process. You encouraged me to continue to fight for what I deserve.
I would like to thank Mr. Kevin L. Scott for pushing me to attend graduate school.
During my time in school, you encouraged, motivated, mentored, believed, and challenged me
on several occasions to do my absolute best, and at times to do better than my best. There is no
way I could have done this without you; I am most grateful.
I also would like to acknowledge my thesis advisor Dr. Kathleen Clark for being
supportive throughout this whole process. It has been a journey and your expertise and
knowledge helped me to do my best. I would like to thank the other members of my thesis
committee for their knowledge and guidance in constructing this thesis. Dr. Hill and Dr. Lin,
thank you for taking the time out to help guide me in the right direction.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge my fellow colleagues and classmates. Without some
of you I don’t believe any of us would have survived. Special thanks to all of my friends for
their constant love and support through this entire process. Thank you to my best friend Ms.
Sharonda Alexander for seriously being there every step of the way.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………….………….1
II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………….5
Communication literature in intra-team communication…………………..……………...5
Overview of Sports psychology and sport management in intra-team communication…..7
Development of the Scale of Effective Communication in Team Sport …..……………..9
SECTS-2 Factors one, two, and three …………………………………………………..12
SECTS-2 Factor four: Distinctiveness…………………………………………………..13
Nonverbal Distinctiveness in Small Groups……………………………………………..15
Overview…………………………………………………………………………………18
III. METHOD…………………………………………………………………………... ……....19
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………19
Setting………………..…………………………………………………………………..20
Participants……………………...………………………………………………………..20
Data Collection…………………………………………………………………..............23
Ethnographic Observation……………………………………………………………….26
Analysis Procedures….…………………………………………………………………..29
Introduction of Themes…………………………………………………………………..30
v
IV. FINDINGS……………………………………………………………………………….....32
Theme 1: Universal Gestures, Unique Meanings………………………………………..32
Theme 2: Using Eye Contact to Coordinate Plays……………………………………….36
Theme 3: Coded Team Language………………………………………………………..39
Theme 4: Brotherhood Vibes…………………………………………………………….43
V. DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………48
Contribution……...…..…………………………………………………………………..55
Limitations and Future Research………………………………………………………...56
Final Remarks……………………………………………………………………………57
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….………….59
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………….…………..63
APPENDIX A. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL….………...............64
APPENDIX B. CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE……….………………..………………..65
APPENDIX C.INTERVIEW GUIDE……..……………………...………………………66
vi
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A sporting event is a unique arena, therefore studying, evaluating, and
understanding the different aspects of social dynamics such as team cohesion, leadership,
group and individual goal setting, and collective efficacy are important because of each
sport’s unique qualities. Social dynamics within teams have been conceptualized and
researched in attempts to document and decipher the game within the game (Carron,
Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985; Chelladurai, 1993; Fontayne, Heuze, & Raimbault, 2006;
Gardner & Shields, 1996; Kozub & McDonnell, 2000; MacLean & Sullivan, 2003;
Turman, 2003). Even though these dynamics are all intrinsically important in sports
teams, they all are predicated on the vital social process of communication. In some
instances communication can become the deciding factor in why teams fail or succeed as
teams or for winning versus losing seasons, however the important element of
communication in team sports is understudied in the communication literature and needs
attention in order to understand the impact of effective and ineffective interaction
amongst the participants in sport teams.
I was introduced to team sports at the young age of four, and the majority of my
life I have been playing sports. From the time I could walk, I have participated in
1
volleyball, basketball, baseball, track and field, soccer, tennis, swimming, and golf just to
name a few. These sports range from team sports to individual sports and on every
sporting team that I have been on, both individual and team, I have had to use both
nonverbal and verbal communication behavior to communicate with coaches and
teammates. With individual sports, interaction was always between just me and my
coach so I did not have to worry about depending on any teammates or hoping that my
team wouldn’t let me down regarding communication errors. My coaches would explain
the workout that was needed before competition and we would work on that together. If I
disagreed with a workout, my coach and I would discuss why it was important and why
we couldn’t eliminate it. There were little to no communication barriers because I was
there to get better and I knew that my coach knew what was best. Since it was just the
coach and me, I knew what every nonverbal signal meant and what every vocal tone
meant because of our close bond. However, when it is just you and your coach,
everything is discussed verbally; there is very little need for nonverbal communication
because you can go speak to your coach at any time during the competition.
In contrast, in team sports you have several people depending on you and you are
depending on other people. Not only this, but team sports usually have both a coach and a
team captain, who is a peer with a leadership role, usually appointed by the coach, and
sometimes as in the team sport of basketball, a captain of the court, the person who is
controlling the ball during play.
Every single person on the court plays an important role when nonverbal behavior
is used, particularly the person who is controlling the ball, the captain of the court. This
person is the unspoken leader of the team when it comes to nonverbal signals and
2
everyone else on their team must be alert and ready. A coach, team captain, and captain
of the court play different but important roles on the team. The coach is there to direct
the team as a whole. This particular person delegates practices and a game, making sure
that every play is implemented and every person is played and playing to their full
potential. The captain, who is selected by the coach, is there to help the players on a peer
level. Sometimes teammates can understand better when it is coming from a peer, rather
than an authority figure. This captain doesn’t necessarily play every game, but works
hard, follows all of the rules, and is a team player that the coach can trust. However, the
captain of the court plays a very important role because that person has full court vision
and control of the court during a game while the coach is on the bench. This captain of
the court is able to see everything and communicates with the team verbally and
nonverbally during important plays. The captain of the court isn’t always the captain of
the team, but they have full leadership when on the court. This person is the one the
teammates look to for nonverbal signals during the game. This role is very vital in any
team sport, because great communication amongst teammates usually makes for a
successful team. For instance, while playing the game of basketball you cannot yell out,
“Cut to the basket for an easy layup,” because if you do this your opponents will know
how to defend against you. In my experience in team sports, some things cannot be
communicated verbally, but it takes time to learn how to use nonverbal behaviors to
communicate effectively. Having played with my previous team in high school for about
nine years, I knew them very well, on and off the court. We knew and trusted each other
so well that when we were on the court each individual knew how to judge the
implications of the behaviors of our teammates’ opponents and adjust our own moves.
3
With that connection, we could use our nonverbal gestures to know when to let one
teammate have full control if we saw that their opponent was a weaker defender. The
communication literature suggests that all of this came from team cohesion, togetherness,
and communicating effectively (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1997; Gardner &
Shields, 1996). Therefore, distinctive nonverbal gestures are made between teammates to
assure that the defense cannot read the plays so the team can continue to score points.
As a result of my experiences over the years, I have come to the conclusion that
teams which communicate effectively offer themselves a greater chance at being
successful because high levels of effective or competent communication can result in
team solidarity and increase team chemistry, which in terms leads to a successful team.
Apart from physical attributes and skill, effective verbal and nonverbal communication
should be a foundation of any team. Great team communication, a great team leader,
great team followers, and a great team foundation will make a great successful team. In
this study, I would like to explore how basketball team members who have played
together for years communicate verbally and nonverbally to signal distinct plays during a
game.
4
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
While much research exists regarding small group communication, leader and
subordinate communication, and teamwork, few studies deal with effective
communication in sports teams. Most small group studies focus on workplace,
organizational, or educational settings. Moreover, most of the interest is in these precise
settings, rather than the context of sports.
For this reason, in the following review of literature I will begin with literature
pertaining to intra-team communication in the communication literature, an overview of
sports psychology and sport management research into intra-team communication, and
finally a more in-depth description of the development and findings of the SECTS-2, an
instrument developed to study intra-team communication. Finally, the literature review
will focus on verbal and nonverbal communication.
Communication literature in intra-team communication
The communication researchers who have studied sports team communication
have focused on better development, goal setting, decision-making, leadership, team
building, cooperation, permeability, reducing within-group conflict and status,
acceptance, satisfaction, and closeness (Carron & Hausenblas, 1998; Sullivan & Gee,
5
2007; Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998; Goliembieske, 1962; Lott & Lott, 1965;
Lewin, 1935; Mullen & Copper, 1994).
Carron and Hausenblas (1998) and Sullivan and Gee (2007) build on these
findings by continuing to research intra-team communication and why it is important for
any team. Intra-team communication has been indicated by Carron and Hausenblas
(1998) as being key in the development and maintenance of a team’s structure. They
note the association of intra-team communication to the group’s primary development,
goal setting, decision-making, leadership, team building, cooperation, permeability,
reducing within-group conflict and status. All of these aspects correlate to a team having
positive distinctiveness, which means better team communication. Carron and
Hausenblas go on to state that without proper communication within the team it is just a
collection of individuals and not a cohesive group.
Sullivan and Gee (2007) concur with Carron and Hausenblas (1998) using several
of their concepts such as group development, decision making, and team building, to
conduct a study on the relationship between athletic satisfaction and intra-team
communication. Sullivan and Gee were able to further the meaning and significance of
“effective” intra-team communication in sports with the help of Carron and Hausenblas’
findings. Sullivan and Gee (2007) findings help show that traveling teams and
professional teams have better team acceptance and satisfaction because of their
closeness.
Researchers Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1998) go in a different route and
study cohesion in athletics in terms of intra-team communication. They define cohesion
as “a dynamic process which is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and
6
remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of
member affective needs” (p. 213). Some social scientists consider cohesion to be the
most important small group variable, from a theoretical perspective (Goliembieske, 1962;
Lott & Lott, 1965). This perspective does seem reasonable given the importance of
cohesion to group maintenance and group locomotion, the two fundamental group
processes identified by Lewin (1935). Without cohesion, there will be no maintenance
and/or group development. As Mullen and Copper (1994) reported, task cohesion is
positively associated with performance success in all groups, but the cohesion
performance relationship is strongest in sport teams.
Thus, scholars in communication have learned that within the intra-team
communication there are coaches, captains, and players who keep the team functioning.
Effective communication between individuals in all of these roles may take time to occur,
but with time and experience playing together, the team will be able to use distinct
nonverbal and verbal gestures and plays to help them in their games. Communications
researchers have not yet studied intra-team communication during play in sports teams.
Researchers publishing in sports psychology and sports management journals have
studied intra-team communication during play.
Overview of Sports psychology and sport management in intra-team communication
Researchers outside the field of communication studies, primarily in sports
psychology and sport management, have also studied intra-team communication in
sports. They have been concerned with acceptance, team conflict, distinctiveness, team
cohesion, coach behaviors, performance, leadership, and collective efficacy (Sullivan &
7
Feltz, 2003; Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1997; Chelladurai, 1993; Fontayne, Heuze,
& Raimbault, 2006; Gardner & Shields, 1996; Kozub & McDonnell, 2000; MacLean &
Sullivan, 2003; Turman, 2003; Sullivan & Shorts, 2011; Shorts, Sullivan, & Feltz, 2005).
These researchers study these different aspects of sports collectively and individually.
Sullivan and Feltz (2003) and Sullivan and Shorts (2011) found that acceptance, team
conflict, and distinctiveness was most important to study in the sports field and developed
a scale to measure these items during play. Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer (1997)
found that team cohesion in sports team is very important. These researchers went on to
develop an instrument to assess cohesion in sports teams. These researchers discovered
that cohesiveness is a shared perception and also that there is a strong relationship
between cohesion and success. Gardner and Shields (1996) went a different route and
studied leadership, coach behaviors, and team cohesion. Their research found a
significant relationship between leader behaviors and team cohesion. The results
indicated that coaches who were high in training and instruction, democratic behaviors,
social support, and positive feedback, and low in autocratic behaviors, had teams that
were more cohesive. Kozub and McDonnell, (2000) focused on cohesion, collective
efficacy, and performance. These social psychologists describe cohesion as an
antecedent of collective efficacy; certain positive changes associated with cohesion (i.e.,
assigned roles, and performance standards, greater acceptance of group norms, stronger
resistance to disruption) should enhance the performance capabilities of the group and
promote a higher level of collective efficacy. The researchers concluded that the teams
with strong cohesion had correlated positive with collective efficacy, meaning that
cohesion has great potential for a team to perform effectively.
8
Development of the Scale of Effective Communication in Team Sports
One group of sports psychologists has studied the verbal and nonverbal
communication behaviors within a team during play. In one of the few research efforts to
explore team communication directly, sports psychologists Sullivan and Feltz (2003) and
Sullivan and Shorts (2011) developed The Scale of Effective Communication in Team
Sports (SECTS-2) to help measure intra-team communication in sports teams. The scale
includes assessment of both verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors as well as
task and social communication. The development of this scale reveals important
communication phenomena relating to intra-team communication, particularly in the
factor identified as Distinctiveness. Sullivan and colleagues conducted research in their
attempt to develop a scale that could measure team communication during games. The
SECTS and the revised SECTS-2 were developed and included the following factors:
acceptance, positive conflict, negative conflict, and distinctiveness. Because studying
effective team communication in sports is less commonly done, sports psychologists
Sullivan and Feltz (2003) developed a new innovative system to help measure intra-team
communication in sports. The SECTS and an updated version by Sullivan and Short
(2011) called the SECTS-2 is a theory-based and data-driven measurement of effective
communication in sports. Sullivan and Feltz (2003) followed Poole and McPhee’s
(1985) guidelines for developing scales to measure this complexity of communication.
Since this is the most relevant research for the purpose of this study, the conceptual
development of this Scale is reviewed in some depth.
The foundation for Sullivan and Feltz’s underlying framework was Foa and Foa’s
(1974) Social Exchange Theory, as applied in the intra-team communication context.
9
According to the early studies by Foa and Foa (1974) and Kelley and Thibaut (1978),
human interaction of all kinds can be conceived as exchanges in which every individual
involved is motivated to accrue and obtain valued resources. These resources can range
from money, information, love, happiness, and self-gain, but also extend well beyond.
Individuals are understood to function in reciprocal and interdependent relationships
based on these mutual exchanges toward a long-term gain. This means that the
individuals involved operate solely on the assumption that they will receive something
within the initial exchange. This theory suggests that technique, social support, strategy,
and acceptance are some examples of the things sporting teams will exchange. Sullivan
and Feltz defined communication as the interpersonal exchange of information toward
some valued outcome (e.g., team unity, performance). They argue that sports teams have
both task agendas and social agendas, and sports teams will exchange elements on both
agendas. Prevalent in the theory is the idea that similar resources rather than dissimilar
are more likely to be exchanged between teammates. Individuals in the group are
understood to function in reciprocal and interdependent relationships based on these
mutual exchanges toward a long-term gain. Verbal and nonverbal behaviors are used to
exchange such resources in a sports team. For example, a nickname could reciprocate a
feeling of acceptance, distinctiveness, or affection or a combination of all three. A
physical sporting gesture such as a chest bump could express both interpersonal attraction
in addition to motivation and support, while a simple head nod or a particular look during
a play could express distinctiveness within the team.
These verbal and nonverbal interpersonal exchanges are geared towards the team
winning the game they are currently playing. This end result of winning the game comes
10
from effective intra-team communication during the event. Based on their initial studies,
Foa and Foa (1974) concluded that heightened levels of team communication, defined as
the interpersonal exchange of information towards some valued outcome, was a key
factor during sporting events and that there was a need for this concept to be better
understood.
In their development of the SECTS-2, Sullivan and Feltz (2003) conducted openended discussions with a group of athletes who had been together on a team between less
than one season to two years. Guided by Social Exchange Theory, they derived six
themes from these discussions: clarity, instruction, support, conflict management, and
physicality. Then they developed four factors, which became the basis for the SECTSScale. Further testing resulted in the revised SECTS-2 Scale. In the end, the scale
incorporates verbal and nonverbal messages as well as task and social elements of intrateam communication. The four factors include: Acceptance, Negative Conflict, Positive
Conflict, and Distinctiveness. Sullivan, Feltz, and Short define these factors and how they
were used to measure effective communication. While the present research will be
conducted qualitatively, it is helpful to review the conceptual work that went into the
development of the scale further. Before moving on to consider the fourth factor,
Distinctiveness, in more detail, it is helpful to understand the other three factors. Because
there is so little research on intra-team communication during play, the factors identified
in this study will be explained in some detail.
SECTS-2 Factors one, two, and three:
Sullivan, Feltz, and Shorts (2003, 2011) developed the Scale of Communication
in Team Sports, more commonly known as the SECTS and the SECTS-2. In the process
11
of developing the factors, Sullivan and Feltz (2003) derived six main themes from
comments given by athletes during focus groups: clarity, instruction, support, conflict
management, togetherness, and physicality. Based on these themes the first factor
developed was Acceptance; defined as, “the communication of consideration and
appreciation between teammates” (p. 17). Sullivan and Feltz (2003) thought that
acceptance as a form of communication is more of a verbal resource, rather than using the
team “support”, which to them seemed more of a nonverbal behavior. They went on to
state that “acceptance is a more specific aspect of the predicted factor of support.
Interestingly, the support factors that we eliminated largely referred to nonverbal
behaviors (e.g., “express sincerity through facial expression”, “show that we accept each
other through body language/physical touch”)” (p.17). Sullivan and Feltz wanted more of
a verbal resource, so they went with the theme of acceptance.
The second factor, Negative Conflict, was based on expression of anger and
agitation. The researchers defined this term as, “exchanges of intra-team conflict that are
emotional, personal, and confrontational” (Sullivan & Feltz, 2003, p. 18). The third
factor, Positive Conflict, was based on examples of more constructive and open methods
of dealing with disagreements, and defined as, “communication regarding intra-team
conflict that expresses constructive and integrative ways of dealing with the disruption”
(p. 18). These factors were derivatives of conflict management and according to Sullivan
and Feltz (2003) “they display an important distinction in how intra-team conflict may be
expressed” (p. 14). They expressed that intra-team disagreements are a natural
occurrence, communication such as Negative Conflict or Positive Conflict styles may
mediate the impact on how people perceive a team’s unity.
12
SECTS-2 Factor four:
The fourth and final factor developed was Distinctiveness; this factor was derived
from the theme togetherness, “the exchange of shared, inclusive identity through
nonverbal and verbal messages” (Sullivan & Feltz, 2003, p. 14). The theme togetherness
included messages that were aimed at enhancing team unity and individual belonging
(e.g., humor, jokes, sense of belonging, common passion). Within this theme of
togetherness and monitoring athletes, Sullivan and Feltz noted that “athletes also
expressed concern for an appropriate nonverbal (e.g., body language, eye contact) or
paralinguistic (e.g., volume, tone of voice) messages” (p. 6). (Note: The researchers also
go on to state that, “this is a style of communication untapped in sports psychology… and
was anticipated to be part of a complete operationalization of intra-team communication”
(p. 6). Furthermore, the researchers noted they were not able to go in depth with the
concerns the athletes expressed about nonverbal communication, at that time.) The
researchers then refined the theme of togetherness into the factor distinctiveness defined
as, “the communication of a shared, but unique identity” (p. 18). These shared, but
unique identities could be accomplished through nonverbal exchanges (e.g., high fives) or
through verbal (e.g., nicknames). The Scale questions now ask “does your team use
nicknames, does your team use slang that only you all understand, and does the team use
gestures that only team members understand?” (Sullivan & Shorts, 2011, p. 17).
In addition, Sullivan and Gee (2007) found that professional and traveling teams
have close bonds. Knowing each other very well on and off the court may help build
team distinctiveness because of their greater opportunity to bond over time. The teams
Sullivan and colleagues studied had been together a relatively short time, from less than a
13
few months to two years, but it takes time for a team to develop and use distinctive
communication behaviors effectively during play. The teammates studied by Sullivan
and Feltz were fairly new to each other and may not have known or adapted to each
other’s personality characteristics or playing styles yet. In my experience playing on
teams we were only beginning to communicate effectively after playing with each other
for four years in middle school and then adapting to new coaching in high school after
freshmen year. So I wonder if longer time together results in more distinctive behaviors
and better intra-team communication and cohesion.
Thus, distinctiveness is a key factor that sets one team aside from another,
whether it’s verbal or nonverbal. A fan can decipher one team from another without
knowing that team’s name simply by seeing or hearing a gesture. From my experience
I’ve been asked by fans, “Aren’t you the coach on the team who huddles in the middle of
the court before a game and team members dance?” or “Aren’t you the coach of the team
that does sign language throughout the game because you have a deaf girl on the team?”
Just from these examples, it suggests that teams have different distinct gestures or verbal
behaviors that differentiate one team from another.
According to Boschee, Whitehead, and Boschee (1993), peers working together
can draw on each other’s strengths and support one another in completing tasks. They
also stated, “This togetherness stimulates good communication skills, supportive
relationships, and higher level thinking abilities that contribute to higher achievement”
(p. 105). When a group is small, they are able to come together and build a bond so their
communication with one another is strong and they are able to achieve goals. According
14
to Witte and Davis (1996), “Smaller groups are, by definition, more distinctive than
larger groups” (p. 242).
Distinctiveness can be communicated on a team in both verbal and nonverbal
ways, and two out of the three questions asked by Sullivan, Feltz, and Shorts (2003,
2011) about distinctiveness focused on verbal distinctiveness, while only one question
asked the about nonverbal gestures. This is why I want to focus more on distinctive
nonverbal behavior during play in an intra-team sports setting.
Nonverbal Distinctiveness in Small Groups
While few researchers in the field of communication have studied nonverbal
behaviors in sports teams during play, there is a wealth of study about the ways humans
use nonverbal behavior in order to coordinate their actions.
According to Renz and Greg (2000) there are several elements that are involved
in the nonverbal code. They include: “eye behavior, facial expression, posture and body
lean, gestures, proxemics, touch, use of time, paralanguage, and the use of silence” (p.
130-131). These nonverbal elements are very important to look at while observing a
team’s distinctive communication. Each element can mean a different thing in the sport
of basketball, a nod of the head (gesture) could mean to start a particular play or a cut of
the eyes can mean go in for a pass to dunk.
Distinctiveness is something that is common in a small group, whether it’s verbal
or nonverbal. It is easy to observe it in a small group because they are small in the
number of members. According to Chance (1967) the high status person in a small group
typically receives the most visual attention. The "channels" of communication (visual or
15
otherwise) are kept open by the low status person. In essence, this means that the low
status person "looks to" the high status person for direction, control, or reward. This can
easily be seen in a basketball team. The high status person of the team is usually the
point guard (the captain of the court); the person who controls the ball the most, this
person calls the plays and runs the floor. This person has visual attention with everyone
on the floor, which is four other people, while they are just looking for direction from the
point guard. The point guard must have nonverbally distinct visuals or gestures because
otherwise they would give the plays away to the opposing team.
Andersen (1979) conceptualized immediacy behaviors nonverbally to determine
the connection between such behaviors and student cognitive learning. Andersen (1979)
described nonverbal immediate behaviors as “communication behaviors engaged in when
a person maintains closer physical distance” (p. 545), and included behaviors such as
touching others, use of gestures and eye contact, length of interaction, informal dress, and
relaxed body position. This concept of immediacy relates to togetherness, cohesion, and
distinctiveness because of its immediate closeness of people to gain trust in one another.
This closeness develops cohesion which then develops into distinctiveness. In a study by
Baringer and McCroskey (2000), they further developed nonverbal immediacy discussing
instructors expressing more affect toward students whom they perceive to be nonverbally
immediate. In addition, instructor nonverbal immediacy is associated with perceived
instructor assertiveness and responsiveness (Allen, Long, O’Mara, & Judd, 2008;
Robinson, 1995; Thomas, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1994). Students who perceive their
instructors as more nonverbally immediate report greater affective learning, motivation
(Christophel, 1990; Pogue & AhYun, 2006), and willingness to comply with instructors’
16
request (Burroughs, 2007; Kearney, Plax, Smith, & Sorensen, 1988). Thus, students are
more likely to be stimulated by an instructor that exhibits nonverbally immediate
behaviors and, as a result, may show more responsive behaviors in the classroom. These
studies are focused in an academic setting; however they are greatly related to the topic at
hand. The instructor is related to the point guard (captain of the court) who has the
capability to motivate, arouse, make more attentive, give stimulation, and make more
responsive, etc… all from having a nonverbal closeness within the team. These study
show that nonverbals are just as important as verbals when it comes to coordination in
small groups.
These particular elements are hard to measure by just having a few questions for
players to rate in a group discussion such as described as the method used by Sullivan
and colleagues. Critical reviews of small group communication research have concluded
that additional methods for recording verbal and nonverbal outputs of small groups are
necessary (Bormann, 1970). McPherson (1986) supports the notion that examining team
through naturally occurring team communicative interactions provides a more realistic,
more in-depth understanding of the process. The author suggests that we gain a different,
possibly a more detailed knowledge of experiences when we rely on observation of lived
experiences rather than on questionnaires. The primary goal of this study will be to study
communication interactions between players on a team (or teams) during a game.
Overview
Both communication researchers and sports psychologists discuss how important
cohesion is for effective functioning, whether it is in a small group or on a sports team
(Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998; Gardner & Shields, 1996; Kozub & McDonnell,
17
2000). Communication researchers Sullivan and Gee (2002) even go on to discuss how
traveling sports teams have this unique bond, this closeness of familiarity from being
around each other so often. The issue at hand is while researchers in the fields of
communication and sports psychology have identified the importance of studying how
teams communicate during play such research has not yet been conducted.
A primary concern with existing literature in sports communication is that very
few studies examine actual communicative interactions when explaining the team’s
effective communication, especially during a game. Researchers Sullivan and Feltz state
that, “this is a style of communication untapped in sports psychology” (p. 6). As an
alternative, most studies rely on survey data to determine the degree to which teams
communicate effectively. Due to a lack of direct analysis into actual communicative
behavior within team sports, it is vital that communications scholars examine how,
through intra-team interactions, teams are using their distinct nonverbal gestures to
communicate effectively during a sporting event. The following research question is
posed:
RQ: How do team sport members who have played together more than two years describe
their strategic use of distinctive verbal and non-verbal behaviors on and off the court to
coordinate plays during a game?
18
CHAPTER III
METHOD
Introduction
Ethnographic research is used to help researchers deeply immerse in the field of
study for an adequate time period to gain the perspectives of how members of the
selected community interpret their culture (Trujillo, 1992). Shue and Beck (2001)
contend that ethnographic research methods “enrich our understanding of how cultures
are constructed communicatively in ways that other research methods cannot” (p. 128).
This method is very unique because rather than having the participants come to the
researcher, the researcher approaches the participants in their own environment. As a
qualitative researcher, this is accomplished through observation alone or by both
participating and observing. Fitch (1994) contended that, for qualitative data to count as
evidence, the researcher “should achieve enough distance from the phenomenon for
recording of action” yet “should have been deeply involved and closely connected to the
scene” (p. 36). In general, when a researcher is engaged in participant observation, they
try to learn what life is like for an “insider” while remaining an “outsider” (Ulin &
Robinson, 2005). I conducted my ethnographic research as a participant observer, a fan
observing a team playing in their regular stadium from the stands and on the bench. I
took field notes to compose an ethnographic narrative and then conducted interviews with
19
each team member of the team to confirm, clarify, and elaborate on the conclusions I
reached from my observations.
Setting
Every sport and stadium has its own unique quality and feel to them. The setting
for this research was in a privately own gym located in the downtown area of a
Midwestern American city. Even though the facility is located downtown, it is a bit
disguised. When driving past the facility, it could be viewed as a large home or a church.
This is the type of feel I get from this all brick building from the outside as a spectator.
The facility has a large wrap-around parking lot, which to me looks like a sea of asphalt
swallowing the building. The facility itself is not huge. It contains the legal basketball
court size, an area for the team’s benches, and a small stage for spectators’ viewing. The
gym is accessible to the public to rent for a small fee for private games and tournaments
or if one decided to play in one of the gym’s basketball leagues. Being able to move
freely around the stadium during the games to get different perspectives of the teammates
and different fans helped me to be able to take extensive field notes to help confirm and
interpret the interviews I conducted later. Walking around freely helped me take in the
interplay of the verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors, which gave me a greater
understanding to what it meant to act distinctively in a team setting
Participants
The participants in this study are members of one team of male athletes between
the ages of 21 and 40, who have played basketball together for two or more years,
20
competing at the recreational level. This recreational basketball league was chosen
because I attend regularly, as a fan, due to my friend’s involvement as a player. The
majority of the core players have played with each other for over four years, however,
there have been some trades so some players have only been on the team for two years or
so.
I have been a spectator of this team for quite a while now not truly knowing the
players, but just viewing the games. Through this study I was able to get a better insight
into each player that I interviewed. I discovered that they played different roles in their
outside lives than they did on the court. These five players were selected for interviews
because they are the core regulars of the team. They were the starters of the game and
remained on the court the longest. Player 1 is twenty-six years old, he has been playing
on the team for a little over two years as the newest traded player, his position on the
team is a power forward, and outside of basketball he is a student pursuing a degree.
Player 2 is thirty-two years old, he has been playing on this team for six years. His
position is one of the point guards of the team, and outside of basketball he is a business
owner. Player 3 is twenty-nine years old, he has been playing on this team for four years,
his position is a shooting guard, and outside of basketball he is a technician. Player 4 is
thirty-six years old, he has been playing on this team for three years, his position is a
forward, and outside of basketball he is a school counselor. Lastly, player 5 is thirty-one
years old, he has been playing on the team for six years, his position on the team is a
guard, and outside of basketball he is a coach.
Though there are no star players on the team, they each compensate for the
others’ weakness. For instance, Player 1 and Player 4, the power forward and the
21
forward, are physically larger and much slower when it comes to defending their
opponents. Therefore, their teammates help out any chance they can when their
opponents get away from them. On the other hand, Player 1 and Player 4 are so massive
that they help out around the basket and they are the main ones collecting rebounds and
blocking the shots of any opponent who comes near the basket; this includes their
teammates’ opponents. I would say that Player 2 is slightly more skilled than the rest of
his teammates, but that is only because he is the point guard and thus he has more
decisions to make. He handles the ball with such ease and his defensive skills are so
impeccable, that I did not see one player able to help him out or switch positions with
him because none of them could play his position as well, whereas Player 2 has been seen
helping out in every position on the floor whenever it was needed. This is why I state
Player 2 is slightly more skilled than the other players on his team. Player 3, the shooting
guard, has great offensive skills. He can shoot the ball from anywhere on the court and
score with ease, however, he is relatively slow in movement and it is difficult for him to
get open if the opponents are playing man to man. This is where his teammates come in
to help and set screens so he can get open and score for them. Player 5 is the guard
opposite the shooting guard. He has a combination of the skills of a point guard and a
shooting guard. He is able to pick up the slack if Player 3 is not able to get open and
whenever Player 2 gets tired and needs a quick break. Like I stated earlier, no one could
play Player 2’s positions, however, if he needs a quick water break, Player 5 will assist
for that minute or so of time. He is the “go to” guy if Player 2 or Player 3 gets into foul
trouble.
22
From my observations of the players they know each other’s strengths and
weaknesses and they play off of them. There is no star player on the team, so no one is
out scoring their teammates. The biggest gap between points I have heard about is eight.
I even once overheard on the bench the teammates asking each other how many points
they had, so that they could get the person the ball with the least amount of points so that
they all could be in double digits. They play as a team, and to me, that is more important
than a star player. I believe that this is a sign of a good team.
All of the data collected in this study related to my observations and interactions
with the teammates during live games. These games were not scripted; all of the
participants knew that I was observing but still played the games per usual. The
participants agreed that I could observe because I believe they were interested in their
team interaction and chemistry. They were intrigued by the study and thought that it
could help them on the court. The teammates agreed to share their thoughts on verbal
and nonverbal communication behaviors in individual interviews.
Data Collection
Before beginning my research, I gained IRB approval (Appendix B) to observe the
team at the recreational gym. These recreational games were held on weekends,
beginning at noon and ending at ten in the evening. Usually ten games are played each
weekend. During the observational period of this particular Mid-West public recreational
basketball league, I attended several games played by the team, gathering data during
three games; each game averaged around one hour per game. I attended the games as an
engaged fan, sitting in the stands watching and observing. I watched three games: one
23
when they were playing against opponents who were on the same skill level, one game
against opponents with a higher skill level, and one game with a team of a lower skill
level. Therefore, I gauged the team’s verbal and nonverbal communication behavior in a
variety of ways.
While watching these games, I moved to different locations in the gym so I could
get the full effect of the teams’ distinctive nature. Having access to move freely around
the gym, I had the benefit of getting a greater feel for the verbal and nonverbal
communication amongst the team. This movement was possible because the gym is open
and has open seating. Also, because my friend played, I had access to sitting on their
bench where I got another perspective. By changing seats during the games, this allowed
me to observe the team’s atmosphere more fully. While I was in the stands, I observed
the team as a fan, taking notes as an engaged fan and nothing more, however, while I was
on the bench, I had greater access to what it was like to be a part of the team, being close
to the plays and in the midst of the interactions during timeouts and halftime.
Furthermore, this location enabled me to have a different perspective on how this team
communicated during a game.
During the data collection period, game, discussions, and participant observations
were recorded in a field dairy and on my cellular phone. I chose to use my cell phone at
different times because my notebook got in the way on the bench with the players, while
it is very easy to text to myself. I quickly texted how people behaved and reacted, where
specific people were positioned in relationship to one another, physical gestures, and all
other details and observations necessary to help explore my research further. In contrast,
I used my notebook to write down my observations since it was not as fast paced
24
watching from the stands than from the bench. In the stands, I was able to talk to other
fans about the game underway and about the team in general. In my field diary I used the
distinctive concept, from Sullivan and colleagues’ framework, to guide my observations.
I took extensive field notes, making notes about my environment: what it felt like to be
surrounded by the fans on the bench and how that was a completely different atmosphere
from when I was sitting on the bench and how the environment affected the teams’
distinctive behaviors; the players, how they moved amongst each other during their
transitions from court to bench and interacted with each other on the bench and on the
court; the coaches, how they interacted with the team during time outs and half time; the
game, how fast or slow paced it was compared to the other games; the referees, how they
communicated with the players and if their movement on the court bothered the players;
and the fan interaction, how the noise, if any, from the crowd made a difference in how
the team interacted. Everything written in my field diary was to measure how each of
these elements affected the distinctiveness of the team’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors
on and off the court. At the end of the day I used these details to encourage my own
systematic reflection as to the meaning of distinctiveness from this data source. This
process was carried out from first entering the gym throughout the game to the final
interviews.
Additional data for this study was collected through face-to-face interviews with
selected players to validate the ethnographic observations. These selected players were
five of the key players on the team who showed the most distinct verbal and nonverbal
behaviors. Interviews followed semi-structural interviews, in which a protocol using
open-ended questions based on the studies central focus was developed before data
25
collection to obtain specific information and enable comparison across cases. I remained
open and flexible so that I could probe the individual team members’ stories in more
detail (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Interview questions were developed in light
of the research question to assure that the questions were geared in the correct direction.
Interviews took place later in the day after the teammates had the time to cool down after
their game at a place of their choosing where they felt most comfortable. The interviews
lasted between twenty-five and forty-five minutes. To see the interview guide, please see
Appendix A. A consent form was developed to get approval from all participants and for
clarity of the purpose of the research (see Appendix C). These interviews were digitally
recorded and transcribed. The interview process was used to clarify and confirm what I
observed in the ethnographies to support my research question.
Ethnographic Observation
Ethnographic observations are what gave me the opportunity to be able to put on a
different “distinctive” lens and view the players as a player instead of viewing them as a
fan. These observations gave me better insight on how this team functioned during live
play. Reliving these moments with me will help you understand what I’ve viewed as a
participant observer.
I began this process by observing three basketball games of this recreational team.
I wanted to be able to watch games where the team had different types of opponents; an
easier level opponent, a same level opponent, and a higher level opponent, so I could
observe any changes in the team’s verbal or nonverbal behaviors. This team worked well
together against all three different opponents, with obvious differences in the way they
26
played in each separate game, which helped me to observe their differences in their
verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
I noted in my field diary while watching the team play against the easier level
team that they used fewer verbal behavior to signal plays and therefore more nonverbal
behaviors. The participants’ opponents were just no competition for them, so observing
this game was like watching the Harlem Globetrotters play. The participants did no-look
passes, behind the back passes, behind the head passes, alley-oops dunks, fancy
backwards dunks, fancy between the legs dunks, fancy one hand dunks, fancy two hand
dunks, out of the range three point shots, and fancy dribbling techniques, just to name a
few. All of these different team movements were all done using pure instinct. I did not
hear any plays called out the entire game, however, I noted head nods and piercing eye
contact with the point guard the full duration of the game. Verbally, the team would yell
out nicknames and celebratory chants like, “great play,” “I see you man,” “They can’t see
you,” “Tell them to man up,” after a great play. Besides the head nods and eye contact
with the point guard, nonverbally the team would give high-fives, chest bumps, pats on
the back, slaps on the butt, shoulder bumps, and clapping hands to show how pleased
they were with their teammates. The team showed how much they had bonded with each
other due to their ability to communicate well nonverbally during play. It was
phenomenal to watch the fluidity of the team on the court; they did not seem to miss a
step while competing against their opponents using very little verbal communication.
Observing the same level and higher level opponent games were quite similar
because this team I was observing has been undefeated for a couple seasons now.
Therefore, there was no team that was actually on their level or higher, but observing
27
these games was slightly different than observing them compete against the easier level
team. During these games the team actually used more verbal and nonverbal behaviors
during play.
Nonverbally, the team used more hand gestures to signal plays to each other on
the court. The majority of the hand gestures came from the point guard (captain of the
court) while either coming down the court after the opponents scored to set up a play or
restarting a play. The point guard had a few hand gestures that he would use to signal to
his team to throw off their opponents. These nonverbal hand gestures were unique to this
team because they made them together; only this team could identify what these gestures
were. I knew this because during my observation I saw the defending team using the
same hand gestures but with a different outcome. The point guard was not the only one
using nonverbal gestures during play. Other teammates used them to signal if they had a
mismatch, meaning that the player defending them was either shorter in height or smaller
in weight and so the teammate could dominate them easily; this gesture looked like an X
with their arms. Teammates used signals to gesture if they were about to set a screen for
another teammate, this gesture looked like a “come here” motion, but with the whole
hand. They also used hand gestures to signify if they were tired and needed a substitution
from the bench, this gesture was a head pat. However, none of these nonverbal hand
gestures would have been relevant if the team had not kept clear eye contact with the
point guard. I noted that eye contact was very important because otherwise the team
would have missed most of the nonverbal cues. Not only that, but some plays were made
only by using only eye contact during these games and a majority of these eye contact
only plays ended in amazing dunks.
28
Verbally, the team called out plays using their own distinct names that the
teammates chose together. These distinctive play names were yelled out if the nonverbal
gesture about play did not prompt the desired move. Nicknames and slang were used
during these games as well. While sitting on the bench and being able to listen in on
conversations during timeouts and halftime coaching, I heard players call each other by
nicknames that they made up for each other based on experiences together outside the
court. I also heard them use slang on the bench during timeouts and at halftime; while a
majority of the slang language was vulgar, it still pertained to basketball. I believe these
slang terms were used because it made the team comfortable, the majority of them are
professionals and this was a place where they could let their hair down and be relaxed
without being scolded for their language.
Analysis Procedures
Each interview was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Research notes were
written between interviews to record findings. Grounded Theory procedures and
techniques, as outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1990), were used for analysis procedures.
After listening to the interviews several times, while reading and re-reading the
transcripts, a line-by-line constant comparative analysis was conducted to compare and
identify potential codes to look for connections throughout each interview and
ethnography (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This analysis is a process in which grouping of
categories are developed through an ongoing process of comparing related units of data
(Lindlof & Taylor, 2011). These related units of data had to be in relation to the research
question, how do team sport members who have played together more than two years
29
describe their strategic use of distinctive verbal and non-verbal behaviors on and off the
court to coordinate plays during a game, in order to be coded.
Similar codes relating to the research question were found during the open coding
process in the data from all five interviews and three ethnographic observations When a
team member answered a question that related to the observation and/or research
question, it was coded. Themes were minimal in the open coding process so the
researcher could label what each team member discussed during their interview. Axial
coding was then used to determine the important themes that emerged from the open
coding process. The researcher then reduced, strengthened and defined the themes that
addressed the research question. While all data was coded, the themes included here are
only those that relate to the research question. This constant comparison analysis lead to
the emergence of four themes.
Introduction of Themes
Their use of verbal and nonverbal behaviors may not have been a thought in these
team members’ minds before this study. Listening to and observing their distinctive
verbal and nonverbal behavior’s during play was as intriguing to them as it was to me.
Observing these three games, I not only became familiar with their verbal and nonverbal
behaviors during play, but also became familiar with how this particular team
distinguishes themselves from other teams by utilizing these behaviors. Their team
identity is quite unique. Since they have played on the same team for years, they have a
connection or a bond that is uncanny, where words are not even needed to communicate
complicated plays. Although each game I observed was uniquely different due to the
30
quality of the defenders, there were several common elements that surfaced from the
data. The four themes that emerged from the team members’ interviews and the
researcher’s observations reveal their strategic use of distinctive verbal and non-verbal
behaviors on and off the court to coordinate plays during a game. These themes were
defined as: (1) universal gestures, unique meanings; (2) using eye contact to coordinate
plays; (3) coded team language and (4) brotherhood vibes.
31
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
Theme 1: Universal gestures, unique meanings
Nonverbal elements are very important to look at while observing a team’s
distinctive communication. Each nonverbal element can mean something completely
different in the sport of basketball. I stated in earlier chapters the importance of several
nonverbal elements that could be involved in the sport of basketball by Renz and Greg
(2000). These researchers stated that eye behavior, facial expressions, posture and body
lean, proxemics, touch, use of time, paralanguage, and the use of silence are all important
nonverbal elements that fall in the category of gestures. Though Sullivan and colleagues
only asked one question pertaining to gestures, “does the team use gestures that only
team members understand?” they did note that athletes had concerns for appropriate
nonverbal (e.g., body language, eye contact) messages to be included in their study
(p.6,17). However, the researchers noted that they were not able to go in depth with the
concerns the athletes expressed about those nonverbal gestures at the time. They also
made it clear that nonverbal gestures were a style of communication untouched in sports
psychology. While Sullivan and colleagues were unable to go in greater depths about
nonverbal communication gestures in their study, in my observations I was able to look
32
further into these universal gestures and this team was able to explain how the same
gesture used by more than one team was interpreted different ways.
Whether observing or interviewing, I’ve noticed, and all participants
acknowledged, that hand gestures and body gestures are a major part of this game. All of
the team members’ interviewed discussed the importance of hand gestures and body
gestures and why they use them. According to Kita and Ozyurek (2003), gestures can
codify information that cannot always be expressed verbally. By observing these games,
I was able to compare notes with the team members’ interviews to help support my
observations. Several gestures stood out to me while observing the team play these three
games. However, I noticed that the defending teams’ communication gestures were quite
similar to the team I was observing in two of the three games. This could be confusing to
someone who is not familiar with the game of basketball. Are all hand gestures and body
gestures universal? As I continued to observe the game closely and witness both teams
using the same signals with different results, I realized that they had different meanings
or codes for the separate teams. Player 3 confirmed this conclusion as he went more in
depth about what gestures mean to his team. He said:
I think most signaled plays are universal. You don’t just sit around and try to
think of different signals to make. You don’t try to reinvent the wheel, you know?
That will just take too much time out of your game. However, you put your own
spin on them. That is what makes a team unique. We know each other so well
that we can make these signals that everyone else is using our own, or just vibe
off of each other without signals.
While observing I saw both teams signal the play using the gesture of a head pat. For
example, the defending team’s point guard (captain of the court) came down the court
and patted his head and then a play proceeded. On the other hand, in the team that I was
33
observing players outside of the point guard pat their heads, but their gesture seemed to
mean something completely different. Player 1 elaborates more on the use of universal
signals in ways that are unique to their team. He said:
Though signals or gestures are universal in this game, we hope that there are ones
that only we understand. We use them to signal plays, defensive positions, and
for example, to show if we’re tired, like the head pat. You don’t want to verbally
say you’re tired because the defender will then go hard on you. So, that’s when
we do the head pat to signal to the players on the bench or the coach that we need
a substitution. I believe all teams may use the same signals, but this signal of the
head pat to us signifies tiredness.
Player 2 had a similar response about universal gestures and why teams use them. He
states:
Some gestures are universal, therefore most people who play basketball would
understand them. However, there are some signals that are made up among
teammates so that we can use them to our advantage of the opposing team. That’s
why we all select these gestures collectively. Not that we need them because we
are so close…but just in case, you know?
From observing these games I noticed both that gestures were universal and that players
knew how to interpret them. However, some of the team members made it known that
they put their own distinctively unique spin on these gestures, that their chemistry as a
team is so unified that they can make these signals their own.
Observing this team I have seen numerous hand and body gestures that convey
meanings that cannot be verbalized in particular instances. Some gestures I detected
while viewing this team are as follows: pointing at teammates, setting screens (blocking
move by an offensive player by standing beside or behind a defender to free a teammate
to shoot, receive a pass, or drive in to score), fist up in the air, hand claps, solo finger up,
numerous fingers up, head nods, making an X with your arms, head pats, and pulling of
jerseys, just to name a few. All of these hand and body gestures mean different things at
34
different times. Since I’ve watched a few games I wanted to make sure that my notes and
the players’ descriptions matched. I noticed that if the point guard threw up his fist and
then a player in another position threw up his fist, these gestures each meant something
different. So, clearly one gesture can mean something distinctly different for each player.
Player 2 described what the fist meant in his instance:
Today I signaled to my teammate that I was setting a screen for him by putting
my fist into the air, not that my or his opponent could see it, but just high enough
that he could see it, then I began to run in his direction to set the screen.
Player 3 also talked about the fist gesture and what role it played for him. He said:
Well, like if the point guard throws up a fist, this tells me what type of play to run
or what type of play not to run. Sometimes there is so much confusion and we are
just out there playing off of each other’s vibes that we need to be pulled back into
control. This is where the fist comes in, we will see him throw that fist up and we
know instantly to get in our positions and reset the play from the beginning.
Player 1 has a distinct play to go with the fist gesture as well. He stated:
Depending on the gestures, for instance, fist, it can signal for me if there is a
mismatch on the floor, meaning a bigger player has a smaller player defending
him. Then I know that we should all try to get the ball into the person’s hands
who has the mismatch.
Player 5 discussed what the distinct gesturing of throwing up a fist meant to him. He said:
We don’t have many gestures, we may have about 6 to 8 of them. I think that is
because we have so much chemistry that all of those gestures aren’t needed.
However, one gesture can mean a different thing to different players. Fist means a
few things for a few players, I always pay attention to who is throwing up the fist
to know what to do. If the point guard throws it up, I know to get into formation
for a play to get set up. If a guard throws it up, I know that he may be trying to set
a screen for me. If a power forward throws up the fist, I know that he has a
mismatch and I need to get him the ball immediately. Some may think this is all
too much to remember, I think because we’ve been playing together for some
time it just comes so easily, that you don’t even think about it, it’s like second
nature.
35
It is so unique and distinct how one hand gesture can mean three different things,
watching it in live play is even more intriguing. The players’ movements seemed so
effortless when hand signaling or body gesturing. Not one team member was out of sync
when a signal went up, it was as if the maestro waved his wand and the orchestra began
to perform and everyone executed their part with ease.
Theme 2: Using eye contact to coordinate plays
Eye contact is an important factor in the game of basketball. Sullivan and
colleagues did not touch base on this topic, because it is a part of that untouched
nonverbal communication that sports psychology has yet to study. However, Chance
(1967) reminds us that the high status person in a small group typically receives the most
visual attention. The "channels" of communication (visual or otherwise) are kept open by
the lower status persons. In my observations I noticed that this statement is true. In this
case, the higher status person would be the point guard and the lower status persons
would be the other members of the team. However, not only did I observe what Chance
mentioned, but I also witnessed how a particular look of eye contact could coordinate
several different plays.
Observing this theme was quite interesting. From continuous observation on the
bench, it had been evident that eye contact is an important part of this game. I’ve learned
from the outside looking in, as a spectator, that I would never notice that one look from
another player could mean anything. As you’re watching a game as a fan, you’re just
looking for your favorite team to score. You do not think about the look he made before
he passed the ball or the look he gave before he scored. However, being able to be on the
36
inside made a complete difference to how I now view the game. I have realized that
every movement, including eye contact, is unique and could mean something to help the
team score. A look could mean four or five different things; this is why it is important
for the teammates to pay attention to the person controlling the ball. Not maintaining eye
contact could most definitely be a deciding factor of scoring, not scoring, or a turn over,
and the object of this game is to score and win. The players could also miss an important
cue or gesture. It appeared to be obvious after a few minutes of observation that the four
teammates who were not controlling the ball had to maintain eye contact with the point
guard. This seemed to be very vital to the game because no one wanted to miss a signal.
At one moment in the game where a teammate was not paying attention to the point
guard, the point guard proceeded to pass the ball and it went out of bounds and was then
considered a turn over which opened a possession for the defending team to score.
Player 3 discusses the importance of eye contact with the point guard. He said:
I believe eye contact is important. You can tell what the point guard wants to do
sometimes by his eyes. A quick look to you and he can see that you’re open and
this can turn into a no look pass or an alley-oop. However, if you aren’t paying
attention to the point guard and he sees you’re open but you are not watching him,
this can result in a few things, losing the ball, it going out of bounds, or getting hit
in the face with the ball. Yes, this happens, it has happened to me a few times.
Player 4 voices his opinion on eye contact and how he utilizes it during a game. He said:
Eye contact is important. You wouldn’t know what to do if you weren’t keeping
clear contact with the point guard and other players. You will most certainly miss
out on hand gestures. Just imagine going the whole game without looking at the
point guard, it’s pointless. You might as well just sit the bench the whole game.
You can miss out on so much if you aren’t reading your point guard’s eyes, but
the only way to know how to read your teammate is if you have a connection with
them.
Player 2 discusses how the team uses eye contact when they cannot voice a play. He said:
37
It works well once you have chemistry with your teammates. An eye signal can
say there is an opening backdoor [clear path to drive in to the basket], or set a
screen, and even a dunk. What is interesting is that once you have played with a
person for an extended period of time then it becomes easier to read the nonverbal
communication cues.
When Player 2 made this statement, it helped me fully understand what I saw in game 1
of my observations. I witnessed the point guard coming down the court with the ball,
three players were already down the court setting up for a play, and the fifth player was
just behind the point guard coming up the court. Then, I saw the point guard give the fifth
player coming up the court a look. The fifth player nodded and they both proceeded to
sprint down the court. The point guard sprinted to the top of the key above the three
point line and the fifth player sprinted right to the basket. All of a sudden I saw the point
guard look towards the crowd and throw a no look pass to the player sprinting towards
the basket for a dunk. It was an amazing, unspoken, sight to see. You could truly see the
chemistry the players had for this play to work. The other three players must have seen
the nod, because they too began to gravitate away from the basket to draw the defenders
away so that the fifth player could complete the dunk successfully. As Player 2 stated,
“Eye contact is very important because it assures that you and your teammates are on the
same page.” This was evident in this particular situation because everyone clearly
understood what to do when they saw the point guard give the look to the player going in
for the dunk. Player 2 also stated that, “It is important to keep a clear eye contact because
court awareness is a major part of the game.” Each player had a great sense of court
awareness because when they saw the nod, they knew to draw their opponents away from
the basket so their teammate could score. Each player knew precisely what to do all from
a simple but meaningful eye gesture to one player.
38
Theme 3: Coded team language
In recent chapters Foa and Foa (1974) and Kelley and Thibaut (1978), discussed
how human interaction of all kinds can be conceived as exchanges in which every
individual involved is motivated to accrue and obtain valued resources. For examples,
these exchanges could be a simple nickname and that could reciprocate a feeling of
distinctiveness. Sullivan and Shorts (2011) did ask questions in the distinctiveness
portion of their study pertaining to nicknames and slang and they were correlated semipositively because there were just a few more athletes who checked yes than no; however
these questions were closed ended and did not have much explanations to why they
calculated positively. In my observations and interviews I was able to visually see and
hear these exchanges amongst teammates and witness what valued resources that the
team obtained.
As a fan you sit in the crowd and hear your favorite team players yell out these
crazy names for plays and have no clue where they came from. Or you hear them call
your favorite player’s nickname out and you wonder how it came about. Some fans are
so dedicated that they yell out request plays from the stands because they know the plays
by heart, but they do not know the origin of the name. I got the opportunity to observe
portions of the three games on the bench with the team. I did not feel uncomfortable or
out of my element while I was sitting on the bench because they players made me feel
like I was a part of the team. I know everyone on the team by their first names, so it was
quite unusual to hear the teammates on the bench use other nicknames for some of these
players. In spite of watching this team for years as a fan, I had had no idea that just about
everyone on the team had a nickname that the other teammates made up. At times they
39
even seemed to be talking in code and laughing about these inside jokes that came along
with this coded team language. Though I was clueless at times about what the team was
discussing amongst each other, I had a different perspective of the team while sitting on
the bench with them. That bench is like a safe haven, where anything might be said and
no one would be penalized for it; everyone was comfortable being themselves. Since I
didn’t get the opportunity to ask questions about nicknames while sitting on the bench,
during the interviews I was able to get a deeper understanding of why they use them.
Player 3 said, “I believe all teams use nicknames. I feel that it is positive for teams; it
shows the bond on the team. Majority of the team has nicknames.” Player 1 said, “I think
nicknames are good, they show how close we have become over the past couple of
years.” Player 2 said, “I think that it is just a part of the game. Most people use
nicknames in sports.” Player 5 said, “Nicknames make you feel like a family and the fact
that we made them up because of events based on games and practices is even better.”
Sitting on the bench I could tell that these nicknames came from recent events
because some of the nicknames were not relevant to the games I watched, but I could tell
they were in recent games, each person’s nickname was distinct and team oriented. With
nicknames comes slang. These verbal burst of energetic obscenities and niceties filled
the gym up with voices as if it was a packed house. Not one ball possession went by
without hearing some sort of slang coming out of one of the teammates mouths. It was
like this slang was a part of the game; if you did not hear this verbiage coming from
players you were not watching a good game.
I would consider the plays the teammates call out verbally as a form of slang too.
During my observation I heard several different types of play names called out by
40
teammates: “Snaky, cool whipper, tally ho, swimmer, boston, viper, necky, and bone.” I
would consider their verbal plays slang because the names were playful, vivid, and
original, and also because no one knew what they meant besides the team members. This
is also indicative of the close bond; a unique meaning shared within the close
interpersonal and group relationship. Besides the play names I would say that I mostly
heard the teammates using slang during timeouts, sitting on the bench, before the game
started, when the game ended, and in the parking lot after the game. These distinct slang
terms seem to stem from a closer bond or outside friendship from this game. I wanted to
get more insight on why and how the teammates developed these slang terms. Player 1
stated that:
We have developed our own language in a sense. I guess from all of our side
jokes, practices, outside of practice, our bond and friendship helps us create this
slang or language that we only understand. They help us understand each other
better. We all wear different professional hats and it feels good to wind down and
just relax. We mostly use this slang during practice or fun activities outside of the
game, never during a game. At least we try not to.
Player 3 had a similar view on how the team would describe their use of slang. He said:
I guess most of the slang comes from us being around each other so much. I
would say it’s a common language, but the way we use it only makes it special to
us. You know what I mean? We usually use it during practice, out and about,
and sometimes in games. These are terms we’ve become accustomed to. So they
are pretty much natural or second nature.
While observing, you could tell that this slang was like second nature to them. While
sitting on the bench with the teammates and listening to them talk amongst each other, I
realized that at some points in the group’s conversation I had no idea what they were
referring to. I know that I did not have a close bond with the team, but they had
41
developed their own form of communication to distinguish between the in-groups versus
outsiders or their opponents. This distinct verbal form of communication kept their
opponents guessing about how to defend against them. Player 1 discussed more about
their distinct verbal slang. He said:
Sometimes slang is used during the games, other times used in conversation with
the team. Most often it’s used in conversations with the team because no one else
will understand what we are talking about. This slang is mostly stemming from
the quality time that we spent that create inside jokes or stories.
Player 5 gives a little more insight on why they use this slang. He states:
We don’t just sit around and make up slang words to use against opponents. I bet
that is what people think. We are close and these words come from our
relationship we have outside of basketball. I guess it is to our advantage that we
have this bond to create these terms to use them against our opponents. When I
scream out one of them I don’t have to worry about anyone else besides my
teammates knowing what I am talking about. That is the best thing about our
slang words, they are so unique to us.
Observing this team from the bench and partaking in interviews finally helped me
understand how some teams, this one in particular, come up with their play names. It
actually makes you want to be a more dedicated fan because you see how close this team
is and how hard they work on their team chemistry.
One vital theme related to the participants’ descriptions and my observations of
how team sport members who know each other well negotiate their team identity through
verbal and nonverbal behaviors on and off the court. All of the participants’ responses
and my observations were related to exchanges of verbal and nonverbal gestures on and
off the court. According to the early studies by Foa and Foa (1974) and Kelley and
Thibaut (1978), human interaction of all kinds can be conceived as exchanges in which
42
every individual involved is motivated to accrue and obtain valued resources. These
resources in this particular case would be a bond of individuals to form their team
identity.
Theme 4: Brotherhood vibes
According to Sullivan and Gee (2007) they found in their research that
professional and traveling teams have a closer bond because of their time bonding on and
off of the court. Witte and Davis (1996) reminded us that by definition smaller groups
are more distinctive than larger groups. Also, when a group is small, they are able to
come together and build a bond so their communication with one another is strong and
they are able to achieve goals. In my observations, I witnessed how a bond and
connection off the court of this small knit team helped them tremendously on the court.
Brotherhood vibes is the fourth and final theme. This is a bond like no other and
bonding seemed to be reoccurring throughout the whole study. By simply observing
three games I could not fully capture the bond this team had. I would have had to start
researching them from the beginning of their journey. Some team members have been
playing on this recreational team for as long as six years. Most NBA players are not on a
team for the duration of a whole season. I notice from my habitual viewing of games and
statistics, some players are traded after their first season, making it difficult to build
bonds with their teammates. This team really seemed like a family; their friendship
extended well beyond the basketball court. From my observations, I noticed that some
teammates carpooled with each other to and from the games, and they even went out to
dinner after some games. When I was observing the game from the bench, I overheard a
43
few teammates talking about meeting up after the game for dinner to celebrate a great
win. I also heard them discuss birthday parties with their children and how they would
love for their teammates’ families to attend. They discussed social media, work, and, of
course, sports.
After observing for three games I wanted to know firsthand from players about
how their extended years playing on a team made them closer, so close that verbal and
nonverbal communication seemed effortless. Player 1 went into detail about their team
bonding. He said:
I think that after the first year of playing together we gelled a lot more during our
second season. Our nonverbal cues were better and the uses of words were needed
less. Some of us are close and some of us are just cool on the court, but we all
have that close bond. We socialize often, especially with the ones that I am closer
with. We’ve become really good friends. We support each other in our work life
and in our family life. We call, text, email, tweet, Facebook. We have to stay in
contact for game time and practice times. But not only that, we are close friends
outside of this game of basketball. So we do use social media to stay in contact,
too. We’ve developed a friendship because of this game. I am not sure that we
would have even met if we didn’t have this game. But this game has brought us
together and this bond is for a lifetime.
Player 2 gives more insight on their team chemistry and how they bond outside of the
game. He states:
I certainly believe that the longer you play with a person or persons that the
chemistry gets much better. My teammates and I are very close, we get along
greatly. We just don’t talk on the court, we make plans to go out, like eating,
clubs, movies, family outings, things like that. We spend so much time together
with practice and summer conditioning and games that we are basically a family,
so we do things that families do. We keep in contact on all the social media sites;
not just that alone, we talk and text as well.
Player 3 concurred with Player 2 about how their team has chemistry and how they are
not just a basketball team, but are close friends. He said:
44
I guess since we’ve played for so long words aren’t even needed for some plays.
We know what’s going to happen next sometimes. It’s kind of crazy and weird at
times. I keep in touch with majority of the players outside of the game. I would
say that we are pretty close friends. We do other things outside of playing
basketball together. We hang out, too. We support each other in life. We talk
about our careers, our kids, almost everything from A to Z. I’ve formed a great
bond with these guys because of this sport. We pretty much use all of the social
media. We text and talk on the phone as well, not just to talk sports, but to talk
about issues going on in our lives as well. I would say we are close friends, or
they are putting up a huge front (laughs).
Player 4 goes into a little more detail about what builds the teams bond in this game.
Most people would believe that just playing on the team helps build chemistry, but Player
4 would beg to differ. He states:
Playing with this team for a little over four years, I would say our bond is pretty
much impeccable. We have such good chemistry that we could go down the court
for several possessions without calling verbal or nonverbal plays, we seriously
just vibe off of each other. I believe we are close, we do things together outside
of basketball. I believe this is what helps build our bond in this game, our outside
relationships. We most certainly support each other in our lives outside of
basketball. We all wear completely different professional hats, and we all support
each other’s careers. I feel like if I didn’t know them in their everyday lives, we
wouldn’t have such a great bond on the court. I feel like you truly have to know
someone to mesh well with them. We communicate in all spectrums, we use
those social media sites for fun and to stay connected. We are a really close team.
Player 5 refers to their team bond as a brotherhood, he believes their friendship is what
helps with the chemistry on the team. He said:
You know, you never really sit around and think about how much chemistry you
have with your teammates until you’re asked (laughs). Majority of the times
words aren’t needed unless a player gets substituted in. We usually just play off
of each other. Of course we have the occasional hand gestures and the occasional
play calls, but for the most part, we know each other so well that all of that isn’t
even needed. I guess if we recruited another guy we would have to start calling
plays again and doing all of the hand gestures, but I don’t see us letting someone
else in. We are not just a basketball team, I kind of hate it when people just refer
to us as that sometimes. We are truly friends, a basketball team would just come
to the game and play and leave, but we do things outside of this game. We have
45
social gatherings with family, movies, club, dinners, amusement parks, things of
that sort. Things that typical friends do together, I mean, some of these guys were
in my wedding. How much closer of a bond could you get than that? I am not
much of a social media person, however, I do have them because of these guys.
They are always joking on those sites, so I go on there to check up on them. I
usually just call or text. If we don’t have a game, say we have a week off or
something. We always still check up on each other. Sometimes we even meet up
at the park to play a game of basketball amongst ourselves. I would say we are
pretty darn close. They are pretty much my brothers.
Being able to interview the players made it clear to why this team’s chemistry is
extraordinary on the court. This feeling of brotherhood is one key element that fans are
not able to see. All they observe is their favorite team on the court winning games. They
are not able to view the bond they have outside of these four walls. They are not aware
of the outside socializing this team has done to help their play on the court. Also, I am not
sure that the team is aware that this brotherhood outside of basketball is a form of team
building. “Team building” usually refers to exercises new teams do to help them build
chemistry on the court. Some coaches do these team building exercises at practice and
some do them on off site locations. For instance, an in practice team building exercise
would be for each teammate to introduce themselves and discuss what their role would be
on this team and how they plan on contributing. An example of an outside team building
exercise would be the team meeting up at a soup kitchen to do community services,
something were they are all working together, bonding to get to know each other. This
team was already partaking in team building exercises without even knowing and has
been doing so for years. From observing and interviewing, I believe that if this team did
not have this outside bond, their verbal and nonverbal distinctive behaviors would not be
at the level shown.
46
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
My research question was: how do team sport members who have played together
more than two years describe their strategic use of distinctive verbal and non-verbal
behaviors on and off the court to coordinate plays during a game. I was inspired by
Sullivan and colleagues’ studies, and intrigued by their development of The Scale of
Effective Communication in Team Sports (SECTS-2) to help measure intra-team
communication in sports teams, particularly the concept of distinctive communication.
The scale included assessment of both verbal and nonverbal communication behaviors as
well as task and social communication. The development of this scale revealed important
phenomena relating to intra-team communication, particularly in the factor identified as
Distinctiveness. Sullivan and colleagues drew the conclusion that the participants’ play
involved in their study correlated negatively with distinctiveness based on these
questions: “does your team use nicknames, does your team use slang that only you all
understand, and does the team use gestures that only team members understand?”
(Sullivan & Shorts, 2011, p. 17). However, the teams Sullivan and colleagues studied
had only been engaged in play for a few months to two years, which may very well have
been the reason why their results came out negatively. My findings suggest that a team’s
distinctiveness may need time to develop. I would suggest to Sullivan and colleagues
47
that a team may need a time frame of two years and more to build this distinct bond. The
athletes observed and interviewed in the current study have played on their team
anywhere from two years to six years and the strategic use of their distinctive nonverbal
and verbal behaviors was very apparent during play. Perhaps if Sullivan and colleagues
were to interview the athletes in their studies again today, the correlation between
successful play marked by winning games and the closeness of the team bond would be
different because a few years have passed since the point they were interviewed and their
team cohesion would be more developed.
The purpose of this study was to observe and examine team sport members who
have played together more than two years describe their strategic use of distinctive verbal
and nonverbal behaviors on and off the court to coordinate plays during a game amongst
a recreational basketball sporting team. Social Exchange Theory suggests that human
interaction of all kinds can be conceived as exchanges in which every individual involved
is motivated to accrue and obtain valued resources. The results of this study show that
there are specific distinctive exchanges, verbal and nonverbal, on and off the court, which
the teammates made amongst themselves that resulted in a bond between players that
lead to their success as a team. Interviews with players confirmed the importance of
using distinct verbal and nonverbal behaviors that coincide with team chemistry and
cohesion in order to coordinate successful plays. Ethnographic observations and the
explanation provided by the five participants in this study shed light on how and why
these distinct verbal and nonverbal gestures are important for a team’s cohesiveness as
well as its performance.
48
The themes that emerged from the data are the following: The first theme,
universal gestures, unique meanings, shows us the distinct way the team uses verbal and
nonverbal communication during play. The ethnographic observations and the interviews
with players show that each verbal and nonverbal behavior to signal a play was unique to
this team. Even though some of the nonverbal gestures were similar to other teams, this
team put their own distinct spin on them and made them mean different things so their
opponents could not identify them. A fan might not realize that different body
movements and gestures mean anything, but just sit back and cheer for a favorite team.
However, each and every body movement or gesture may have a distinct meaning to it. It
could be the simplest movement of one finger going up or a fist going up and this could
equate to what play to do or where to position oneself on the court. There is so much
meaning attributed to these distinct gestures by team members while from the outside
they just seem to be a part of the game.
Renz and Greg (2000) made it clear that eye behavior, facial expressions, postures
and body lean, gestures, proxemics, touch, use of time, paralanguage, and the use of
silence are all important nonverbal elements. All of these elements were in evidence
during the game as nonverbal behaviors when the players could not express verbally what
they want out of each other. Sullivan and colleagues asked one question pertaining to
gestures, but it did not satisfy the athletes that were getting surveyed and it did not have a
positive correlation at the end of their study. The athletes in their study expressed
concern to the researchers about various gestures not being included and voiced their
opinions, however the researchers did not have the time to further study gestures. The
researchers made it clear that using nonverbal gestures was an important aspect of
49
communication but noted that it was understudied and called for further research, which
the current study has done. The findings here confirm that the use of nonverbal gestures
is very important to study in this field of sports communication. There are so many
different movements involved in this game of basketball and so many ways these
gestures could be measured. Every gesture has a deeper meaning to them besides what
play to run because they stem from the connection the members had outside the game.
Those two area suggest the possibilities for further study of how a team creates meanings
for the nonverbal gestures based on a bond formed off the court.
Using eye contact to coordinate plays was the second theme and was mentioned
by all of the participants, especially when it came to retrieving plays from the point
guard. The ethnographic observations show that it was important that all players
maintain clear visual contact with the point guard, since he is the one most likely calling
all of the plays. Participants agreed that if they were not keeping an eye on him, they
could miss his signals about key plays. Because of this team’s bonding off the court,
something as simple as a quick look could mean nothing to an outsider, but to a team
member, receiving a distinct look from a teammate means he knows precisely what to do
during play. This type of eye contact reminded me of when I was a child and was
misbehaving and I got that look from my mother and knew instantly to straighten up. No
words were needed because of the bond a mother has with their child. This is similar to
the look that the point guard gave to the players who know exactly what to do with it to
dominate during play.
Eye contact during play was one of the nonverbal communication elements that
Sullivan and colleagues did not explore. However, Chance (1967) states that a high
50
status person in a small group typically receives the most visual attention from the other
group members. The lower status persons must keep an open channel of communication
visually with the higher status person. The data here confirmed Chance’s description of a
higher status person receiving the most visual attention. In this case, the point guard was
the higher status person and the other four players on the floor kept a clear path of visual
communication with him to get the visual cues they needed to produce plays. Observing
as a fan I noticed the distinct eye contact given from point guard to player, however, I
had no idea what it meant. In my experience playing basketball, if the point guard looked
at me distinctly, I would not know what play to do probably because we did not share the
bond this team shares. Further research should be conducted about how players interact
off the court to gain more insight into how such time together forms a bond. Somehow it
is this time interacting together outside of play where distinct meanings for verbal and
nonverbal behaviors are formed.
The third theme was coded team language. This theme suggests that because of
this team’s bond, they have managed to develop unique meanings for words to help
disguise plays from their opponents. Not only have they disguised plays, but they also
developed distinct nicknames for each other. The majority of the participants noted that
their slang and nicknames came from their friendship.
In the literature, Foa and Foa (1974) and Kelley and Thibaut (1978) discussed how
human interaction of all kinds can be conceived as exchanges. These exchanges could be
a simple nickname and that could reciprocate a feeling of distinctiveness. Sullivan and
Shorts (2011) did ask questions in the distinctiveness portion of their study pertaining to
nicknames and slang and they were correlated semi-positively because more
51
yes’s were checked than no’s, however their questions in the scale were closed ended so
they could not get full understanding about why they used nicknames and slang. A
finding that emerged from the data was that the team in this study uses these nicknames
or slang as part of their strategy to develop plays. The slang is developed to confuse their
opponents about the plays they are performing. The nicknames are developed because of
the bond the team shares outside of this game that carries into the game. This theme also
suggests that further research needs to be done outside of the game of basketball to see
how the bond helps them to develop nicknames and slang for live play. For instance, if a
player had the nickname of Flash, is it because he is fast on the court, or is it pertaining to
some other reason? These are questions that could be asked in further research.
The important connection in the fourth theme, brotherhood vibe, is that this
team’s friendship helped them build chemistry to form distinctive verbal and nonverbal
gestures during play. The theme “brotherhood vibe” related to distinctiveness in its own
way. Team bonding speaks powerfully to the importance of the team’s identity. This
team’s identity is all defined by the bond that they have on and off of the court. More
importantly, the verbal and nonverbal behaviors they use outside of playing basketball
formed a bond that has helped them develop chemistry on the court that assists with the
development of distinct verbal and nonverbal behaviors during play. Every participant
made it clear that they believed they were close outside of this game and that without this
bond the chemistry might not be there to assist them on the court.
Distinctive verbal and nonverbal communication gestures used during play was a
powerful factor in the team’s cohesion and can be examined for two important ways the
team members exchanged resources. The first important resource was the teams’ bonding
52
on and off the court. It was clear that this team had a connection. The way they spoke
with each other before games, on the bench, during games, and after games showed that
they respected each other. However, the interviews revealed how much of a bond this
team has. They participate in each other’s lives in several ways. They communicate with
each other via social media, attend each other’s family outings like weddings, go out to
clubs, dinners and movies together, their kids play with each other, they talk about their
careers, and most importantly they consider each other friends. This team bonding
outside of the game of basketball leads to what could be called the team’s chemistry,
which is the second important resource exchanged.
You could tell that their close relationship had carried over into their game on the
court because this team’s chemistry can be observed in their extensive and skillful
nonverbal use of behaviors. They could go for several possessions in a row without
verbally calling out any plays. This team knew when to set screens, passes, dunks and
plays without using a single word. In the interviews, most participants made statements
about knowing each other so well that it was easy to “read” their teammates without
calling any plays out loud verbally. They said they could play off of each other’s “vibes”
and they knew what to do next. This nonverbal exchanged seemed so simple and obvious
to them. A hand would go up, eye contact would be made, or a head nod, and the team
would wordlessly know to go into “dominate” mode. Not only was the nonverbal
communication synchronized, but the verbal communication was in sync as well. They
had come up with terms or slang to use that only they understood. The team had
developed a unique common language like siblings have when they are younger. In a
sense, they did seem like brothers. These slang terms that they used on the court all came
53
from their relationships outside of basketball. They were able to carry over these terms
that they all knew well and turn them into distinct coded plays that only they could
understand.
Contribution
This research identifies key aspects of the team member’s exchanges during play
that that provide deeper understanding of nonverbal and verbal communication. These
key distinctive aspects were: universal gestures/unique meanings, using eye contact to
coordinate plays, coded team language, and brotherhood vibe. In particular, I have
highlighted the role of distinctive nonverbal and verbal behaviors during play. However,
after further research into my study of distinctiveness during play, it was brought to my
attention through this research that these key aspects all were a part of team cohesion.
This major contribution of this thesis is the identification of various verbal and
nonverbal behaviors all due to the cohesion of this team. Cohesion is widely known in
small group communication and is one of the bases of effective communication in small
groups (Caputo, Hazel, McMahon, & Dannels, 2002). Shelley (1959) states that when
each group member is in agreement on the relative task-status at hand, conflict is
minimized, interaction is facilitated, and group harmony and efficiency are promoted.
Due to the several different backgrounds and varying cultures that are included in any
small group, establishing cohesiveness can be a huge challenge. However, this small
group or team in this current study built cohesion by playing together and interacting with
each other over two to six years, In any small group it is important to understand the
appropriate time to utilize verbal and nonverbal behaviors to avoid any
54
misunderstandings. This small group has shown an effective way to increase the
cohesiveness of their group by becoming competent in nonverbal and verbal
communication throughout a specific time period. By participating in this research, the
team is consciously becoming more competent nonverbally and verbally, the group is
also consciously working to further increase the cohesiveness of their functioning group,
and in turn the group’s effectiveness. Being able to accomplish this task of effectiveness
and break other barriers which include the key distinctive aspects that are listed above,
this group proves that a small group can gain an effective method to communication,
verbal and nonverbal through team cohesion.
Limitations and Future Research
There were limitations in this study that could be taken into consideration for
future research. All of the games were observed at one team’s home gym. Future
researchers might consider traveling with a team on the team bus to learn how a team
bonds and shows their distinctive verbal and nonverbal behaviors during travel. Future
researchers might also want to follow a team from the beginning of their formation
through two or more years. Following them from the start of the draft of team members,
would allow their verbal and nonverbal behaviors to be monitored over progressive
seasons and show how team bonding and chemistry can help develop better verbal and
nonverbal behaviors during play. The findings suggest that future researchers may also
want to observe a team when they are having down time, for instance, going out to eat,
casual outings, or anywhere outside of basketball. It appears that players develop their
bond when they are not on the court and, according to the players interviewed here, this is
55
where all of the verbal and nonverbal behaviors are formed that are used on the court. In
the case of Sullivan and colleagues, distinctive team behaviors did not lead to a winning
season, so future researchers may also want to measure a team’s distinct verbal and
nonverbal behaviors to see if it affects the team’s record of wins versus losses. Also, this
study could be replicated in other sports and with female teams. Verbal and nonverbal
behaviors may vary from sport to sport and also may vary with the opposite sex.
Final Remarks
While there are limitations in this study, the importance of the findings is
significant to better understand the exchanges teammates make on and off the court. One
can see the importance of studying the team’s off court activities together because they
allowed a better insight into the role of bonding that was occurring outside of games in
creating effective distinctive communication on the court during play. The main finding
in this study was the importance to effective play of the distinctive verbal and nonverbal
behaviors during a game amongst the teammates. Not only did the ethnographic
observations provide the opportunity to gain insight into one team’s distinctive verbal and
nonverbal behavior, but the participation of players through interviews helped understand
that without a true bond, distinctive verbal and nonverbal behaviors may be difficult to
accrue. They shared this bond because they have been playing with each other for years.
Unlike Sullivan and colleagues’ study where the team had been together a relatively short
amount of time, from less than a few months to two years, this research indicates that it
takes time for a team to develop and use distinctive communication behaviors effectively
during play. This study shows the importance of a team needing those years of bonding
56
to have a chemistry that leads to distinctive verbal and nonverbal behaviors used
strategically on the court.
In this study is we can begin to understand how sporting teams we view as fans
have created chemistry through interactions outside of sports that we do not view. The
finding in this study that a team who bonds together outside of play is so vital to the
development of teams’ distinctive verbal and nonverbal behaviors on the court. This
finding could potentially provide an indication of a team’s winning or losing season
based on their distinctive verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
57
REFERENCES
Allen, J. L. Long, K. M. O’Mara, J., & Judd, B. B. (2008). Students’ predispositions
and orientations toward communication and perceptions of instructor reciprocity
and learning. Communication Education, 57(1), 20-40.
Baringer, D.K., & McCroskey, J.C. (2000). Immediacy in the classroom: Student
Immediacy. Communication Education, 49, 178-186.
Beck, C.S. (1995). You make a the call: The co-creation of media text through interaction
in an interpretive community of “Giants’ fans.” Electronic Journal of
Communication, 5 (1).
Bormann, E. G. (1970). The paradox and promise of small group research. Speech
Monographs, 37, 211-217
Burroughs, N.F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal
immediacy and student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication
Education, 56(4), 453-475.
Caputo, J.S., Hazel, H. C., McMahon, C., & and Darnels, D. (2002). Communicating
effectively: Linking thought and expression. Dubuque, Iowa: Kandall-Hunt
Publishing.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L.R., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1998). The measurement of
Cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advancement in sport and
exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., &Widmeyer, W. N. (1997). The measurement of
cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advancement in sport and
exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., & Hausenblas, H. A. (1998). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technologies.
58
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an
instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment
Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 244-266.
Chance, M. R. A. (1967). Attention structure as the basis of primate rank orders. Man,
2, 503-518.
Chelladurai, P. (1993). Leadership. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant
(Eds.), Handbook of research in sport psychology (pp. 647-671). New York:
Macmillan
Christophel, D.M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student
motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-240.
DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The qualitative research interview.
Medical Education, 40, 314-321.
Fitch, K. (1994). Criteria for evidence in qualitative research. Western Journal of
Communication, 58, 32-38.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas.
Fontayne, P., Heuze, J. P., & Raimbault, N. (2006). Relationships between cohesion,
collective efficacy and performance in professional basketball teams. Journal of
Sport Sciences, 24, 59–68.
Gardner, D., & Shields, D. L. (1996). The relationship between perceived coaching
behaviors and team cohesion among baseball and softball teams. Sport
Psychologist, 10, 367–381.
Glaser, B. G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Goliembieski, R. (1962). The small group. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kelley, H. K., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relationships: A Theory of
interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Kearney, P., Plax, T.G., Smith, V.R., & Sorensen, G. (1998). Effects of teacher
immediacy and strategy type on college student resistance to on-task
demands. Communication Education, 37, 54-67.
Kita, S., & Ozyurek, A. (2003). What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic
coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface
59
representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and
Language, 48, 16-32.
Kozub, S. A., & McDonnell, J. F. (2000). Exploring the relationship between cohesion
and collective efficacy. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 120–129.
Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill
Lindlof, T.R. & Taylor, B.C. (2001). Qualitative communication research methods (3rd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA :Sage
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interpersonal attraction: A review
Of relationships with antecedent and consequent variables. Psychological
Bullentin, 64, 259-309.
MacLean, D., & Sullivan, P. J. (2003). A season long case study investigation of
collective efficacy in male intercollegiate basketball. Athletic Insight, 15.
Retrieved May 4, 2011
from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol5Iss3/CollegeBasketballCaseStud
y.htm
McPherson, B. D. (1986). Socialization theory and research: Toward a “new wave” of
Scholarly inquiry in a sport context. In C. R. Rees & A. W. Miracle (Eds.),
Sport and social theory (pp. 111-134). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Publishers, Inc
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and
Performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210-227.
Pogue, L. & AhYun, K. (2006). The effect of teacher nonverbal immediacy and
credibility on student motivation and affective learning. Communication
Education, 55, 147-166.
Poole, M. S., & McPhee, R. D. (1985). Methodology in interpersonal communication
research. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal
communication. (pp.100–170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Renz, M. A. & Greg, J. B. (2000). Effective small group communication in theory and
practice. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Robinson, R. Y. (1995). Affiliative communication behaviors: A comparative of the
interrelationships among teacher nonverbal immediacy, responsiveness, and
verbal receptivity on the prediction of student learning. Paper presented at
the annual convention of the International Communication Association,
Albuquerque, NM.
60
Shelley, H.P. Focused leadership and cohesiveness in small groups. Sociometry, 23(2),
209-216. Retrieved
from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=1648833&
site= ehost-live
Short, S. E., Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). Development and preliminary
validation of the Collective Efficacy Questionnaire for Sports. Measurement in
Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9, 181–202.
Shue, L., & Beck, C. (2001). Stepping out of bounds: Performing feminist pedagogy
within a dance education community. Communication Education, 50, 125-143
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The preliminary development of the Scale for
Effective Communication in Team Sports (SECTS). Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 33, 1693–1715.
Sullivan, P. J., & Gee, C. J. (2007). The relationship between athletic satisfaction and
intrateam communication. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practices,
11, 107-116
Sullivan, P. J., & Short, S. (2011). Further operationalization of intra-team
communication in sports: An updated version of the scale of effective
communication in team sports (SECTS-2). Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
41, 471-487.
Thomas, C.E., Richmond, V.P., & McCroskey, J.C. (1994). The association between
immediacy and socio-communicative style. Communication Research Reports,
11, 107-114.
Trujillo, N. (1992). Interpreting (the work and the talk of) baseball: Perspectives on
ballpark culture. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 350-371.
Turman, P. D. (2003). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team
cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 86–104.
Ulin, P. R. & Robinson, E. T. (2005). Qualitative methods in public health: A field guide
for applied research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
61
APPENDICES
62
APPENDEX A
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
APPROVAL
63
APPENDIX B
CONSENT TO PARTICPATE IN A RESEARCH STUDY:
You are invited to take part in a research study conducted by Erica Elise Wilson, a
graduate student in the School of Communication at The University of Akron. This
research is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Kathleen D. Clark, Associate
Professor of Communication at The University of Akron. The objective of this study is
to investigate nonverbal behaviors used while teams are interacting during a live game.
You are being included in the study because as I attended these games yearly, I’ve
observed that your team has a close bond and would be of value to my study.
Your involvement in this study will consist of being observed while you play
followed by (a) a brief interview immediately after a game and (b) a longer interview
within a few days after a game. The longer interviews will take 30 to 45 minutes. With
your permission, the interviews will be recorded with a digital voice recorder to aid in the
accuracy of the study. All interview questions are related to the way your team
communicates during a game. This study is completely voluntary and up to you (the
participant) to choose if you would like to be interviewed. You have complete discretion
over the questions you choose to answer. You may choose to stop the interview at any
time, for any reason. In addition to the initial interview, you may be contacted with
follow-up questions and/or concerns that arise as the study progresses. These follow-up
questions are voluntary as well and you have the right to respond in any capacity you feel
most comfortable.
If you have any questions, concerns, suggestions, or complaints about the study,
you may contact Erica Elise Wilson at 330-774-8443 or write her
at [email protected]. You may also contact Dr. Kathleen D. Clark at 330-9726218, or write her at [email protected] or The University of Akron, School of
Communication, Kolbe Hall 108, Akron, OH 44325-1003. You may also contact the
Institutional Review Board, Office of Research Services at The University of Akron by
calling 330-972-7666 with questions about your rights as a volunteer in this study. You
may keep a copy of this consent for future reference.
Signature of person agreeing to take part in the study
64
Date
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDE
1. How long have you been playing with this team?
2. What is your experience playing with other teams?
3. What position do you play?
4. What is your role in using nonverbal gestures?
5. Do you feel that because your team has been playing for
years, you have a
better understanding of what each player is capable of and words aren’t even
needed at times?
6. How do you feel about teams using nicknames?
7. Does your team use nicknames for every player?
8. Does your team use slang that only you all understand?
9. What type of slang do you use?
10. When do you use this slang?
11. Why do you use these selected slang words?
12. How does your team signal plays to each other during a game?
13. Can you give some typical examples from the game you played today?
14. How do you call or know a play without it being yelled out?
15. Does your team use gestures that only team members understand? How do you
use these gestures? Why do you use these gestures?
16. How many nonverbal gestures do you have that symbolize plays?
65
17. Do you use eye contact to understand what to do if you can’t voice a play? How
does this work?
18. Is eye contact important? Why is it important?
19. What could a certain eye contact from a player tell you?
20. How can a hand clap, fist, or finger indicate a play on your team?
21. Does the point guard or “captain of the court” use more nonverbal gestures than
any other player?
22. Do you keep clear eye contact with the point guard or “captain of the court” at all
times?
23. Why do you keep clear eye contact?
24. How do you as a team member use nonverbal behaviors or gestures to
communicate with each other during a game?
25. What is said before a game begins? Is there any type of pep talk?
26. What is said in a huddle during a time out?
27. What are players talking about on the bench when they are not in the game
playing?
28. What does the coach usually say when you are on the bench with him and not in
the game?
29. Are you and your teammates close outside of playing together?
30. Do you socialize often?
31. Do you support each other outside of this recreation sport?
32. Do you call, text, email, tweet, facebook, or instagram each other?
33. Would you say that you and most of your teammates are friends outside of this
game of basketball?
66