The two aspects of collective efficacy are

Collective Efficacy Interventions

To improve collective efficacy within sport teams, imagery interventions that focused on the team can be applied (Munroe-Chandler & Hall, 2005; Shearer, Holmes, & Mellalieu, 2009). After practicing imagination for four to 13 weeks, group workshops and evaluations were conducted. They resulted in higher collective efficacy scores in athletes for both training and competition, proving that such interventions are applicable within sport teams in order to enhance collective efficacy beliefs. Furthermore, PDMS interventions focusing on athletes’ best performances, building on vicarious experience information and verbal persuasion information are much likely to positively improve collective efficacy in teams (Barker et al., 2014). In addition, even interventions that strive to enhance mastery climates within sport teams positively impact on the perceived collective efficacy (Kao & Watson, 2014). Results show that athletes with higher collective efficacy beliefs are more motivated to work for the groups’ goals, persist on difficulties, and are more confident in the teams’ abilities (Yukelson, 1997).

Norms and Collective Efficacy

The level of community social organization or collective efficacy is hypothesized to be a function of several neighborhood structural characteristics, including low SES, racial-ethnic diversity, residential instability, and single parenthood. Researchers have tested various aspects of the norms and collective efficacy model, with a large majority of this work centered on how neighborhood structural disadvantage, and in turn, lack of social organization or collective efficacy are associated with adolescent problem behaviors – delinquency, crime, violence, and substance use – and to a lesser extent sexual activity. We also consider here the role of peer groups as a central focus of this model as well as threats to youth that arise from lack of social organization including violence and the availability of harmful and illegal substances. Before reviewing relevant research, we make one important clarification. The social connections described under this model are more diffuse than the social ties described under the relationships model (see next section), and they operate at the neighborhood level (rather than at the individual level).

A number of studies have gone about testing the full set of pathways in this model: (1) links between neighborhood structure and neighborhood collective efficacy and (2) links between neighborhood collective efficacy and youth problem behavior (accounting for structure). One study, the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, was specifically designed to address such associations. Researchers using these data have found that collective efficacy and social control (measured by a survey of community residents) were negatively associated with neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, level of crime and violence, and observations of physical and social disorder. Similar associations have been reported in other studies as well, including work done outside of the United States in Puerto Rico, Canada, and the Netherlands. Moreover, in the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods and other studies, low levels of community social control of youth were associated with a range of adolescent problem behaviors, including delinquency, violence, affiliation with deviant peers, and carrying a concealed weapon (after accounting for neighborhood structure). In addition, neighborhood collective efficacy appears to be associated with adolescents' more private behaviors, including their depressive problems and sexual behavior.

Implicit in the norms and collective efficacy model is the key role that peer groups play in transmitting the effects of neighborhood structure to adolescents' outcomes, especially social and emotional well-being. Because the focus of this work has been on deviant and problematic behavior, peer effects are hypothesized to be unfavorable because negative peer group influences are accentuated when neighborhood institutions and norms fail to control their behavior. Research, in fact, suggests that living in a socially disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with adolescents' affiliating with deviant peers and being exposed to violent and unconventional peers. A growing literature indicates that deviant peer group affiliation is a pathway of neighborhood structural and social organizational effects on adolescent problem behaviors such as delinquency, violence, and substance use. For example, the absence of formal and informal institutions to monitor adolescent peer group activities may explain the link between neighborhood low SES (and associated conditions) and adolescents' delinquent, criminal, and prosocial behavior. Additional research demonstrates that peer interactions modify neighborhood effects on adolescents' problem behaviors in such a way that peer influences have more adverse effects in high-risk neighborhoods, but are more favorable in low-risk neighborhoods.

Physical threats to youth, notably the extent of violence and the availability of harmful and illegal substances, are also thought to be linked to weak community mechanisms of control and subsequent youth outcomes, especially their physical and mental health. Living in a socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhood is associated with youth's exposure to violence as well as their access to illegal and harmful substances. Substantial evidence supports the link between adolescents' exposure to violence and their socioemotional well-being including internalizing (or depressive) and externalizing (or aggressive) problems. Several studies even reveal that neighborhood danger explains the association between neighborhood low SES and adolescents' emotional problems. On the other hand, more limited work demonstrates associations between adolescents' access to substances and their subsequent behavior, particularly substance use.

9.7 Informal social control

The neighborhood informal social control scale was adapted from the Collective Efficacy Scale (Sampson et al., 1997) and assesses the degree to which neighborhood adults are willing to intervene when they observe non-relative youth engaging in deviant behavior. Five items from this scale (e.g., saw neighborhood kids skipping school and hanging out on the street corner) were used. Participants indicated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (agree a lot) the level of social support present in the neighborhood. The scale displayed excellent reliability (α = 0.91).

Social ties

Neighborhood parks have been linked to residents’ feelings of neighborhood collective efficacy (Cohen, Inagami, & Finch, 2008). Studies conducted within inner-city Chicago public housing neighborhoods suggest that natural areas within urban neighborhoods are used more than similar tree-less spaces (Coley, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1997; Sullivan, Kuo, & DePooter, 2004), foster social interaction (Faber Taylor et al., 1998; Sullivan et al., 2004), and promote neighborhood social ties among both adults and older adults (Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998; Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998). Related findings were reported in a large epidemiological study examining more than 10,000 residents of The Netherlands. Maas, van Dillen, Verheij, and Groenewegen (2009) found that after controlling for socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, less green space in the near (1 and 3 km) living environment was associated with feelings of loneliness and perceived lack of social support.

The Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA)

According to the SIMCA, social identity plays a key role in explaining collective action via both collective efficacy beliefs (i.e., the belief that “we as group can reach our goals”; see Bandura, 2000), and perceived injustice. Zooming in on these concepts most often examined across different traditions in research on collective action—Van Zomeren et al. (2008) conducted a literature search of quantitative studies of collective action that measured feelings of injustice, collective efficacy, and a sense of identity with a group. They also extracted from these studies any information about the impact of different types of injustice, identity, and disadvantage, as well as about the role of causality and the way collective action was measured (i.e., as an attitude, intention to act, actual behavior, or a mixture of those). The researchers thus collected 182 samples and 245 effects, which were then meta-analyzed—a statistical method that aggregates findings from numerous studies. The results indicated substantial predictive effects on collective action for all three variables. Most importantly, the findings supported these researchers’ simple but conceptually powerful model, and confirmed that social identity predicts collective action both directly and indirectly, via a sense of grievance or injustice, and a belief of effective group-based action (see Fig. 6.1). Interestingly, the effects in the model were most pronounced when identities were politicized rather than nonpoliticized. Thus, their model makes an important contribution to the understanding of the social psychological conditions that foster group-based actions.

Taken together, the SIMCA states that collective action arises from feelings of injustice, beliefs about the group’s efficacy, and identification with a specific group. Returning to one of the examples above, the SIMCA would explain the collective protest in the Arab Spring as resulting from individuals’ high identification with their ingroup (e.g., the people of Tunisia), which facilitated their shared perception of injustice (e.g., the feeling that regular Tunisians were treated unjustly by the regime) as well as their beliefs in group-based efficacy (e.g., the belief that Tunisians could do something about the situation). Together, these three predictors substantially fuelled Tunisians’ motivation to engage in the social protest against the regime.

A subsequent extension of the SIMCA includes an additional variable that could influence collective action intentions—“participatory efficacy.” While collective efficacy refers to the belief that “we as group can reach our goals,” participative efficacy refers to the belief that one’s own actions will contribute to achieving group goals (van Zomeren, Saguy, & Schellhaas, 2013). While both efficacy concepts refer to the achievement of group goals, only participative efficacy addresses the incremental contribution of one’s own action to the group goal. In fact, once participative efficacy is included in the SIMCA, the effect of collective efficacy vanishes (van Zomeren et al., 2013; see also Bamberg, Rees, & Seebauer, 2015; Mazzoni, van Zomeren, & Cicognani, 2015). A qualitative study by Martínez, Peñaloza, and Valenzuela (2012) also showed that young activists’ perceptions of their contribution to society helped to reinforce their sense of belongingness to and identification with the goals of the organizations they work for. To date, there are only a handful of studies investigating the parallel effects of these different forms of efficacy. Irrespective of this nuance, empirical studies in various societal contexts and cultures have provided support for the SIMCA assumptions.

Why is teamwork important?

Research with a wide range of teams has shown that teamwork is associated with several group- (e.g., team performance, cohesion, collective efficacy) and individual-level (e.g., team member commitment, satisfaction, performance) variables (LePine et al., 2008; Rafferty, Ball, & Aiken, 2001; Stevens & Campion, 1999). In light of this evidence, our research group sought to examine whether similar relationships were evident within sport. First, we developed a psychometrically sound questionnaire that was informed by our conceptual model of teamwork entitled the Multidimensional Assessment of Teamwork in Sport (MATS) (McEwan, Zumbo, Eys, & Beauchamp, 2018). Evidence of scale reliability and validity of data derived from this instrument was shown with athletes as young as 13 years of age. This questionnaire was then used to examine the prospective relationships of teamwork with an array of group- and individual-level outcomes among team sport athletes, 90% of whom were adolescents between the ages of 13–19 (McEwan, in press). Specifically, it was shown that athletes’ perceptions of teamwork predicted satisfaction with team performance and that these relationships were mediated by ratings of team cohesion and collective efficacy. In other words, when athletes believe that teammates work effectively together, they are more likely to feel united around the team’s purposes and confident in the team’s abilities to be successful; in turn, they tend to be more satisfied with their team’s performance. In addition, it was shown that teamwork predicted the extent to which athletes were committed to their team and enjoyed participating in their sport; these two perceptions then predicted the degree to which athletes were satisfied with their own individual performance. Thus, this study provided initial evidence of the importance of teamwork in youth sport, as conceptualized by our multidimensional framework (McEwan & Beauchamp, 2014).

Research on the relationships between the specific dimensions of teamwork and various outcomes in sport has also been conducted. Although much of this work has focused on adult-aged athletes, there are a handful of studies that have examined the importance of various teamwork behaviors with youth samples. For instance, Senécal, Loughead, and Bloom (2008) found that youth basketball teams who participated in a team goal setting intervention showed greater perceptions of cohesion at the conclusion of their seasons compared to teams who did not set team goals. As a second example, in an analysis of on-court communication among elite junior netball players, LeCouteur and Feo (2011) demonstrated that teams were not necessarily more successful when they engaged in a higher quantity of communication. Rather, the key aspect of communication appeared to be the quality of the communication patterns between teammates, such as being specific in terms of the exact behavior (e.g., “cover the shooter” versus “take him”) or precise location (e.g., “watch baseline” versus “watch your side”) that was required to successfully execute a team strategy. Moreover, in a study with youth soccer players, McLaren and Spink (2018) found that teams were more cohesive when they engaged in open and constructive forms of intrateam conflict management (e.g., speaking directly to those with whom an athlete has a disagreement). By contrast, when team members engaged in more negative and destructive types of conflict management (e.g., demonstrating anger through body language) they had lower perceptions of cohesion. Although further research on the relationships between the specific types of teamwork behaviors and other important constructs (e.g., continued participation in sport, personal development) is certainly required within youth sport teams specifically (see section, Considerations for Future Research), the existing collection of work appears to provide preliminary evidence that teamwork is indeed an important variable to target in youth sport.

Introduction

Within group dynamics research, considerable academic attention has been paid to group cohesion, leadership, role theories (e.g., conflict, ambiguity), and collective efficacy (Harwood, Beauchamp, & Keegan, 2014). However, one area that remains underexplored within this body of literature, particularly within the context of youth sport groups, is achievement motivation. This is somewhat surprising given that when young athletes perform in achievement settings, as part of groups or teams, their motivation will influence, and also be influenced by, other group members, as well as the overall motivational climate (Harwood et al., 2014). Furthermore, the motivational climate created by coaches, peers, and parents can also influence relationships and group processes, which has important implications for the way in which groups function.

Taking this into consideration, the aim of this chapter is to review the research that has examined how motivational climates influence intrapersonal, interpersonal, and group level outcomes in youth sport. We begin by providing an overview of achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1984) and the influence of individual and situational factors on young athletes’ dispositional goal orientations. We then provide a descriptive summary of Ames’(1992) motivational climate as a guiding framework for this chapter, before illustrating how the perceived motivational climate can influence group structure and functioning. Following this, we provide a brief overview of key developmental considerations for researchers and practitioners from a motivational climate perspective. Finally, we conclude by highlighting key measurement issues and challenges, and offer suggestions for future research avenues within this area.

3 Continuity and Change in Criminological Theory and Research

Much sociological theory about crime continues to be based on these theoretical traditions. A large-scale community study in Chicago, for example, found that a measure of ‘collective efficacy’ (willingness to intervene for such common goods as supervision of children and maintaining public order) had a strong effect on suppressing violent crime (Sampson et al. 1997), thus systematically documenting impressions gained from ethnographic research (Anderson 1990).

Rapid social change and new developments in research and theory continually influence sociological criminology. New and improved governmental statistical series inform criminal offending and victimization, and sophisticated self-report and observational studies provide insights into the lives of delinquents, criminals, and their victims, and the institutional and community contexts of crime. New techniques of statistical analysis yield new interpretations of empirical studies. Large-scale funding by governmental agencies and foundations permit more ambitious studies, including longitudinal data sets, experiments, and multiple methodologies and theoretical approaches. Theoretically integrative work combines insights from a variety of theoretical perspectives and levels of explanation.

Social disorganization, control, and opportunity theory continue to evolve as massive social changes alter the conditions of crime. Disciplinary boundaries become less distinct as sociologists find it necessary to take into account the impact of a rapidly changing global economy and new political alignments; developmental and learning theorists must accommodate findings made possible by technological advancements in brain and neuropsychological research and by studying life-course patterns of individuals who were studied when they were very young.

A major impediment to theoretical advance is the lack of adequate data to measure new concepts and theoretical formulations that have been stimulated by the inquiries they have made possible. Theories such as ‘control balance’ (Tittle 1995) reach beyond criminal behavior and require measurement of the amount of control exercised by an individual, the amount of control experienced by that individual, ratios between these measures, and a large number of motivational, opportunity, and situational contingencies that are hypothesized to relate to a variety of forms of deviance, including crimes. ‘Integrative shaming’ (Braithewaite 1989), extending labeling theory and insights from control theory, requires measures of social integration of communities, their ability to shame norm violators, and their willingness to reintegrate them into the community, as well as of these same motivational, opportunity, and situational contingencies. ‘Social capital’ theory requires measures of the capacity of communities and institutions to provide supportive interpersonal and institutional relationships that bridge the generations while socializing the young.

Knowledge of substantive areas such as organized and professional crime and white-collar crime continue to suffer because systematic data are unavailable or inappropriate for extant theories. Rapid social change, driven by advances in science and technology, create new opportunities for crime even as they enhance crime control efforts. The same technological advances that greatly enhance computational abilities and complex data analyses pose new challenges for institutions of social control even as they improve their reach and their efficiency. Communication and data transfer technologies, for example, have transformed criminal justice agencies and created new opportunities for criminal behavior. Other technologies, such as nuclear and biotechnologies, lend themselves to widespread victimization, blackmail, and terrorist attack. Traditional distinctions between individual and corporate behavior that is defined as crime, and the behavior of nations that, although harmful to citizens of those nations previously was considered beyond the purview of other nations, are changing rapidly. New laws and new rules continually evolve as global markets alter commercial activity.

SUMMARY

For children, the neighborhood is the relatively small environmental range and inherent relationships of home, school, and community that, together, determine the fabric of daily life. The neighborhood appears to influence child health through institutional resources and collective efficacy as well as through human relationships and home environment. How these mechanisms interact depends on the health outcome in question and reflects crucial structural characteristics of neighborhoods, particularly income and socioeconomic status. Children living in poor neighborhoods experience elevated rates of developmental and medical problems and a greater likelihood that these problems will produce deleterious outcomes. Likewise, growing up in affluent families and neighborhoods may also be associated with enhanced risk for problems, including alcohol and drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, motor vehicle occupant injuries, suicide, and eating disorders. A variety of clinical and community-level interventions, both private and public in nature, may enhance a neighborhood's capacity to provide a stable and safe environment for optimal child health outcomes.

Social Disorganization/Collective Efficacy

Similar to the importance of organization within the home, social disorganization theory emphasizes how neighborhood structural factors can disrupt neighborhood social organization and therefore the maintenance of public order (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Ideally a neighborhood should have dense social networks that provide sources of information and support to families, but the establishment of these networks is often undermined by elements of poverty such as residential instability (Burchinal et al., 2008). Neighborhood collective efficacy is a construct that integrates elements of both social control – the extent that neighbors collectively maintain social order – and social cohesion – neighbors' ability to reach consensus on values and rules. In communities with high collective efficacy parents can count on positive role models in the neighborhood to supervise children and monitor public order based on shared values and expectations. Neighborhood collective efficacy is generally negatively related to income, and low collective efficacy has been associated with negative child socioemotional outcomes even for young children (Burchinal et al., 2008; Ma and Grogan-Kaylor, 2017).

Low neighborhood collective efficacy is typically related to increased community violence and has been found to explain the positive association between neighborhood structural deficits and this violence (Leventhal and Brooks-Gunn, 2000). Building on the family stress model, parents are also more likely to employ more restrictive control and harsh discipline as an adaptive parenting strategy in environments that are less safe (Shuey and Leventhal, 2017). Ma and Grogan-Kaylor (2017) recently studied the effects of collective efficacy and parenting on child outcomes using a subscale of social control, to gather parent's subjective ratings on whether neighbors would get involved in various negative scenarios in the community, as well as subscales of social cohesion and trust, which assessed the extent that neighbors get along and share values. Low collective efficacy was directly related to higher child behavior problems from ages 3 to 5. In fact, the study found a stronger neighborhood effect of low collective efficacy on internalizing behavior in the younger children in the sample. Though maternal corporal punishment was associated with behavior problems, it did not mediate the relationship between low collective efficacy and behavioral outcomes. Neighborhood social processes may affect early childhood behavior in a more direct way than more structural indicators of affluence and poverty (Ma and Grogan-Kaylor, 2017).