Volume 11 - Issue 60
/ December 2022
113
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.60.12.11
How to Cite:
Yevchenko, I., Masliuk, A., Myronets, S., Dubinina, K., & Podolyak, N. (2022). Players’ individual characteristics affecting football
team cohesion. Amazonia Investiga, 11(60), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.60.12.11
Players’ individual characteristics affecting football team cohesion
Індивідуальні характеристики гравців, що впливають на згуртованість футбольної
команди
Received: December 3, 2022 Accepted: December 28, 2022
Written by:
Iryna Yevchenko47
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3204-5954
Andrii Masliuk48
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0530-9969
Serhii Myronets49
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9185-3206
Kateryna Dubinina50
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5264-8250
Nataliia Podolyak51
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1040-8080
Abstract
The aim is to identify the individual
characteristics affecting the development of team
cohesion and, by taking them into account, to
improve the team cohesion through special
training sessions. Material: determined cohesion
of the football team and individual characteristics
of each team member, which affect the cohesion
of the team. We tested a total of 38 male
teenagers, who all study together at Ivan
Piddubny Olympic College (Kyiv) and play
football in their specialty. The boys aged 14-16
are currently the members of one team, and will
become professional footballers in the future.
They had sports training together. The teenagers
are divided into teams, the players are constantly
changed by the coach to achieve the best results
and to analyze the game of the wards in different
roles (defender, striker, goalkeeper, etc.). There
are many significant correlations between a
person’s proneness to conflicts and his subjective
assessment of team cohesion. Manifestations of
aggression and hostility of some players to their
team colleagues negatively affects the team
cohesion. It is possible to accelerate football
team uniting and, as a result, to improve the team
47
Associate Professor at the Psychology Department, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine.
48
Associate Professor at the Practical Psychology Department, Faculty of Pedagogy, Drahomanov National Pedagogical University,
Kyiv, Ukraine.
49
Doctor of Psychological Sciences, Head of the Department of Psychology, State University of Trade and Economics, Kyiv, Ukraine.
50
Associate Professor of the Practical Psychology Department, Faculty of Pedagogy, Drahomanov National Pedagogical University,
Kyiv, Ukraine.
51
Associate Professor of the Practical Psychology Department, Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University in Drohobych, Drohobych,
Ukraine.
114
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
sports results through the psychological training
and the team psychologist’s individual work with
each player.
Keywords: team cohesion, football team,
football players, team efficiency.
Introduction
An individual belongs to a team, a team is a
necessary condition for their personal
development. We participate always in certain
groups, teams, communities. Each team has its
own common goals, which do not always
coincide with the goals of each of its members.
But team members must work over a common
team task, and the ways to their achievement can
coincide even with different end goals.
A role of each team member should be relevant
to the team common tasks. Thanks to
constructive interactions in the team, its members
increase their personal flexibility, so their
socialization becomes more successful. In order
to unite different people into one group, to unite
them to achieve a put forward group goal, it is
necessary to take into account group
developmental patterns (Zagajnov, 2005; 2012).
Yaniv (1996) notes in his writings that
Ukrainians are inclined to individualism, which
is manifested in their traditions, customs, family
values, attitudes to work, and their aspiration for
individual work. But at the same time, there are
many examples of voluntary spontaneous
cohesion in the Ukrainian history to achieve
some goals. Oral folklore, including proverbs,
indicates that Ukrainians understood the
importance of cohesion for better efficiency of
their efforts. For example: “working together is
as a wedding song”, “the friendlier we are, the
stronger we are”, “friendly work bring good
crop”, “friendly magpies can overcome an
eagle”, “even mosquitoes united into a group
have power”, “a house divided against itself
cannot stand”.
Most often, group cohesion is manifested by
Ukrainians in critical situations. In particular the
Ukrainians, who lived at the Mittenwald camps
in Germany, Bavaria land, the American
occupational zone in 1946-1951, created a
theatre, gymnasium, music school and sports
associations there: the Ukrainian Sports
Association “Lion” and the Ukrainian Youth
Union “Prometheus”. The sports sections
included digging ball (soccer), volleyball,
basketball and others. In the summer (July 7-12),
1948, at the international “Olympics” in
Mittenwald, the Ukrainian national team with
their 77 points won the overall victory. Ukrainian
soccer players “Sich” and “Lion” won all their
games. Such sports results of the Ukrainian team
at the camp of displaced persons testify to our
ability to unite and the Ukrainians’ desire for
self-esteem not only in hard work, but also in
sports.
The psychological and social well-being of team
members, processes within the team, and
effectiveness of inter-team contacts and team
links with the outside world depend on the team
cohesion. Accordingly, the higher team cohesion
is, the higher its efficiency and its ability to
achieve goals (Il'in, 2004; Khudiakov &
Kishchenko, 2014; Salar et al., 2012).
Oyefusi (2022) and other researchers on team
cohesion consider that this phenomenon is
characterized by the extent to which team
members want to be a part of their team. We
agree with this view but should add that for a
sports team is necessary not only an individual’s
desire to remain a team member, but also his/her
desire to work with other team members and
team coaches to achieve the maximum sports
result of the team.
The main factors of team cohesion are:
interdependence of the team members, which is
manifested during their joint activities; the
democratic leadership style and absent rigid
governance; shared common values, interests
and priorities of the team members; exactness of
a group goal, its clarity and certainty; a relatively
small number of the team participants; the team
image and prestige (Helsen et al., 1998;
Kondrat'ev & Kondrat'ev, 2006). One or two of
these factors are not enough for good team
cohesion; the team efficiency can be much higher
when most of them are implemented into the
Yevchenko, I., Masliuk, A., Myronets, S., Dubinina, K., Podolyak, N. / Volume 11 - Issue 60: 113-120 / December, 2022
Volume 11 - Issue 60
/ December 2022
115
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
team life (Pekel & Çimen, 2017; Vealey, 1988;
Newman et al., 2021).
There are certain factors of team cohesion that
can be influenced / corrected by a psychologist
during special training sessions. In particular,
exercises to increase empathy and emotional
intelligence, to establish interpersonal
relationships and find similarities among team
members (common values, attitudes, beliefs,
etc.) can be used during training sessions. That
will contribute to uniting of all team members, as
well as reduce aggressiveness and a number of
conflicts (Bostancı et al., 2019; George, 1994;
Liashenko et al., 2016; Vealey, 1988; Woodman
& Hardy, 2003).
The research hypothesis was that there are
individual characteristics that affect team
cohesion and, taking them into account, we can
increase team cohesion during special training
sessions.
Materials and methods
Participants: The psychological characteristics
of adolescent football team cohesion were
determined with students - football player
studying at a sportive boarding school. The study
involved 14-16-old male adolescents (n = 38)
studying at Ivan Piddubny Olympic College
(Kyiv) and played football as their sportive
specialization. The college specifics are that
during general education (lessons, self-learning)
and sportive trainings (regular training,
competitions, etc.) the students are divided by
their age and sport type. This division into groups
allows students to spend as much time together
as possible, which in turn promotes better
cohesion.
Research design: The study procedure consisted
of testing the children and further analyzing the
cohesion of the adolescent team on the basis of
the obtained test results. During the study, the
team trainer and the practical psychologist were
present. The studies were conducted in the
groups.
We used the following empirical methods:
1. Determination of a group cohesion index
proposed by Seashore (Hutsalo, 2012). The
technique consists of 5 questions, each of
which has several answers for choice. A
respondent must choose one answer for each
question, the most appropriate for him/her.
2. Self-assessment of proneness to conflicts
(Benson et al., 2016). The technique
contains a scale used for self-assessment
with ten pairs of statements: respondents
estimate with points the characteristic
described in the left and right columns. The
score is based on a 7-point scale: 7 points
means that the evaluated characteristic is
always present; 1 point indicates that this
characteristic is not manifested at all. The
result counting reveals a respondent’s
proneness to conflicts.
3. Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory
(Berastegui-Martínez & Lopez-Ubis, 2022).
The technique diagnoses aggressive and
hostile human reactions. The Inventory
consists of 75 statements; the answers are
evaluated by eight scales. The inventory
authors differentiate the manifestations of
aggression and the manifestations of
hostility and identify the following types of
reactions: physical aggression, indirect
aggression, irritation, negativism, insults,
suspicion, verbal aggression, guilt or auto-
aggression.
Statistical analysis: the statistical data processing
was performed using SPSS 23.0 statistical
software, by taking into account the normality of
sampling distribution. The correlations between
subjective feeling of team cohesion and
proneness to conflicts, aggression, and hostility
was calculated and analyzed using the Pearson
coefficient.
Results
1. Seashor’s techniques for determination of
group cohesion helps to determine cohesion
at a team that is already formed, but
interpersonal relationships in it cannot be
established for a long time. With this
technique, team cohesion can be determined
in order to identify those team members who
cannot “find their place” in it, which help
improve team cohesion and increase the
team efficiency. The techniques determine
not only team cohesion, but also a degree of
each member integration to the team; it
determines who prefers to act only for their
own benefit, and who made the best efforts
for the whole team success. According to the
obtained results, the cohesion index of the
examined team was 11.8 points, which
indicates its average cohesion. That is, the
team members usually support each other,
understand each other in difficult situations
or during task fulfilment; as for their
relationships, they feel mainly unity, mutual
support, friendliness, mutual help, positive
116
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
emotions. But some team members do not
feel real friendliness.
2. The technique for self-assessment of
proneness to conflicts is intended to assess
one’s proneness to conflict behavior.
According to the assessment results, several
degrees of proneness to conflicts can be
determined: a high degree means that a
person searches most often causes for
conflicts; expressed proneness to conflicts
means that such people persistently defend
their opinions, even if it may adversely
affect their relations with others, such people
are not always loved, but usually respected;
weak proneness to conflicts means that a
person is able to smooth conflicts and avoid
critical situations, but if it necessary he/she
is ready to defend own interests firmly; un-
expressed proneness to conflicts means that
tactful individuals do not like conflicts, if
they have to dispute, they always take into
account how it can affect their relationships
with others; avoidance of conflict situations
means that people can give up their interests
to avoid any tension in their relationships.
The obtained research results show that 2 (5.2%)
players of the football team have expressed
proneness to conflicts, 18 (47.4%) of the
respondents have weak proneness to conflicts
and 18 (47.4%) footballers have un-expressed
proneness to conflicts.
The performed correlation analysis showed
significant correlations between personal
proneness to conflicts and subjective assessment
of team cohesion (Table 1).
Table 1.
Correlations between personal proneness to conflicts and subjective assessment of team cohesion.
proneness to conflicts
team cohesion
proneness to
conflicts
Pearson correlation
1
**
792.-
α (two-sided)
.000
N
38
38
team cohesion
Pearson correlation
**
792.-
1
α (two-sided)
.000
N
38
38
** The correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-sided).
The performed correlation analysis confirmed
significant negative correlations between
proneness to conflicts and team cohesion.
As it is known, correlation analysis gives an
accurate quantitative assessment of congruence
of two (or more) variables; closeness of their
links is described by the absolute value of an
examined correlation coefficient. The positive
correlations between two phenomena mean that
the greater value, describing the first
phenomenon, is, the greater value, describing the
second one, also, and vice versa. The negative
correlations indicate the opposite dependence:
the greater value, describing the first
phenomenon, is, the lower value, describing the
second one (Hlants, 1998; Kybzun et al., 2002;
Morhun & Titov, 2009; Sydorenko, 2002).
3. Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (adapted
by Osnitsky), assessing hostility degrees and
forms, is widely used in foreign studies,
which confirm its high validity and
reliability. Aggressive behavior is
understood as the opposite of adaptive
behavior. Aggressiveness can be understood
as a person trait characterized by destructive
tendencies, mainly in the field of subject-
subject relations. Every person is aggressive
to a certain degree. It’s lack leads to
passivity, conformity, etc., but too high
aggressiveness begins to determine a
person’s behavior, who can become prone to
conflicts and incapable for conscious
cooperation. At this inventory, the authors
differentiate manifestations of aggression
and hostility and identify the following types
of reactions: physical aggression, indirect
aggression, irritation, negativity, insults,
suspicions, verbal aggression, the feeling of
guilt or auto-aggression
(Berastegui-Martínez & Lopez-Ubis, 2022).
We have a hypothesis that increased aggression
and hostility characteristic for adolescents
influence adversely on team cohesion formation.
Table 2 presents the results of correlation
analysis of indicators and forms of aggression
and subjective assessment of team cohesion.
Volume 11 - Issue 60
/ December 2022
117
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Table 2.
Correlation coefficients between team cohesion and aggression indicators and forms by Buss-Durkee
Hostility Inventory.
Source: (Berastegui-Martínez & Lopez-Ubis, 2022)
*. The correlation is significant at 0.05 level (two-sided)
**. The correlation is significant at 0.01 level (two-sided)
The performed correlation analysis confirmed
the existing negative significant correlations
between team cohesion and aggression (r = 0.35
at p≤0.05) and indirect aggression (r = 0.43 at
p≤0.01).
We should note that an existing correlation
between two variables does not mean that one
variable is a cause and the other is a consequence.
For this reason, it is impossible to describe causal
relationships between the studied phenomena on
the basis of the existing statistically significant
correlation between the indicators.
By analyzing the profiles of each respondent, we
found that the adolescents showed lower than
average subjective assessment of their team
cohesion did not really feel affection and
sympathy for the team members, their team is
associated mainly with negative feelings. These
respondents, respectively, have expressed
proneness to conflicts, high indexes of
aggression, irritability, verbal and indirect
aggression. That is, these adolescents are ready
to show negative feelings (irritability, rudeness,
threats) at a slightest excitement, they are prone
to gossips and bad jokes about their comrades,
and can shout to them. We assume that such
respondents hold back their negative attitudes
toward teammates for fear of being expelled from
college or punished by their coach (for example,
multiple-match disqualifications).
Based on the data obtained empirically, we
developed a special training program for team
cohesion formation for football players. The
program main goal is to increase team cohesion;
this goal is achieved through decrease of
conflicts, sings of aggression and hostility,
development of conflict resolution skills,
empathy, the abilities to achieve compromises, to
perceive adequately themselves and others, to act
in collaboration with team members and in
mutual understanding, to make group decisions.
Cohesion
N
38
Constructive or destructive aggression
Pearson correlation
-.248
α (two-sided)
.133
Aggressive motivation
Pearson correlation
-.261
α (two-sided)
.113
Hostility
Pearson correlation
-.056
α (two-sided)
.740
Aggressiveness
Pearson correlation
*
351.-
α (two-sided)
.031
Physical Aggression
Pearson correlation
-.175
α (two-sided)
.294
Verbal Aggression
Pearson correlation
-.305
α (two-sided)
.062
Indirect aggression
Pearson correlation
**
427.-
α (two-sided)
.008
Negativism
Pearson correlation
-.097
α (two-sided)
.563
Irritability
Pearson correlation
-.154
α (two-sided)
.355
Suspicions
Pearson correlation
-.129
α (two-sided)
.440
Insults
Pearson correlation
-.021
α (two-sided)
.900
Feeling of guilt
Pearson correlation
-.096
α (two-sided)
.565
118
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The program consists of 10 sessions; each of
them lasts of 1.5 hours.
As a result of the training program
implementation, the team cohesion increased to
the above average level. According to the
obtained results, the group cohesion index
increased up to 15.4 points. That means that most
adolescents begin to feel sympathy and positive
emotions for each other, but there are still a few
cases of antagonism and frustration. The
conflicts in the team appear less often. The young
players were introduced to ways of conflict
resolving, so now, they are able to find common
grounds, to behave more constructively, they
cooperate more often and can find compromises
in conflict situations. As a result, their aggression
and negativity decreased, the team relations
became friendlier, more trusting. Team members
seek to help each other; unhealthy competition,
negatively influencing team efficiency, has
decreased. A graphical comparison of the results
before and after the training program is shown in
Figure 1.
-------- before the training program -------after the training program
Figure 1. Comparison of the results obtained with self-assessment of proneness to conflicts before and after
the training.
Table 3 compares the average values obtained be
Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory
(Berastegui-Martínez & Lopez-Ubis, 2022)
before and after the training program.
Table 3.
Comparison of the average values obtained be Buss Durkee Hostility Inventory before and after the training
program
Indicator
Before training (average values)
After training (average value)
Physical Aggression
5.0
3.6
Verbal Aggression
8.3
6.1
Indirect aggression
6.6
4.8
Negativism
3.4
2.6
Irritability
6.2
4.4
Suspicions
4.7
3.2
Insults
3.7
2.2
Feeling of guilt
5.9
3.9
Aggressiveness
15.4
12.8
Hostility
6.7
5.2
Source: (adapted by Berastegui-Martínez, & Lopez-Ubis, 2022)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Volume 11 - Issue 60
/ December 2022
119
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
All signs of aggression and hostility appears less
often.
Discussion
The research results confirm our hypothesis that
increased proneness to conflicts, aggression and
hostility adversely influence team cohesion
formation.
Our results are in line with similar studies
conducted with athletes playing in group sports.
The study on individual characteristics of
athletes playing in teams, namely, specializing in
football, performed by Liashenko et al. (2016)
confirmed the correlation between the factors
“sociability” and “proneness to conflicts”. That
is, increased number of conflicts in a team leads
to worsened communications of team members
and, as a consequence, decreases group cohesion.
The works of Pekel and Çimen (2017) and others
show relations between the football team
efficiency and mutual respect and self-esteem of
team players.
For productive communication, athletes must be
prepared for actions in life situations that require
good communication skills, the ability to handle
conflict situations (Ishchenko et al., 2003;
Vasiura, 2006), high self-control skills (Sopov,
2010), and an empathetic attitude toward
teammates Ohromiy et al., 2014; Polat et al.,
2016; Sharp, 1974), which can be formed during
training sessions.
Conclusions
A team psychologist and a coach should take into
account individual characteristics of each
member of the football team, and all team
members should participate in psychological
trainings; this helps to improve team cohesion,
accelerate cohesion process, and increase
teamwork efficiency.
The authors see the prospects for further research
in studies of individual psychological
characteristics of athletes doing other group
sports, and in development of training programs
based on obtained results, which contribute to
more effective team cohesion.
Conflict of interests. There is no conflict of
interest that is to be declared for the article.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank K.
Kuzimko, a student of Dragomanov NPU, for her
assistance in conducting empirical research.
Bibliographic references
Benson A. J., Šiška P., Eys M., Priklerová S.,
Slepička P. (2016) A prospective multilevel
examination of the relationship between
cohesion and team performance in elite youth
sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27,
39-46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.07.
009
Berastegui-Martínez J., & Lopez-Ubis J. C.
(2022). Effects of an intervention programme
designed to improve emotional intelligence
and foster the use of coping strategies among
professional female football players.
Heliyon, 8(7).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e0986
0
Bostancı, Ö., Karaduman, E., & Mayda, M. H.
(2019). Investigation of self confidence
levels in elite extreme athletes. Physical
Education of Students, 3(23), 106-109.
https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2019.030
1
George, T. R. (1994). Self-confidence and
baseball performance: A causal examination
of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 16, 381-399.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.16.4.381
Helsen, W. F., Starkes, J. L., & Hodges, N. J.
(1998). Team sports and the theory of
deliberate practice. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 20, 12-34.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.20.1.12
Hlants, S. (1998). Medico-biological statistics.
Practice. [in Russian]
Hutsalo, E. U. (2012). From theory to practice: a
study of a small educational group (class) by
student interns of a pedagogical university.
Educational and methodological guide. Part
III. Volodymyr Vynnychenko Regional
Military Academy of the KDPU named after
Volodymyr Vinnichenko. [in Ukrainian]
Il'in, A. B. (2004). Psychological analysis of
reasons of conflicts in sport teams. Sports
Psychologist, 3, 27-30. [in Russian]
Ishchenko, V., Lisenchuk, G., & Daragan, V.
(2003). Comparative analysis of physical
fitness of different qualification teams’
football players. Science in Olympic Sport, 1,
50-56. [in Russian]
Khudiakov, V. P., & Kishchenko, S. E. (2014).
Psychological preparation of sportsmen for
training process and competitions in team
kinds of sports. Innovative Projects and
Programs in Education, 2, 57-62. [in Russian]
Kondrat'ev, M. Iu, & Kondrat'ev, Iu. M. (2006).
Social-psychological phenomenon of
authority and authority relations in group.
120
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
World of Psychology, 4, 67-76. [in Russian].
Retrieved from:
https://psychlib.ru/mgppu/periodica/MP0420
06/KSF-001.HTM#$p67
Kybzun, A. Y., Horiaynova, E. R.,
Naumov, A. V., & Syrotyn, A. N. (2002).
Probability theory and mathematical
statistics. Basic course with examples and
tasks. FYZMATLYT. [in Russian].
Liashenko, V. N., Tumanova, V. N.,
Hatsko, E. V., & Korzh, Y. N. (2016).
Specific features of team kinds of sports
sportsmen’s individual characteristics.
Physical Education of Students, 5(20), 24-30.
https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2016.050
4
Morhun, V. F., & Titov, I. H. (2009). Basics of
psychological diagnosis. Study guide for
students of higher educational institutions.
Kyiv: Slovo Publishing House. [in
Ukrainian]
Newman, J. A., Warburton, V. E., Russell, K.
(2021). Conceptualizing bullying in adult
professional football: A phenomenological
exploration. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 54, 101883.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2021.10
1883
Ohromiy, G. V., Makarova, N. U., &
Kasyuha, A. M. (2014). Psychophysiological
methods and criteria for the selection of
individual metered loads in athletes of
taekwondo section. Physical Education of
Students, 6, 54-62.
https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2014.061
1
Oyefusi, F. (2022). Team and Group Dynamics
in Organizations: Effect on Productivity and
Performance. Journal of Human Resource
and Sustainability Studies, 10(1), 111-122.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2022.101008
Pekel, A., & Çimen, K. (2017). Relationship
between «self-efficiency» competence levels
and constant sportive self-respect levels of
football players (Sample of Istanbul
European Side). Physical Education of
Students, 5(21), 200-204.
https://doi.org/10.15561/20755279.2017.050
1
Polat, Ü., Özen, Ş., Kahraman, B. B., &
Bostanoğlu, H. (2016). Factors affecting
health-promoting behaviors in nursing
students at a university in Turkey. Journal of
Transcultural Nursing, 27(4), 413-419.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1043659615569536
Salar, B., Hekim, M., & Tokgoz, M. (2012). To
compare emotional state of individuals
making team and individual sport 15-18 age
group. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University
Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 4(6),
123-135.
Sharp, R. H. (1974). Viewing time and occluded
time as determined of ball catching success.
British Journal of Physical Education, 5(6),
22-24.
Sopov, V. F. (2010). Theory and methodic of
psychological training in modern sports.
Moscow: Department of Physical Culture and
Sports.
Sydorenko, E. V. (2002). Methods of
mathematical processing in psychology.
Rech. [in Russian]
Vasiura, S. A. (2006). Psychology of human
communicative activity. Udmurt State
University. [in Russian]
Vealey, R. (1988). Sport-confidence and
competitive orientation: An addendum on
scoring procedures and gender differences.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
10, 471-478.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.10.4.471
Woodman, T., & Hardy, L. (2003). The relative
impact of cognitive anxiety and self-
confidence upon sport performance: Meta-
Analysis. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21,
443-457.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410310001018
09
Yaniv, V. (1996). Psychological foundations of
Occidentalism. Munich: Ukrainian Free
University [in Ukrainian]
Zagajnov, R. (2012). Psychology of modern elite
sports. Moscow: Soviet sport, 292. [in
Russian]
Zagajnov, R. M. (2005). Psychological
atmosphere as psychological phenomenon.
Sports Psychologist, 2, 10-27. [in Russian]