SMALL GROUP

Beauchamp, Bray RESEARCH

/ ROLE AMBIGUITY
/ April 2001
AND ROLE CONFLICT

ROLE AMBIGUITY AND

ROLE CONFLICT WITHIN
INTERDEPENDENT TEAMS

MARK R. BEAUCHAMP
STEVEN R. BRAY
University of Birmingham

The purpose of this study was to examine perceptions of role ambiguity and role conflict
within interdependent sport teams from a multidimensional perspective. Role ambiguity and
role conflict corresponding to offensive and defensive functions were assessed in relation to
role-related efficacy beliefs as well as starting status. Results of a principal components
analysis supported the multidimensionality of role ambiguity but indicated that role conflict
was unidimensional with regard to offensive and defensive role functions. Consistent with
self-efficacy theory (discussed by Bandura in 1997), role ambiguity was negatively associ-
ated with role-related efficacy beliefs. Furthermore, consistent with theorizing by Kahn,
Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal in 1964, a negative relationship between role conflict
and role-related efficacy was mediated by role ambiguity. Nonstarters reported greater role
ambiguity than starters; however, no differences were observed with regard to role conflict.
The findings have implications for the future study of role ambiguity as a multidimensional
construct and the relationship between role ambiguity and performance.

Roles refer to a set of expectations about behaviors for a position

in a social structure (Shaw & Costanzo, 1982; Sherif & Sherif,
1953) and are a defining feature of groups and teams (Salas,
Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992; Sherif & Sherif, 1969).
Two role-related perceptions that have been the focus of consider-
able research are role ambiguity and role conflict. Role ambiguity

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This study was conducted as part of the first author’s doctoral disserta-
tion, under the supervision of the second author at the University of Birmingham, United
Kingdom. The authors would like to thank Dr. A. V. Carron for his comments on an earlier
draft of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark
Beauchamp, Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,
Birmingham, B15 2T T, UK; e-mail: mrbeauchamp@hotmail.com.
SMALL GROUP RESEARCH, Vol. 32 No. 2, April 2001 133-157
© 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.

133
134 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

refers to a lack of clear information associated with a particular

role, whereas role conflict refers to the presence of incongruent
expectations placed on a role incumbent (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn,
Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Research based on Kahn et al.’s (1964)
Role Episode Model has consistently linked both role ambiguity
and role conflict with higher levels of job-related tension, reduced
organizational commitment, greater job dissatisfaction, impaired
performance (e.g., Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler,
1985; Van Sell, Brief, & Schuler, 1981), and burnout (e.g., Barling &
MacIntyre, 1993). However, the study of role ambiguity and role
conflict thus far has been limited to work roles (e.g., managers,
supervisors) within organizations (cf. King & King, 1990) and has
not yet examined roles within small interdependent groups such as
work units or sport teams.
The paucity of research on role perceptions within small, inter-
dependent teams is surprising considering the focal importance of
specialized, integrated roles within such teams. As Newman and
Wright (1999) indicated, teams are “characterized by high task
interdependence, high role differentiation, high task differentia-
tion, and distributed expertise” (p. 377). Although role ambiguity
and role conflict have been found to negatively affect individuals’
well-being and effective functioning within large organizations, it
is also likely that these role perceptions will have important impli-
cations within small interdependent teams, where an individual’s
role responsibilities are interwoven with the role functions carried
out by other team members. In such an environment, role ambiguity
and role conflict should be perceived in relation to each member’s
interdependent behaviors. As a consequence, role ambiguity and
role conflict may have both psychological (e.g., self-efficacy, satis-
faction) and behavioral (e.g., performance) implications not only
for role occupants but also for the rest of the team (Forsyth, 1999).
Within the interdependent team sport context, anecdotal evi-
dence indicates that strategies intended to reduce role ambiguity
and role conflict are essential to maintaining member morale and
effective team functioning. For example, Laurie Mains (coach of
the successful New Zealand All Blacks international rugby team)
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 135

recently commented on his efforts to minimize role ambiguity:

“Everyone knows what he has to do in each given situation, this is
brought about . . . by building on a basic philosophy so that he can
make decisions at the time when he needs to” (quoted in McConnell,
1999, p. 146). Similarly, with regard to minimizing role conflict,
successful teams ensure that individuals recognize the importance
of their own contributions as well as the value of each team mem-
ber. As ice-hockey’s Mark Messier (quoted in Swift, 1996), former
teammate of the legendary Wayne Gretzky, remarked,

I never felt I was playing in [Gretzky’s] shadow. . . . I had a responsi-

bility on the team that was different from Wayne’s. Everyone had
his role, and I felt great about mine. So did many others about theirs.
If we won, and won often, we knew everyone would get respect.
(p. 60)

Despite the apparent efforts to control role ambiguity and role con-
flict within sport teams, very little published research to date has
attempted to quantify or systematically examine these role percep-
tions within the interdependent sport team context.
The general objective of this study was to examine role ambigu-
ity and role conflict in elite level sport teams. The first purpose
within this overall general objective was to develop measures of the
two constructs. The majority of research conducted thus far has
used the inventory developed by Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970),
or variants thereof, in which role ambiguity and role conflict are
operationally defined as unidimensional constructs. Preliminary
sport research conducted by Carron and colleagues (Dawe & Carron,
1990; Grand & Carron, 1982) also examined role ambiguity and
role conflict as unidimensional constructs with regard to athletes’
perceptions of their overall roles within their team. However, Kahn
et al. (1964) and King and King (1990) have theorized that multi-
ple dimensions of both role ambiguity and role conflict may
exist, thus indicating the need for a multidimensional approach to
measurement.
King and King (1990) have criticized general or omnibus mea-
sures of role ambiguity and conflict because these measures are not
136 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

rigorous enough to provide detailed information about the type of

ambiguity experienced and are not practical in terms of offering
useful information to help guide intervention. Indeed, Kahn et al.
(1964) and King and King have provided compelling theoretical
arguments that individual facets of role ambiguity and conflict may
have differential effects on other psychological (e.g., job satisfac-
tion, tension) and behavioral (e.g., performance) outcomes.
Recent findings from the organizational and sport settings also
support a multidimensional conceptualization of role ambiguity.
For example, Rhoads, Singh, and Goodell (1994) and Singh (1993)
confirmed the existence of multiple role ambiguity dimensions as
experienced by industrial salespeople. Specifically, role ambiguity
was represented by various forms of internal role ambiguity (i.e.,
ambiguity related to role members inside the company) and exter-
nal role ambiguity (i.e., ambiguity related to role members outside
of the company such as family and customers). In the sport setting,
Bray (1998) found that intercollegiate basketball players had dif-
ferential perceptions of role ambiguity pertaining to their separate
offensive and defensive role functions. However, Bray’s results
must be considered preliminary in that the factorial and construct
validity of the three-item measures used was not assessed. Thus,
some evidence points to the fact that role ambiguity is multidimen-
sional in sport but that a validated measure does not yet exist.
Although role conflict was not assessed by either Rhoads et al. or
Bray, it has been theorized that role occupants have varying role
conflict perceptions across multiple contexts as well (King & King,
1990).
A multidimensional operationalization of role ambiguity and
role conflict is consistent with theory (Kahn et al., 1964; King &
King, 1990) and allows the researcher to tap role occupants’ per-
ceptions about the varied behavioral subcontexts for which they
may have specific role-related responsibilities. However, given the
complexity and potential breadth of roles within interdependent
sport teams, we decided to limit the scope of our measures in sev-
eral ways. First, although role ambiguity and role conflict have
been conceptualized as having both objective and subjective com-
ponents (Beehr, 1995; Driscoll, 1981; Kahn et al., 1964), our focus
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 137

was on the perceived (i.e., subjective) role ambiguity and role con-
flict of team members. Examining the perceptions of the role incum-
bent is also consistent with the majority of published research on
role ambiguity and role conflict (cf. Van Sell et al., 1981).
Second, we limited our study to elite sport teams characterized
by a high degree of interdependence (such as hockey, rugby, soccer,
and basketball) in which members’ role-related functions are likely
to be prevalent, identifiable, and highly integrated with those of
other team members. We did not include teams from sports such as
swimming or wrestling, where task interdependence among team
members is minimal and formal task role functions, if they exist at
all, may have little relevance in terms of team functioning.
Third, consistent with the approach of Bray (1998), we focused
exclusively on members’ primary task-related formal roles for
offensive and defensive play and did not explicitly assess the vari-
ous informal roles that could exist within a team. Informal roles
develop through processes of interpersonal interaction within the
group and include roles such as social organizer, motivator, or
leader (Carron & Hausenblas, 1998). In contrast, formal roles are
directly prescribed to group members, which in the sport team set-
ting encompass specific task-related behaviors determined by the
specific offensive and defensive systems implemented by a team’s
coach (Bray, 1998; Carron & Hausenblas, 1998).
Finally, the role ambiguity and role conflict measures were con-
ceptualized multidimensionally in terms of task-related role behav-
iors in the separate dimensions of offense and defense. Within most
interdependent team sports, offense and defense form definite, dis-
tinguishable features of team play for each member. For example, a
center-half in field hockey may have offensive role functions that
include receiving the ball in space and linking effectively with his
or her forwards as well as defensive role functions for recognizing
danger points in midfield and reacting accordingly. In this case, the
athlete may experience role ambiguity with regard to the functions
he or she is expected to perform on offense. However, because
offensive and defensive functions are different, it does not neces-
sarily follow that he or she will experience role ambiguity for his
or her defensive role functions as well, or to the same degree. The
138 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

same argument applies to role conflict. That is to say, because an

individual’s role functions should differ on offense as compared to
defense, perceptions of conflict would not necessarily be equiva-
lent in both contexts. It was therefore hypothesized that four dis-
tinct perceptions representing (a) role ambiguity for offense, (b)
role ambiguity for defense, (c) role conflict for offense, and (d) role
conflict for defense should be experienced by interdependent sport
team athletes and that these separate perceptions should be distin-
guishable by factor analysis.
In addition to the first specific purpose of developing multidi-
mensional measures of role ambiguity and role conflict, a second
purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between role
ambiguity, role conflict, and team members’ perceived capabilities
in carrying out their role functions. The relationship between role
ambiguity, role conflict, and perceived role capabilities may be
important in terms of understanding the potential dysfunctional
effects of role ambiguity and role conflict. For example, although a
negative correlation between role ambiguity and task performance
has been observed in numerous studies (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983;
Jackson & Schuler, 1985), potential mechanisms through which
role ambiguity could affect performance have not been assessed.
Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) provides a framework
that might account for the negative relationship between role ambi-
guity and performance.
According to self-efficacy theory, the mechanism by which
cognitions are translated into behavior involves a conception-
matching process. Specifically, Bandura (1997) pointed out, “Cog-
nitive representations serve as guides for the production of skilled
action and as internal standards for making corrective adjustments
in the achievement of behavioral proficiency” (p. 373). However,
when this behavior-feedback loop becomes impaired, one’s sense of
personal efficacy may be negatively affected (Escartí & Guzmán,
1999). For example, if an athlete fails to clearly understand what his
or her primary role functions are, he or she will be unsure about the
accuracy of the cognitive representations guiding behavior and
may underestimate his or her capabilities. Thus, when a person per-
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 139

ceives a lack of clear information associated with his or her role,

personal efficacy related to these behaviors is also likely to suffer,
which should lead to decreased effort, persistence, and associated
performance impairments as suggested by theory (Bandura, 1997).
It was therefore hypothesized that role ambiguity would be nega-
tively correlated with personal efficacy for carrying out role-related
functions.
Although a direct association between role conflict and personal
efficacy has not been discussed by Bandura (1997), it seems plausi-
ble that role conflict may affect an individual’s sense of personal
efficacy through the mediating function of role ambiguity. This
argument is consistent with previous theorizing by Kahn et al.
(1964) who suggested that incongruent expectations (role conflict)
may lead to a perceived lack of clear information (role ambiguity),
which in turn, may have both psychological (e.g., reduced efficacy)
and behavioral (e.g., reduced performance) consequences. There-
fore, it was hypothesized that role conflict would be negatively
related to personal efficacy for carrying out role-related functions
but that role ambiguity would mediate this relationship.
The third purpose of this study was to examine the extent to
which role ambiguity and role conflict might differ as a function of
team members’ starting status. Starting status refers to whether a
player starts games (Spink, 1992) and has been linked in previous
research to players’ perceptions of role-related efficacy (Bray,
Brawley, & Carron, 1999). We hypothesized that starters would
report less role ambiguity compared to nonstarters. This hypothesis
was based on the fact that a team’s major offensive and defensive
systems (e.g., set plays) are designed according to the attributes of
the members who are usually involved in their execution (i.e., start-
ers). Thus, a major feature of practice sessions and games involves
starting players executing and receiving feedback from coaches on
their performance. As nonstarters have been found to play less game-
time (often as a substitute for a starting player) and have fewer
opportunities to learn their role-related responsibilities during team
practices (Bray et al., 1999), they are likely to have a less clear
understanding of the role functions they are expected to perform.
140 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

Due to the conceptual nature of role conflict reflecting incongru-

ent role expectations, it seems counterintuitive to propose that start-
ers’ and nonstarters’ perceptions should differ in these regards.
Each member on a team has a role that is unique to him or her, and
although an individual’s role responsibilities may differ with
regard to starting status, starting players should be just as likely to
experience role conflict as nonstarters. Therefore, it was expected
that no differences in role conflict would be observed between
starters and nonstarters.
In summary, the purpose of this study was threefold. First, we
wanted to examine the preliminary validity of multidimensional
measures of role conflict and role ambiguity developed for interde-
pendent sport teams. Second, using the framework of self-efficacy
theory (Bandura, 1997) and suggestions by Kahn et al. (1964), we
investigated the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict,
and role-related efficacy beliefs. Finally, we examined how percep-
tions of role ambiguity and role conflict would vary as a function of
starting status.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 261 university athletes, competing in a variety of inter-

dependent team sports, took part in the study: soccer (n = 69), rugby
(n = 46), field hockey (n = 47), ice hockey (n = 20), basketball (n =
20), water polo (n = 10), volleyball (n = 25), netball (n = 21), and
lacrosse (n = 3). The sample included 149 men and 112 womenwith
a mean age of 20.21 years (SD = 2.75) who had an average of 8.67
years’ (SD = 4.61) playing experience in their respective sports.
Participants had been members of their current team for an average
of 2.32 years (SD = 1.94) and had played an average of 12.29 games
(SD = 8.60) prior to completing the questionnaire. The sample was
composed of 208 starters and 52 nonstarters.
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 141

MEASURES

Identification of primary role responsibilities. Consistent with

the multidimensional conceptualization of role ambiguity and role
conflict, a protocol was developed to focus players only on their
primary formal role functions for offense and defense. This proto-
col consisted of a three-stage process: (a) introducing a specific
definition of roles and focusing players on their overall role on their
team, (b) preparing them to differentiate specific offensive and
defensive role functions within their overall role, and (c) having
them list their specific role functions for offense and defense.
First, to orient participants to their overall role on their team and
control for a common understanding of specific role functions,
players were introduced to the following description of a role:
“Each player on a team has a specific role to carry out. Your role is
combined with your teammates’ roles to create effective team sys-
tems. Your role is your ‘package’ of job(s) within your team.”
Players were then asked to provide a brief written description of
their overall role on their team. Second, instructions made clear that
one’s overall role could be made up of several specific, interdepen-
dent role functions for both offense and defense. Examples of role
functions were provided (e.g., coordinating specific defensive sys-
tems, creating space for others on offense, etc.). Third, players were
asked to provide a written description of their four primary interde-
pendent role functions for offense and defense separately, in order
of descending importance to their team’s play.

Role conflict and role ambiguity. Using their primary offensive

and defensive role functions as frames of reference, players re-
sponded to a battery of questions regarding the degree to which they
perceived these role functions to be ambiguous or to involve con-
flicting expectations. In constructing the scale items, we originally
consulted Rizzo et al.’s (1970) scales as a basis for our measures as
these have been extensively used within industrial and organiza-
tional settings (Fisher & Gitelson, 1983; Jackson & Schuler, 1985).
Unfortunately, however, because Rizzo et al.’s scales were devel-
142 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

oped for use within organizations, the language and contextual

inferences were such that many of the items were not appropriate
for our use. For example, the item “I receive an assignment without
the manpower to complete it” is not applicable to the interdepen-
dent sport team environment, as it fails to address both the nature of
task interdependence and distributed expertise that occur within
such teams. Research experts in sport psychology (n = 2), as well as
elite athletes (n = 12) and experienced coaches (n = 6) from a vari-
ety of interdependent team sports, reviewed and subsequently pro-
vided feedback regarding the face validity of the scale items. Each
agreed that the content reflected in the scales represented role
ambiguity and role conflict with regard to formal task roles on
interdependent sport teams.
Role conflict was assessed using two 10-item scales (i.e., identi-
cal for offense and defense) designed to represent three aspects of
role conflict identified by Kahn et al. (1964): intrasender (i.e.,
incongruent expectations from a single member of a role set),
intersender (i.e., incongruent expectations from two or more mem-
bers of a role set), and person-role conflict (i.e., incongruities
between the needs and values of a member and the demands of his
or her role set). All three describe conflicting expectations associ-
ated with a single position, or what Biddle (1979) referred to as
intrarole conflict. We purposely did not operationalize the fourth
type of ambiguity identified by Kahn et al.—interrole conflict (i.e.,
incongruent expectations from members of two or more different
role sets)—because we were interested in assessing athletes’ beliefs
about only their roles within their sport team and not their roles out-
side of that specific context. Players rated their agreement with
each role conflict item statement on a 7-point Likert-type scale
anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7 (strongly agree).
Role ambiguity was assessed using two 7-item scales (i.e., iden-
tical for offense and defense) designed to reflect ambiguity related
to three forms of role ambiguity identified by Kahn et al. (1964):
scope of responsibilities, the role behaviors necessary to fulfil
one’s responsibilities, and the criteria by which one is evaluated.
However, we did not operationalize the fourth type of ambiguity
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 143

identified by Kahn et al. (i.e., ambiguity about whose expectations

members are required to meet) because within sport teams, formal
role functions are typically assigned by one source (i.e., the coach).
Consequently, we believed that this aspect of role ambiguity was
unlikely to occur frequently, and thus, it was not included. Players
rated their agreement with each role ambiguity item statement on a
7-point Likert-type scale anchored by 1 (strongly disagree) and 7
(strongly agree).

Role efficacy. In this study, role efficacy served as the measure of

personal efficacy. Role efficacy represents a team member’s confi-
dence in his or her capabilities to carry out interdependent role
functions (Bray et al., 1999) and thus should correspond well with
the role perceptions (i.e., role ambiguity and role conflict) being
assessed in the present context. Consistent with protocol used by
Bray et al. (1999), offensive and defensive role efficacy were repre-
sented by players’ confidence in their abilities to successfully carry
out the various offensive and defensive role functions they had
identified in Stage C of the role function identification process.
For each primary role function identified, players rated their confi-
dence in their ability to perform that function using a 0% (not at
all confident) to 100% (extremely confident) scale. The means of
each player’s (a) specific four-item defensive role function scale and
(b) specific four-item offensive role function scale formed the defen-
sive role efficacy and offensive role efficacy scores, respectively.

PROCEDURE

Questionnaires were administered to players by the first author

at a team meeting or practice that was neither immediately before
nor after a competition to avoid competition-specific bias. Further-
more, questionnaire administration was conducted several weeks
into the players’ respective competitive seasons to allow for formal
interdependent role functions to become established. Participants
were assured of confidentiality and were informed that consent was
obtained.
144 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

RESULTS

DESCRIPTION OF OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE

INTERDEPENDENT ROLE FUNCTIONS

Players were able to generate clear descriptions of their different

primary role functions for both offensive and defensive play. Exam-
ples of role functions included, “holding the ball up in midfield and
waiting for support players to arrive” (field hockey), “defending
incoming corners” (soccer), and “if the post is open, give the ball”
(basketball). On average, players identified 3.54 and 3.35 functions
for offense and defense, respectively. The average number of func-
tions listed by athletes indicates a high level of compliance with
instructions, which gives confidence that the responses to the scales
reflecting ambiguity, conflict, and efficacy beliefs were based on
the specific interdependent functions that each athlete performed
on his or her team.

PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS

Items believed to represent both role ambiguity and role conflict

for offense and defense were subjected to a principal components
factor extraction with a Promax (Hendrickson & White, 1964)
oblique rotation. A criterion level of .45 (20% overlapping vari-
ance) was set for items loading onto a factor (Tabachnick & Fidell,
1996). Means, standard deviations, and skewness were calculated
for all role conflict and role ambiguity items to evaluate individual
item characteristics. All items demonstrated skewness values of
less than ±2.00. In addition, all items demonstrated satisfactory
response variability with standard deviations of greater than 1.00
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), with the exception of the role conflict
item “I am expected to play in a way that is inconsistent with the
way I’d rather play (for defense).” This item was subsequently
deleted from the analysis because its standard deviation was less
than 1.00, indicating homogeneity of variance.
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 145

Results of the principal components analysis are presented in

Table 1. From the a priori four-factor solution that was specified,
three factors emerged that were believed to be meaningful (Comrey &
Lee, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The eigenvalues of these
factors ranged from 12.45 on Factor 1 to 1.74 on Factor 3. Factor 1
accounted for 35.63% of the variance; Factor 2, 8.27%; and Factor
3, 5.36%. Contrary to our hypothesis, items representing role con-
flict for offense and defense did not separate onto two distinct fac-
tors and instead loaded onto the same factor (Factor 1). Factor 1
(overall role conflict factor) was composed of 12 items represent-
ing six pairs of identical items from each of the offensive and defen-
sive role conflict scales.
With regard to role ambiguity, five items reflecting offensive
role ambiguity loaded onto Factor 2 (offensive role ambiguity fac-
tor), and six items reflecting defensive role ambiguity loaded onto
Factor 3 (defensive role ambiguity factor). After closer examina-
tion of the factor loadings, one additional offensive role ambiguity
item—“I am unclear what my role is within the team game plan”—
was also included in Factor 2. Although this item loaded marginally
below the .45 criterion level (i.e., item loading = .43), numerous
statistical references (e.g., Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) consider
such an item loading as being acceptable, and at this stage in our
instrument development, it seemed premature to exclude the item.
Furthermore, choosing to incorporate this item ensured that scale
items were consistent for both offensive and defensive role ambigu-
ity measures.
Factor 4 contained five role conflict items that showed no distin-
guishable pattern and thus was not believed to be a factor holding
any meaning (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).
Five items did not load onto any of the factors.
Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) indicated that problems with the
solution may be apparent if communality values of greater than
1.00 exist (i.e., when there are too few data points). This was not the
case with these data (see Table 1). Multicollinearity between fac-
tors was also nonprevalent, as interscale correlations between fac-
tors did not exceed .80.
146

TABLE 1: Factor Loadings, Communalities (h2), Percentages of Variance for Principal Components Factor Extraction and Promax Oblique
Rotation on Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict Items for Both Offense and Defense

Item F1 F2 F3 F4 Fa h2
Role conflict for offense items
I am sometimes expected to do things I believe are inconsistent with the team’s needs. .66 .49
I am sometimes provided with conflicting information of what my role is. .79 .49
The role I am expected to play is inconsistent with the team’s needs. .54 .56
I have to do things that should be done differently. .66 .53
I receive incompatible expectations from two or more people. .74 .45
I am expected to do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others. .79 .46
I am opposed to the way I am expected to play. .47 .49
I would rather fulfil a role that is fulfilled by another person. .92 .65
I am expected to play in a way that is inconsistent with the way I would rather play. .54 .46
I am opposed to the role I am expected to fulfil. .52 .52
Role conflict for defense items
I am sometimes expected to do things I believe are inconsistent with the team’s needs. .60 .57
I am sometimes provided with conflicting information of what my role is. .77 .66
The role I am expected to play is inconsistent with the team’s needs. .48 .64
I have to do things that should be done differently. .48 .56
I receive incompatible expectations from two or more people. .71 .58
I am expected to do things that are apt to be accepted by one person and not accepted by others. .66 .58
I am opposed to the way I am expected to play. — .48
I would rather fulfil a role that is fulfilled by another person. .72 .65
 b
I am expected to play in a way that is inconsistent with the way I would rather play.
I am opposed to the role I am expected to fulfil. — .47
Role ambiguity for offense items
I am unclear in what my role is within the team. .71 .60
I understand exactly what my role is for the team to function effectively. .63 .49
I understand what adjustments to my play need to be made in specific situations. .54 .48
I am unclear in what my role is within the team “game plan.” .43 .49
I understand what my responsibilities are. .75 .65
I understand exactly what is expected of me. .76 .63
I understand the criteria by which my performances will be evaluated. — .36
Role ambiguity for defense items
I am unclear in what my role is within the team. .56 .57
I understand exactly what my role is for the team to function effectively. .69 .55
I understand what adjustments to my play need to be made in specific situations. .66 .44
I am unclear in what my role is within the team “game plan.” .60 .50
I understand what my responsibilities are. .85 .68
I understand exactly what is expected of me. .49 .62
I understand the criteria by which my performances will be evaluated. — .33
Eigenvalue 12.11 2.81 1.82 1.56
Percentage variance 35.63 8.27 5.36 4.59
NOTE: F1 = Factor 1: role conflict, F2 = Factor 2: role ambiguity for offense, F3 = Factor 3: role ambiguity for defense, F4 = Factor 4: nonmeaningful role
conflict factor.
a. Items not loading onto any factor.
b. This item was removed from the analysis as it violated assumptions of normality.
147
148 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

The overall cell function means for the components derived by the
principal components analysis were the following: role conflict =
2.89 (SD = 1.16), offensive role ambiguity = 2.14 (SD = .89), and
defensive role ambiguity = 2.15 (SD = .97). Although relatively low
mean scores were reported overall, the range of scores observed
indicated some athletes scored well above the scale midpoints for
role ambiguity and role conflict (role conflict range = 1 to 5.75,
offensive role ambiguity range = 1 to 5.67, and defensive role ambi-
guity range = 1 to 4.83). Acceptable internal consistencies (Cron-
bach’s alpha) of .91, .83, and .82 were observed for the role con-
flict, defensive role ambiguity, and offensive role ambiguity scales,
respectively.
Role efficacy scores were moderately high, indicating a level of
confidence in performing role functions that is consistent with the
elite level of play from which participants were drawn. Mean
scores of 75.36 (SD = 11.81) and 75.84 (SD = 13.09) were observed
for offensive role efficacy (range = 37.50 to 100) and defensive role
efficacy (range = 30 to 100), respectively.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ROLE

AMBIGUITY AND ROLE EFFICACY

Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations between role efficacy,

role ambiguity, and role conflict. Consistent with our first hypothe-
sis, offensive and defensive role ambiguity measures were nega-
tively related ( ps < .01) to offensive and defensive role efficacy
(e.g., r = –.38 for the offensive role ambiguity– offensive role effi-
cacy relationship).

ROLE AMBIGUITY AS A MEDIATOR OF THE RELATIONSHIP

BETWEEN ROLE CONFLICT AND ROLE EFFICACY

As a result of the principal components analysis, role conflict

was not differentiated on the basis of offense and defense. Thus, we
were unable to test our second hypothesis as we had intended (i.e.,
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 149

TABLE 2: Intercorrelations Between Offensive and Defensive Role Efficacy, Offen-

sive and Defensive Role Ambiguity, and Role Conflict

Measure 1 2 3 4 5
1. Offensive role efficacy — .63 –.38 –.29 –.25
2. Defensive role efficacy — –.29 –.36 –.25
3. Offensive role ambiguity — .66 .51
4. Defensive role ambiguity — .58
5. Role conflict —
NOTE: N = 261. Significant at p < .01.

respective offensive and defensive role perceptions separately).

However, as negative relationships were observed between overall
role conflict and offensive and defensive role efficacy (rs = –.25),
we therefore examined offensive and defensive role ambiguity as
potential mediators of these two relationships.
Consistent with procedures recommended by Baron and Kenny
(1986), linear regression analyses were used to examine role ambi-
guity as a mediator of the relationships between role conflict and
offensive and defensive role efficacy. Baron and Kenny indicate
that three regression equations should be estimated: first, by regress-
ing the mediator on the independent variable; second, by regressing
the dependent variable on the independent variable; and third, by
hierarchically regressing the dependent variable on the mediator and
then the independent variable. In the offense analysis (see Table 3),
the independent variable (role conflict) was significantly related to
role efficacy in the first equation (p < .001) and role ambiguity in the
second ( p < .001). Results of the third equation revealed that role
conflict did not account for significant variance in offensive role
efficacy beyond that accounted for by offensive role ambiguity,
thus supporting mediation. Support for mediation was also found
within the defensive analyses (see Table 4). In these analyses, role
conflict was significantly related to role efficacy and role ambigu-
ity in the first and second equations (ps < .001), respectively. How-
ever, when the effect of defensive role ambiguity on defensive role
efficacy was controlled in the third equation, role conflict did not
account for significant variance in defensive role efficacy.
150 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

TABLE 3: Mediational Analyses for Variables Predicting Offensive Role Efficacy

2
Equation Criterion Predictor B SE B β R t
1 Offensive role Role conflict –0.39 .04 –.51 .26 –9.24**
ambiguity
2 Offensive role Role conflict –2.53 .63 –.25 .06 –4.00**
efficacy
3 Offensive role
efficacy
Step 1 Offensive role 4.62 .92 .35 .15 5.00**
ambiguity
Step 2 Role conflict –0.69 .71 –.07 .15 –0.97
2
NOTE: For Equation 3, Step 2 ∆ R = .00, N = 261.
**p < .001.

TABLE 4: Mediational Analyses for Variables Predicting Defensive Role Efficacy

2
Equation Criterion Predictor B SE B R t
1 Defensive role Role conflict –0.48 .04 –.58 .33 –11.06**
ambiguity
2 Defensive role Role conflict –2.78 .70 –2.5 .06 –3.90**
efficacy
3 Defensive role
efficacy
Step 1 Defensive role 4.56 1.00 .34 .13 4.55**
ambiguity
Step 2
Role conflict –0.40 .84 –.04 .13 –0.48
NOTE: For Equation 3, Step 2 ∆ R2 = .00, N = 261.
**p < .001.

ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT

AS A FUNCTION OF STARTING STATUS

To determine whether differences in offensive role ambiguity,

defensive role ambiguity, and role conflict existed between starters
and nonstarters, a 2 × 3 MANOVA was conducted. A significant
overall main effect was revealed for starting status; Hotelling’s T =
.11, F(3, 241) = 9.08, p < .001. Subsequent univariate analyses (see
Table 5) indicated that starters reported significantly less offensive
role ambiguity, F(1, 241) = 19.93, p < .001, and defensive role
ambiguity, F(1, 241) = 8.21, p < .01, than did nonstarters. However,
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 151

TABLE 5: Means and Standard Deviations for Role Ambiguity and Role Conflict for
Starters and Nonstarters

Starter Nonstarter

Measure M SD M SD
Offensive role ambiguity 2.01 .81 2.61 1.02*
Defensive role ambiguity 2.06 .93 2.48 1.03*
Role conflict 2.89 1.17 2.89 1.18
NOTE: For starters, n = 208; for nonstarters, n = 52.
*p < .01.

consistent with our hypothesis, there were no significant differ-

ences between starters and nonstarters with regard to role conflict,
F(1, 243) = 0.02, p > .05.

DISCUSSION

The overall objective of the study was to examine role ambiguity

and role conflict in the context of elite level interdependent sport
teams. The first purpose within this overall objective was to assess
the preliminary factorial validity of multidimensional measures of
role ambiguity and role conflict. Second, following suggestions by
Kahn et al. (1964) and theorizing by Bandura (1997), relationships
between role ambiguity, role conflict, and role-related efficacy
beliefs were investigated. Finally, the extent to which perceptions
of role ambiguity and role conflict varied as a function of team
members’ starting status was examined.
The high degree of interdependency, role differentiation, and
distributed expertise that exists within teams (Newman & Wright,
1999; Salas et al., 1992) means that members are likely to have
numerous and varied role responsibilities. This point is clearly
borne out in our findings that elite interdependent sport team ath-
letes were able to identify, on average, more than three primary role
functions for each offensive and defensive play and to rate their
perceptions of role ambiguity, role conflict, and role efficacy with
regard to these functions. In addition, results indicated the impor-
tance of identifying different underlying role contexts within an
152 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

individual member’s overall role as role ambiguity perceptions

were found to differentiate on the basis of offensive and defensive
contexts.
On the basis of both theory (Kahn et al., 1964) and past research
(Bray, 1998; Rhoads et al., 1994), role ambiguity and role conflict
were conceptualized as multidimensional constructs in terms of the
major behavioral contexts in which interdependent sport team
members had formal role-related responsibilities (i.e., offense and
defense). Results supported the multidimensionality of role ambi-
guity but indicated that role conflict was unidimensional with
regard to players’ offensive and defensive role functions.
Although we suggested a priori that role conflict should be mul-
tidimensional as a reflection of differing offensive and defensive
functions, results of the principal components analysis indicated
that role conflict is a perception that transcended the formal offen-
sive and defensive role contexts assessed by our measure. This was
unexpected, especially considering that participants reported dis-
tinct sets of role functions for offensive and defensive play. One
possible explanation for this finding is that on interdependent sport
teams, the perception of role conflict may be an overriding hierar-
chical function with role conflict perceptions in one context perme-
ating through to role conflict perceptions in another. For example,
if an individual perceives conflict with regard to either his or her
offensive or defensive role, this may translate into an overall per-
ception of role conflict that is reflected across role contexts. Future
research should explore the nature of role conflict within interde-
pendent teams.
Although not identified as a primary antecedent of efficacy per-
ceptions, Bandura (1997) has indicated that task ambiguity may
cause individuals to underestimate their capabilities and therefore
diminish personal efficacy. Consistent with this notion, the nega-
tive correlations observed between role ambiguity and role efficacy
suggests that role ambiguity may have a negative impact on role
efficacy. Causation cannot be inferred from the correlational design
of the present study. However, future research should employ con-
trolled experimental or longitudinal designs to examine role ambi-
guity as a potential determinant of role efficacy beliefs.
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 153

Results also supported a mediational role of role ambiguity in

the relationship between role conflict and role efficacy. Our inabil-
ity to distinguish between role conflict for offensive and defensive
functions did not allow for a precise test of mediation for both
offensive and defensive perceptions. However, the observed rela-
tionships between generalized perceptions of role conflict and
offensive and defensive role efficacy were accounted for by play-
ers’ respective offensive and defensive role ambiguity perceptions.
These findings are consistent with Kahn et al.’s (1964) suggestion
that conflicting role expectations (i.e., role conflict) can affect psy-
chological consequences through an associated lack of understand-
ing (i.e., role ambiguity).
Lower levels of role ambiguity reported by starters compared to
nonstarters were consistent with our hypotheses. Nonstarters were
predicted to have higher role ambiguity scores than starters because
nonstarters enjoy fewer opportunities to carry out their offensive
and defensive role functions in the context of both competitive team
play and structured team practices and, thus, should not have as
clear an understanding of their role functions as starting players.
That nonstarters reported higher levels of role ambiguity than start-
ers supports our argument that differential amounts of playing and
practice experience may be influential factors contributing to role
ambiguity. However, other factors such as coach-athlete commu-
nication could also be important considerations in that nonstarters
may receive less clear instruction than starters. Considering the
potential negative emotional and behavioral correlates of role ambi-
guity (e.g., satisfaction, performance), future research should focus
on identifying determinants of role ambiguity within interdepen-
dent teams.
The results of our study represent a promising start to investigat-
ing role ambiguity and role conflict in the interdependent team
environment and provide support for the contention that percep-
tions of role ambiguity can be differentiated with regard to offen-
sive and defensive role functions. However, the findings must be
considered preliminary and a number of limitations should be noted.
First, we acknowledge that the sample of participants who took part
in the study was homogeneous, composed entirely of elite level stu-
154 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

dent athletes who did not report particularly elevated levels of

either role ambiguity or role conflict. Thus, findings are not
generalizable to other samples such as recreational athletes. Future
research should examine role ambiguity and role conflict within
samples representing a broader range of athletic abilities. Second,
all of the measures in the study were based on self-reports and, thus,
may be influenced by common method variance that may have
inflated the size of the correlations observed. To assess the reliabil-
ity of the current findings, future research should attempt to control
for the effects of common method variance using ad hoc techniques
such as sampling over time (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Third, our
measure only attempted to assess role ambiguity and role conflict
perceptions about formal offensive and defensive role responsibili-
ties. It is conceivable that other aspects of members’ roles on a team
(e.g., informal) may also engender role ambiguity and role conflict
and that perceptions relating to these role functions may also be
important to consider.
A fourth limitation of the study was that we attempted to capture
specific aspects of role ambiguity and role conflict, as they were
perceived in the distinguishable contexts of offensive and defensive
team play. However, it is possible that role ambiguity is also multi-
dimensional in terms of the different forms of ambiguity identified
by Kahn et al. (1964). For example, offensive and defensive ambi-
guity may be further differentiated along dimensions relating to
(a) scope of one’s responsibilities, (b) behaviors associated with
one’s role functions, and (c) the criteria by which one is evaluated.
We make reference to this possibility because the one role ambigu-
ity item that corresponded to the criteria by which one is evaluated
did not load onto either the offensive or defensive role ambiguity
factors, and thus, our measure represented only scope of responsi-
bilities and behaviors associated with role functions. Interestingly,
a similar result was observed in Rizzo et al.’s (1970) instrument
development study, in which none of the items that formed their
role ambiguity scale represented evaluative ambiguity. Considered
together, these findings suggest that role ambiguity may have at
least one additional dimension that has not been adequately assessed
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 155

in this study or in previous role ambiguity research that has used

Rizzo et al.’s measure (King & King, 1990).
Despite the aforementioned limitations, the results of this study
have applied implications for effective member functioning and
future research. Role ambiguity was found to be negatively associ-
ated with role efficacy. Given that personal efficacy beliefs have
consistently been shown to predict performance in sport and nonsport
domains (Bandura, 1997), it would seem of paramount importance
for coaches to ensure that all members clearly understand their var-
ious role responsibilities. Furthermore, with regard to starting sta-
tus, coaches should ensure that nonstarting players understand
exactly what their formal offensive and defensive role responsibili-
ties entail. Failing to do so may result in lower role efficacy and
less adept dealing with on-court or on-field role responsibilities.
With regard to future research, multidimensional conceptualiza-
tions of role ambiguity should enable researchers to consider com-
plex questions aimed at accounting for and identifying explanatory
mechanisms involved in relationships between role ambiguity and
indices such as performance, satisfaction, and motivation. As Van
Sell et al. (1981) noted, “It is reasonable to assume that each dimen-
sion, since it describes a rather different situation associated with
. . . ambiguity, will have or require a rather different strategy for
coping with or reducing it” (p. 65). A multidimensional oper-
ationalization of role ambiguity should help identify which aspects
of this potentially dysfunctional perception exert influence over
important outcome variables. This, in turn, may help guide inter-
ventions aimed at managing role ambiguity.
In conclusion, this study provided preliminary support for a mul-
tidimensional conceptualization of role ambiguity but not role
conflict. Results also suggest a potential mechanism (role efficacy)
through which role ambiguity and role conflict could affect perfor-
mance. Future research should explore other aspects of multi-
dimensionality that may pertain to both role conflict and role ambi-
guity in addition to the offensive and defensive differentiation used
in this study. Further investigation of role efficacy as a mediational
mechanism in the role ambiguity–role performance relationship
156 SMALL GROUP RESEARCH / April 2001

would also appear to hold promise. Research in other highly inter-

dependent groups, such as project teams, service groups, or man-
agement teams could also benefit from a multidimensional approach
to role ambiguity and role conflict measurement.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. New York: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barling, J., & MacIntyre, A. T. (1993). Daily work role stressors, mood and emotional
exhaustion. Work and Stress, 7(4), 315-325.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Role ambiguity and role conflict in the workplace. In T. A. Beehr (Ed.),
Psychological stress in the workplace (pp. 55-82). London: Routledge.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York: Aca-
demic Press.
Bray, S. R. (1998). Role efficacy within interdependent teams: Measurement development
and tests of theory. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Bray, S. R., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1999). Efficacy for interdependent role func-
tions: Evidence from the sport domain. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Carron, A. V., & Hausenblas, H. (1998). Group dynamics in sport (2nd ed.). Morgantown,
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dawe, S.W.L., & Carron, A. V. (1990, October). Interrelationships among role acceptance,
role clarity, task cohesion, and social cohesion. Paper presented at the Canadian
Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology Association, Windsor, Canada.
Driscoll, J. W. (1981). Coping with role conflict: An exploratory field study of union-
management co-operation. International Review of Applied Psychology, 30, 177-198.
Escartí, A., & Guzmán, J. (1999). Effects of feedback on self-efficacy, performance and
choice in an athletic task. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 83-96.
Fisher, C. D., & Gitelson, R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the correlates of role conflict and
ambiguity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 320-333.
Forsyth, D. R. (1999). Group dynamics (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Grand, R. R., & Carron, A. V. (1982). Development of a team climate questionnaire. In
L. M. Wankel & R. B. Wilberg (Eds.), Psychology of sport and motor behavior:
Research and practice. Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta, Department of Recre-
ation and Leisure Studies.
Hendrickson, A. E., & White, P. O. (1964). A method for the rotation of higher order factors.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 19(1), 97-103.
 Beauchamp, Bray / ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT 157

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research
on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Occupa-
tional stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York: John Wiley.
King, L. A., & King, D. W. (1990). Role conflict and role ambiguity: A critical assessment of
construct validity. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 48-64.
McConnell, R. (1999). Inside the All Blacks: Behind the scenes with the world’s most famous
rugby team. London: HarperCollins.
Newman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive abil-
ity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3), 376-389.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems
and prospects. Journal of Management, 14(4), 531-544.
Rhoads, G. K., Singh, J., & Goodell, P. W. (1994). The multiple dimensions of role ambigu-
ity and their impact upon psychological and behavioral outcomes of industrial salespeo-
ple. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 14(3), 1-24.
Rizzo, J., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an under-
standing of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams:
Their training and performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Shaw, M. E., & Costanzo, P. R. (1982). Theories of social psychology (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York: Harper & Row.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social psychology. New York: Harper & Row.
Singh, J. (1993). Boundary role ambiguity: Facets, determinants, and impacts. Journal of
Marketing, 57, 11-31.
Spink, K. S. (1992). Group cohesion and starting status in successful and less successful elite
volleyball teams. Journal of Sport Sciences, 10, 379-388.
Swift, E. M. (1996, October 7). The good old days: What Mark Messier and Wayne Gretzky
hope to recapture in New York. Sports Illustrated, 85, 54-60.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York:
HarperCollins.
Van Sell, M., Brief, A. P., & Schuler, R. S. (1981). Role conflict and role ambiguity: Integra-
tion of the literature and directions for future research. Human Relations, 34, 43-71.

Mark R. Beauchamp is a Ph.D. candidate in the School of Sport and Exercise Sci-
ences, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. He received his bachelor’s
degree from Exeter University and a master’s degree from Queen’s University, Can-
ada. His current research explores the social psychological and group factors related
to team performance.

Steven R. Bray is a lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University
of Birmingham. He received his Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Waterloo,
Canada, in 1998. Current research focuses on social psychological factors in sport
performance and exercise behavior.