Next Article in Journal
Which Matters More: Intention or Outcome? The Asymmetry of Moral Blame and Moral Praise
Previous Article in Journal
Unraveling the Impact of Blended Learning vs. Online Learning on Learners’ Performance: Perspective of Self-Determination Theory
Previous Article in Special Issue
General Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Physical Activity’s Impact on Well-Being Among Norwegian Adolescents: A Gender and Age Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/bs15091264
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Adolescent Athlete Engagement and Team Cohesion in Football: A Moderated Mediation Model with Gender-Based Insights

by
Bingzhi Wan
1,2,†,
Huarui Huang
3,†,
Xiaoqi Sha
3,
Chen Zhong
3 and
Yizhou Shui
3,4,*
1
Department of Physical Education, Xidian University, Xi’an 710126, China
2
Teacher Development College, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710062, China
3
School of Physical Education, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710119, China
4
School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi’an 710062, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Behav. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 1264; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091264
Submission received: 21 July 2025 / Revised: 9 September 2025 / Accepted: 12 September 2025 / Published: 16 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Impact of Sport and Physical Activity on the Mental Health of Adolescents and Children)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Adolescents often face interpersonal and adjustment challenges when transitioning from a family-centered to a school-based environment, especially without a supportive group climate. To address these challenges, this study used football, the world’s most widely played team sport, as a platform to examine the impact of athlete engagement on team cohesion and its underlying mechanisms. A total of 1692 Chinese adolescents who regularly participated in football training and demonstrated a strong passion for the sport were recruited. Data were collected using the Athlete Engagement Questionnaire (AEQ), the Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ), the Perceived Workplace Social Support Scale (PWSSS), and the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ), all of which demonstrated good reliability and validity in this study. The results revealed that (1) athlete engagement was positively associated with team cohesion team cohesion; (2) interpersonal competence partially mediated the relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion; (3) social support moderated both the direct relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion and the indirect relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence; and (4) social support moderated the relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion with significant gender differences, whereas no gender differences were observed in the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence. This moderated mediation model not only enriches the conceptual model of group cohesion but also addresses gaps in the current literature. Furthermore, it provides theoretical support for physical educators to design targeted team sports interventions tailored to the characteristics of different gender groups.

1. Introduction

Cohesion has been defined as a dynamic process reflected in a group’s tendency to remain united in pursuit of instrumental goals and the satisfaction of members’ emotional needs (Worley et al., 2020). Team cohesion is closely linked with positive youth development (Bruner et al., 2014). Excellent team cohesion is essential for team success (Braun et al., 2020), and it also plays an important role in success across other fields (Salas et al., 2008). Adolescents undergo marked environmental transitions in both sport and daily life. Early childhood activities are largely family-centered (Merino et al., 2017), whereas during adolescence the school becomes the primary context for living and sport participation (Jewett et al., 2014). When a positive group climate is absent, students are more likely to experience exclusion and neglect. Conflicts within the team and loneliness may also occur. It has been demonstrated that well-functioning sports teams not only provide superior team results (Carron et al., 2002), but also foster greater personal growth of adolescents (Bruner et al., 2014). Current research indicates that team cohesion and sport performance have a mutual relationship (Beauchamp & Eys, 2014; Leo et al., 2019), particularly in football (Zhao et al., 2025). However, a lack of discussion on the mechanisms and conditions underlying this relationship has been observed, as objective performance is influenced by numerous factors (Gu & Xue, 2022). To address this gap, some researchers have proposed that athlete engagement can serve as an objective measure of sports performance and predict team cohesion (Gu & Xue, 2022; Zhao et al., 2025).
Compared with individual sports, team sports often yield better social and mental outcomes (Eime et al., 2013; Li et al., 2024). This advantage is likely attributable to the social nature and positive experiences of team sports, such as peer support and a sense of belonging (Equinet et al., 2025). Through teamwork, team sports enable adolescents to learn effective communication and manage interpersonal relationships. They also help build friendships and strengthen social support networks, which gradually foster self-worth and confidence in the team environment (Eime et al., 2013; Li et al., 2024). Over time, the ongoing cooperation and interaction among teammates cultivate a sense of closeness and cohesion among children and adolescents who participate in team sports (Eys et al., 2009). Given the global scale of football participation and its popularity among adolescents, athlete engagement in football is often used as an indicator of attitudes toward sport and its effects, and as a predictor of adolescents’ social and mental functioning (H. Huang et al., 2025). Although prior research has shown that athlete engagement positively predicts team cohesion in football (e.g., Zhao et al., 2025), the contribution of the distinctive social attributes of team sports to this association has not been fully explained. Specifically, Zhao et al. (2025) developed a mediation model in a football context and found that football participation did not directly enhance team cohesion; instead, athlete engagement was the factor driving cohesion. However, they did not further examine how social attributes unique to team sports, such as interpersonal relationships and peer support, contribute to this process. It is still unclear whether social factors in team sports mediate or moderate the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion.
According to the conceptual model of group cohesion, team cohesion comprises two dimensions, namely task cohesion and social cohesion (Widmeyer et al., 1985). Task cohesion relates to the willingness of team members to work toward shared goals, whereas social cohesion depends on interpersonal relationships and social support among team members (Widmeyer et al., 1985). Meanwhile, gender is also an important factor influencing team cohesion (Carron et al., 2002). Therefore, this study adopts the conceptual model of group cohesion as the theoretical framework to analyze the mechanisms through which athlete engagement relates to team cohesion, with a focus on social factors in team sports, thereby addressing prior research gaps. Specifically, the study examines whether interpersonal competence and social support mediate or moderate the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion, and whether these relationships differ by gender. We aim to extend the conceptual model of group cohesion to the adolescent football context and to generate practice-oriented evidence on how social factors strengthen cohesion in adolescent teams. At a practical level, we seek to use team sport to cultivate cohesion among adolescents and to support their growth within a positive team climate.

1.1. Athlete Engagement and Team Cohesion

Athlete engagement is defined as an enduring positive cognitive and emotional experience in sports, with confidence, dedication, vigor, and enthusiasm as the main characteristics (Lonsdale et al., 2007). Prior studies have shown that athlete engagement in football can influence team cohesion (Zhao et al., 2025). One of the most common reasons for participating in football is the desire to be part of a team. To be called a “good team player” seems to connote something nobler than “a talented player” or even “a well-trained player” (Gaffney, 2015). Additionally, according to the conceptual model of group cohesion, task cohesion relates to the desire of team members to work toward shared goals (Widmeyer et al., 1985). This requires individual athletes on a team to be confident not only in their own abilities but also in their teammates’ ability to contribute to the team’s goals (Piasecki & Filho, 2025). These are integral components of athlete engagement. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 (H1) is proposed.
H1. 
Athlete engagement is positively associated with team cohesion.

1.2. The Mediation of Interpersonal Competence

Interpersonal competences are those which we use in relations with other people and they are tied closely associated with effective functioning in interpersonal relationships (Klinkosz et al., 2021). Interpersonal competences are acquired, shaped, and refined through learning (Klinkosz et al., 2021). Compared with other activities, sports activities pay more attention to the rules of games and teamwork to cultivate students’ communication skills and interpersonal relationship-handling methods (Yu & Jiang, 2017). Team sports, in particular, provide adolescents with increased opportunities for peer interaction (Li et al., 2024). At the same time, interpersonal relationship plays a crucial role in team cohesion (I. M. Taylor & Bruner, 2012). According to the conceptual model of group cohesion, social cohesion depends on interpersonal relationships among team members (Widmeyer et al., 1985). That is, interpersonal competence serves as a proximal process that translates individual athlete engagement into stronger cohesion. The previous study shows that the cohesion of a sports team is associated with the strength of the relationships between coaches and participants as well as between participants (Tziner et al., 2003). Football is characterized by frequent interaction during training and competition, team identity, and recognition of individual contributions, all of which are associated with stronger team cohesion (Zhao et al., 2025). When athlete engagement elevates interpersonal competence in team settings, the group is more likely to organize around shared goals and to consolidate supportive ties, which is consistent with the conceptual model of group cohesion’s pathways to cohesion. Therefore, H2 is proposed.
H2. 
Interpersonal competence plays a mediating role between athlete engagement and team cohesion.

1.3. The Moderation of Social Support

Social support refers to an individual’s perception of the availability of help or support from others in their social network (Bi et al., 2022). Social support has an important association on the development of football participants among adolescents and is considered as an indispensable factor (Reinboth et al., 2004). Although the conceptual model of group cohesion indicates that social support influences team cohesion (Widmeyer et al., 1985), the precise mechanisms underlying this relationship remain unclear. The previous study shows that social support plays a moderating role in the relation between physical exercise and social anxiety (Ren & Li, 2020). Individuals with higher perceived social support have more sufficient mental resources to handle interpersonal relationship (Ren & Li, 2020). In other words, strengthening social support appears to reinforce the key factors through which athlete engagement affects social cohesion, namely communication and interpersonal relationships. On the other hand, on more cohesive teams, members expect to receive more care, encouragement, instruction, and assistance (Wolf et al., 2025). Peer social support has been identified as a key factor influencing team cohesion (Vincer & Loughead, 2010). In addition, confidence in peer leadership and the support it generates has been shown to strengthen team cohesion (Piasecki & Filho, 2025). Coaches who provide higher levels of social support also promote stronger task cohesion among athletes (Ferreira et al., 2024). Therefore, H3a and H3b are proposed.
H3a. 
Social support moderates the direct prediction effect athlete engagement on team cohesion.
H3b. 
Social support moderates the mediating effect of interpersonal competence (Figure 1).

1.4. Gender Differences

According to social role theory, society assigns different expectations and roles to individuals based on their gender, which influences their behavior and attitudes (Eagly, 2013; Eagly & Wood, 2012). Prior research has shown gender difference in adolescent football, with male adolescents, compared with female adolescents, often displaying stronger competitive and recreational orientations6 (Zeng & He, 2024). In addition, previous studies have shown that team cohesion is correlated with gender differences (Beam, 2001), but few previous studies have focused on gender differences in interpersonal and social support (B. Zhang et al., 2015). Females and males have different concerns regarding interpersonal relationship: females tend to establish binary relationships and value individual intimacy and self-disclosure, while males prefer to establish friendships by participating in group activities and developing large group relationships (Dunbar et al., 2024). Additionally, females tend to perform more positive qualities in teacher–student relationships. In terms of social support, there were notable distinctions between the genders as well. For example, females are more likely to approach others to ask for social assistance. Therefore, H4a and H4b are proposed.
H4a. 
There are gender differences in the moderating effect of social support on the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion.
H4b. 
There are gender differences in the moderating effect of social support on the association between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

This cross-sectional study recruited 1692 adolescents from 64 schools in 5 provinces of China using a convenience sampling approach. A total of 33 adolescents discontinued participation for personal reasons, yielding 1659 valid questionnaires. Schools that offered organized extracurricular football were contacted through their administrations, and participation was confirmed by the school head or a physical education teacher. Eligible participants were adolescents aged 8–16 years. Physical education staff identified students who met the following inclusion criteria: at least one year of organized football training and participation in football as a leisure activity rather than as professionals. Students not engaged in football training were excluded. Entire squads were invited to participate to minimize selection at the coach or student level, and all eligible students present on the survey day were approached. Information sheets were distributed in advance to students and guardians, and only those who returned signed guardian consent and student assent were enrolled.

2.2. Procedure

Ethical clearance was granted by the Ethics Committee of Shaanxi Normal University (Approval No. 202416012). School administrations authorized the survey, and written guardian consent together with student assent were obtained prior to data collection. Participants were briefed on the study aims, procedures, and confidentiality measures, and all procedures adhered to the principles of voluntariness and confidentiality. Surveys were completed in classrooms under the supervision of trained researchers, and participants could withdraw at any time. Responses were recorded without personal identifiers, and all data were kept confidential and used solely for scientific research.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Athlete Engagement Questionnaire (AEQ)

Athlete engagement was measured with the AEQ developed by Lonsdale and Jackson (Lonsdale et al., 2007). We used Zhang’s Chinese adaptation of the AEQ (C. Zhang, 2016), for which studies in Chinese adolescent samples have reported satisfactory reliability and validity (Gu et al., 2023). The instrument contains 16 items covering 4 facets—self-confidence, vigor, dedication, and enthusiasm—rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never to 5 = always). One example of an item is as follows: “I am full of passion in training and competition.” The results of confirmatory factor analysis results show that χ2/df = 8.422, RMSEA = 0.067, AGFI = 0.913, GFI = 0.939, NFI = 0.955, IFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.950, and CFI = 0.960. In this study, Cronbach’s α of the AEQ was 0.948.

2.3.2. Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire (ICQ)

This questionnaire was developed by Buhrmester (Buhrmester et al., 1988), and translated into Chinese by Huang (L. Huang et al., 2022). The questionnaire has been proven to have good reliability and validity (Su et al., 2024). The Chinese version of the ICQ consists of 15 items. All items in the scale were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); the higher the score is, the higher the interpersonal competence ability. One example of an item is as follows: “Introduce yourself to someone you might want to meet or develop a relationship with.” The results of confirmatory factor analysis results show that χ2/df = 5.381, RMSEA = 0.051, AGFI = 0.948, GFI = 0.963, NFI = 0.958, IFI = 0.966, TLI = 0.958, and CFI = 0.966. In this study, Cronbach’s α of the measured ICQ was 0.913.

2.3.3. Perceived Workplace Social Support Scale (PWSSS)

The PWSSS, developed by Brouwers and translated into Chinese by Ju (Brouwers et al., 2001; Ju et al., 2015), consists of 2 dimensions, namely instrumental support and emotional social support, with a total of 22 items. To make the measure more relevant to students, adjustments were made to the original questionnaire. The term “colleagues” was changed to “classmates”, and “leaders” was replaced with “teachers”. All items in the scale were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). One example of an item is as follows: “My classmates would support me.” The results of confirmatory factor analysis results show that χ2/df = 9.278, RMSEA = 0.071, AGFI = 0.873, GFI = 0.906, NFI = 0.932, IFI = 0.939, TLI = 0.924, and CFI = 0.939. In this study, the Cronbach’s α for the PWSSS was 0.960.

2.3.4. Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)

The GEQ was developed by Carron (Carron et al., 1998). The original version of the GEQ consists of 16 items across 4 dimensions, namely individual attractions to the group—task (ATG-T), individual attractions to the group—social (ATG-S), group integration—task (GI-T), and group integration—social (GI-S), using a 7-point Likert scale. In China, the GEQ was localized and revised, reducing the number of items to 15 and adopting a 5-point Likert scale (H. Ma, 2008; Z. Zhang, 2023). One example of an item is as follows: “I would be willing to actively participate in our team’s internal bonding activities.” The results of confirmatory factor analysis results show that χ2/df = 4.249, RMSEA = 0.049, AGFI = 0.954, GFI = 0.967, NFI = 0.965, IFI = 0.972, TLI = 0.966, and CFI = 0.972. In this study, the revised GEQ was used, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.858.

2.4. Data Analysis

Apart from confirmatory factor analysis, which was estimated in AMOS 28.0, all data analyses were conducted in SPSS 27.0. First, Harman’s one-factor analysis was employed to check for common method biases. Second, descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables were assessed. Third, the mediation effect of interpersonal competence and the moderating role of social support were tested using Model 4 and Model 8 of the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Hayes, 2012). An effect was considered significant if the 95% confidence interval (CI) did not include zero, based on a bootstrap random sample (n = 5000). To examine how social support moderates the relationships between athlete engagement, interpersonal competence, and team cohesion, a simple slope test was performed (Aiken et al., 1991). An interaction diagram based on psychological detachment was also used. Finally, multi-group modeling was conducted to examine gender differences in the moderated mediation model.

3. Results

3.1. Basic Characteristics

A total of 1692 adolescents from primary school to senior high school participated in the study. After screening, 1659 valid questionnaires were collected, yielding a validity rate of 98.0%. The detailed characteristics of participants are shown in Table 1.

3.2. Common Method Variance

Harman’s single factor test was used to test for common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The results showed that nine factors had eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor explained 33.494% of the variance, which was less than the critical value of 40% (Long, 2004). Furthermore, the results of confirmatory factor analysis results show that χ2/df = 14.720, RMSEA = 0.091, AGFI = 0.373, GFI = 0.410, NFI = 0.559, IFI = 0.576, TLI = 0.562, and CFI = 0.576. The model fitting showed unsatisfactory results, showing that there was no significant common method bias in this study.

3.3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Analyses

Table 2 and Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics of the variables. The correlation analyses revealed significant positive correlations between athlete engagement, interpersonal competence, social support, and team cohesion (all p < 0.001). In addition, to evaluate multicollinearity in the regression models with team cohesion as the dependent variable, we examined tolerance and variance inflation factors for each predictor. Athlete engagement had a tolerance of 0.546 and a variance inflation factor of 1.831; interpersonal competence had a tolerance of 0.554 and a variance inflation factor of 1.807; social support had a tolerance of 0.585 and a variance inflation factor of 1.710. All diagnostics were comfortably below conventional thresholds, with all variance inflation factors well under 5, indicating that multicollinearity was not a concern.

3.4. Mediation Analysis

The mediation effect was tested before assessing the moderation effects (Table 4). Athlete engagement was positively associated with both team cohesion (β = 0.262, t = 9.569, p < 0.001, CI = [0.127, 0.193]) and with interpersonal competence (β = 0.612, t = 31.189, p < 0.001, CI = [0.593, 0.672]). Furthermore, interpersonal competence was positively associated with team cohesion (β = 0.265, t = 9.666, p < 0.001, CI = [0.125, 0.188]). Therefore, interpersonal competence plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion (indirect effect = 0.099, Boot SE = 0.012, 95% CI = [0.076, 0.122]). This model accounted for 25.65% of the variance in team cohesion. Thus, H1 and H2 were supported.

3.5. Moderated Mediation Model Analysis

In the second step, we employed Model 8 in the SPSS extension macro (Model 8 moderates the direct path and the first stage of the mediation model, which aligns with the hypothetical model in this study), and tested the moderated mediation model. As shown in Table 4, after including social support in the model, the interaction between athlete engagement and social support was significantly associated with both interpersonal competence (β = 0.166, t = 9.063, p < 0.001) and team cohesion (β = 0.155, t = 6.967, p < 0.001). These results suggest that social support moderates both the associations between athlete engagement and team cohesion and between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence. Thus, H3a and H3b were supported.
To understand how the moderator works, simple slope analysis was carried out, as shown in Figure 2 (Aiken et al., 1991). The relation between athlete engagement and team cohesion was more positive under a high level of social support (M + 1SD, simple slope = 0.577, t = 20.611, p < 0.001) than under a low level of social support (M − 1SD, simple slope = 0.301, t = 11.747, p < 0.001, Figure 2a). Hence, the results indicated that increasing the level of social support can increase the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion.
The relation between athlete engagement and interpersonal competences was more positive under a high level of social support (M + 1SD, simple slope = 0.377, t = 10.109, p < 0.001) than under a low level of social support (M − 1SD, simple slope = 0.118, t = 3.738, p = 0.002, Figure 2b). Therefore, it is suggested that an increase in social support leads to an increase in the prediction of athlete engagement on team cohesion. Hence, the results indicated that increasing the level of social support can increase the association between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence.

3.6. Gender Differences Analysis

In the third step, the subject groups were then categorized by gender and analyzed for gender differences by the moderated mediation model. Table 5 shows that, in the male group, the interaction between athlete engagement and social support was significantly associated with interpersonal competence (β = 0.157, t = 7.153, p < 0.001), but it was not significantly associated with team cohesion (β = 0.020, t = 0.825, p = 0.409).
Table 6 shows that, in the female group, the interaction between athlete engagement and social support was significantly associated with both interpersonal competence (β = 0.196, t = 5.250, p < 0.001) and team cohesion (β = 0.020, t = 8.325, p < 0.001). These results suggest that social support moderated the associations between athlete engagement and team cohesion with gender differences, while no gender differences were evident in the association between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence. Thus, H4a was supported, but H4b was not supported.
To understand how the moderator works in different gender groups, simple slope analysis was carried out, as shown in Figure 3 (Aiken et al., 1991). In the male group, the relation between athlete engagement and interpersonal competences was more positive under a high level of social support (M + 1SD, simple slope = 0.561, t = 15.679, p < 0.001) than under a low level of social support (M − 1SD, simple slope = 0.264, t = 8.275, p < 0.001, Figure 3a).
In the female group, athlete engagement level sport played a more essential role in predicting level of team cohesion in high level of social support (M + 1SD, simple slope = 0.591, t = 12.669, p < 0.001), rather than low level of social support (M − 1SD, simple slope = 0.325, t = 7.002, p < 0.001, Figure 3b). Meanwhile, the relation between athlete engagement and interpersonal competences was more positive under a high level of social support (M + 1SD, simple slope = 0.425, t = 6.910, p < 0.001) than under a low level of social support (M − 1SD, simple slope = −0.763, t = −1.364, p = 0.173, Figure 3c).

4. Discussion

This study further enriches the conceptual model of group cohesion by constructing a moderated mediation model. We found associations indicating that athlete engagement is positively related to team cohesion, and both the mediating role of interpersonal competence and the moderating role of social support were significant in this association. Additionally, gender differences were observed in this moderated mediation model. Within the conceptual model of group cohesion, our results clarify how the distinctive social features of team sports contribute to the engagement–cohesion link. This study provides theoretical support for physical educators to design team sports interventions based on the characteristics of different gender groups. We aim to enhance team cohesion within adolescent groups through team sports, fostering the improvement of social adaptability and mental health in a positive team environment. By strengthening interactions among adolescents, we can effectively enhance their interpersonal competence and help them learn to support each other and make progress together. This not only helps increase adolescents’ sense of collective identity but also promotes individual adaptation and development in social terms.

4.1. Team Cohesion Is Positively Associated with Athlete Engagement

The results indicated that athlete engagement was positively associated with team cohesion. This finding supports H1 and is consistent with previous similar studies (Zhao et al., 2025). Athlete engagement is a mindset of fulfillment during practice (Limpo et al., 2022). When the success expectations of team members increase, this expectation tends to relate to higher team cohesion (Leo et al., 2013), which reflects the conceptual model of group cohesion by illustrating how athlete engagement contributes to goal-oriented collaboration. In terms of social cohesion, football teams often develop stronger interpersonal bonds through collaborative processes, such as joint problem-solving and coordinated strategy development aimed at achieving shared objectives (Tziner et al., 2003). Unlike the individualistic culture of the West, Chinese culture places greater emphasis on collectivism (Z. Ma et al., 2014). Within collectivistic cultures, group interests and the collective good take precedence over individual interests (Z. Ma et al., 2014). Individuals in such cultures are more likely to internalize the purpose, tasks, and principles of group activities into their behavioral standards, subsequently adjusting and adapting to the norms established by these standards (Gu & Xue, 2022). This collectivist mindset helps enhance team cohesion, as Chinese adolescents in sports not only focus on individual achievements but also on contributing to the realization of the team’s collective goals. Therefore, athlete engagement is positively associated with team cohesion.

4.2. The Mediating Effect of Interpersonal Competence

The results indicated that interpersonal competence partially mediated the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion, which is consistent with H2 and previous study (Tziner et al., 2003). In football training and competition, the players’ active participation and dedication not only improve the competitive level of the team, but also promote mutual understanding and trust among the players (Zhao et al., 2025). This experience of working together helps players better appreciate their connections with each other, which is associated with closer team relationships and stronger team cohesion (Zhao et al., 2025).
As for the majority of adolescents, school life is the most significant aspect of their lives (Eccles et al., 1997; Shiu, 2001). The main relationships that adolescents have at school are with their teachers and peers (Dong et al., 2011; Wo et al., 2001). School sport, including football, may provide adolescents with opportunities to bond with other students, and interact with their peers and coaches (Jewett et al., 2014). In Chinese schools, the other role of physical education teachers is team coaches. From the perspective of the teacher–student relationship, teachers can offer support and guidance to participants during football training and competition, which can ultimately contribute to the formation of strong bonds between teachers and students (Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007). From the perspective of peers, participation team sports can enhance adolescents’ social skills by improving understanding and cooperation through interactions with peers, thereby fostering quality interpersonal relationships (Li et al., 2024). Therefore, many participants tend to develop good friendships and good interpersonal relationship in a team to pursue a shared goal (Dudley et al., 1997; Falcão et al., 2015). When a team works towards a common goal, this process is often linked to higher team cohesion (Falcão et al., 2015). This goal-oriented collaboration is closely tied to the formation of task cohesion, reflecting the collective commitment to achieving common objectives. Furthermore, team cohesion is positively influenced by stronger interpersonal relationship among team members and a shared agreement (Tziner et al., 2003). This pattern aligns with theoretical expectations that social cohesion is constructed through interpersonal interactions and value alignment (Widmeyer et al., 1985). Therefore, interpersonal competence links athlete engagement to both task and social facets of the conceptual model of group cohesion by improving communication, coordination, conflict management, and role clarity.

4.3. The Moderating Effect of Social Support

The results showed that social support moderated the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion, suggesting that this association was stronger for adolescents with higher levels of social support. This finding supported H3a and was consistent with a previous study (Taştan, 2022). Young athletes rely heavily on coaches and teammates as sources of motivation, perceived competence, and skill information (Weiss et al., 2021). Studies have shown that higher perceived social support and a democratic leadership style from coaches, as well as peer support, are all linked to greater task cohesion (Kim & Cruz, 2016; Vincer & Loughead, 2010; Westre & Weiss, 1991). Participants in a team may feel responsible for helping and encouraging their peers to achieve higher levels of social support, which, in turn, is associated with stronger team cohesion (Caron et al., 2016). Furthermore, when group members recognize the social support they receive and understand their roles in achieving team goals, they are more likely to integrate into the group, leading to stronger team cohesion (Worley et al., 2020).
Additionally, social support moderated the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence, indicating that social support moderated the mediating effect of interpersonal competence. Specifically, the association between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence was stronger for individuals with high social support than for those with low social support. This finding supported H3b and was consistent with previous study (Sheridan et al., 2014). Increased levels of social support are associated with fewer feelings of loneliness among adolescents (Masi et al., 2011). Meanwhile, adolescents who receive higher support from their teachers and peers tend to have better interpersonal relationship (Gumpel & Vainroj Ish-Shalom, 2003; Malecki & Demaray, 2003). In team sports, adolescents who have higher levels of social support tend to have better social skills, including responsibility and openness, which can effectively facilitate their friendships (Rodriguez-Ayllon et al., 2019). Furthermore, the social relationships and support provided through sports can also offer participants a sense of belonging and companionship (Eather et al., 2023). This is especially important in football, where the progress of one member can lead to the progress of the entire team, thereby supporting the development of leadership and social skills (i.e., the ability to build effective relationships with others) (Reverberi et al., 2020).
Overall, within the conceptual model of group cohesion, social support functions as a contextual condition rather than a simple input. Specifically, two pathways are implicated. First, higher social support strengthens the direct association between athlete engagement and task cohesion by clarifying goals and roles and aligning effort with team objectives. Second, higher social support strengthens the first stage of the indirect pathway from athlete engagement to social cohesion by improving interpersonal competence. Greater interpersonal competence, in turn, fosters stronger social cohesion through a stronger sense of belonging and trust.

4.4. Gender Differences in the Moderated Mediation Models

There were gender differences in the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion, but not in the mediating role of interpersonal competence. These results support H4a but do not support H4b.
Social support moderated the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion only in females. This pattern is consistent with social role theory, which holds that when gendered roles are affirmed by significant others, individuals form and enact different expectations and behaviors (Eagly, 2013; Eagly & Wood, 2012). For instance, females are often expected to display certain traits, such as cooperation, mutual care, and tolerance, whereas males may focus more on competition and individual performance when building team cohesion (Kling et al., 1999). These reasons may explain why social support did not moderate the direct prediction effect athlete engagement on team cohesion. In sport settings, male adolescents commonly exhibit stronger competitiveness and autonomous behavior and often face higher competitive pressure and performance expectations. In contrast, female adolescents in football seek to establish a sense of team belonging, experience acceptance within peer relationships, and receive positive affirmation from others. Therefore, males may view external support as a sign of doubt or challenge to their abilities rather than as a resource for team coordination. This perception can foster a tendency to avoid seeking support, which, in turn, may weaken the moderating role of social support in the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion. By contrast, female adolescents are more likely to interpret social support as a positive element of team interaction. This interpretation fosters trust, strengthens role identity, and aligns goals, which, in turn, may strengthen the association between athlete engagement and team cohesion. Furthermore, from the standpoint of biological evolution during human prehistory, females of most species, including humans, bore the primary responsibility for early parenting by conceiving, lactating, and caring for their offspring (S. E. Taylor et al., 2000). As a result, female individuals were more comfortable being in a social group and forming strong team cohesion by befriending others to protect themselves and their offspring together (S. E. Taylor et al., 2000).
Although previous studies have shown that social support differs in the quality of interpersonal relationship between male and female students (Cheng & Chan, 2004; Kenny et al., 2013), females tend to benefit from same-sex and teacher–student relationships to acquire more positive qualities, while males acquire more positive qualities from heterosexual relationships (B. Zhang et al., 2015). However, this study did not distinguish the gender of the participants’ social contacts when investigating adolescent interpersonal competence. This may be part of the reason why there is no gender difference in the mediating effect of interpersonal competence.

4.5. Practical Implications

In practical terms, the conceptual model of group cohesion points to two key elements for school sport, namely clear goals and roles and a supportive climate. It is important to begin sessions with a short talk on goals and role division and to use shared performance cues during training and provide specific feedback after drills. When support from coaches and peers is credible and visible, athlete engagement is more likely to be expressed as coordinated action and collective follow through. These are core features of task cohesion. Schools sport should also build interpersonal competence and ensure that support channels are easy to use. For example, it is important to run brief communication drills and organize buddy pairs or peer mentoring. These activities strengthen communication, cooperation, and role identity. In a supportive environment, these behaviors foster trust and belonging and build shared commitment, which are the core elements of social cohesion.
Gender differences deserve attention. For male adolescents, it is important to place extra focus on team relationships and to make support visible with short daily conversations, peer mentoring or buddy pairs, and praise tied to specific behaviors. This approach helps interpret athlete engagement as a resource rather than a source of stress under pressure. For female adolescents, it is important to maintain a warm team climate and steady recognition. This can ease social evaluation worries and body image concerns, increase the team’s appeal, and support sustained engagement.
These recommendations can serve as a starting point for practice. Once effectiveness is verified in physical education, the approach can be expanded gradually to other subjects. For example, it is possible to use cooperative problem solving tasks so that students can clarify roles and plan strategies together. Teachers can run brief peer feedback and model support with encouragement plus specific suggestions. These steps help to build a positive team climate at the class and school levels, fostering belonging and emotional support, reducing anxiety and loneliness, and strengthening self-worth and identity. Strong social support networks improve coping, facilitate knowledge sharing and mutual learning, and can enhance academic performance, while shared norms promote positive behavior and reduce problem behaviors.

4.6. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has certain limitations. Firstly, the cross-sectional approach used in this study, while revealing correlations between the variables, does not allow for inference of causality between the variables tested (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Future researchers could conduct longitudinal studies to determine whether the scores measured effectively represent an actual increase in team cohesion.
Secondly, this study did not distinguish the gender of the participants’ social contacts when investigating adolescent interpersonal competence. This may be one of the reasons why social support did not show gender differences in moderating the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence. Future research should consider differentiating the gender of participants’ social contacts to further clarify the moderated role of social support in the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence across different genders.
Thirdly, to comprehensively investigate the relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion in adolescent groups, this study utilized a large sample covering all age groups of adolescents. However, demographic differences remain worthy of further exploration. Therefore, future research could focus on specific age ranges, such as primary school, middle school, or high school stages, to provide more precise evidence and support the development of personalized intervention strategies tailored to adolescents at different developmental stages.

5. Conclusions

This study enriches the conceptual model of group cohesion by testing a moderated mediation model and addressing gaps in existing research. The results showed that athlete engagement was positively associated with team cohesion. This relationship was moderated by social support, with gender differences observed. In addition, interpersonal competence partially mediated the link between athlete engagement and team cohesion. This indirect path was also strengthened by social support but showed no gender differences. These findings provide theoretical support for physical educators and highlight the value of strengthening team cohesion through team sports. Such efforts can promote adolescents’ social adaptation and mental health, helping them grow in a supportive and positive group environment.

Author Contributions

B.W. and H.H. contributed equally to this study. Data curation, X.S. and C.Z.; Formal analysis, H.H.; Funding acquisition, Y.S.; Methodology, H.H.; Resources Y.S.; Supervision, Y.S.; Writing—original draft, H.H. and B.W.; Writing—review and editing, X.S., C.Z. and Y.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Social Science Founds of China (Grant number 22CTY008).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Shaanxi Normal University (protocol code 202416012 and date of approval 6 May 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage. [Google Scholar]
  2. Beam, J. W. (2001). Preferred leadership of NCAA Division I and II intercollegiate student-athletes. University of North Florida. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beauchamp, M. R., & Eys, M. A. (2014). Group dynamics in exercise and sport psychology. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bi, X.-B., He, H.-Z., Lin, H.-Y., & Fan, X.-Z. (2022). Influence of social support network and perceived social support on the subjective wellbeing of mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 835110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Braun, M. T., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Brown, T., & DeShon, R. P. (2020). Exploring the dynamic team cohesion–performance and coordination–performance relationships of newly formed teams. Small Group Research, 51, 551–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brouwers, A., Evers, W. J., & Tomic, W. (2001). Self-efficacy in eliciting social support and burnout among secondary-school teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(7), 1474–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bruner, M. W., Eys, M. A., Wilson, K. S., & Côté, J. (2014). Group cohesion and positive youth development in team sport athletes. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3, 219–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Buhrmester, D., Furman, W., Wittenberg, M. T., & Reis, H. T. (1988). Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Caron, J. G., Bloom, G. A., Loughead, T. M., & Hoffmann, M. D. (2016). Paralympic athlete leaders’ perceptions of leadership and cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 39(3), 219–238. [Google Scholar]
  10. Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Fitness Information Technology. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carron, A. V., Bray, S. R., & Eys, M. A. (2002). Team cohesion and team success in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cheng, S.-T., & Chan, A. C. (2004). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support: Dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1359–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dong, Y., Liu, Y., & Ding, C. (2011). A psychometric evaluation of a brief school relationship questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28(1), 19–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dudley, B. S., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1997). Using cooperative learning to enhance the academic and social experiences of freshman student athletes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137(4), 449–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dunbar, R., Pearce, E., Wlodarski, R., & Machin, A. (2024). Sex differences in close friendships and social style. Evolution and Human Behavior, 45(6), 106631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 2, 458–476. [Google Scholar]
  18. Eather, N., Wade, L., Pankowiak, A., & Eime, R. (2023). The impact of sports participation on mental health and social outcomes in adults: A systematic review and the ‘Mental Health through Sport’ conceptual model. Systematic Reviews, 12(1), 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Mac Iver, D. (1997). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage–environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48(2), 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eime, R. M., Young, J. A., Harvey, J. T., Charity, M. J., & Payne, W. R. (2013). A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: Informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Equinet, L., Enthoven, C., Jansen, P. W., & Rodriguez-Ayllon, M. (2025). The longitudinal association between sport participation and self-esteem in youth in the Netherlands: The role of sport type. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 28(2), 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Eys, M., Loughead, T., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31(3), 390–408. [Google Scholar]
  23. Falcão, W. R., Bloom, G. A., & Loughead, T. M. (2015). Coaches’ perceptions of team cohesion in Paralympic sports. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 32(3), 206–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ferreira, J. G., Rodrigues, F., Sobreiro, P., Silva, M., Santos, F. J., Carvalho, G., Hernández Mendo, A., & Rodrigues, J. (2024). Social support, network, and relationships among coaches in different sports: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1301978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gaffney, P. (2015). The nature and meaning of teamwork. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 42(1), 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gu, S., Peng, W., Du, F., Fang, X., Guan, Z., He, X., & Jiang, X. (2023). Association between coach-athlete relationship and athlete engagement in Chinese team sports: The mediating effect of thriving. PLoS ONE, 18(8), e0289979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gu, S., & Xue, L. (2022). Relationships among sports group cohesion, psychological collectivism, mental toughness and athlete engagement in Chinese team sports athletes. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), 4987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gumpel, T. P., & Vainroj Ish-Shalom, K. (2003). How do young adults remember their childhood social status? A retrospective analysis of peer-rejection in childhood and adolescence, and protective factors predictive of its remission. Social Psychology of Education, 6(2), 129–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. University of Kansas. [Google Scholar]
  30. Huang, H., Sha, X., Zhong, C., Ma, N., & Shui, Y. (2025). Association of football athlete engagement profiles with adolescent mental health—A latent Profile Analysis. BMC Public Health, 25(1), 2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huang, L., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Jiang, W., Zhu, Y., & Chi, X. (2022). Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the brief interpersonal competence questionnaire for adolescents. Children, 10, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jewett, R., Sabiston, C. M., Brunet, J., O’Loughlin, E. K., Scarapicchia, T., & O’Loughlin, J. (2014). School sport participation during adolescence and mental health in early adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55(5), 640–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jowett, S., & Poczwardowski, A. (2007). Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowette, & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 3–14). Human Kinetics. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ju, C., Lan, J., Li, Y., Feng, W., & You, X. (2015). The mediating role of workplace social support on the relationship between trait emotional intelligence and teacher burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kenny, R., Dooley, B., & Fitzgerald, A. (2013). Interpersonal relationships and emotional distress in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 36(2), 351–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, H.-D., & Cruz, A. B. (2016). The influence of coaches’ leadership styles on athletes’ satisfaction and team cohesion: A meta-analytic approach. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 11(6), 900–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kling, K. C., Hyde, J. S., Showers, C. J., & Buswell, B. N. (1999). Gender differences in self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(4), 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Klinkosz, W., Iskra, J., & Artymiak, M. (2021). Interpersonal competences of students, their interpersonal relations, and emotional intelligence. Current Issues in Personality Psychology, 9(2), 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Leo, F. M., González-Ponce, I., García-Calvo, T., & Sánchez-Oliva, D. (2019). The relationship among cohesion, transactive memory systems, and collective efficacy in professional soccer teams: A multilevel structural equation analysis. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 23(1), 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Leo, F. M., Sánchez-Miguel, P. A., Sánchez-Oliva, D., Amado, D., & García-Calvo, T. (2013). Analysis of cohesion and collective efficacy profiles for the performance of soccer players. Journal of Human Kinetics, 39(1), 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Li, Z., Li, J., Kong, J., Li, Z., Wang, R., & Jiang, F. (2024). Adolescent mental health interventions: A narrative review of the positive effects of physical activity and implementation strategies. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1433698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Limpo, T., Rödel, G., & Tadrist, S. (2022). Examining karate and football perceptions and their links with athlete engagement and quality of life. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 4, 971677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Long, H. Z. L. (2004). Statistical tests and control methods for common method bias. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(6), 942–950. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Jackson, S. A. (2007). Athlete engagement: II. Developmental and initial validation of the athlete engagement questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 38(4), 471–492. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ma, H. (2008). Revision of the group environment questionnaire. Journal of Beijing University of Physical Education, 3, 339–342. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ma, Z., Huang, Y., Wu, J., Dong, W., & Qi, L. (2014). What matters for knowledge sharing in collectivistic cultures? Empirical evidence from China. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(5), 1004–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Malecki, C. K., & Demaray, M. K. (2003). What type of support do they need? Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal, and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18(3), 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Masi, C. M., Chen, H.-Y., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011). A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(3), 219–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Merino, A., Arraiz, A., & Sabirón, F. (2017). La adherencia del entorno familiar en el fútbol prebenjamín: Un estudio de caso. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte, 12(1), 139–148. [Google Scholar]
  51. Piasecki, P. A., & Filho, E. (2025). The influence of social and task peer-leaders on team cohesion and collective efficacy in sports: A meta-analytical review. Sport Sciences for Health, 21(3), 1349–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation and Emotion, 28(3), 297–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ren, Y., & Li, M. (2020). Influence of physical exercise on social anxiety of left-behind children in rural areas in China: The mediator and moderator role of perceived social support. Journal of Affective Disorders, 266, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Reverberi, E., D’Angelo, C., Littlewood, M. A., & Gozzoli, C. F. (2020). Youth football players’ psychological well-being: The key role of relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 567776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rodriguez-Ayllon, M., Cadenas-Sánchez, C., Estévez-López, F., Muñoz, N. E., Mora-Gonzalez, J., Migueles, J. H., Molina-García, P., Henriksson, H., Mena-Molina, A., & Martínez-Vizcaíno, V. (2019). Role of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the mental health of preschoolers, children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, 49(9), 1383–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, 50, 540–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sheridan, D., Coffee, P., & Lavallee, D. (2014). A systematic review of social support in youth sport. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 7(1), 198–228. [Google Scholar]
  59. Shiu, S. (2001). Issues in the education of students with chronic illness. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48(3), 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Su, Y., Yan, Z., Lin, W., & Liu, X. (2024). The relationship between smartphone addiction and the interpersonal competence of chinese private college students: A moderated mediation model. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 17, 653–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Taştan, Z. (2022). General belongingness and social connectedness as predictors of group cohesion in adolescents’ participation in team sports. International Journal of Pediatrics, 10(6), 16127–16137. [Google Scholar]
  62. Taylor, I. M., & Bruner, M. W. (2012). The social environment and developmental experiences in elite youth soccer. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(4), 390–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  64. Tziner, A., Nicola, N., & Rizac, A. (2003). Relation between social cohesion and team performance in soccer teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(1), 145–148. [Google Scholar]
  65. Vincer, D. J., & Loughead, T. M. (2010). The relationship among athlete leadership behaviors and cohesion in team sports. The Sport Psychologist, 24(4), 448–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Weiss, M. R., Moehnke, H. J., & Kipp, L. E. (2021). A united front: Coach and teammate motivational climate and team cohesion among female adolescent athletes. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 16(4), 875–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Westre, K. R., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport Psychologist, 5(1), 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Widmeyer, W. N., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (1985). The measurement of cohesion in sport teams: The group environment questionnaire. Sports Dynamics. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wo, J., Lin, C., Ma, H., & Li, F. (2001). A study on the development characteristics of adolescents’ interpersonal relations. Psychological Development and Education, 17, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  70. Wolf, S. A., Evans, M. B., McEwan, D., Sylvester, B. D., & Greene, T. M. (2025). Gathering strength in numbers: Higher team cohesion leads to greater precompetitive excitement through enhanced social support, self-efficacy, and coping prospects. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Worley, J. T., Harenberg, S., & Vosloo, J. (2020). The relationship between peer servant leadership, social identity, and team cohesion in intercollegiate athletics. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 49, 101712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Yu, K., & Jiang, Z. (2017). Social and emotional learning in China: Theory, research, and practice. In Social and emotional learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific: Perspectives, programs and approaches (pp. 205–217). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  73. Zeng, X., & He, W. (2024). Exploring adolescent participation in football: A gender-differentiated structural equation model based on the theory of planned behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1387420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, B., Gao, Q., Fokkema, M., Alterman, V., & Liu, Q. (2015). Adolescent interpersonal relationships, social support and loneliness in high schools: Mediation effect and gender differences. Social Science Research, 53, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhang, C., Qin, Z., & Han, X. (2016). The influence of athletic psychological tenacity on the sports input of volleyball players: The mediating effect of regulation. Journal of Shenyang Institute of Physical Education, 35(3), 53–58. [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhang, Z. (2023). The coach’s change leadership to the youth campus football players. Liaoning Normal University. [Google Scholar]
  77. Zhao, Z., Che, X., Wang, H., Zheng, Y., Ma, N., Gao, L., & Shui, Y. (2025). The relationship between soccer participation and team cohesion for adolescents: A chain-mediated effect of athlete engagement and collective self-esteem. Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Behavsci 15 01264 g001
Figure 1. The moderated mediation model.
Figure 1. The moderated mediation model.
Behavsci 15 01264 g001
Behavsci 15 01264 g002
Figure 2. Moderating role of social support on the relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion (a) and the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence (b).
Figure 2. Moderating role of social support on the relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion (a) and the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence (b).
Behavsci 15 01264 g002
Behavsci 15 01264 g003
Figure 3. The moderating role of social support on the relationship between the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence for males (a). The moderating role of social support on the relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion (b) and the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence for females (c).
Figure 3. The moderating role of social support on the relationship between the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence for males (a). The moderating role of social support on the relationship between athlete engagement and team cohesion (b) and the relationship between athlete engagement and interpersonal competence for females (c).
Behavsci 15 01264 g003
Table 1. Demographic information of participants.
Table 1. Demographic information of participants.
VariablesFrequencyPercentage
Gender
Male113568.4%
Female52431.6%
Level of school
Primary school students88153.1%
Junior high school students54332.6%
Senior high school students23114.3%
Training per week
1~8 h104763.1%
9~28 h61236.9%
Football experience
1~5 years126576.3%
6~12 years39423.7%
Table 2. Correlation analysis among all variables.
Table 2. Correlation analysis among all variables.
VariablesMSD1234
Athlete engagement4.1960.6561
2. Interpersonal competence3.6060.7230.612 ***1
3. Social support4.2190.6160.582 ***0.575 ***1
4.Team cohesion3.9470.4000.424 ***0.425 ***0.385 ***1
Note: The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) ***, p < 0.001.
Table 3. Mediation of interpersonal competences (n = 1659).
Table 3. Mediation of interpersonal competences (n = 1659).
On Interpersonal CompetenceOn Team Cohesion
βSET95% CIβSEt95% CI
Athlete engagement0.6120.02031.189 ***[0.593, 0.672]0.2620.1679.569 ***[0.127, 0.193]
Interpersonal competence 0.2650.1679.666 ***[0.125, 0188]
R20.3740.224
F991.524 ***238.314 ***
***, p < 0.001.
Table 4. Moderated mediation model (n = 1659).
Table 4. Moderated mediation model (n = 1659).
On Interpersonal CompetenceOn Team Cohesion
βSET95% CIβSEt95% CI
Athlete engagement0.4380.22819.890 ***[0.409, 0498]0.2470.0188.487 ***[0.116, 0.186]
Interpersonal competence 0.1720.0175.897 ***[0.068, 0.135]
Social support0.3540.01716.031 ***[0.249, 0.318]0.1750.0136.218 ***[0.057, 0.109]
Social support × athlete engagement0.1160.0019.063 ***[0.008, 0.012]0.1550.0016.967 ***[0.004, 0.008]
R20.4720.255
F494.460 ***142.644 ***
***, p < 0.001.
Table 5. Moderated mediation model in the male group (n = 1135).
Table 5. Moderated mediation model in the male group (n = 1135).
On Interpersonal CompetenceOn Team Cohesion
βSEt95% CIβSEt95% CI
Athlete engagement0.3980.03015.372 ***[0.405, 0524]0.3580.02411.162 ***[0.223, 0.318]
Interpersonal competence 0.1770.0225.443 ***[0.076, 0.161]
Social support0.3370.02213.708 ***[0.259, 0.346]0.1490.0174.822 ***[0.050, 0.118]
Social support × athlete engagement0.1570.0027.153 ***[0.009, 0.016]0.0200.0010.825[−0.01, 0.004]
R20.4530.255
F313.806 ***142.644 ***
***, p < 0.001.
Table 6. Moderated mediation model in the female group (n = 524).
Table 6. Moderated mediation model in the female group (n = 524).
On Interpersonal CompetenceOn Team Cohesion
βSET95% CIβSEt95% CI
Athlete engagement0.4830.03711.722 ***[0.359, 0503]0.2210.1723.440 ***[0.025, 0.093]
Interpersonal competence 0.2160.1824.279 ***[0.042, 0.114]
Social support0.3750.0308.221 ***[0.185,0.301]0.2720.1303.700 ***[0.023, 0.074]
Social support × athlete engagement0.1960.025.250 ***[0.005, 0.122]0.3690.0018.379 ***[0.05, 0.007]
R20.4760.306
F157.202 ***57.260 ***
***, p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wan, B.; Huang, H.; Sha, X.; Zhong, C.; Shui, Y. Adolescent Athlete Engagement and Team Cohesion in Football: A Moderated Mediation Model with Gender-Based Insights. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091264

AMA Style

Wan B, Huang H, Sha X, Zhong C, Shui Y. Adolescent Athlete Engagement and Team Cohesion in Football: A Moderated Mediation Model with Gender-Based Insights. Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 15(9):1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wan, Bingzhi, Huarui Huang, Xiaoqi Sha, Chen Zhong, and Yizhou Shui. 2025. "Adolescent Athlete Engagement and Team Cohesion in Football: A Moderated Mediation Model with Gender-Based Insights" Behavioral Sciences 15, no. 9: 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091264

APA Style

Wan, B., Huang, H., Sha, X., Zhong, C., & Shui, Y. (2025). Adolescent Athlete Engagement and Team Cohesion in Football: A Moderated Mediation Model with Gender-Based Insights. Behavioral Sciences, 15(9), 1264. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15091264

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop