Psychology lecture 22- audience effects PDF

Preview

Summary

lecture on audience effect on athletes, the level to which this can impact the players, who has the advantage (if one exists)...

Description

Sport & Exercise psychology- lecture 22- audience effects Aims     

Explore the theoretical developments that have stemmed from research into competition & co-operation Discuss the differences between audience and coaction effects Consider characteristics that influence audiences effects Outline research evidence supporting & opposing the idea of home advantage/disadvantage Identify examples of the concept ‘basking in reflected glory’.

Triplett’s cyclists The first experiment assessing the effects of competition on performance was 1898. Triplett noted racers showed varying performances when they raced alone, with a pacer or in competition with another racer. Cyclists were faster when racing against or with another cyclist than when racing alone. Face to face competition against fellow competitors was shown to potentially enhance performance.

Triplett’s subsequent research Triplett was first to investigate social psychology with reference to social facilitation & motor performance. Following the cycling study, a controlled experiment to further initial observations was conducted. He found that children performed the task of winding a fishing reel faster in pairs than when alone. He proposed the principle of dynamogeny, suggesting the presence of others arouses competitive drive, releases energy & increases speed of performance.

Early social facilitation research   

Allport (1924) coined ‘social facilitation’ as performance improvements due to the presence of others following several experiments. However the widening research revealed that the presence of others didn’t always have a positive impact & improve performance. Some studies confirmed tripplets findings, showing athletes performed better with an audience or coactors.

Social facilitation  

Social facilitation- the influence of the presence of others on performance. this includes both audience and coaction effects. Audience refers to passive spectators who simply observe



Coaction refers to other people doing the same thing and the same time

Robert Zajonc (1965)   

The presence of others (either audience or coactors) creates arousal or drive. Increased arousal increases the likelihood that the individuals dominant response will occur. If the skill is simple or well learned, the dominant response will be the correct one and performance improves (facilitation) but if it is complex & not well trained, the dominant response is failure & performance being impaired.

Supporters: 





Martens (1969) tested Zajonc’s predictions with a motor task (both separate learning & performance phases) with male students performing a timing task either alone or in front of 10 other students. The audience condition elicited more arousal than the alone condition during both learning & performance phases, however during the learning individual individuals performed better alone. Martens findings confirmed Zajonc’s predictions- the presence of an audience created arousal, which impaired learning but facilitated performance after the task was well learned.

Opposers: 

Cottrell (1968) challenged Zajonc’s claims of the presence of others creating arousal, pointing out the presence of others is sometimes calming & maintained the presence of others creates arousal only when others can evaluate performance.

Important characteristics Some characteristics are easier to detect & have obvious effects on the outcome of the game. The stadium or arena will usually be filled with home fans, that are sometimes described as being as valuable as an extra player for home team, but effectiveness can be influenced by several components:       

Size Noise Gender Expertise Density Hostility Support



Intimacy

Home advantage An issue with social influence is the belief in the ‘home advantage’- research has documented the home advantage with elite baseball, football & hockey, and college basketball & football. Teams won games more often at home than away for all sports. Offensive plays were held up, but defensive stats did not differ for home or away games. Evidence against home advantage Baumiester (1984) documented a home disadvantage where there are negative consequences of playing at home. The findings suggest playing at home has expectations of success from the audience. Vocal & interactive audiences may cause inappropriate changes in arousal- higher arousal due to louder & more interactive crowd. The researchers suggest performance decrements can happen due to athletes trying too hard to please the home fans. They also propose that directing attention internally can disrupt the performance on automatic skills. The opportunity to win a championship in front of a home crowd likely increases self-consciousness and impede performance. home teams were more likely to choke in the final, however studies of this were limited & did not all agree with the hypothesis. Vacra (1980)- observed home and away teams had no difference in field goal %, free throw % or turnovers. Home team demonstrated more ‘functionally aggressive behaviours’- blocks, steals etc.

Why might a home advantage exist? Most ideas centre on factors other than the audience eg travel fatigue, bad playing conditions etc. other research has considered the roles of family and significant others support as part of a home audience. However these explanations have been deemed insufficient (Cox 2007)....