PYB2: Social Psychology: Social Psychology of Sport Revision

1
PYB2 Social Psychology Social Psychology of
Sport

• Revision Material

2
Social Psychology of Sport

• Social facilitation
• Social facilitation theory.
• Dominant responses.
• Causes of arousal evaluation apprehension and
  distraction. Effects of arousal on performance.
• Home ground advantage for both individual and
  team performance. Home advantage in different
  sports.
• Team cohesion
• Team cohesion as task cohesion and social
  cohesion.
• Factors influencing cohesion and satisfaction in
  a team.
• Links between cohesion and performance in
  relation to type of sport.

3
Social Facilitation

• Effect of audience/co-workers on performance (1),
  idea of change in performance (1)

4
Social FacilitationSupporting evidence
Triplett (1898)

• Aim to investigate whether performance of a
  task improves in presence of others doing same
  task (co-actors)
• Method participants (40 children aged 11-17) to
  wind wishing reel as fast as possible. After
  practice time did this alone or in pairs were
  timed.
• Results performance was better in presence of
  another person. Average time 1 faster.
• Conclusion Performance is improved in presence
  of co-actors. Supported Tripletts research into
  cyclists performance when alone or when racing
  other cyclists.

5
Social FacilitationSupporting evidence Travis
(1925)

• Aim to investigate effect on performance when
  being observed by others
• Method participants trained to use pursuit
  rotor (following moving target with a stylus).
  Next day tested alone in front of audience of
  4-8 student observers (quiet attentive)
• Results Participants made fewer errors when
  observed by audience than when alone.
• Conclusion Presence of an audience results in
  improvement in performance.

6
Social FacilitationEvidence Pessin (1933)

• Aim to investigate effect on performance when
  being observed by an audience
• Method participants learnt lists containing 7
  nonsense syllables alone in front of an
  audience.
• Results Performance declined in presence of
  others. Participants with audience needed more
  trials to learn the list and made more errors on
  average than when alone. However, when tested a
  few days later they recalled more in front of an
  audience than when alone.
• Conclusion Presence of an audience can result
  in improvement or decline in performance. There
  is no simple relationship between the presence of
  other people and performance of the individual.

7
Dominant response

• The most likely behaviour of an individual in a
  given situation (1). This is facilitated by the
  presence of others/ or by increased arousal (1).
  When arousal is increased may enhance or impair
  performance. (1)
• The most likely behaviour of an individual in a
  given situation (1). Will be different effects in
  skilled and unskilled individuals. (1)
• Zajonc (1965)
• performance of well-learned tasks improves in
  presence of others.
• Performance of new tasks is inhibited by presence
  of others.

8
Dominant ResponsesSupporting evidence Michaels
et al (1982)

• Aim investigate prediction that presence of
  audience will facilitate performance of well
  learned behaviours inhibit performance of
  poorly practised ones.
• Method 12 pairs of pool players picked 6
  above average, 6 below average. Teams of 4
  observers stood next to table as audience.
• Results Above average players increased shot
  accuracy from 71 (not observed) to 80
  (observed). Below average players performance
  declined, accuracy down from 36 (not observed)
  to 25 (observed).
• Conclusion Presence of an audience affects
  performance. Supports social facilitation theory
  as dominant responses were produced.

9
Explanations for social facilitation of dominant
responses

• The presence of others (co-actors or audience)
  leads to a rise in arousal.
• Level of arousal at which performance is greatest
  is called the optimum/optimal level.
• If task is new or difficult, optimal level of
  arousal low, dominant response to make an
  error, performance will decline in presence of
  others.
• If task is well learned, optimal level of arousal
  higher, dominant response correct response,
  performance will improve in presence of others.

10
Causes of arousal(1) Evaluation apprehension

• A persons awareness/ concern/ anxiety (1) this
  his/her performance is being judged (1).
• Can get second mark for referring to effect on
  performance.
• The presence of other people affects us because
  we are concerned they are judging our performance
  (leads to facilitation of dominant responses).

11
Causes of arousal(1) Evaluation apprehension
evidence Bartis et al (1988)

• Aim to investigate whether evaluation
  apprehension leads to improvement in performance
  in a simple task hinder performance in a
  complex task.
• Method participants told to think of uses for a
  knife (simple task) or creative uses for a knife
  (complex task). 2 conditions evaluation
  apprehension (individual performance to be
  identified), others told ideas to be collected as
  part of group.
• Results on simple task thought of more ideas
  in front of an audience (performance improved),
  on complex task thought of fewer ideas in front
  of audience (performance declined)
• Conclusion Pressure is caused by belief that
  they would be evaluated/ judged leads to
  improvement in performance on simple tasks
  decline in improvement on complex tasks.
• Evaluation If audience are seen as more expert
  in the task, has greater effect on the
  participant e.g. typing performance declined in
  front of expert typist, no effect if audience a
  young child.

12
Causes of arousal(1) Evaluation apprehension -
evaluation

• Cockroaches ants demonstrate social
  facilitation but unlikely that evaluation
  apprehension is a factor.
• Schmitt et al found blindfolded audience normal
  audience had same effect on performance.
  Contradicts theory of evaluation apprehension.

13
Causes of arousal(2) Distraction Conflict

• The presence of other people creates distraction
  which interferes with attention given to the
  task. This leads to conflict over whether to
  attend to the people or the task, which leads to
  a rise in arousal. This leads to facilitation of
  dominant responses (facilitates
  simple/well-learned tasks inhibits complex/new
  tasks).

14
Causes of arousal(2) Distraction Conflict
evidence Sanders et al (1978)

• Aim to test the effect of distraction on
  performance
• Method Participants given simple or complex
  task in co-action situation. 2 conditions
  co-actor performing same task, or co-actor
  performing different task. Theory that co-actor
  doing same task will lead to more distraction as
  will lead to comparison.
• Results Distraction affected performance
  improved performance on simple task, inhibited
  performance on complex task.
• Conclusion Distraction leads to facilitation of
  dominant responses.
• Evaluation of distraction-conflict theory Can
  also explain social facilitation in non-human
  species cockroaches/ants likely to be
  distracted by other members of same species.

15
Causes of arousal(3) Mere Presence

• Zajonc mere presence of members of the same
  species produces arousal which leads to the
  facilitation of dominant responses.

16
Causes of arousal(3) Mere Presence evidence
Zajonc (1969)

• Aim to investigate whether cockroaches perform
  simple complex tasks better or worse with an
  audience
• Method Observe cockroaches performing simple
  complex tasks in presence of other cockroaches.
• Results Cockroaches perform a simple task more
  quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but
  complex task is inhibited by audience of
  cockroaches.
• Conclusion - mere presence of members of same
  species leads to arousal, which leads to social
  facilitation of dominant responses.
• Chen (1937) individual ants in co-action
  situation move twice as much soil as the same
  ants working alone.

17
Causes of arousal(3) Mere Presence - evaluation

• If mere presence theory is correct, then social
  facilitation should happen whenever an audience
  is present.
• However, Cottrell et al (1968) found that
  presence of an audience when blindfolded had no
  effect on their participants performance in
  learning nonsense words. Only had effect when
  audience not blindfolded.

18
Evaluation of social facilitation theory

• Criticisms of research on social facilitation
• Audiences tend to be passive. In real life
  audiences are active and respond to action.
• Research ignores individual differences in
  responses to presence focus on average
  performance.
• Tends to focus on performance in individual tasks
  when many sports involve team work.
• Tends to focus on co-action or audience effects
  ignores important role of competition.
• Lacks ecological validity many tasks unlike
  real life tasks/behaviour.

19
Exam question (Jan 2004b) - Two psychological
explanations of arousal are A evaluation
apprehension B distraction.Decide which of
these explanations is more likely in each of the
examples below. (i) A footballer feels nervous
because he knows that television commentators
will be discussing his performance.(ii) A
swimmer, who is used to performing in front of
cameras, achieves the fastest time in her career
when she knows that her new boyfriends parents
are watching the event on television.(iii) A
researcher finds that participants take longer to
complete a task when there is a sleeping person
in the same room, compared with when they are
alone. In your answer book, write either A or B
as the answer to each part of this question. (3
marks)

• (i) A
• (ii) A
• (iii) B

20
Exam question (Jan 2005a) - Outline what is
meant by a dominant response. Illustrate your
answer with an example based on a sporting
activity. (3 marks)

• The most likely behaviour of an individual
  in a given situation (1 A01)
• Plus 1 A01 mark for either facilitated by
  the presence of others/increased arousal or which
  will be different in skilled and unskilled
  individuals.
• Plus 1 A02 mark for relevant example, eg an
  experienced player scoring a penalty.

21
Exam question (Jan 2005d) - Dave is a
cricketer who is playing in the England
team for the first time. In his first
match his performance is poor. He scores few
runs and drops two catches. Describe and
discuss two psychological explanations for
Daves poor performance in the cricket
match. (10 marks)

• AO1 - Up to 5 marks. 1 mark each (up to 2) for
  identification and up to 2 marks each for
  description of explanations. Likely
  explanations an audience effect social
  inhibition a high level of arousal,
  evaluation apprehension and distraction-conflict
  eg caused by barracking from audience. Expertise
  with the task, and a reduced level of team
  cohesion because of the new member, could also be
  made relevant.
• AO2 Up to 5 marks for
• Analysis of the effects on performance of arousal
  and of evaluation apprehension and
  distraction-conflict
• Application of these explanations to the
  scenario, eg he drops catches because he is
  over-anxious to do well he knows the team
  selectors will be judging his performance, etc.
• Evaluation of explanations, including by
  specifying the implications of studies.

22
Home Ground Advantage

• Tendency for the side playing at home (1) to win
  more than 50 of their games/ to be more likely
  to win (1)

23
Home Ground AdvantageEvidence (Outline a study)

• Pace Carron (1992)
• Aim to investigate the affect of travel on
  performance
• Method Investigated travel related variables in
  visiting team performance in National Hockey
  League (inc. number of time zones crossed,
  direction of travel, distance travelled,
  preparation time, time of season, number of
  previous games played)
• Results - Poor performance by visiting team
  related to number of time zones crossed
  increased preparation time. Success more likely
  later in the tour. Other factors investigated
  made little difference.
• Conclusion there is only a small relationship
  between travel related factors and performance of
  visiting teams.

24
Championship Choke

• (Baumeister et al) the more important the game,
  the less likely the home team are to win.
• Nevill et al (1997) found very little evidence of
  any home advantage in international grand-slam
  tennis and major golf tournaments. (This may be
  the result of more objective scoring systems in
  tennis and golf, unlike more subjective decisions
  made by referees in games like soccer.)

25
Home Ground AdvantageSummary of factors

• Home ground advantage largely due to positive
  support of home team fans.
• Teams who play at home tend to be more assertive
  in their play.
• Other important factors audience size (the
  larger, the more influence), crowd hostility (if
  your fans are against you, team may play less
  well), disadvantages suffered by visiting team.
• Playing at home not always an advantage can
  be disadvantage due to fan expectations noisy
  crowd may lead to arousal to rise too high and
  decrease effectiveness.

26
Exam question (Jan 2001a) Identify two
factors which have been found to affect home
advantage in sport (2)

• Familiarity, intimacy, large home crowd, own
  strip, importance of game, type of sport

27
Exam question (Jan 2001 b) Explain why it may
be fair to players that important matches, such
as semi-finals of cup competitions, are at
neutral venues (3)

• AO1
• Demonstrate understanding of concept teams are
  more likely to win at home.
• Additional commentary depends on type of sport
  or refer to lack of home advantage in important
  games.
• AO2
• Application basic explanation that neither team
  has the home advantage or a disadvantage due to
  neutral venue.

28
Team cohesion

• The extent to which team members stick
  together/co-operate/ remain united (1) in pursuit
  of common goals (1)
• Team sticking together shows commitment to remain
  as a team regardless of lack of
  success/difficulties. Remain united in pursuit of
  goals to win/beat other teams.

29
Task cohesion

• How hard members work to achieve goals (1). Goals
  are to win/ be successful at sport.

30
Social cohesion

• How much members like each other (1).
• Example the team go out for a drink together
  after a match.

31
Factors affecting team cohesion(1) External
factors

• (a) Environmental factors
• Geographical factors availability of sporting
  facilities, opportunities to play against other
  teams.
• Social environment peer pressure, gender
  (influences which sports people play), people in
  unusual position may feel more commitment to team
  (e.g. female rugby team).
• (b) Competition/inter-group conflict
• Competition raises hostility between teams
  raises co-operation cohesion within team
  .(Sherif 1961)

32
Inter-group conflict Supporting evidence
Sherif (1961)

• Aim investigate effect of competition on 2
  groups of boys
• Method 2 groups of boys at American summer camp
  had to compete against each other for same
  resources, and at other times had to co-operate
  to achieve task.
• Results When competing, winning teams gained
  prizes hostility raised between groups, when
  co-operating hostility between groups decreased.
• Conclusion Team cohesion is at highest when
  groups in competition lowest when co-operating.
• Application to sport co-operation within a team
  leads to better team cohesion, especially when
  competition to win is goal.

33
Factors affecting team cohesion(2) Internal
factors

• (a) Personal factors
• Extent to which members of team have similar
  characteristics (e.g. social background, gender,
  commitment, attitudes) leads to higher team
  cohesion.
• (b) Stability of team (Forsyth 1990)
• Teams which have been together longer have higher
  team cohesion. Teams which are newly formed or
  have high turnover of players have lower team
  cohesion.
• (c) Team size
• As group size increases, team cohesion decreases.
  Large squads should be put into smaller subgroups
  to increase cohesiveness.
• Evidence Widmeyer et al (1990) examined
  volleyball basketball teams of 3, 6 and 9-12
  players.

34
Factors affecting team cohesion(3) Leadership
factors

• Leaders can develop more cohesive teams by
• Being consistent
• Giving clear directions
• Involving team members in team decisions
• Having a democratic style of leadership.
• Evaluation of research into team cohesion
• No clear set of guidelines to follow to achieve
  high team cohesion.

35
Exam question (June 2004) (c) The team members of
Barnstoneworth United Football Club always work
hard at training sessions to improve their
position in the league. In competitive matches,
they are willing to pass the ball, even if this
means they are not scoring themselves. They all
enjoy spending time together after a match. State
what is meant by Social cohesion, Task cohesion,
Team cohesionIllustrate each term by referring
to the description above. (6 marks)

• (i) How much members like/are attracted to each
  other (1) they all enjoy spending time together
  after a match. (1).
• (ii) How hard members work to achieve goals (1).
  (They) always work hard at training sessions.
  (1).
• (iii) To what extent members stick
  together/co-operate/remain united in the
  pursuit of common goals (accept a combination
  of social and task cohesion) (1). They are
  willing to pass the ball, even if this means not
  scoring themselves. (1).

36
Team Cohesion Team Satisfaction

• High level of team cohesion should result in high
  level of team players satisfaction.
• Marteus Peterson (1971) proposed a circular
  model linking team cohesion to individual
  satisfaction performance
• High level team cohesion leads to high level team
  performance
• Successful team performance leads to high team
  player satisfaction
• High team player satisfaction leads to higher
  team cohesiveness
• Therefore there is a positive relationship
  between success, team cohesion satisfaction
• These factors can be negatively affected by poor
  performance, low satisfaction or low team
  cohesion.

37
Team Cohesion Satisfaction Supporting evidence
Myers (1962)

• Aim investigate differences in team
  morale/cohesion when a team competing with
  another team or against a standard.
• Method Army rifle teams took part in either
  competitive league (against other teams) or in
  non-competitive league (measuring accuracy).
• Results Morale cohesion affected more when in
  competition if did well, morale raised, if did
  badly, morale decreased.
• Conclusion Competition between teams outcomes
  have a strong effect on team morale cohesion.

38
Team Cohesion Team Performance

• We would expect there to be a positive
  relationship between high levels of team cohesion
  success in team performance
• There is a relationship between the type of
  interaction, level of team cohesion performance
  of a team.
• Two types of sport
• Interactive sports high interaction between
  team players (e.g. football, hockey) need high
  team cohesion for good performance
• Coactive sports low interaction between team
  players (e.g. bowling, archery) have low team
  cohesion for good performance

39
Interactive coactive sports

• Interactive sports need high team cohesion for
  good performance

• Coactive sports need low team cohesion for good
  performance

40
Team Cohesion Performance Supporting evidence
Slater Sewell (1994)

• Aim Determine relationship between team
  cohesion team performance.
• Method Cohesion of male female hockey teams
  measured at start and end of season,
  performance measured throughout.
• Results Good team cohesion at start of season
  was good indicator of good performance throughout
  season.
• Conclusion High team cohesion leads to
  successful performance. This in turn leads to
  higher team cohesion.

41
Exam question (June 2003b) Archery is a sport
in which there is little need for team members to
interact or co-operate. Outline the likely
relationship between team cohesion performance.
(2 marks)

• A negative (1) correlation (1)
• Low team cohesion (1) is likely to be associated
  with good performance (1).

42
Exam question (June 2004b) - Identify the type of
sport in which high team cohesion is likely to
lead to good performance. Name one example of
this type of sport. (2 marks)

• A high interaction sport in which team players
  co-operate/invasion sport (1), plus appropriate
  example such as football, hockey, basketball,
  cricket (except that this is not an invasion
  sport) (1).

43
Exam question (Jan 2003) d Describe and discuss
the effects of cohesion on performance in team
sports. Refer to empirical evidence. (10)

• AO1
• Identify/ define/ describe key terms team
  cohesion, social cohesion, task cohesion
• Identify/ describe different types of sport i.e.
  high and low interaction
• Identify effects of team cohesion on performance
  (e.g. cohesion improves performance)
• Factual details of studies likely studies
  include Widmeyer et al, Slater Sewell
• AO2
• Analysis of nature of cohesion (e.g. fact that
  task cohesion can vary independently of social
  cohesion)
• Analysis of relationship between cohesion and
  performance (correlation positive/ negative)
  explain that effect of cohesion on performance
  can depend on type of sport (Cox). Effect of
  cohesion on performance may also depend on
  whether high productivity norm of the group
• Application of concepts to different types of
  sport (high low interaction), Illustration with
  examples
• Evaluation and analysis appropriate comments on
  implications of specific studies recognising
  uncertainty in actual relationship between
  cohesion performance. Evaluation of research
  studies