Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 57
About This Presentation
Title:

Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7

Description:

... apprehension rather than mere presence, but results are mixed (Strauss, 2002) ... Episodes of protest during matches significantly contributes to performance gap' ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:67
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 58
Provided by: damian3
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7


1
Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7
Group Processes in Sport
2
What is a Group?
  • A group is not a mere collection of two or more
    individuals a group comprises two or more
    people, involves interaction between people,
    demands an awareness of some form of common fate
    or goals, has a specific structure such as the
    role and status of individuals within the group
    and group norms
  • Hagger and Chatzisarantis (2005, p. 161)

3
What is a Group?
  • A group is two or more individuals in
    face-to-face interaction, each aware of his or
    her membership of the group, each aware of the
    others who belong to the group, and each aware of
    their positive interdependence as they strive to
    achieve mutual goals
  • Johnson and Johnson (1987, p. 8)

4
Carron and Hausenblas (1998) Conceptual Framework
Ability, personality, self-efficacy
Team goals, collective efficacy, group cooperation
Collective efficacy, cooperation, effort,
motivation
Member Attributes
Individual Outcomes
Performance, satisfaction, attributions
Group Structure
Group Cohesion
Group Processes
Group Environment
Team Outcomes
Social forces maintaining attraction among group
members and resistance to disruption
Size, territory, home vs away
5
Group Norms
  • Group norm the acceptable behaviours and
    beliefs held by members of a group/team
  • Powerful influence on team players behaviour
    because self-esteem is intertwined with
    membership of the group
  • Going against group norms can result in
    derogation from the group and dissonance in the
    individual
  • Group norms tend to result in conformity

6
Team Norms
  • Colman and Carron (2001) interviewed sports teams
    to establish which norms were considered
    important
  • Competition effort, support, punctuality
  • Training punctuality, productivity, attendance
  • Team norms used by coaches to maintain unity and
    cohesion (Colman Carron, 2001)
  • Persuasive communication can be used to promote
    favourable team norms such as productivity (Petty
    and Cacioppo, 1986)

7
Collective Efficacy
  • Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) beliefs about
    ability to produce outcomes also operates at
    group level
  • Collective efficacy beliefs shared by
    individuals in a team of their teams abilities to
    achieve group outcomes or goals (Carron
    Hausenblas, 1998)
  • It is an individual belief, but it is also a
    consensus, individuals collective efficacy often
    strongly correlated with that of other team
    members

8
Collective Efficacy
  • Collective efficacy closely related to team
    performance (Feltz Lirgg, 1998)
  • E.g. athletes with high collective efficacy and
    appropriately set goals maintained personal
    performance in martial arts performers (Greenlees
    et al., 2000)
  • Group goals mediated the effect of collective
    efficacy in triad on performance of a
    muscular-endurance task (Bray, 2004)

.87
.92
Collective efficacy
Group goals
Performance
.77
-.20
9
Group Cohesion
  • Group or team cohesion Social forces that
    maintain attraction between members of a group
    and make them resistant to disruption
  • High team cohesion is assumed to be associated
    with high levels of performance (Widmeyer, 1990)
  • Group cohesion hypothesized to have two
    dimensions
  • Dimensions of cohesion (individual attraction to
    the group vs. group integration)
  • Reasons for involvement (task vs. social)
  • Measured using Group Environment Questionnaire

10
Carron et al.s (1985) Conceptual Model of Group
Cohesion
Reasons for involvement
Task Social
Individual attraction to group Individual attraction to group - Task Individual attraction to group - Social
Group integration Group integration - Task Group integration Social
Dimensions of cohesion
11
Cohesion-Performance Relationship
  • Holt and Sparkes (2001) meta-analysis of 46
    studies in sport revealed a large effect of group
    cohesion on team performance
  • There is also evidence that group cohesion also
    predicts individual performance (Bray Whaley,
    2001)
  • However, evidence suggests that performance
    affects cohesion rather than the other way around
    (Grieve et al., 2000)
  • A meta-analysis of correlational designs
    supported the performance-cohesion link but the
    reciprocal relationship was weak (Mullen
    Cooper, 1994)

12
Cohesion-Performance Relationship
  • What about sports that are not really team
    sports e.g. swimming, gymnastics?
  • Matheson (1997) found that different dimensions
    from Carron et al.s model were influential in
    different sports
  • Attraction to group task dimension was
    particularly important for coacting sports
  • Group integration task more important for team
    sports
  • ATG seems to be more relevant for coactors

13
Changing Group Cohesion
  • Target key variables thought to influence
    cohesion (structure variables from Carrons
    model)
  • Collective efficacy
  • Communication
  • Cooperation
  • Acceptance
  • Widmeyer and McGuire (1996) used 4-phase
    programme to promote cohesion (an intervention)
  • Educational phase (emphasised important of team
    goals)
  • Goal-development phase (planning goals)
  • Implementation phase (statistics used to evaluate
    goal attainment)
  • Renewal phase (evaluation of goals for 6-game run)

14
Roles and Team Performance
  • A role is a pattern of behaviour expected of an
    individual in a social situation c.f. group
    norms
  • Types of roles
  • Formal within team e.g. marker, attacker,
    defender, captain
  • Informal e.g. spokesperson, team policeman,
    joker etc.
  • Formal roles are important to cohesion and a key
    outcome is effectiveness of performance in
    assigned role (role performance)
  • Role performance is affected by three factors
  • Role conflict inability to meet demands of
    assigned role
  • Role ambiguity a lack of understanding of the
    demands of the role
  • Role efficacy estimate of ability to perform to
    demands of role

15
Model of Role Performance
Formal roles
Informal roles
Role conflict
Role ambiguity
Role efficacy
Role performance
Source Beauchamp (2004)
16
Roles and Team Performance
  • Beauchamp et al. (2002) found that if a rugby
    player was unsure of the nature of his/her role
    in the team (role ambiguity) and had low role
    efficacy it was likely to lead to role conflict

17
Model of Role Performance
Formal roles
Informal roles
Role conflict
Role ambiguity
Role efficacy
Role performance
Source Beauchamp (2004)
18
Roles and Team Performance
  • The study also indicated that the effect of role
    ambiguity on role performance was mediated by
    role efficacy (Beauchamp et al., 2002)
  • Beauchamp et al. (2002) found that if a rugby
    player was unsure of the nature of his/her role
    in the team (role ambiguity) and had low role
    efficacy it was likely to lead to role conflict

19
Model of Role Performance
Formal roles
Informal roles
Role conflict
Role ambiguity
Role efficacy
Role performance
Source Beauchamp (2004)
20
Roles and Team Performance
  • Emphasises need to promote high role efficacy and
    reduce role conflict
  • The study also indicated that the effect of role
    ambiguity on role performance was mediated by
    role efficacy (Beauchamp et al., 2002)
  • Beauchamp et al. (2002) found that if a rugby
    player was unsure of the nature of his/her role
    in the team (role ambiguity) and had low role
    efficacy it was likely to lead to role conflict

21
Social Facilitation Early work
  • Triplett (1898) observed track cyclists and
    noticed that performances were faster when
  • Paced compared with being alone
  • In competition compared with being paced
  • Hypothesised that the presence of the audience,
    particularly competition, energised performance
  • Triplett tested his hypothesis using a fishing
    line apparatus and found that children performed
    better when racing against each other than when
    alone

22
Social Facilitation Early work
  • Allport (1920) termed this effect social
    facilitation
  • Triplett focused on competition (actually
    coaction) but Allport suggested a more
    generalised effect known as mere presence
  • Mere presence is defined as an entirely passive
    and unresponsive audience that is only physically
    present
  • Allport hypothesised that facilitation would
    occur when the audience either coacted (but not
    necessarily competed) or passively observed (mere
    presence)

23
Social Facilitation Early Work
  • Much research corroborated this phenomenon in
    animals and even insects!
  • However, there were a number of studies on
    people (e.g., Dashiell, 1930) that showed effects
    inconsistent with hypotheses
  • There were null findings and even findings of a
    decrease in task performance in the presence of
    others
  • This lead many to question the social
    facilitation effect
  • Inconsistent methodological approaches coaction
    vs. audience/mere presence

24
Social Facilitation Evolution of Theory
  • Zajoncs (1965) drive theory reinvigorated
    research in social facilitation
  • Mere presence of others creates an increase in
    arousal (evolutionary link) and energises the
    dominant response
  • The dominant response is that what is
    typically done in that situation i.e. a
    well-learnt/habitual response
  • If the dominant response is the same as that of
    the task, (i.e., correct) then performance will
    be facilitated
  • If the dominant response is not the same, (i.e.,
    incorrect) then performance will be inhibited

25
Social Facilitation Zajoncs (1965) Drive Theory
If correct
Social facilitation
Arousal
Presence of others
Increase in performing dominant responses
If incorrect
Social inhibition
26
Social Facilitation Definition
  • An improvement in the performance of
    well-learned/easy tasks and a deterioration in
    the performance of poorly-learned/difficult tasks
    in the mere presence of the same species
  • Hogg and Vaughan (2005, p. 278)

27
Evaluation Apprehension
  • Despite general support for the drive theory of
    social facilitation (e.g., Geen Gange, 1977)
    some questioned whether presence caused drive
  • Cottrell (1972) suggested that we learn about
    reward/punishment contingencies based on others
    evaluation
  • Suggested that it was the perception of an
    evaluating audience that created arousal, not
    mere presence
  • Social facilitation is an acquired effect based
    on perceived evaluations of others

28
Evaluation Apprehension
  • Cottrell et al. (1968) supported this finding in
    an experiment with 3 audience conditions
  • Blindfolded
  • Merely present (passive and uninterested)
  • Attentive audience
  • Only the 3rd condition should give rise to
    facilitation or inhibition of dominant response
  • Results supported hypotheses and social
    facilitation found only when the audience was
    perceived to be evaluative

29
Evaluation Apprehension
Time taken for simple/complex typing tasks as a
function of social presence
Source Schmitt et al. (1986)
30
Evaluation Apprehension
  • Guerin and Innes (1982) suggested that social
    facilitation only occurred when the actor could
    not monitor the audience
  • This created uncertainty and the actor could not
    tell what the audience was thinking, creating
    uncertainty and arousal
  • Guerin (1989) letter copying task experiment
    social facilitation only occurred when the
    observed could NOT be seen
  • Recall definition of social psychology
    behaviour in implied presence of others
  • Finding has also been corroborated in electronic
    surveillance studies (Aiello Douthitt, 2001)

31
Evaluating the Evidence for Social Facilitation
  • Meta analysis of 241 social facilitation studies
    (Bond Titus, 1983) Mere presence accounted for
    between 0.30 to 3.0 percent of the variance in
    performance
  • Findings did suggest that audience facilitated
    performance of simple tasks but inhibited
    performance of complex tasks
  • Also found little support for the evaluation
    apprehension hypothesis, suggested that this is
    actually a methodological artifact

32
Social Facilitation in Sport
  • Sport research tends to support evaluation
    apprehension rather than mere presence, but
    results are mixed (Strauss, 2002)
  • Smith and Crabbe (1976) found an active
    experimenter was more effective in enhancing
    performers in performance of a balancing motor
    task compared with passive/no experimenter
    conditions
  • Paulus et al. (1972) found that both skilled and
    novice gymnasts performed better in an audience
    condition, but only when they were not forewarned
    of the presence of the audience
  • Bell and Yee (1989) found that novice karate
    performers maintained accuracy of their kicks but
    reduced speed when performing in front of an
    audience (complex vs. simple tasks)

33
Social Cognition and Social Facilitation
  • Presence of an audience and demands of task
    compete for cognitive resources of athlete
    (Baron, 1986)
  • Participants with an internal locus of control
    tend to have no performance inhibition when
    performing a novel sports task than those with an
    external locus of control (Hall Bunker, 1979)
  • Forgas et al. (1980) found social inhibition
    effects for expert squash players playing as a
    pair, but social facilitation for novices
  • Suggestion that under audience conditions expert
    players needed to display they were playing
    co-operatively and therefore curtailed their
    performance

34
Social Loafing
  • Ringelmann (1913, 1927) observed that men
    pulling on a rope attached to a dynamometer
    exerted less force in proportion to the number of
    people in the group
  • The Ringelmann effect

Expected performance
Actual performance
35
Social Loafing
  • Reasons for Ringelmann effect
  • Coordination loss as group size inhibits
    movement, distraction, jostling
  • Motivation loss participants did not try as hard
  • Ingham et al. (1974) investigated this in real
    groups and pseudo-groups varying the size of
    the group in a tug-of-war situation
  • Real group Groups of varying size
  • Pseudo-group Only one true participant, rest
    were confederates who did not pull at all

36
Social Loafing
Potential performance
Motivation loss
Pseudo-groups
Coordination loss
Real groups
Source Ingham et al. (1974)
37
Social Loafing
  • The motivation loss is what is called social
    loafing and is independent of loss of
    coordination
  • LatanĂ© et al. (1979) supported this through
    clapping, shouting, and cheering tasks
  • Recorded amount of cheering/clapping noise made
    per person reduced by
  • 29 in 2-person groups
  • 49 in 4-person groups
  • 60 in 6-person groups

38
Social Loafing
Potential performance
Motivation loss, reduced effort, social loafing
Pseudo-groups
Coordination loss
Real groups
Source Latané et al. (1979)
39
Social Loafing
  • Group size as a decreasingly significant impact
    on effort therefore large effect of a 1 or 2
    person increase when group is small but small
    effect of same increase when group is large

40
Evaluating the Evidence for Social Loafing
  • Meta analysis of 78 social loafing studies
    (Karau Williams, 1993) 80 found loafing of
    the individual-group comparisons made
  • Reasons for loafing?
  • Output equity People expect others to loaf, so
    do so accordingly (Jackson Harkins, 1985)
  • Evaluation apprehension Group provides anonymity
    but when performance is measured (or individual
    or coactive) they overcome their tendency to loaf
    (Harkins, 1987)
  • Matching standards People loaf because they have
    no clear performance standard (Szymanski
    Harkins, 1987)

41
Social Loafing and Social Facilitation Unified
Theory
  • Need to unify social loafing and social
    facilitation theories (Aiello Douthitt, 2001)
  • Jackson and Williams (1985) used computer maze
    tasks to indicate that individual performance was
    enhanced when working collectively on difficult
    tasks and individually on simple mazes
  • But this occurred only when performance was
    identifiable or distinguishable in the
    collective
  • Also, high self-efficacy reduces the social
    loafing effect (Sanna, 1992)

42
Social Loafing in Sport
  • Identifiability a key factor affecting whether
    athletes loaf in teams (Everett et al., 1992)
  • Sport competence is also a moderating factor,
    perceptions of incompetence may account for
    motivational decrements because athletes belittle
    their contribution (Hardy Crace, 1991)
  • Highly superior (mismatched) opposition also
    contributed to loafing (Heuze Brunel, 2003)
  • Teams with high collective efficacy tend to
    experience less individual performance decrements
    (Lichacz Partington, 1996)

43
Social Loafing in Sport
  • Absence of evaluative feedback about performance
    also lead to social loafing even in established
    teams (Hardy Latané, 1988)
  • Prior knowledge of social loafing also does not
    seem to affect athletes social loafing in teams
    (Huddleson et al., 1985)
  • Three important situational factors to reduce
    social loafing effects
  • Competence
  • Collective efficacy
  • Evaluative performance feedback

44
Future Directions in Social Facilitation
  • Aiello and Douthitt (2001) suggest an
    integrative framework for social facilitation
  • Need to clarify some key aspects of the theory
  • Definition of social facilitation
  • Identification of salient dimensions
  • Predicted effects under given set of
    psychological and situational conditions
  • Proposed an integrative model that includes all
    aspects of the theory investigated previously

45
Presence Factors Type of presence Relationship
(of other with focal individual) Role of
other Length of presence (time
period) Salience of presence
Situational Factors Sensory cues available
(visual, auditory) Proximity of
others Feedback from others Organisational
climate
Task Factors Difficulty (simple
complex) Cognitive-motor characteristics Tim
e requirements
Individual Factors
Perceptions Reactions
Individual Characteristics
  • Perceptions of Situation
  • Evaluation pressure
  • Need to monitor others (social comparisons)
  • Need to check adequacy of own performance
    (self-awareness)
  • Challenge or threat
  • Perceptions of privacy/invasion

Personality Characteristics
  • Performance Capacity
  • Task proficiency
  • Intelligence
  • Motivation

Subsequent reactions
  • Initial reactions
  • Physiological arousal
  • Cognitive conflict
  • Self-monitoring
  • Self-efficacy

Performance Factors Speed Accuracy Aggressiveness
Cooperation/ Other performance competition
46
Home Advantage(or Away Disadvantage)
  • A pervasive effect in team (and individual)
    sports
  • Often considered a psychological phenomenon
    especially when performers are closely matched in
    terms of ability
  • Arousal and cognitive explanations of social
    facilitation may result in the dominant response
    being reinforced by a partisan crowd or
    audience
  • But social facilitation affected by many
    parameters
  • Social psychological theories on home advantage
    (or is it an away disadvantage?)

47
Home Advantage
  • Schwartz and Barsky (1977) conducted first
    studies in home advantage
  • Has since been replicated in numerous sports,
    usually team sports
  • Some have found in certain games (e.g.,
    championship play-off matches) that the home
    advantage can be overturned (Baumeister
    Steinhilber, 1984)
  • Numerous methods have been used
  • Published archival statistics (e.g., crowd size,
    win-loss statistics)
  • Individual team statistics rather than league
    averages
  • Observational data from TV (e.g., crowd
    hostility)
  • Survey data from team personnel (e.g., players,
    coaches etc.)

48
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 1. Territorial/Ethological
  • Russell (1983, 1993) defence of territory gives
    evolutionary advantage
  • More aggressive displays by home teams (Varca,
    1980)
  • Higher testosterone levels in association
    football players at home games (Neave Wolfson,
    2003)
  • No conclusive evidence more of a
    philosophical rather than empirical
    explanation (Russell, 1983)

49
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 2. Crowd Size, Density, Hostility
  • Size (Schwartz and Barsky, 1977)
  • Assume home audience is majority partisan
  • Home win percentage increases in proportion to
    crowd size
  • But Russell (1983) found no correlation between
    performance indicators (e.g., goals scored) and
    crowd size
  • Negative correlation between crowd size and
    performance indicators of away teams away
    disadvantage (Silva Andrew, 1987)
  • Varca (1980) and McGuire et al. (1992) found that
    aggressive behaviours were more prevalent and
    advantageous in home team players

50
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 2. Crowd Size, Density, Hostility
  • Density
  • Density number of spectators relative to
    ground/stadium capacity
  • Agnew and Carron (1994) found density to be
    significantly related to winning percentage
  • But, only a small effect many other factors
  • Conclusion density rather than size matters for
    home advantage but size may be related to away
    disadvantage

51
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 2. Crowd Size, Density, Hostility
  • Crowd protest (hostility)
  • Episodes of protest during matches significantly
    contributes to performance gap in home and away
    teams (Greer, 1983)
  • Silva (1979) suggested that the protest served to
    distract players and disrupt concentration
  • However, Saliminen (1993) found when home crowds
    supported the away team, the home teams
    performance increased!
  • Therefore it may be that any support positive
    or negative will positively affect home team
    performance

52
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 3. Sport Type (Schwartz and Barsky, 1977)
  • Indoor sports greater home advantage maybe due to
    proximity and density of crowds
  • Gayton and Langevin (1992) found home advantage
    in an individual sport (wrestling)
  • Called this the prior residence effect
    comfort with surroundings, familiarity
  • Bray and Martin (2003) found no home advantage in
    downhill skiers

53
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 4. Home Venue Familiarity
  • Loughhead (2003) examined effect of change of
    home venue on performances of professional
    hockey, basketball, and football
  • No change in home advantage overall
  • High quality teams were unaffected by the move
  • Low quality teams seem to experience an
    improvement probably because the gap between the
    facilities is greater

54
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 5. Distance Travel (Schwartz and Barsky, 1977)
  • Distance travelled does affect home advantage
  • But the effect is very small (Courneya Carron,
    1991) and time zones seem not to have a large
    effect (Pace Carron, 1992)
  • Recent evidence suggests distance may not be the
    factor but circadian rhythms
  • Steenland and Deddens (1997) found that West
    Coast American football teams playing away games
    at East coast locations (Monday night football)
    were playing at times close to their
    physiological optimum
  • This reduced or eradicated the home advantage

55
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 6. Referee Bias
  • Do referees favour the home team?
  • Greer (1983) suggested that
  • decrement in away team performance after
    protests was not linked with referee bias
  • Nevill et al. (2002) found that officials
    watching videotaped games with and without crowd
    noise awarded fewer fouls to the home team when
    crowd noise was present
  • Jones et al. (2001) found no evidence for bias in
    umpire decisions in home or away teams
  • Lehman and Reifman (1987) found that home star
    players incurred fewer penalties than away team
    players

56
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 6. Referee Bias
  • Pygmalion effect expectation that home teams
    will do better so subconscious bias
  • Sheer and Ansorge (1979) tested this effect in
    gymnasts expected that star gymnasts are always
    last in rotation
  • They changed the order of rotation so that
    stars went first judges were more biased
    towards last performers even though these were
    the least skilled in the team
  • Findlay and Ste-Marie (2004) found reputation
    bias in figure skaters

57
Theories of Home Advantage
  • 7. Home Disadvantage
  • Baumeister and Steinhilber (1984) found that home
    advantage was overturned in high-pressure
    last-game situations high expectation seems to
    negate home advantage
  • Schlenker et al. (1985) reanalysed the data and
    found much smaller effects
  • Such high-pressure games may inhibit the
    dominant response because
  • Increased arousal may form a distraction (Baron,
    1986)
  • Attention is moved away from appropriate cues for
    action (Baumeister, 1984)
  • Player may focus too greatly on well-learnt
    skills and the exertion of cognitive control
    forms a disruption (Baumeister, 1984)
  • Fear of failure results in athletes becoming too
    self-aware and not able to identify appropriate
    cues (Championship Choke)
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com