hagger and chatzisarantis chapter 7 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 57

Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Download Presentation
Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  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 Collective efficacy, cooperation, effort, motivation Team goals, collective efficacy, group cooperation 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) .92 .87 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 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 Carron’s 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 • 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 • The study also indicated that the effect of role ambiguity on role performance was mediated by role efficacy (Beauchamp et al., 2002)

  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 • 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 • The study also indicated that the effect of role ambiguity on role performance was mediated by role efficacy (Beauchamp et al., 2002)

  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 • Zajonc’s (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: Zajonc’s (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 • Latané 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 Individual Factors Task Factors Difficulty (simple – complex) Cognitive-motor characteristics Time requirements 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