Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7 Group Processes in Sport.

Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7

Group Processes in SportGroup Processes in Sport

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)

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)

Carron and Hausenblas’ (1998) Conceptual Framework

MemberAttributes

GroupEnvironment

GroupStructure

GroupCohesion

GroupProcesses

IndividualOutcomes

TeamOutcomes

Performance,satisfaction,attributions

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

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)

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

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)

Collectiveefficacy

Groupgoals

Performance.87.92

.77 -.20

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

Carron et al.’s (1985) Conceptual Model of Group Cohesion

Task Social

Individual attraction to

group

Individual attraction to group - Task

Individual attraction to group - Social

Group integration

Group integration - Task

Group integration – Social

Reasons for involvement

Dimensions of cohesion

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)

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

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)

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

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

• Emphasises need to promote high role efficacy and reduce role conflict

Model of Role Performance

Formal roles Informal roles

Role conflict

Role performance

Role ambiguity Role efficacy

Source: Beauchamp (2004)

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

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)

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

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

Social Facilitation: Zajonc’s (1965) Drive Theory

Presence ofothers

Ifcorrect

Ifincorrect

Socialfacilitation

Socialinhibition

Increase inperformingdominantresponses

Arousal

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)

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


• 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

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

Alone Mere presence Evaluationapprehension

Experimental condition

Tim

e t

aken

Complex taskSimple task


Source: Schmitt et al. (1986)

Time taken for simple/complex typing tasks as a function of social presence


• 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)

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

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)

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

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 effect0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Group size (persons)

Forc

e p

er

pers

on (

kg)

Expected performance

Actual performance

• 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

Social Loafing

Social Loafing

0

5

10

15

20

251 2 3 4 5 6


Per

centa

ge

reduct

ion in

indiv

idual pull

Pseudo-groups

Real groups

Motivation loss

Coordination loss

Source: Ingham et al. (1974)

Potential performance

• 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

Social Loafing

Social Loafing

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2 3 4 5 6


Per

centa

ge

reduct

ion in

indiv

idual pull

Pseudo-groups

Real groups

Motivation loss,reduced effort,social loafing

Coordination loss

Source: Latané et al. (1979)

Potential performance

Social Loafing

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Tota

l

• 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

• 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)

Evaluating the Evidence for Social Loafing

• 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)

Social Loafing and Social Facilitation – Unified Theory

• 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)

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

Social Loafing in Sport

• 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

Future Directions in Social Facilitation

Subsequent reactions

Presence FactorsType of presence Relationship (of other with focal individual)Role of other Length of presence (time period)Salience of presence

Presence FactorsType of presence Relationship (of other with focal individual)Role of other Length of presence (time period)Salience of presence

SituationalFactors

Sensory cues available (visual, auditory)

Proximity of others

Feedback from others

Organisational climate

SituationalFactors

Sensory cues available (visual, auditory)

Proximity of others

Feedback from others

Organisational climate

TaskFactors

Difficulty (simple – complex)

Cognitive-motor characteristics

Time requirements

TaskFactors

Difficulty (simple – complex)

Cognitive-motor characteristics

Time requirements

Performance Factors

Speed Accuracy Aggressiveness Cooperation/ Other performancecompetition

Performance Factors

Speed Accuracy Aggressiveness Cooperation/ Other performancecompetition

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

Initial reactions

Physiological arousal Cognitive conflict

Perceptions & Reactions

Individual Factors

Self-monitoring Self-efficacy

Personality Characteristics

Performance Capacity

Task proficiency

Intelligence

Motivation

Individual Characteristics

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?)

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.)

Theories of Home Advantage1. 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)

Theories of Home Advantage2. 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


– 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


– 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 team’s performance increased!

• Therefore it may be that any support – positive or negative will positively affect home team performance

Theories of Home Advantage3. 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

Theories of Home Advantage4. 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

Theories of Home Advantage5. 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

Theories of Home Advantage6. 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

Theories of Home Advantage6. 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

Theories of Home Advantage7. 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’)

Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7 Group Processes in Sport.

Documents

Transcript of Hagger and Chatzisarantis, Chapter 7 Group Processes in Sport.