The Huron University College Journal of Learning andMotivation

Volume 45 | Issue 1 Article 8

2007

The Social Facilitation Effect in Basketball:Shooting Free ThrowsRobert D. Kotzer

Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/hucjlmPart of the Psychology Commons

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in The HuronUniversity College Journal of Learning and Motivation by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contactkmarsha1@uwo.ca.

Recommended CitationKotzer, Robert D. (2007) "The Social Facilitation Effect in Basketball: Shooting Free Throws," The Huron University College Journal ofLearning and Motivation: Vol. 45: Iss. 1, Article 8.Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/hucjlm/vol45/iss1/8

Social Facilitation 125

The Social Facilitation Effect in Basketball: Shooting Free Throws Robert D. Kotzer Huron College

The present experiment was performed to determine how many free throws experts and novice basketball players would make in an alone and audience condition. According to Zajonc (1965), the presence of others acts a source of arousal in what is called the social facilitation effect. This theory proposes that on easy tasks the presence of others should facilitate performance, whereas on difficult tasks they should inhibit performance. It was therefore hypothesized that the experts would effectively make more free throws in front of an audience whereas the non experts would make more fi-ee throws in the alone condition. To test this hypothesis 10 experts and 10 non experts shot 25 fi:ee throws alone and 25 free throws in front of an audience. It was found that the experts made more free throws in front of an audience than by themselves and that the non experts made more free throws in the alone as opposed to the audience condition.

In accordance with our social world, people should consider practicing certain tasks in the presence of others. For decades psychologists have been studying a variety of living creamres in an attempt to discover why the mere presence of others in the environment affects behavior. This is demonstrated over a wide array of tasks, including sports such as basketball. It is imperative that we understand the higher levels of an organism's behavior when they are performing tasks in a social situation.

Triplett (1898) was intrigued by a distinct situation in which he could investigate how the presence of others affects ones behavior. He compared the performance of competitive bicyclists in two different conditions. In the unpaced race, each bicychst raced against the clock. In this condition every bicyclist raced alone in an attempt to break a previous record. In the paced competition race, bicyclists are racing against time, as well as their opponents (Triplett, 1898). The official bicycle records of the 1897 season were obtained by Triplett (1898) in order to examine 2,000 bicyclists' racing times. Triplett

126 Social Facilitation discovered that the bicycUsts who were racing against other opponents, rather than just against the clock, generally performed faster racing times (Triplett, 1898). In order to explain this phenomenon, Triplett (1898) presented many theories as to why the bicyclists' performances could have varied under different conditions. One factor that Triplett (1898) utilized in order to explain situations that deal with competition was the dynamogenic factor. Triplett (1898) explains this as the releasing of nervous energy which arouses a competitive instinct, which would not have otherwise been released without the presence of another bicychst. He believed that the competitive instinct resulted in faster racing times.

In order to further test this theory, Triplett (1898) conducted a study which involved 40 children in a laboratory. He prepared a task in which the children would wind a fishing reel in front of other children and in an alone condition (Triplett, 1898). Similar to that of the cyclists, Triplett (1898) found that children would reel faster in the presence of co-actors rather than alone.

Triplett's (1898) work was followed up by many social psychologists in an attempt to better explain the results of his research. Allport (1920) coined the term 'social facilitation' in an attempt to study the effects of competition in this field of research. Allport (1920) performed studies which involved a number of mental tasks. For example, he had participants read a passage and generate arguments from that passage. He found that the subjects generated more arguments in the presence of others, but generated better quality arguments alone (Allport, 1920). This led him to believe that the social facilitation affect may not be as generalizable as once predicted.

Pessin (1933) tested the affects of both social and mechanical stimuli on memory. He found that distracters are detrimental to memory and that learning is more efficient without mechanical or social stimuli (Pessin, 1933). Other studies including Pessin's

127 Social Facilitation (1933) memory study caused uncertainty within Triplett's (1898) theory because he found that in certain situations the presence of others impaired performance rather than facilitated it.

Further research conducted by Zajonc (1965) explored two experimental paradigms in CO- actor and audience effects. Zajonc (1965) proposed that the presence of others acts as a source of aroused or drive and enhances the dominant response in an individual. In other conditions such as stress, the presence of others may even lower arousal levels (Zajonc, 1965). In a practical example, Zajonc (1965) advised students to study alone, given that they will learn the material well, and to write an examination in the presence of many other students. In this scenario, the student is physiologically aroused by the other students who are trying to write the exam, which would facilitate the dominant response which is remembering the material. Therefore the student should obtain a good grade on the exam. If the student was unprepared for the exam, the student would be under a great amount of stress which would lower arousal levels, and performance on the exam would be hindered (Zajonc, 1965).

In response to this ground-breaking research, many studies were conducted in order to discover why they presence of others produced arousal. Cottrell, Rittle and Wack (1967, as cited in Feinberg & Aiello, 2006) Unked the social facilitation effect to the drive theory. They suggested that in the presence of others, people associate certain rewards and punishments that may result from their performance in the given task. This feeling would ultimately elicit arousal within that person. Weiss and Miller's (1971, as cited in Feinberg & Aiello, 2006) study proposed that with learned drive, the presence of others produces apprehension of others negative evaluations. This evaluation apprehension can cause anxiousness (a form of arousal) in an individual and inhibit their performance.

128 Social Facilitation

Another theory presented by Baron, Moore and Sanders (1978) is the distraction-conflict theory. This theory states that the presence of others can be distracting to an individual (Baron, Moore and Sanders, 1978). On easy tasks, distractions act as moderators of attention and facilitate performance, whereas on difficult tasks, distractions can divert attention away from the task and inhibit performance (Baron, Moore and Sanders, 1978).

Many other studies involving humans, animals and insects were done to test social facilitation effects. In a modern day study, Michaels, Blommel, Brocato, Linkous and Rowe (1982) recorded the percentage of shots expert pool players made in front of a crowd, versus the amount of shots they made by themselves. In contrast, they also recorded how many shots novice players made in front of a crowd as well as by themselves (Michaels et al., 1982). The expert pool players made 70% of their shots in the alone condition and 80% of their shots in the audience condition. The novice pool players made 36% of their shots in the alone condition and 25% of their shots in the audience condition (Michaels et al., 1982). Therefore, the results indicate that the novice group made more shots alone, while the experts made more shots in front of others, supporting the social facilitation effect.

The present experiment is similar to that of Michaels et al.'s (1982) study. It will examine social facihtation effects on novice and expert basketball players. Ten novice and ten expert basketball players will shoot 25 free throws in front of a crowd and in an alone condition. Based on previous literature, it is hypothesized that in the present experiment, the expert basketball players will make more free throws in front of an audience than alone. The presence of others will act as a source of arousal and facilitate performance. It is also hypothesized that the novice basketball players will make more free throws alone than in the crowd condition. The presence of others will cause evaluation apprehension as well as

129 Social Facilitation be a source of distractions to the novice basketball players. This source of arousal will inhibit their performance on what is considered to be a difficult task for this group. It is also hypothesized that the experts will make more free throws overall (in both conditions combined) than the non experts.

Method Participants

The participants who took part in the present study were 20 males over 18 years of age. The participants were chosen based on their responses to 15 questions in a questionnaire. The questionnaire was used to display the participant's ability to perform certain basketball skills. The particular skill required in this study was shooting a basketball in the form of a free throw. A free throw is a basketball shot 15 feet from the net and is performed without stepping on or over the line. The questions that were answered determined whether the participant is an expert or a novice basketball player. The participants were asked a number of questions including; at what age they began playing basketball, if they have ever been coached or had lessons to improve their overall basketball skills, and if they have ever played on a basketball team in which they had been evaluated or competed against others in order to gain a spot on the team. They were also asked what position they played and if they had prior experience playing in front of a crowd. For the complete questionnaire, please refer to appendix A.

Based on the results of the questionnaire, a group of ten experts and ten non experts were chosen to participate in the study. The experts were chosen based on their history, high level of basketball experience and mastery of skills. The non experts must have had some prior ability to play basketball, but no experience in playing any organized form of basketball. These people generally will be those who play at home and have the basic skills

130 Social Facilitation to partake in the study, but have no experience or lessons on how to play or shoot a basketball with the correct form. Therefore these non experts will be novice basketball players, at a significantly lower skill level than the experts.

The questionnaires were personally handed out on campus and at competitive UWO intramural basketball games. The study was carried out at the Althouse College basketball gym, located on Western Road just south of Huron College on March 23, 2007.

The participants were not permitted to take part in the study if they have any injuries which could affect their ability to shoot foul shots. Moreover, they could not be in a state in which they could further injure themselves while participating, or put themselves at any sort of risk. Apparatus

The experiment was carried out using 2 NBA regulation height basketball nets, which were situated at each end of the basketball court. The backboard of each net was transparent and flat, and measured approximately 6' horizontally and 3 ¥2 vertically. On each backboard there was a painted rectangle that had outside dimensions of 24 inches horizontally and 18 inches vertically. Each basket had a metal rim, which was securely attached to the backboard and located 10 feet above and parallel to the floor. The rims were 18 inches in diameter, and had a white cord net attached to them. The court was approximately 94 feet in length and had benches on the east side of the gym in which the other subjects could observe the study. Each basketball net had a free throw line associated with it, which was 15 feet from the plane of the face of the backboard. The free throw lines were painted on the court and were 2 inches wide. Two NBA official approved leather basketballs were used. The gym was illuminated from the ceiling, and the doors to the gym were locked so that nobody could enter and cause additional distractions to the subjects.

131 Social Facilitation Other materials that were used prior to conducting the experiment included mandatory consent forms. This is an agreement by the subject to participate in the study under the presented conditions. As well, it guarantees the anonymity and confidentiality of their participation and results of the study by the experimenter. Prior to the testing period, every participant also completed a questionnaire. The questionnaire was 2 pages long and contained 15 questions. It was used to determine whether the subject would be placed in the expert or non expert group. Procedure

The study commenced with all 20 participants completing a mandatory consent form. The participants printed their names, as well as signed and dated the forms in the appropriate locations. Attached to the consent form was the questionnaire that the participants filled out in order to determine their basketball skill level. Next there was a 5 minute quick and efficient stretching exercise. This was led by the experimenter and all participants took part in it prior to any physical activity. This helped to ensure the prevention of any minimal risks of injury that could potentially occur while shooting a basketball. The exercises included arm, leg, wrist, and back stretches in order to reduce strains and the pulling of muscles.

The subjects were then divided into two groups based on their ability to shoot a basketball. A group of ten experts and ten non experts were separated and asked to stand at opposite ends of the court, while the instructions of the study were explained aloud. Five randomly chosen expert basketball players were instructed one by one to go into the gym and shoot 25 foul shots alone. Each participant was alone in the gym while everyone else waited in the hallway until he completed his set of free throws. Each participant was instructed to keep track of how many free throws they made. They were not permitted to

132 Social Facilitation count a free throw if they stepped on or over the free throw line. This was to ensure that every participant had an equal advantage while shooting free throws. They were also allowed to shoot 5 practice free throws in order to "warm up" and have some form of practice before evaluation. After these 5 experts took 25 free throws in the alone condition, 5 non experts were given the same instructions and followed the same procedure. Following, every participant was instructed to come into the gym while the 5 experts and 5 non experts who had previously taken free throws, shot another 25 free throws in the audience condition. One expert and one non expert simultaneously shot their free throws on one of the two nets on either side of the gym. The 18 remaining participants were randomly selected into two groups to watch the participants at either end of the gym. When this session was completed, the 5 remaining experts and 5 remaining non experts also completed their 25 free throws in the crowd condition. Afterwards, this group of participants would then one by one shoot their remaining 25 free throws in the alone condition. Having half the participants shoot in the audience condition first and half of the participants shoot in the alone condition first accounted for reliability in the study. By the end of the study each participant had shot 50 foul shots in two different conditions. Twenty five foul shots were taken in the audience condition, while the remaining 25 free throws were shot in the alone condition. After the study was completed, each subject was thanked and given a feedback handout in order to gain further insight about the study and contact information.

Results A 2x2 Mixed Anova was performed to examine the effects of skill level (between

subjects factor) and crowd effects (within subjects factor) on free throw performance. Skill

133 Social Facilitation level was divided into experts and novices, whereas crowd effects were an audience and alone condition.

The test of the interaction of skill level and crowd effects was found to be significant (F(l,18) = 28.79, p< .05). The means were as follows: expert- audience condition =18; expert- alone condition =16; non expert- audience condition =6; non expert-alone condition =9. Figure 1 is graph displaying the mean scores of the expert and novice skill level participants, in both the alone and audience conditions.

As predicted, experts (M=17) were found to be have significantly higher performance scores that non experts (M=7.5) in this study (F(l,18) = 62.84, p< .05).

Finally, performance was higher in the alone crowd condition (M=12.5) than in the audience crowd condition (M=12), but it was not significantiy higher (F(l,18) = 2.40, n.s.).

Discussion The purpose of the present experiment was to test the social facilitation effect on

experts and non expert's abihty to shoot free throws. It was hypothesized that the expert basketball players wiU make more free throws in the audience condition than in the alone condition. It was also hypothesized that the novice basketball players will make more free throws in the alone condition than in the crowd condition. The final hypothesis was that the experts will make more free throws overall (in both conditions combined) than the non experts.

The results were supported by previous literature, in addition to successfully confirming the h5q)otheses. The results presented in figure 1 demonstrate that the experts made more free throws in the audience condition than in the alone condition, whereas the non experts made more free throws in the alone condition than in the audience condition. These results were similar to those of Michaels et al. (1982), who found that expert pool

20 -|

18 -

16 -

14 -

12 -

10 -

0) 8 -

6 -

4 -

2 -

0

—audience

• -•alone

expert

Skill level

Figure 1. Effect of crowd on free throws made in experts and novices

novice

Social Facilitation j 3 5

players made a higher percentage of shots in front of an audience than by themselves, and that the novice pool players made a higher percentage of shots by themselves than in front of an audience.

According to research by Zajonc (1965), the presence of others is a source of arousal that should faciUtate performance on easy tasks and inhibit performance on difficult tasks. Therefore, because shooting free throws in an easy task for expert basketball players, their performance was facilitated by the presence of an audience. The presence of others acted as a source of arousal or drive, and enhanced the dominant response in the participant. Due to the expert's superior ability to make free throws, the 9 audience members aroused these participants and enhanced their dominant response which is the act of shooting the ball into the basket. In addition, Zajonc (1965) also proposes that for difficult tasks, similar to that for the novice basketball players in this study, the presence of others may even lower arousal. This would in affect inhibit performance in these participants causing them to make more free throws in the alone condition where there is no audience.

Previous literature by Weiss and Miller (1971, as cited in Feinberg & Aiello, 2006) proposed a compelling theory called the evaluation apprehension theory. This theory suggests that the presence of others makes us anxious and produces apprehension of others negative evaluations. In the present experiment, the audience may have made the novice free throw shooters nervous and stressed out. These less skilled individuals could have felt this way because they did not want to embarrass themselves in front of the audience. In turn, the expert participants were very confident in their abilities and were not afraid of negative evaluations by the audience. Instead, their confident mentality led them to beheve that they would perform at a high level and the audience will be impressed and praise then-abilities.

136 Social Facilitation

Baron, Moore and Sanders (1978) proposed the distraction conflict theory. They believed that the presence of others can be distracting towards an individual. On easy tasks, distractions act as a moderator of attention and facilitate performance, whereas on difficult tasks, distractions can divert attention away from the task and inhibit performance, hi the case of the novice participants. Baron, Moore and Sanders' (1978) theory could help analyze their performance. In accordance with this theory, the novice basketball players were nervous and distracted by the talking or the dribbhng of the basketball at the other end of the court, which could have diverted their attention away from the task.

The results also showed that in total, the expert basketball players made more free throws than the novice basketball players. This was due to the previous experience and higher skill level the experts had in comparison to the novice participants. The participant's performance scores in each condition, as well as group means are presented in Appendix B.

Finally, the results also demonstrated that the participant's performance in the alone condition was higher than the participant's performance in the audience condition. This was found not to be significantly higher because the alone condition was supposed to have greater performance in the novice skill level, whereas the audience condition was supposed to have greater performance from the expert skill level. This did not hinder the results in any fashion and the reason for the higher performance level in the alone condition could have been due to the fact that there were not as many true experts as there were tme non experts. This was the first confound in the present study. A true expert would be one that is at the highest possible level at the given task. For example, basketball players at the NBA and NCAA level would take on the truest form of an expert. It was difficult to attain these participants in the study, although one participant performed at a collegiate level and two others played at a national level. This caused a large separation in the expert group which

137 Social Facilitation could have been divided into a true expert skill level and a mediocre skill level. It is apparent in the participant's scores that the true experts had a wider gap between free throws made in the audience condition and the alone condition. It was much wider compared to those who could have been categorized as mediocre skill level participants. These mediocre participants did not make many more free throws in the audience condition than in the alone condition, and in some cases even made less. This could have also been caused by false information filled out in the questionnaire, or the participant's misconception of their ability. This would cause a perception of superior abihty than the participant actually has, and they would be placed in a group that is not suited for their skill level. It was much easier to acquire non experts, and their skill level is evident in the results, as every novice participant made more free throws in the alone condition than in the audience condition.

Other confounds in the study could be the participants mood and alertness during the study. The study took place in the evening and by then some of the participants could have been tired or been in a bad mood due to experiences they encountered through the course of the day. As well, some participants could have played in this gym previously which could have given them a slight advantage over those who have never played there before. The previous experience these participants had shooting on these particular nets could have facilitated their performance in the study. Also, the difference in the amount of air pressure in the two different basketballs that were used in the study could have played a role in the participant's performance. By dropping the two balls from the same height and measuring how high each ball bounced in relation to each other was done to make sure that they were as equally pumped with air as possible.

138 Social Facilitation

Another variable that was not controlled was that some participants performed the two conditions in a closer proximity than others. It could be argued that the participants who had a shorter delay between free throw conditions could have stayed "warmer", which is basketball terminology for being in a state where you are more physically and mentally prepared for your upcoming shots. Males, as well as participants of varying ages could have been used in order to better represent the population of experts and novice basketball players. It was too difficult to find expert female basketball players so females were simply eliminated from the experiment.

The final possible limitation in the present study was that in the alone condition, the participant had to honestly represent how many free throws they made. Some of the participants may not have been as honest as others because they were afraid of negative evaluations that the experimenter may form about them. This could have been controlled by having each participant write how many free throws they made on a piece of paper and placing it into a box that would be looked at in the future. This would ensure that the experimenter would have no possible way of hnking any given performance to any of the participants.

Human behavior, especially in western society, is influenced by social interactions. The present experiment provides thought provoking insight into how the presence of others can affect how we perform in sports, or even on our day to day tasks.

139 Social Facilitation

References Allport, F.H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 3,159-182. Baron, R.S., Moore, D., & Sanders, G.S. (1978). Distraction as a source of drive in social

facilitation research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 816-824. Feinberg, J.M., Aiello, J.R. (2006). Social facihtation: a test of competing theories.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1087-1109. Michaels, J.W., Blommel, J.M., Brocato, R.M., Linkous, R.A., & Rowe, J.S. (1982).

Social facilitation and inhibition in a natural setting. Replications in Social Psychology, 2, 21-24.

Pessin, J. (1933). The comparative effects of social and mechanical stimulation on memorizing. American Journal of Psychology, 45,263-270.

Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking competition. American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.

Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social facihtation. Science, 149, 269-274.

Social Facilitation 140

Appendix A

Questionnaire

Answer all the questions to the best of your ability in the provided space. If you are not comfortable answering a question, providing any sort of private information or simply do not know the answer to any of the questions, feel free to leave any of them blank. You are not obligated to provide information you are not comfortable offering.

1. Sex: M or F 2. At what age did you start playing basketball: years of age 3. How many times a year, month or week do you play basketball: _ _ _ _ _ 4. On a scale from one to ten what would you rate your current basketball skills (ten

being the best): 5. Have you ever had any sort of basketball lessons: Yes or No 6. If you answered "yes" to the above question for how many years did you have

lessons: # of years. 7. From one being nothing at all to ten being it made me a much better player, rate

how much you leamed and improved during these lessons: 8. Have you ever been on a basketball team in which you had to be evaluated and

compete with others in order to gain a spot on the team (the team was coached): Yes or No

1. If so what level of basketball was the team playing in: 2. How old were you on this team: 3. How successful was your team:

141 Social Facilitation

4. Circle what position you played: (pg/ sg/ sf/ pf/ c) 5. Did you come off the bench or were you a starter: 6. How many minutes on average did you play: 7. Did your team play in front of an audience: Yes or No 8. If "yes" how many people were watching on average: 9. Did you know the people watching and if so what percentage of the people did you

know: Yes or No and % of people 10. If you were not on a team, where do you play basketball and with

whom: 11. How much experience do you have performing in front of an

audience: 12. Would you be nervous playing in front of an audience: Yes or No 13. Are you currently experiencing any injuries which could inhibit your basketball

performance: 14. Have you had any previous major injuries in the past: Yes or No 15. If so what are they: \

Social Facilitation

Appendix B

Crowd Condition Audience Alone Mean

Expert S l=20 Sl= 18 17 S2=22 S2= 19 S3= 18 S3= 15 34=20 S4= 17 S5= 19 S5= 16 S6=21 S6= 17 S7=20 S7=20 S8= 15 S8= 16 S9= 13 S9= 13 S10= 12 S10= 13

Novice S l l = 4 S l l = 6 7.5 S12=4 S12=8 S13=6 S13=7 S14=5 S14= 10 S15=3 S15=7 S16=8 S16= 10 S17=5 S17=5 S18=8 S18= l l S19= 10 S19= 12 S20=9 S20= 15

Mean 12 12.5