Sport psychology interventions
Lecture : behavior in groups and chapter 4 sport psychology interventions
1. Social facilitation (the mere (simple présence) presence of others)
Prologue: What is a group?
Three definitions: types of group
Two or more people in same place at same time (e.g, strangers waiting for a bus)
it’s not an obligation that they are talking to each other, no interaction or communication
-> an “aggregate (dans l’ensemble)” (or a non-social group)
Two or more people who influence each other (not much interaction or communication)
-> a minimal group (e.g wave at base-ball game)
A social group: two or more people who influence each other through social interaction
-> interact, communicate, make decisions, have shared goals as a group.
Part 1: social facilitation: how are we influenced by the mere presence of others?
A. Norman Triplett (1898)
- Cyclists who competed with each other were faster than cyclists who competed alone.
- Presence of others facilitates performance?
Expe: child into a room, they have to do “wind string” faster they can. They are alone or with other
Kids wind string faster in the presence of other kids who were winding string than when alone.
But, why? The presence of others releases energy (dynamogism) that facilitates performance.
B. Establishing the generality of the facilitation effect.
- “co-actors” (who perform the same task)
- Others who are merely present (an audience)
- Other physical tasks (e.g. lifting weights; shooting pool and
- Cognitive tasks (simple math problems, learning word associations, naming colors)
- People even write their signature faster when others are present!
- But, sometimes, on some tasks, the presence of others inhibits performance (class
For the next 25 years, the question what we are influenced by the mere presence was ignored!!!
This new idea was developed by:
C. Zajonc (1965) and the Yerkes-Dodson Law
Physiological arousal facilitates the dominant response - The dominant response is the most likely response to occur in a particular situation. (we said
salt we answer pepper!)
- For easy tasks which they are well learnt, the dominant response is correct!
Physiological arousal should facilitate performance.
- On difficult tasks which they are not well learnt, the dominant response is incorrect.
Physiological arousal should inhibit performance.
Zajonc haven’t invented something he just argues that the presence of others is a source of arousal:
should facilitate performance on easy tasks and inhibit performance on difficult tasks (= not well
The social facilitation effect
A research example: Pool players (% of shots)
Alone or playing in front of an audience. We watch the percentage of good shot.
Experienced 70% 80%
Novice 36% 25%
A review of 241 studies involving almost 24,000 participants: the social facilitation effect is real.
Il a bcp insisté sur ça!!
D. Why is the presence of others arousing?
1. Evaluation apprehension (they make us anxious)
- if they’re blindfolded (can’t evaluate us), social facilitation effect is less likely
2. The presence of others are distracting, this distraction creates arousal.
- Why? We experience “attentional conflict”. I am supposed focus on audience or on the task
=> that’s creates arousal.
- non-social stimuli (loud noises, flashing lights) show same effect as presence of others.
There’s nothing uniquely “social” about social facilitation.
3. Zajonc the mere presence of others makes us more “alert” or vigilant, because they might do
something that we have to respond to. This alertness produces arousal (which facilitates the
=> the participant of the study were cockroach, so we called the cockroach study!
The cockroach doesn’t like the light.
EASY MAZE DIFFICULT MAZE
E Alone 40 SEC 110 SEC
Audience 30 SEC 130 SEC
En gros on leur balance de la lumière et on voit combien de temps ils mettent pour se cacher.
If we know the material well, the arousal should help us to perform well.
2. Social loafing (paresse sociale) (many hands make light work)
Additive tasks: Group’s achievement depends on sum of individual contributions.
E.g a tug-of-war team: group’s achievement (how hard group pulls) depends on sum of individual
contributions (how hard each individual pulls)
Eight people will exert 8 times as much pull on the rope as a single individual?
Ringelmann’s (1913) rope-pulling study:
The participants are asked to pull on the rope as stronger they could.
1 person => 63 kg
2 people => 120kg (so each of them exerted 60kg)
3 people => 158kg (so each … 53kg)