|
| |
SPORTS & SPECTATORS.
Term Paper ID:16273
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Impact of audiences on athletic performance. Passive & non-passive audience research, theories, arousal level, coach & teammates' roles, home audience.... More...
|
8 Pages / 1800 Words
10 sources, 15 Citations,
APA Format
$32.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Impact of audiences on athletic performance. Passive & non-passive audience research, theories, arousal level, coach & teammates' roles, home audience.
Paper Introduction:
HOW SPECTATORS AFFECT ATHLETE PERFORMANCE
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on how spectators influence the performance of athletes - a phenomenon commonly referred to as "social facilitation" with respect to athletic performance. In this regard, it is important to note that as pointed out by Gill (1986), social facilitation (sometimes referred to as audience effects) research consists of studies where spectators simply observe the behavior and make no comments or overt evaluations and studies where spectators react to what they see. In addition, there are studies that include effects limited to those generated by the spectators and there are studies where effects are examined as interactions of player variables with the audience. This research examines each of
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
(1964). The general levels and persistence of crowd noise which candisrupt concentration. 4. Socialenhancement and impairment of performance. : Human Kinetics Press. B. In terms of athletic performance per se, it is possible thatthere are forces motivating enhanced performance (the athlete has strongmastery of his skills) while at the same time there are forces motivatingdebilitated performance (the athlete views the audience as in some wayhostile). Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 13, 83-92.----------------------- 1 The timing of the audience's reaction (immediately followingperformance such as in the case of the fans whooping or booing; orpostponed to some time later such as in the case of a broadcaster makingcomments either after a commercial or at the end of the game). The reaction of teammates - also part of the audience to theathlete's performance. In particular, he notes that forboth sexes, female observers appear to enhance performance more than maleobservers. However, these findingshave been compiled into a variety of coherent theories of socialfacilitation. 5. 6. In the next section ofthis review, research on athletic performance and audience effects inrelation to the reactions of spectators and the reactions of athletes tospectators is reviewed.Non-Passive Observation of Spectators research According to Foot (1973), athletic performance is strongly modifiedby evaluation potential and in general may be viewed as the summation ofthose factors which shape this perception of the athlete. 2. J. 3. C. Effect of an audience of performance of amotor task. First, in this regard, not all spectators are passiveobservers; and second, as noted even in the passive observers research, theathlete's perceptions and feelings about the spectators cannot be removedfrom the factors which mediate performance. However, studies have not supported any advantage fordefensive plays such as saves or fouls or errors. Performance in the presence of other humanbeings: Mere presence, audience, and affiliation effects. This variable is the kind of audience whichparents and relatives and close family friends provided for the athletewhile he/she was growing up and acquiring and practicing those skills whichlead to athletic success or excellence. Psychology in contemporary sport. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. Unfortunately, however, Cratty (1981) makes the point that moststudies of cross sex effects were conducted under laboratory conditionsusing a single observer. The reaction of the coach to the athlete's performance; in thisregard, it will be noted that the coach is indeed part of the audience. When tasks to be performed are simple, performance is improvedby the presence of an audience; however, as the task becomes more complex,an audience can disrupt performance. 3. Cratty (1981) addresses yet another factor influencing theperformance of athletes in relation to audience effects; he terms thisfactor "cross sex effects" or the effects observed regarding the sex of theperformers vs. N. (1973). Zajonc, R. The timing of the athlete's evaluation of the audience'sreaction (whether the evaluation is made immediately or is, for somereason, postponed). Cottrell, N. Childrearing antecedents of audience sensitivity. To illustrate thispoint, several factors related to onlookers which were not addressed byeither of the theories reviewed were delineated. 5. References Calisch, I. In other words, if athletes high in anxiety practice and re-practicetheir skills beyond even that normally required of them, the likelihood isstrong that their anxiety will be reduced. An additional factor not mentioned in theoretical speculations aboutaudience effects and the performance of athletes is the effect exerted bythe home audience. Singer, R. Child Development, 35, 397-416. the sex of the observer. (1969). With respect to the foregoing, Pavio has pointed out that when thischildhood audience (particularly the mother) was such that successes wereignored and failures punished, it makes for an athlete who is extremelyanxious in front of an audience. 7. Effect of an audience on learning andperformance of a complex motor skill. 2. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 12, 252-26 . The degree to which the athlete believes that the audience iscompetent to judge his/her performance (incompetent; competence unknown;moderately competent). HOW SPECTATORS AFFECT ATHLETE PERFORMANCE Introduction The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on howspectators influence the performance of athletes - a phenomenon commonlyreferred to as "social facilitation" with respect to athletic performance.In this regard, it is important to note that as pointed out by Gill (1986),social facilitation (sometimes referred to as audience effects) researchconsists of studies where spectators simply observe the behavior and makeno comments or overt evaluations and studies where spectators react to whatthey see. The audience's reaction dimensions to the performance (positiveand enthusiastic acceptance; positive acceptance only; passive or neutralreaction; variable reaction; negative reaction). Theories of Audience Effects Zajonc, Heingartner and Herman (1969) first postulated what hasbecome known as the "arousal - activation" model of audience effects.According to this model, performance is enhanced by the presence of anaudience for motor responses that have been well learned; however, whentasks are not well learned, performance is disrupted. (1986). 2. Specifically, Cottrell's model holds that an audience can eitherincrease or decrease arousal of an athlete and that the direction it takesis dependent upon such factors as: (1) the social learning mechanismspresent in the athlete's developmental acquisition of his/her skills; (2)the nature of the performance tasks (simple or complex); and (3) theathlete's perception of the audience as critical or non-critical ofperformance. In this regard, it was pointed out that the latter theory ismost probably the preferred theory because it subsumes the first theory,incorporates more research findings into its explanation and has moresupport than the first theory. 4. This finding is quite important becauseas has been pointed out by Cratty (1981), anxiety on the part of an athletecan lead to debilitated performance. Social psychology in athletics. (197 ). With respect to the theories reviewed, it was also pointed out thatneither model may be considered to incorporate all of the findingsconcerning how onlookers affect athletic performance. Moreover, Gill reports that there can be a distinct disadvantage interms of the home audience's effects on the self-conscious player; in otherwords, the self-conscious player is likely to experience debilitatedperformance when he plays for the home audience. J. 6. The proximity of reacting spectators; fans close to the fieldof play are likely to have their reactions registered by the athlete thanare fans far from the field of play. The foregoing findings must be considered within the context ofathletics or sports. (1969). 3. This theory actually subsumes Zajonc, Heingartner and Herman'sviews in that it postulates arousal mechanisms but includes in the modelboth social learning mechanism and performers' perceptions of outcomes asdependent upon the presence of an audience. This disadvantage effectis thought to occur because the reactions of this audience - more than anyother audience - are most likely to direct attention away from theexternalities of performance and toward the in internal processes of theplayer; this occurs because players care more about what the home fansthink of them personally, than what other fans think of them. These areas included studies where spectators were eitherpassive or non-passive reactors to athletes' performances. Journal of Motor Behavior, 2(2), 88-95. In Simmal,Hoppe, & Milton (Eds.), Social facilitation and imitative behavior.Boston: Allyn and Bacon. In addition, there are studies that include effects limited tothose generated by the spectators and there are studies where effects areexamined as interactions of player variables with the audience. EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Thus, it cannot be known as to how well findingsmay generalize to actual sports performance in the field. In addition, the major socialfacilitation theories are explicated and discussed. These effects aresuch because the presence of an audience leads to a certain arousal levelin the athlete and arousal tends to facilitate what is relatively simple(motor responses) and relatively well learned but to debilitate what iscomplex and not well learned. Pavio, A. (1968). So far this discussion of research findings in relation to howspectators affect athletic performance has been limited to a delineation ofscattered findings in a few categories of order. Foot, H. Spectator problems in secondary schoolathletics. Research Quarterly, 25(3), 261-268. In this regard, Gill (1986) has noted that studies havesupported an advantage effect for offensive plays such as hits, shotpoints, and goals. In other words,the athlete performs at a level which is the average of the many factorsthat contribute to his/her perception of spectator reaction. In addition to the foregoing studies, the paper also explicated anddiscussed two of the major theories of social facilitation: (1) thearousal - activation theory; and (2) the social learning theory ofCottrell. The athlete's ability to evaluate the spectators reactions. While Cottrell's theory seems more embracive of the research findingsthan the arousal - activation theory and according to Gill (1986) is moresupported, there is one fact that must be stressed here. (1983). If the above factors result in a lowering of the athlete's arousallevel, then performance will be decreased for simple tasks but increasedfor complex tasks or tasks that are not quite mastered. Indeed, the athlete's feelingsabout the spectators are so important a contributor to performance thatthey are characterized as "evaluation potential" which is the athletes'perceptions of how the spectators feel about him or her and/or theathletes' perceptions of how the spectators will feel about him or hersubsequent to the performance he is about to give. Thisresearch examines each of these categories. Gill, D. Also examinedwere studies concerned with the interaction of athletes' perceptions andother characteristics with the influence exerted by an audience. Summary This paper examined the research on the social facilitation ofathletic performance - a phenomenon sometimes referred to as audienceeffects. The degree of discrepancy between how the fans react to theathlete's performance and how the coach and the teammates react to theperformance. With respect to the foregoing, Foot (1973) has provided a list offactors which input to evaluation potential. Cratty, B. Audience EffectsPassive Observation of Spectators research Over the years, several studies have examined how performance (bothathletic performance and other kinds of performance) is influenced by thepresence of an audience (Calish, 1954; Cratty, 1981; Singer, 197 ). Sport: Psychological dynamics of sport.Champaign, IL. These factors are: 1. Major theories are explicated and discussed in the nextsection of the review. Another athlete variable which can influence performance has beendiscussed by Pavio (1964). L. In this regard, several areas of the existing research werereviewed. Martens, R. The degree to which the athlete likes the spectators (dislikes,considers them important; does not know whether likes or dislikes). These effects can grow in intensity(in both the positive and the negative directions) if the athlete viewsonlookers as hostile or somehow threatening. These are: 1. (1981). How the athlete feels about the coach and his/her teammates(does he/she like them or dislike them; does he/she feel that they arecompetent judges or moderately incompetent judges). The variability of the reactions of the coach and teammatesover time (during the course of a game or the course of several games). Cratty, B. When this occurs, the form and the intensity of the performancebecomes the average of the two forces' respective pressure exerted upon theathlete. The reverse willbe true if these factors increase arousal levels, that is, performance forsimple tasks will be increased but it will be decreased for complex tasksor tasks that are not quite mastered. (1954). Thefindings of these studies, according to Cratty (1983), may be summarized asfollows: 1. Group learning and performance: Areclassification. A second theory of audience effects has been proposed by Cottrell(1968). EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. The presence of an audience almost always decreases theperformance of a skill yet to be mastered; however, once the skill ismastered, audience effects can enhance performance to its peak. This is thatneither theory is completely adequate to explain all of the factors thatcontribute to athletic performance in terms of the reaction of onlookers.The factors not stressed by either theory but which appear to alsocontribute to performance have been delineated by Gill (1986). However, in this regard, work byMartens (1969) suggests that anxiety can be reduced by "over-learning" atask. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 7-17.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
