Sport Psychology Week 2

Audience effects and Home Advantage

What are audience effects?

What happens to performance when performed in the presence of others (instead of alone)

Social facilitation

tendency for people to perform better when others are present

2 studies on audience effects by Norman Triplett

Cycle races: approx. 20% faster racing against others than alone

Children winding in fishing reels: ½ positively affected, ¼ negatively affected

Social inhibition

tendency for people to perform worse when others are present

What is Drive Theory?

others present → increased arousal → dominant response

dominant response OK = improved performance, dominant response not OK = worse performance

Drive Theory Predictions

Social Facilitation on well learned/easy tasks

Social Inhibition on novel/complex tasks

Audience effects in pool players

With the presence of an audience:

Experienced/good players improved: 71%→80% success = facilitation Novice players got worse: 36%→25% success = inhibition

How else can the presence of others contribute to arousal?

Evaluation apprehension and distraction

Home Advantage

The benefits a “home” team has relative to a “visiting” team

How can HA be measured?

Winning and scoring

Is HA real?

It has been well documented: Across different sports, levels, and time periods. Recog by fans, coaches, players, organising bodies

Effects of travel

Fatigue, Disruption of routines, Lack of comfort

Evidence for travel

some studies found a small relationship between distance traveled and home advantage. Crossing >2 time zones has some effect

Exceptions for travel

Local derbies: no travel diffs, but HA still exists, Returning from away game: HA still exists

Learning: location & venue familiarity?

Weather, Altitude, Knowledge of venue size and dimensions, familiar visual cues may increase spatial awareness, better re-orientation etc.

Exceptions for learning: location/venue familiarity

On objective measures of performance location appears not to matter that much: about same regardless of location.

E.g., >23,000 NBA matches = same free throw success

E.g. Basketball team had 5 diff locations: HA remained

E.g. Team relocation: Comparison of performance in 10 games immediately prior, 10 games immediately after, and 10 games later: similar HA

Territoriality?

Many animals show behavioral and physical responses when defending their home territory against intruders. Home games have higher testosterone

Testosterone may increase:

aggression, risk taking, reaction time, spatial ability, muscle metabolism

Crowd behaviour?

Players, coaches, & fans believe crowd support influences their performance. Typically, home teams have more supporters than away teams. Increasing number of supporters associated with increased HA

Influence possibility 1: Crowd and players

Home crowd support: Enhances home performance (increased motivation), Diminishes visiting performance (intimidation)

research: increased confidence & decreased anxiety when playing at home

Influence possibility 2: crowd and referees

Match officials may confer advantage to home teams. • Home advantage is greatest for sports in which there is “subjective” refereeing decisions

Referee bias

Any bias is probably not explicitly conscious or deliberate.

• Officials may experience “conformity.” - Behaviour that conforms to the behaviour of others

Why can Conformity occur?

The situation is ambiguous and people want to fit in with others

Autokinetic task

visual illusion: dot of light on wall, asked “how far it’s moving?”. Alone: different estimates. In group: by 3rd trial all said same answer (use others to inform answer)

Line Judgement task

“Which line is the same length as the std line?” Researchers in group say wrong answer, participant says same wrong answer

Informational influence

influence that produces conformity when a person believes others have greater knowledge

Normative influence

influence that produces conformity when a person fears the negative social consequences of appearing deviant

Evidence for referee conformity (Nevill, Balmer, & Williams, 2002) (Most evidence)

Referees watched video footage of soccer tackles. Either crowd noise sound on or off. When audible, referees made calls “with the crowd” (same as actual refs): Tackles against home more likely penalised. Tackles by home less likely penalised. No bias was evident when sound off.

HA is:

• greater with larger, nosier crowds.

• greater for ambiguous/uncertain calls.

• reduced for local derbies (number of fans likely to be more even).

• reduced when there are no supporters (e.g. disease outbreaks)