Michaels et al. investigated the Dominant Response, using Zajonc’s prediction that ‘Performance is facilitated and learning is impaired by the presence of spectators’.
Michaels et al. (1982), conducted a study to see how the presence of an audience would facilitate to a skilled performer to an unskilled performer. In a Student’s Union building, 12 pool players were observed. After observation, 6 were identified to being skilled or above average players, and the other 6 were identified to being unskilled or below average players. The players were then observed by 4 other people situated around the pool table, and observed the players over a number of games. He found that the above average players achieved 80% of shot accuracy which were balls potted when observed in contrast to when they weren’t observed achieving only 67%. In contrast to the above average players, the below average players achieved only 25% of shot accuracy when observed and achieved 36% of accuracy when not observed. Michaels et al. found that an audience with the above average players improved their performance, and those below average degenerate their performance.
There are many strengths and weaknesses of this study. Michaels et al. proved that social facilitation occurs when put under these circumstances and that they become better or worse in front of an audience, depending on how good the player was. This study is also much more up to date than Triplett’s, as well as being more sport related. Therefore, is much easier to generalise.
The criticism of this study is that of which the learning is impaired by the presence of the audience, due to added pressure to do well in the task. Zajonic’s Drive Theory of arousal is all about how arousal levels affect performance, along with the inverted U theory. The thought of embarrassment or acknowledgment, in front of an audience makes arousal levels become higher. Some can cope with these levels of arousal, yet if these levels become too high, then performance levels can dramatically decrease. Zajonic’s Drive Theory also backs this up. It states that the presence of other people (co-participants or an audience) increases a person’s general level of arousal; which in turn, increases the tendency to perform dominant responses.
AIM: To investigate whether skilled netball players with an active audience, will score more goals at netball in 1 minute, than an unskilled player with an active audience.
ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESIS: Skilled players will score significantly more netball goals in 1 minute with an active audience than those who are unskilled. From past research, a one tailed hypothesis has been produced, therefore, this investigation, a one tailed hypothesis is used.
NULL HYPOTHESIS: There will be no significant difference in the amount of goals scored in 1 minute with the skilled or unskilled players with a active audience. Any differences will be due to chance.
METHOD
DESIGN: An experimental method was employed because it’s objective and reliable, making it replicable and generalizes to all. Independent measures were used, as skilled and unskilled players are used, therefore needing different participants. These groups chose themselves because participants couldn’t be both skilled and unskilled. They were either a skilled player, or not.
The independent variable (IV), is the variable which is manipulated. In this case, it is the skilled or unskilled players.
The dependent variable (DV), is the variable which is measured. In this case, it is the amount of goals scored in 1 minute.
Extraneous variables need to be taken into account so that the experiment is kept fair and controlled throughout. If any variables aren’t controlled, then the experiment can be affected due to possible distractions, miss haps etc.
Injury is an extraneous variable because if the participants are injured, then they physically won’t be able to carry out the task, and will make them do worse. To control this, participants will be asked if they are carrying any injuries, big or small. Eyesight is also an extraneous variable because if the participant has slightly blurred or bad eyesight, then they won’t be able to see the goal clearly enough, having a negative affect on the task. To control this, participants will be asked to wear glasses if needed. Light is another one of these Extraneous Variables which nee to be seen to throughout the course of the investigation. It needs to be not too dim and not too bright. An average brightness needs to be used, and not sunlight should be able to get into the sports hall, as it may be sunny for 1 participant, and not sunny at all for another. It also may distract participants more. Temperature is another of these as it can’t bee too cold as participants may stiffen up and not be relaxed. Also, if it’s too hot, participants may be uncomfortable and too hot to concentrate.
Ethical Issues such as Confidentiality, the right to withdraw etc, must also be kept into play throughout the experiment. If these aren’t taken into consideration, then results can backfire and end up not being able to be counted. Confidentiality is one of the ethical issues, which must be looked upon, as participants may feel embarrassed with their overall score. To control this, participants will be reminded throughout, that their scores will not be given out.
The right to withdraw is another one of these ethical issues, as participants may become uneasy, embarrassed and cannot be forced to carry out the task is they don’t wish to. To control this, participants will be reminded about their right to withdraw through out. Deception is an ethical issue, which should be kept in line with. The participant must not be deceived, yet can be to an extent to not give the experiment or investigation away. Therefore, to control this in the investigation, participants will be told, “Hi, I’m Sarah. I’m a psychology student investigating Sports Psychology. Would you be interested in taking part and helping with my results? If you do, you have the right to withdraw at anytime, your scores will be confidential and it should only take a few minutes.”
The level of probability is P=<0.05 as this is the most commonly used level in psychology and helps to avoid type 1 and type 2 error occurring.
PARTICIPANTS: The identified target population is 16-28 year old females from the Stockton area. 20 participants are needed to make sure that my results are reliable. 10 of these will be skilled, and the other 10 will be unskilled. The 20 participants were selected by opportunity sample from the target population.
APPARATUS:
- Netball post- this was chosen because it was essential. A
Basketball ring could have been used with using
basketball players instead of netball players.
Yet a netball hoop is harder to score a goal,
therefore spreading the skilled from the
unskilled easier via more or less practise.
- Netball- This is used due to the choice of choosing the
game of netball instead of basketball
- Stopwatch- Needed to record time and length of
experiment per participants turn. This is more
effective than counting or watching a clock.
- Chalk/Tape- Used to help set out the experiment and where
the participant must stand.
TASK/TASK CONSTRUCTION: Participants will be asked to start on the chalk line and take a shot. An assistant will be situated behind the goal and will catch and throw back the ball. The participant must keep behind the line and must score as many goals as possible. The stopwatch will start as soon as the ball has left the participants hand on the first shot, and the time will be stopped after 1 minute. Having a netball post set up in the sports hall, used by Stockton Ladies Netball, puts the task together.
BRIEF: “Hi, I’m Sarah. I’m a psychology student investigating Sports Psychology. Would you be interested in taking part and helping with my results? If you do, you have the right to withdraw at anytime, your scores will be confidential and it should only take a few minutes.”
STANDARDISED INSTRUCTIONS: “Please stand behind the designated line and at no point cross it. My assistant will throw you the ball back after each shot. You will have 1 minute from when the ball 1st leaves your hand, and you must score as many goals as possible.”
DE-BRIEF: “Thank you very much for taking part in this investigation. Your results have been very helpful, yet you may withdraw them if you wish to do so. The aim of the investigation was to see, using skilled and unskilled players, how an audience would affect their performance, for the better or worse.”
PROCEDURE
Participants were selected from the Stockton Netball Club and tested in their sports hall in Yarm’s centre.
They were allocated into the two groups of skilled and unskilled players. The players from the first team were put into the skilled group, and the unskilled group were the players from the third team, as they were new to the sport. Asking the 2nd team if they would be the audience and that they would have to shout, cheer and talk picked an active audience of 10.
A line was drawn 2 metres away from the netball post. The two groups of skilled and unskilled players were then taking turns in any order so that there were no clues to the participants to what the experiment was about, which may affect their performance. They were all kept outside the hall apart from the participant who’s go it was at that time, so that it wasn’t the other players presence affecting their performance, and not the active audience.
The participant was told, “Please stand behind the designated line, and at no point cross it. My assistant will throw you the ball back after each shot. You will have 1 minute from when the ball first leaves your hand, and you must score as many goals as possible. You have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time. Do you understand?”
The participant was then given the ball and then the experiment began. Every time a goal was scored, the goal was marked and recorded on a tally chart. Once the participant had finished, the tallies were added up and put onto the results chart under their participant number.
The participants were then de-briefed by the experimenter, “Thank you very much for taking part in this investigation. Your results have been very helpful, yet you may withdraw them if you wish to do so. The aim of the investigation was to see, using skilled and unskilled players, how an audience would affect their performance, for the better or worse.”
RESULTS
Skilled Players
This table shows the amount of goals scored in 1 minute per skilled participant.
Unskilled Players
This table shows the amount of goals scored in 1 minute per unskilled participant.
Skilled and Unskilled Players
This table shows the mean and Standardised Deviation score of amount of goals scored in 1 minute by skilled and unskilled players.
This table indicated that the one tailed hypothesis is being supported and that the end results will match with my predictions.
A graph to show the mean and S.D score of goals scored in 1 minute by skilled and unskilled participants.
From looking at the graph, it can be concluded that skilled players did actually score significantly more goals in 1 minute in front of an active audience than the unskilled players.
Skilled Players mean score is over double that of unskilled, showing that they have done better and scored plenty more than unskilled.
By the mean being 30 for skilled players, and 10.5 for unskilled players, it shows that the Descriptive Statistics support the hypothesis.
Descriptive statistics don’t indicate whether the results were statistically significant. For this, Inferential Statistics are needed.
There are 2 types of these, they are parametric and a non-parametric. Parametric tests are better as they are classed as more powerful and robust, they are more sensitive to the data.
To use the parametric test, 3 conditions must be met:
- Similar Variance
- Interval or Ratio data
- Normal Distribution
The results have similar variance, as the Standardised Deviation is less than double from one condition to the next. Interval data was that one goal was one unit of measurement. It can be assumed that the population was drawn from a normal population.
The appropriate test to be used is an unrelated t-test. This is because the design was Independent Measures, whereby participants completed in 1 condition or the other, and the data interval. A one-tailed test was used because the hypothesis was one-tailed.
With an 18 degree of freedom, of 0.05 level of probability, T was calculated as 18.4 the CV was 1.734, as T excluded the CV, which makes the results significant, and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. However, using a 0.05 level of probability, there is a chance of a Type 1 error occurring. This is when the alternative hypothesis is accepted and when the results are due to chance. However, when the significance level was reduced to 0.005, the CV was 2.878, and the results were still significant. This reduces the chances of a Type 1 error occurring.
DISCUSSION
It can be seen from the table, that the Alternative Hypothesis was supported. This is evident as the mean goals scored were better for the skilled players, than that of the unskilled players. It also fits in with the aim of the experiment, which was to investigate whether skilled netball players with an active audience, will score more goals at netball n 1 minute, than an unskilled player with an active audience.
This research into Michaels et al. shows how skilled pool players performed better with an audience and that unskilled players performed worse. This has also been found in this experiment with netball players, as skilled players scored more goals and performed better with an audience than the unskilled players.
The research into Triplett shows and supports the results, by coinciding with the findings that a performer plays better in front of an audience. However, Triplett’s study cannot be as easily generalised with my study as well as with Michaels et al.’s study. This is due to the study not being sport related, bar the fishing reel being a sporting piece of equipment.
Pessin however, is even further away from Triplett and Michaels et al. as Pessin used nothing at all to do with sport. He did find that participants performed better in front of an audience, yet not when competing in a sport related task. At least with Triplett, a fishing reel was used and this could have been done when reeling in a fish?
It could be concluded that this study on skilled and unskilled netball players performing better or worse in front of an audience, backs up these 3 experiments, along with these, harmonizing with this one.
A practical application is occurring here, which refers to Sports Psychology and how it can help cope with the affects of audience and players can be trained to withstand the pressures of an audience and the affects the may have.
The sample size of 10 skilled and 10 unskilled players was too small and cannot be generalised to the whole population and this is a large limitation to the experiment. The opportunity sample is also biased as not all people were kept in mind and all players taking part, were all trained in the same way, which may affect their performance and thoughts to an audience. It also doesn’t include male players in the experiment, therefore biased to females, who may react differently to males in front of an audience. Males in an audience, may also have affected a female’s performance if there were to be males in the audience, this experiment did not contain males. The experiment also lacks ecological validity as it is not taking part in real game situations and they know that there are being watched and analysed.
To improve this research, a larger scale of participants would be used, both males and females, along with a larger age range throughout the years, instead of 16-28 year olds as these younger minds may be more confident, less confident, or may stay the same in front of an audience, yet this may depend on the participant. This then means that the study and its results can be generalised to the population as a whole.
Further developed research could be that the experiment would have separate age groups instead of skill levels. This would see whether young players perform differently to how older players perform. The young age group could be 16-30 year olds, and the older age group could be 40-55 year olds.
Both male and female participants could be involved instead of just females as females may act or perform differently to an audience. A larger audience may help make the results more reliable as they will be seen, heard and have a larger affect on the participants.
Another style of research could be on how males may perform differently to females in front of an audience. This could be in a form of past research, studies and their results. Another, possibly more effective style of research into how males may perform differently to females, may be having a side experiment looking at these factors, onto this one.
REFERENCES
Coolican. H, research methods and statistics in psychology. Hodder and Stoughton.
Triplett: (1898) The dynomagenic factors in pace making and competition. American journal of psychology.
Michael’s et al: Michael’s J.W. (1982)
Social facilitation and inhibition in a natural setting. Replications in social psychology.
Pessin: Pessin,J. (1933), The comparative effects of social and mechanical stimulation on memorising. American Journal of Psychology.
Zajonc: Zajonc, R.B (1965), social facilitation. Science
APPENDICES
