Part 1
In sport, the effect a crowd can have on performance has been well-documented. Whilst there is no easily definable relationship between an athlete and their fans, they have a measurable effect upon each other. The psychological advantages and disadvantages a crowd can provide an athlete have been widely accepted around the world. Anecdotal evidence, such as an athlete’s praising the support of their fans, has strengthened this belief even further. Several studies label the crowd factor in ‘home team advantage’ as a greater influence than travel, familiarity, learning and rule factors (Nevill & Holder, 1999; Schwartz & Barsky, 1977). Schwartz and Barksy (1977) also found the crowd factor to have a greater influence at ‘home’ grounds than an athlete’s primitive sense of territoriality, which is linked to increased testosterone and performance levels.
There are several factors that influence the degree of influence the crowd possesses over an athlete. Two major factors are the type of sport, as well as the athlete’s own experience and personality (Strauss, 2002). The main psychological concept that covers these factors is social facilitation. Social facilitation refers to the impact on performance created by an atmosphere of social evaluation (Landers & McCullagh, 1976). Landers & McCullagh (1976) describe this in simpler terms as “the mere presence of other people enhancing the performance of speed and accuracy in well-practiced tasks, but degrading the performance of less familiar tasks”. Social facilitation requires athletes to utilise ‘encoding specificity’ into training sessions in order to minimise the occurrence of ‘less familiar tasks’.
Two conflicting theories about social facilitation exist. The first theory is that self-awareness interferes with performance by decreasing the proportion of attention paid to the task (Liebling & Shaver, 1973). The other proposed theory is that self-awareness induces a person to try harder and as a result they perform at a higher level (Wicklund & Duval, 1971). Interestingly, Liebling & Shaver (1973) found both theories to be correct. This implies that it is the individual athlete’s personality and experience that is the determining factor in the influence of social facilitation. The personality factor was researched by Graydon & Murphy (1995) who found that extraverted athletes performed better in front of a crowd, on closed motor skills such as free-throws and tennis serves, than similarly skilled introverted athletes. Interestingly, the introverted athletes were more successful when the atmosphere of social evaluation was not present. Extraverted athletes are therefore more extrinsically motivated than introverted athletes, and follow the second theory of social facilitation (Wicklund & Duval, 1971). The first theory of social facilitation (Liebling & Shaver, 1973) applies to introverted athletes, who must develop intrinsic strategies to ‘tune-out’ the crowd in order to ensure performance is not diminished.
The experience of the athlete is another important factor. A linear relationship with a plateau exists between experience and improved performance under social evaluation (Dale, 1996). Dale (1996) showed that introverted athlete’s performance diminished significantly less if they had been playing at that level for more than 5 years. An area that has inconclusive research is how the extraverted athlete is affected. Given that they already receive a benefit from social evaluation, is the effect enhanced or degraded with experience?
The psychological effect of social facilitation causes the athlete to release more adrenaline into the body. This adrenaline rush is ideal for sports with gross motor skills, such as the majority of team sports (Carron, Loughhead & Bray, 2005). These sports emphasise power, strength and speed above technique. Carron et al. (2005) found it to be the reverse for sports that require concentration, fine motor control and finesse, such as archery and cricket. The increased skill required is negatively affected by the adrenaline, which can disrupt timing, waste energy and impair cognitive function (Carron et al., 2005). As with introverted athletes, athletes in these sports must learn to ‘tune out’ the crowd.
The concept of the crowd influencing performance through social facilitation appears to be well-understood. Only one study found the crowd to be a minor psychological factor (Pollard, 1986), but it appears to be a minority. It is a vital area for sports coaches and staff to understand, as these findings imply that an athlete’s performance does not actually solely rely on their abilities. Performance is influenced internally by social facilitation and the awareness of being socially evaluated. The degree of the effect varies due to the athlete’s experience and personality, as well as the type of sport they compete in.
By Jeremy Mutton
Sport & Performance Psychology 