8. Social facilitation and inhibition
- Created by: Amy Parkinson
- Created on: 19-04-15 13:23
View mindmap
- Social facilitation and inhibition
- The presence of co-actors increases arousal. This may have a positive or negative effect on performance
- When the presence of co-actors increases the quality of performance, social facilitation has taken place
- When the presence of co-actors reduces the quality of performance, social inhibition has taken place
- Drive theory of social facilitation
- ZAJONC
- There are 2 types of audience; passive others (quiet audience,& non-threatening fellow performers) and interactive others (competitors & emotive supporters)
- He believes the mere presence of others (passive) is sufficient to increase arousal
- The presence of others increases arousal and increases the production of dominant responses
- High arousal is beneficial at the autonomous stage of learning as dominant responses are of better quality and are aesthetically pleasing
- High arousal is most likely to bring about social facilitation amongst autonomous performers but social inhibition in associative and cognitive learners
- His theory is supported by the belief that arousal caused by an audience is a natural innate reaction
- MARTENS
- Confirmed Zajonc's predictions that the presence of an audience increased arousal
- Increased arousal impaired the learning of complex skills and facilitated the performance of over-learned skills
- EVAL: LANDERS & McCULLAGE: sports skills were learned more effectively by an individual when in the presence of co-actors who were also learners but of 'slightly superior ability'
- The learning of motor skills therefore can be enhanced by the presence of co-actors while the attention of the audience will inhibit learning
- Evaluation apprehension
- COTTRELL
- The mere presence of others was not sufficiently arousing to bring about social facilitation
- Increases in arousal only occur when the performer feels they are being assessed or judged by an audience
- The perceived evaluation of an audience inhibits performance
- Some athletes however may rely on evaluation to stimulate arousal and may therefore have a facilitatingneffect
- The home advantage effect
- Large supportive home crowds are believed to provide the home team with an advantage
- This effect seems to become stronger as the size of the home crowd increaases
- Proximity effect
- SHWARTZ
- Location of the audience is an important factor in facilitation
- The performer will experience the proximity effect more intensely if the audience is close
- Most evident in indoor sports
- The proximity of the audience may have a facilitating or inhibiting effect
- The outcome is determined by the type of skill and also the personality, stage of learning and experience of the performer
- Distraction- conflict theory
- BARON
- The limitations of the performers attentional capacity can explain the effect of an aqudience
- Attention can only be given to a limited number of stimuli
- Spectators demand the same amount of attention as would data from the sports situation
- This added distraction is more competition for attentional space
- Simple tasks requiring little attention are performed best in front of an audience
- Strategies to combat the effects of social inhibition in practical activites
- Selective attention narrows focus onto relevant cues
- Mental rehearsal and imagery could enhance concentration and help to block out audience
- Positive self-talk to block out negative thoughts brought on by the audience
- Practice in the presence of an audience to help performer become accustomed to high arousal levels
- Over-learn correct responses so they become dominant responses when arousal is high
- Confidence-building strategies should implement high self-efficacy and reduce inhibition
- Positive reinforcement from coach and team mates will reduce anxiety brought on by audience
- Appropriate use of attribution to build confidence
Comments
No comments have yet been made