audience effects Flashcards
(13 cards)
apfc of zajonc
test drive theory of social facilitation
test hypotheiss performance of cockroaches in a non dominant task (maze) and dominant task (runway) would be affected by presence of other cockroaches either in pairs or audience
sample- 72 adult female cockroaches, 9 in each condition
1 week of standard conditions of darkness, 75 degrees and standard diet of apples
lab, independent measures
IV= alone or pairs
alone or pairs with an audience or without
non dominant task (maze) or dominant (runway)
DV= starting latency time and time taken to reach the goal box
procedure=
cockroaches placed in transparent runway or maze
bright light shone at one end,
cockroaches dislike and avioid light was were motivated to run to their goal, area of farkness
if in pairs they were placed together at the start
in audience conditions they could smell and see other cokcroaches
time taken to start running and complete run was measured
results=
for dominant task, cockroaches began and completed run quicker when in pair or with audience, this supports social facilitation
for non dominant, they took longer to run maze when alone but ran it faster when in presence of audience, this doesnt support social facilitation
conclusions= fairly consistent with drive theory
when simple task, performed better with audience
but when more complicated performede better without partner
however performing better with audience in non dominant tasks does not support drive theory
section c audience effects
make athletes train in same enviroment and context they perform in
grant, silent-silent 82% silent-noise 69%
automatic processing training (repetition of skills)
zajons drive theory, do better with audience when task is dominant
so repeat practicing task to make it dominant
background study for audience effects
Micheals
observation
tested audience effects on pool players in university bar
supported drive theory, presence of audience improved perfomance of above average players (social facilitation) but impaired performance of below average players (social inhibition)
USA
issues and debates for background study in audience effects
nurture, situation - audience
reductionism-
scientific- natural environment, less control
ethics- no protection of pps, may be disheartening
sampling bias- ethnocentric
useful- encourage automatic processing training but limited as ethnocentric
evaluation of background study in audience effects
natural observation, low controls over ev
audience effects question nature vs nurture
zajons drive theory- levels of arousal is innate and individual to each person
strength- scientific, infer cause and effect, anxiety causes social inhibition
weakness- reductionist, does not include other factors why audience can affect a performance, incomplete explanation, low internal validity
Zajonc- social inhibition and facilitation as result of audience effects
supports nurture as cockroaches in pairs performed better in pairs and with audience in dominant task
strength- usefulness, encourage automatic process training
weakness- determinism, states performance is predetermined by presence of audience, ignores role of free will e,g, how hard someone has trained, natural talent
free will vs determinism audience effects
free will- Zajonc, shows when a task is dominant will experience social facilitation with audience
free will to make a task dominant and therefore perform better.
strength- more ethical, acknowledges individuals have freedom and their own choice,
weakness- scientific, can’t infer cause and effect, no control
determinism- Micheals, players above average predetermined to perform better with presence of audience
strength- useful, if someone is predetermind practical apps can be developed e.g. automatic processing training
weakness- reductionist, only considers audience, ignores role of free will pps may have practiced more etc, therefore incomplete explanation, lower internal validity
reductionism vs holism audience effects
reductionism- micheals, behaviour only blamed on presence of audience
strength- scientific, cause and effect
weakness- incomplete explanation
holism- Zajonc’s drive theory states effect of audience can increase arousal in performer, resulting in social inhibition or facilitation
strength- usefulness, automatic process training to make non dominant task dominant and reduce risk of over arousal
weakness- determinsim, predetermined by these factors to perform well or not, ignores role of free will e.g. how hard someone has trained, natural talent etc.
ethnocentrism audience effects
Micheals, westernised sample, uni students in a bar in usa
weakness-low population validity
but
counter- reduced risk of individual diff
Cotterall-anixiety is something universal that will affect people’s performance
strenght- useful, as results are generalisable worldiwde
but
counter-different socieities may deal with anxiety different so practical applications may not always be applicable, mental health not always discussed in some countries
ethics audience effects
Micheals, no ifnroemd consent when being observed
weakness-deters future pps, limiting researching
but
counter- strenght is no demand characteristics, high internal validity
Schwartz and Barkesy- review of home advantage when playing baseball, basketball, ice hockey and football
strength- ethical, good rep for psych, encourages future fudnign
but
counter- weakness can be often subjective or bias, not scientific
science audience effects
scientifc- Zajonc, high standardised and control, diet of apples, kept in darkness etc
strength- upholds scientific princples, increases chance of future funding
counter
weakness- low ecological validity
not scientific- Micheals, pool, uni bar
strength- low risk of demand characterisitcs as natural observation, high internal validity
but
weakness- low control of EV’s could of affected reuslts
validity audience effectd
high ecoloigcal micheals
define
strength is low risk of sdb, so high internal
but
counter is less scientifc. less control
zajonc as high internal
high control over situational
but
low ecological, limits usefulness
relaibility audience effects
high external zajonc
quant
strength- results cna be replcated
counter
lack of detail,lower internal validity
low internal Micheals
hard to standardise as naturalistic observation
but
high ecological validity as realistic of real life
