Effects of encouragement on free throw accuracy on Hope College Men’s
Basketball Team
Abstract
Background. This study examines the effects of different encouragement conditions on the Hope
College Men’s Basketball Team.
Methods. After a practice, the Men’s basketball team shot a set number of free throws in three
different shooting conditions: silent, cheers, jeers. The results were recorded, and a paired mean
test was conducted.
Results. The paired mean test between positive encouragement and silent condition and in
negative encouragement and silent results were insignificant. However, the paired mean test
between difference in baskets made in negative encouragement and positive encouragement had
a significant results.
Conclusion. The results indicate that negative encouragement would lead to better shooting
conditions than positive encouragement. However, scope of inference is small due to errors and
limitations.
Background and Significance
There have been many studies that show positive encouragement as having an impact on a
person’s performance. Positive reinforcement is especially popular in an educational setting. As
children we thrived on reinforcement from our parents and teachers. Teachers give out gold stars
or prizes and parents will often hang “sticker papers” in a public place. If they would have
discouraged us instead we might have given up on certain struggles and maybe not be where we
are today. Positive encouragement is a way we can recognize success and since approval is a
desire inside every human, we can show approval through encouragement.
We also apply this idea to sports, which is why we support teams and fellow players. As a fan we
cheer on our respective teams in hope that our words will give them strength and catalyze a peak
performance. As a teammate we cheer each other on to make hard workouts easier. Difficult
tasks become easier when a person has a support group to tell them they believe in them.
A few studies have been done to test encouragement’s effects on performance. One study titled
Sports Psychology: encouragement boosts performance was a controlled study on verbal
encouragement in exercise performance. There were twenty-eight participants (twelve male and
sixteen female) who all did a twelve minute treadmill test. Each participant did a twelve-minute
pretest and VO2 max, blood lactate concentration, respiratory exchange ratio, perceived exertion
were measured every three minutes. A week later the twelve-minute test was performed again
except the participants were split into four groups. One group was a control group and received
no encouragement, and the other groups received encouragement every twenty, sixty and one
hundred eighty seconds. The results from the pretest and the second test were compared in search
for significant results. There was no difference between the pretest results and control and one
hundred eighty groups and there were significant results between pretest and twenty and sixty
groups. Their conclusion was that encouragement boosts performance but it needs to be frequent
and consistent.
We found another study that had been done in a small Division III school. In this study called,
Cheers vs. Jeers: Effects of audience feedback on individual athletic performance, the
researchers were investigating if “home-court” advantage actually existed. They tested this
hypothesis in three different sports: basketball, baseball and golf. Each sport was asked to
perform a familiar task respective to their sport. For basketball they shot free throws, for baseball
they pitched and for golf they hit a golf ball. While performing the familiar task, each player was
placed in front of three different audiences; ones who cheered, ones that discouraged and ones
that were silent. The results varied across sports. Basketball players showed no difference,
discouragement hurt the performance of baseball players and both cheers and discouragement
hurt performance levels of golfers.
We used the result from these studies as a basis for our project. Hope College has a history of
having an outstanding cheer block, called the Dew Crew. Hundreds of students come to support
the athletes and the teams value the support. Since one of the most prevalent showcases of Hope
Athletic spirit occurs in men’s basketball games, we chose our sample population to be the
varsity basketball team. We wondered if the cheering actually makes a difference in an athlete’s
performance. We hypothesized that audience participation, whether positive cheers, jeers or
silence, would play a significant role in the number of free throws made.
Methods
Data Collection
We collected our data by observing the Hope College Men’s Varsity Basketball Team. After
practice the players were asked to each shoot seven free throws under three different
circumstances to equal a total of 21 free throws. The team was broken into three different groups
of 5 players. For the first seven free throws we asked the players to be quiet while each player
shot their seven baskets. The second time we asked the players to encourage each other and be
very positive. For the final seven free throws we asked the players to be negative and put down
the shooter. After each condition the number of baskets made of out seven was recorded.
Variable Creation
The explanatory variable in the study was the condition, silent, positive encouragement, or
negative encouragement. The response variable of the study was the number of baskets made of
out of the seven at each different condition.
Analytic Methods
Fathom was used to run traditional test on paired means. Box plots were used to illustrate
differences in the three statistical tests. One box plot was made for each test. The box plots were
made using the difference in: silent and negative conditions, silent and positive conditions, and
positive and negative conditions. The box plots then allowed us to look at the average difference
and see if our data was skewed. The box plot is helpful because it allows one to see the average
(the middle line of the box plot) and compare it to zero, which is the value when there are no
differences in the mean, the null.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The average number of baskets made by the 15 players when there were silent conditions was
5.13 baskets. The lowest in the silent category was 2 out of 7 made, and the highest was 7. The
average number baskets made when the players were yelling a negative phrase was 5.67 baskets,
with the lowest being 4 and highest 7. The average number of baskets made when the players
were being positive and encouraging each other was 4.93 baskets, with a low of 2 and high of
seven.
Significance Test
The difference was calculated between silent and negative baskets made for each player and the
average difference of all the players was found to be -0.533, with the number of baskets made
under negative conditions a little higher. Next, the difference was calculated between positive
and negative baskets made for each player and the average difference of all the players was
found to be -0.733, again with the negative having the more baskets made. Lastly the difference
was found between each player and number of baskets made during silent and positive
conditions the average difference was -0.2, with the silent being slightly greater. The differences
are negative based on the way the baskets were subtracted; these differences being positive or
negative will not affect the results of the test. Box plots were made for all 3 of the average
differences. The zero line in the graph represents the null hypothesis that there is no difference in
the number of baskets a player makes under different conditions (Figure 1).
Figure 1. First graph shows the box plot of silent/negative conditions. The middle graph is
positive/negative. The last is positive/silent
Box Plot
Basketball Stats
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
diff_s ile ne g
1
2
3
Box Plot
Basketball Stats
-3
-2
-1
0
1
diff_pos ne g
3
Box Plot
Basketball Stats
-4
2
-2
0
2
diff_pos s ile nt
4
Each average difference was run in traditional test, where the mean was tested. The mean in the
difference of negative and silent baskets gave a p-value of 0.2, which is not significant. The pvalue for the average difference in positive in negative baskets made was 0.044, which is
significant. Lastly, the p-value of the difference in silent and positive baskets made was 0.73, and
is insignificant.
Discussion/Conclusion
Athletes tend to perform better under positive encouragement conditions in comparison to
negative encouragement, or no encouragement at all (Sport Psychology 2004). Other research
shows that basketball players in particular, tend to show little difference in performance under
different encouragement conditions (Epting 2011.) In opposition to what our sources indicated,
our results indicated that negative encouragement conditions led to the best performance in free
throw shooting for the Hope College Men’s basketball team, which does agree with our
hypothesis that positive encouragement, negative encouragement, or silent encouragement would
lead to a difference in an athlete’s performance. However, our results are insignificant due to the
limitations of our observational study.
The results indicate that there is a significant difference between positive and negative shooting
conditions (difference in means .733, SD 1.28, p-value .044), and no significant difference
between positive and silent, and negative and silent (p-value of .73, p-value .20). The results
would be acceptable, except for the limitation of our sample size. The sample size is too small
for a significant power (sample size of our study was 15, and we needed sample size of 50 for
significant power), and therefore the chance of a Type II error is greatly increased. We believe a
type II error occurred in the results of this study, considering the data we obtained contradicts
our prior research on encouragement and athlete’s performance. The chance of a type I error was
also high because we ran three different test of means. As the number of test you run increases,
the chance of a Type I error increases; the smaller the power, the greater chance for a Type II
error.
As indicated earlier, a limitation of our study was sample size. The women’s basketball team at
Hope College was unable to participate in the study, and we needed 35 more subjects for a
significant power. The small sample size led to our insignificant results due to a Type II error.
Other limitations of our study involved our method of encouragement. As each subject shot free
throws, his teammates would encourage him around the free throw lane. We think that an
unaffiliated (meaning not a teammate) cheering section would have a different impact on an
athlete’s performance. Also the free throw shooting was done at the end of practice when there
was no pressure, it may have given different results if in the game setting.
Overall, the previous research indicates that our data is insignificant due to type II and possible
type I error. In response, we must reject our original alternative hypothesis that positive
encouragement, negative encouragement, or silent conditions would influence an athlete’s
performance. According to our research, positive encouragement, if any, should have increased
the athlete’s performance more than any other encouragement (Epting 2011, Sport Psychology
2004). The previous research indicates that we had a Type II error. Therefore, the results cannot
be generalized for other athletes at Hope College, or at other colleges and universities.
References
Epting, L. Kimberly, et al. "Cheers vs. jeers: effects of audience feedback on individual athletic
performance." North American Journal of Psychology 13.2 (2011): 299. Academic OneFile.
Web. 30 Nov. 2011.
Sport Psychology: Encouragement Boosts Performance." Sports Training | Sport Fitness. J
Sports Sci, 20 Apr. 2004. Web. 04 Dec. 2011. <http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sportpsychology-encouragement-boosts-performance-113>.