The Huron University College Journal of Learning and
Motivation
Volume 45 | Issue 1
Article 8
2007
The Social Facilitation Effect in Basketball:
Shooting Free Throws
Robert D. Kotzer
Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/hucjlm
Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Kotzer, Robert D. (2007) "The Social Facilitation Effect in Basketball: Shooting Free Throws," The Huron University College Journal of
Learning and Motivation: Vol. 45: Iss. 1, Article 8.
Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/hucjlm/vol45/iss1/8
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Psychology at Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Huron
University College Journal of Learning and Motivation by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
125
Social Facilitation
The Social Facilitation Effect in Basketball: Shooting Free Throws
Robert D. Kotzer
Huron College
The present experiment was performed to determine how many free
throws experts and novice basketball players would make in an alone
and audience condition. According to Zajonc (1965), the presence of
others acts a source of arousal in what is called the social facilitation
effect. This theory proposes that on easy tasks the presence of others
should facilitate performance, whereas on difficult tasks they should
inhibit performance. It was therefore hypothesized that the experts
would effectively make more free throws in front of an audience
whereas the non experts would make more fi-ee throws in the alone
condition. To test this hypothesis 10 experts and 10 non experts shot 25
fi:ee throws alone and 25 free throws in front of an audience. It was
found that the experts made more free throws in front of an audience
than by themselves and that the non experts made more free throws in
the alone as opposed to the audience condition.
In accordance with our social world, people should consider practicing certain tasks
in the presence of others. For decades psychologists have been studying a variety of living
creamres in an attempt to discover why the mere presence of others in the environment
affects behavior. This is demonstrated over a wide array of tasks, including sports such as
basketball. It is imperative that we understand the higher levels of an organism's behavior
when they are performing tasks in a social situation.
Triplett (1898) was intrigued by a distinct situation in which he could investigate
how the presence of others affects ones behavior. He compared the performance of
competitive bicyclists in two different conditions. In the unpaced race, each bicychst raced
against the clock. In this condition every bicyclist raced alone in an attempt to break a
previous record. In the paced competition race, bicyclists are racing against time, as well as
their opponents (Triplett, 1898). The official bicycle records of the 1897 season were
obtained by Triplett (1898) in order to examine 2,000 bicyclists' racing times. Triplett
126
Social Facilitation
discovered that the bicycUsts who were racing against other opponents, rather than just
against the clock, generally performed faster racing times (Triplett, 1898). In order to
explain this phenomenon, Triplett (1898) presented many theories as to why the bicyclists'
performances could have varied under different conditions. One factor that Triplett (1898)
utilized in order to explain situations that deal with competition was the dynamogenic
factor. Triplett (1898) explains this as the releasing of nervous energy which arouses a
competitive instinct, which would not have otherwise been released without the presence of
another bicychst. He believed that the competitive instinct resulted in faster racing times.
In order to further test this theory, Triplett (1898) conducted a study which involved
40 children in a laboratory. He prepared a task in which the children would wind a fishing
reel in front of other children and in an alone condition (Triplett, 1898). Similar to that of
the cyclists, Triplett (1898) found that children would reel faster in the presence of coactors rather than alone.
Triplett's (1898) work was followed up by many social psychologists in an attempt
to better explain the results of his research. Allport (1920) coined the term 'social
facilitation' in an attempt to study the effects of competition in this field of research.
Allport (1920) performed studies which involved a number of mental tasks. For example,
he had participants read a passage and generate arguments from that passage. He found that
the subjects generated more arguments in the presence of others, but generated better
quality arguments alone (Allport, 1920). This led him to believe that the social facilitation
affect may not be as generalizable as once predicted.
Pessin (1933) tested the affects of both social and mechanical stimuli on memory.
He found that distracters are detrimental to memory and that learning is more efficient
without mechanical or social stimuli (Pessin, 1933). Other studies including Pessin's
127
Social Facilitation
(1933) memory study caused uncertainty within Triplett's (1898) theory because he found
that in certain situations the presence of others impaired performance rather than facilitated
it.
Further research conducted by Zajonc (1965) explored two experimental paradigms
in CO- actor and audience effects. Zajonc (1965) proposed that the presence of others acts as
a source of aroused or drive and enhances the dominant response in an individual. In other
conditions such as stress, the presence of others may even lower arousal levels (Zajonc,
1965). In a practical example, Zajonc (1965) advised students to study alone, given that
they will learn the material well, and to write an examination in the presence of many other
students. In this scenario, the student is physiologically aroused by the other students who
are trying to write the exam, which would facilitate the dominant response which is
remembering the material. Therefore the student should obtain a good grade on the exam.
If the student was unprepared for the exam, the student would be under a great amount of
stress which would lower arousal levels, and performance on the exam would be hindered
(Zajonc, 1965).
In response to this ground-breaking research, many studies were conducted in order
to discover why they presence of others produced arousal. Cottrell, Rittle and Wack (1967,
as cited in Feinberg & Aiello, 2006) Unked the social facilitation effect to the drive theory.
They suggested that in the presence of others, people associate certain rewards and
punishments that may result from their performance in the given task. This feeling would
ultimately elicit arousal within that person. Weiss and Miller's (1971, as cited in Feinberg
& Aiello, 2006) study proposed that with learned drive, the presence of others produces
apprehension of others negative evaluations. This evaluation apprehension can cause
anxiousness (a form of arousal) in an individual and inhibit their performance.
128
Social Facilitation
Another theory presented by Baron, Moore and Sanders (1978) is the distractionconflict theory. This theory states that the presence of others can be distracting to an
individual (Baron, Moore and Sanders, 1978). On easy tasks, distractions act as moderators
of attention and facilitate performance, whereas on difficult tasks, distractions can divert
attention away from the task and inhibit performance (Baron, Moore and Sanders, 1978).
Many other studies involving humans, animals and insects were done to test social
facilitation effects. In a modern day study, Michaels, Blommel, Brocato, Linkous and
Rowe (1982) recorded the percentage of shots expert pool players made in front of a
crowd, versus the amount of shots they made by themselves. In contrast, they also recorded
how many shots novice players made in front of a crowd as well as by themselves
(Michaels et al., 1982). The expert pool players made 70% of their shots in the alone
condition and 80% of their shots in the audience condition. The novice pool players made
36% of their shots in the alone condition and 25% of their shots in the audience condition
(Michaels et al., 1982). Therefore, the results indicate that the novice group made more
shots alone, while the experts made more shots in front of others, supporting the social
facilitation effect.
The present experiment is similar to that of Michaels et al.'s (1982) study. It will
examine social facihtation effects on novice and expert basketball players. Ten novice and
ten expert basketball players will shoot 25 free throws in front of a crowd and in an alone
condition. Based on previous literature, it is hypothesized that in the present experiment,
the expert basketball players will make more free throws in front of an audience than alone.
The presence of others will act as a source of arousal and facilitate performance. It is also
hypothesized that the novice basketball players will make more free throws alone than in
the crowd condition. The presence of others will cause evaluation apprehension as well as
129
Social Facilitation
be a source of distractions to the novice basketball players. This source of arousal will
inhibit their performance on what is considered to be a difficult task for this group. It is
also hypothesized that the experts will make more free throws overall (in both conditions
combined) than the non experts.
Method
Participants
The participants who took part in the present study were 20 males over 18 years of
age. The participants were chosen based on their responses to 15 questions in a
questionnaire. The questionnaire was used to display the participant's ability to perform
certain basketball skills. The particular skill required in this study was shooting a basketball
in the form of a free throw. A free throw is a basketball shot 15 feet from the net and is
performed without stepping on or over the line. The questions that were answered
determined whether the participant is an expert or a novice basketball player. The
participants were asked a number of questions including; at what age they began playing
basketball, if they have ever been coached or had lessons to improve their overall
basketball skills, and if they have ever played on a basketball team in which they had been
evaluated or competed against others in order to gain a spot on the team. They were also
asked what position they played and if they had prior experience playing in front of a
crowd. For the complete questionnaire, please refer to appendix A.
Based on the results of the questionnaire, a group of ten experts and ten non experts
were chosen to participate in the study. The experts were chosen based on their history,
high level of basketball experience and mastery of skills. The non experts must have had
some prior ability to play basketball, but no experience in playing any organized form of
basketball. These people generally will be those who play at home and have the basic skills
130
Social Facilitation
to partake in the study, but have no experience or lessons on how to play or shoot a
basketball with the correct form. Therefore these non experts will be novice basketball
players, at a significantly lower skill level than the experts.
The questionnaires were personally handed out on campus and at competitive
UWO intramural basketball games. The study was carried out at the Althouse College
basketball gym, located on Western Road just south of Huron College on March 23, 2007.
The participants were not permitted to take part in the study if they have any
injuries which could affect their ability to shoot foul shots. Moreover, they could not be in
a state in which they could further injure themselves while participating, or put themselves
at any sort of risk.
Apparatus
The experiment was carried out using 2 NBA regulation height basketball nets,
which were situated at each end of the basketball court. The backboard of each net was
transparent and flat, and measured approximately 6' horizontally and 3 ¥2 vertically. On
each backboard there was a painted rectangle that had outside dimensions of 24 inches
horizontally and 18 inches vertically. Each basket had a metal rim, which was securely
attached to the backboard and located 10 feet above and parallel to the floor. The rims were
18 inches in diameter, and had a white cord net attached to them. The court was
approximately 94 feet in length and had benches on the east side of the gym in which the
other subjects could observe the study. Each basketball net had a free throw line associated
with it, which was 15 feet from the plane of the face of the backboard. The free throw lines
were painted on the court and were 2 inches wide. Two NBA official approved leather
basketballs were used. The gym was illuminated from the ceiling, and the doors to the gym
were locked so that nobody could enter and cause additional distractions to the subjects.
131
Social Facilitation
Other materials that were used prior to conducting the experiment included mandatory
consent forms. This is an agreement by the subject to participate in the study under the
presented conditions. As well, it guarantees the anonymity and confidentiality of their
participation and results of the study by the experimenter. Prior to the testing period, every
participant also completed a questionnaire. The questionnaire was 2 pages long and
contained 15 questions. It was used to determine whether the subject would be placed in
the expert or non expert group.
Procedure
The study commenced with all 20 participants completing a mandatory consent
form. The participants printed their names, as well as signed and dated the forms in the
appropriate locations. Attached to the consent form was the questionnaire that the
participants filled out in order to determine their basketball skill level. Next there was a 5
minute quick and efficient stretching exercise. This was led by the experimenter and all
participants took part in it prior to any physical activity. This helped to ensure the
prevention of any minimal risks of injury that could potentially occur while shooting a
basketball. The exercises included arm, leg, wrist, and back stretches in order to reduce
strains and the pulling of muscles.
The subjects were then divided into two groups based on their ability to shoot a
basketball. A group of ten experts and ten non experts were separated and asked to stand at
opposite ends of the court, while the instructions of the study were explained aloud. Five
randomly chosen expert basketball players were instructed one by one to go into the gym
and shoot 25 foul shots alone. Each participant was alone in the gym while everyone else
waited in the hallway until he completed his set of free throws. Each participant was
instructed to keep track of how many free throws they made. They were not permitted to
132
Social Facilitation
count a free throw if they stepped on or over the free throw line. This was to ensure that
every participant had an equal advantage while shooting free throws. They were also
allowed to shoot 5 practice free throws in order to "warm up" and have some form of
practice before evaluation. After these 5 experts took 25 free throws in the alone condition,
5 non experts were given the same instructions and followed the same procedure.
Following, every participant was instructed to come into the gym while the 5 experts and 5
non experts who had previously taken free throws, shot another 25 free throws in the
audience condition. One expert and one non expert simultaneously shot their free throws on
one of the two nets on either side of the gym. The 18 remaining participants were randomly
selected into two groups to watch the participants at either end of the gym. When this
session was completed, the 5 remaining experts and 5 remaining non experts also
completed their 25 free throws in the crowd condition. Afterwards, this group of
participants would then one by one shoot their remaining 25 free throws in the alone
condition. Having half the participants shoot in the audience condition first and half of the
participants shoot in the alone condition first accounted for reliability in the study. By the
end of the study each participant had shot 50 foul shots in two different conditions. Twenty
five foul shots were taken in the audience condition, while the remaining 25 free throws
were shot in the alone condition. After the study was completed, each subject was thanked
and given a feedback handout in order to gain further insight about the study and contact
information.
Results
A 2x2 Mixed Anova was performed to examine the effects of skill level (between
subjects factor) and crowd effects (within subjects factor) on free throw performance. Skill
133
Social Facilitation
level was divided into experts and novices, whereas crowd effects were an audience and
alone condition.
The test of the interaction of skill level and crowd effects was found to be
significant (F(l,18) = 28.79, p< .05). The means were as follows: expert- audience
condition =18; expert- alone condition =16; non expert- audience condition =6; non expertalone condition =9. Figure 1 is graph displaying the mean scores of the expert and novice
skill level participants, in both the alone and audience conditions.
As predicted, experts (M=17) were found to be have significantly higher
performance scores that non experts (M=7.5) in this study (F(l,18) = 62.84, p< .05).
Finally, performance was higher in the alone crowd condition (M=12.5) than in the
audience crowd condition (M=12), but it was not significantiy higher (F(l,18) = 2.40, n.s.).
Discussion
The purpose of the present experiment was to test the social facilitation effect on
experts and non expert's abihty to shoot free throws. It was hypothesized that the expert
basketball players wiU make more free throws in the audience condition than in the alone
condition. It was also hypothesized that the novice basketball players will make more free
throws in the alone condition than in the crowd condition. The final hypothesis was that the
experts will make more free throws overall (in both conditions combined) than the non
experts.
The results were supported by previous literature, in addition to successfully
confirming the h5q)otheses. The results presented in figure 1 demonstrate that the experts
made more free throws in the audience condition than in the alone condition, whereas the
non experts made more free throws in the alone condition than in the audience condition.
These results were similar to those of Michaels et al. (1982), who found that expert pool
0)
20 -|
18 16 14 12 10 8642-
—audience
• -•alone
0
expert
novice
Skill level
Figure 1. Effect of crowd on free throws made in experts and novices
Social Facilitation
j 35
players made a higher percentage of shots in front of an audience than by themselves, and
that the novice pool players made a higher percentage of shots by themselves than in front
of an audience.
According to research by Zajonc (1965), the presence of others is a source of arousal
that should faciUtate performance on easy tasks and inhibit performance on difficult tasks.
Therefore, because shooting free throws in an easy task for expert basketball players, their
performance was facilitated by the presence of an audience. The presence of others acted as
a source of arousal or drive, and enhanced the dominant response in the participant. Due to
the expert's superior ability to make free throws, the 9 audience members aroused these
participants and enhanced their dominant response which is the act of shooting the ball into
the basket. In addition, Zajonc (1965) also proposes that for difficult tasks, similar to that
for the novice basketball players in this study, the presence of others may even lower
arousal. This would in affect inhibit performance in these participants causing them to
make more free throws in the alone condition where there is no audience.
Previous literature by Weiss and Miller (1971, as cited in Feinberg & Aiello, 2006)
proposed a compelling theory called the evaluation apprehension theory. This theory
suggests that the presence of others makes us anxious and produces apprehension of others
negative evaluations. In the present experiment, the audience may have made the novice
free throw shooters nervous and stressed out. These less skilled individuals could have felt
this way because they did not want to embarrass themselves in front of the audience. In
turn, the expert participants were very confident in their abilities and were not afraid of
negative evaluations by the audience. Instead, their confident mentality led them to beheve
that they would perform at a high level and the audience will be impressed and praise thenabilities.
136
Social Facilitation
Baron, Moore and Sanders (1978) proposed the distraction conflict theory. They
believed that the presence of others can be distracting towards an individual. On easy tasks,
distractions act as a moderator of attention and facilitate performance, whereas on difficult
tasks, distractions can divert attention away from the task and inhibit performance, hi the
case of the novice participants. Baron, Moore and Sanders' (1978) theory could help
analyze their performance. In accordance with this theory, the novice basketball players
were nervous and distracted by the talking or the dribbhng of the basketball at the other end
of the court, which could have diverted their attention away from the task.
The results also showed that in total, the expert basketball players made more free
throws than the novice basketball players. This was due to the previous experience and
higher skill level the experts had in comparison to the novice participants. The participant's
performance scores in each condition, as well as group means are presented in Appendix B.
Finally, the results also demonstrated that the participant's performance in the alone
condition was higher than the participant's performance in the audience condition. This
was found not to be significantly higher because the alone condition was supposed to have
greater performance in the novice skill level, whereas the audience condition was supposed
to have greater performance from the expert skill level. This did not hinder the results in
any fashion and the reason for the higher performance level in the alone condition could
have been due to the fact that there were not as many true experts as there were tme non
experts. This was the first confound in the present study. A true expert would be one that is
at the highest possible level at the given task. For example, basketball players at the NBA
and NCAA level would take on the truest form of an expert. It was difficult to attain these
participants in the study, although one participant performed at a collegiate level and two
others played at a national level. This caused a large separation in the expert group which
137
Social Facilitation
could have been divided into a true expert skill level and a mediocre skill level. It is
apparent in the participant's scores that the true experts had a wider gap between free
throws made in the audience condition and the alone condition. It was much wider
compared to those who could have been categorized as mediocre skill level participants.
These mediocre participants did not make many more free throws in the audience condition
than in the alone condition, and in some cases even made less. This could have also been
caused by false information filled out in the questionnaire, or the participant's
misconception of their ability. This would cause a perception of superior abihty than the
participant actually has, and they would be placed in a group that is not suited for their skill
level. It was much easier to acquire non experts, and their skill level is evident in the
results, as every novice participant made more free throws in the alone condition than in
the audience condition.
Other confounds in the study could be the participants mood and alertness during
the study. The study took place in the evening and by then some of the participants could
have been tired or been in a bad mood due to experiences they encountered through the
course of the day. As well, some participants could have played in this gym previously
which could have given them a slight advantage over those who have never played there
before. The previous experience these participants had shooting on these particular nets
could have facilitated their performance in the study. Also, the difference in the amount of
air pressure in the two different basketballs that were used in the study could have played a
role in the participant's performance. By dropping the two balls from the same height and
measuring how high each ball bounced in relation to each other was done to make sure that
they were as equally pumped with air as possible.
138
Social Facilitation
Another variable that was not controlled was that some participants performed the
two conditions in a closer proximity than others. It could be argued that the participants
who had a shorter delay between free throw conditions could have stayed "warmer", which
is basketball terminology for being in a state where you are more physically and mentally
prepared for your upcoming shots. Males, as well as participants of varying ages could
have been used in order to better represent the population of experts and novice basketball
players. It was too difficult to find expert female basketball players so females were simply
eliminated from the experiment.
The final possible limitation in the present study was that in the alone condition, the
participant had to honestly represent how many free throws they made. Some of the
participants may not have been as honest as others because they were afraid of negative
evaluations that the experimenter may form about them. This could have been controlled
by having each participant write how many free throws they made on a piece of paper and
placing it into a box that would be looked at in the future. This would ensure that the
experimenter would have no possible way of hnking any given performance to any of the
participants.
Human behavior, especially in western society, is influenced by social
interactions. The present experiment provides thought provoking insight into how the
presence of others can affect how we perform in sports, or even on our day to day tasks.
139
Social Facilitation
References
Allport, F.H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 3,159-182.
Baron, R.S., Moore, D., & Sanders, G.S. (1978). Distraction as a source of drive in social
facilitation research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 816-824.
Feinberg, J.M., Aiello, J.R. (2006). Social facihtation: a test of competing theories.
Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 36, 1087-1109.
Michaels, J.W., Blommel, J.M., Brocato, R.M., Linkous, R.A., & Rowe, J.S. (1982).
Social facilitation and inhibition in a natural setting. Replications in Social
Psychology, 2, 21-24.
Pessin, J. (1933). The comparative effects of social and mechanical stimulation on
memorizing. American Journal of Psychology, 45,263-270.
Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking competition. American
Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.
Zajonc, R.B. (1965). Social facihtation. Science, 149, 269-274.
140
Social Facilitation
Appendix A
Questionnaire
Answer all the questions to the best of your ability in the provided space. If you are not
comfortable answering a question, providing any sort of private information or simply
do not know the answer to any of the questions, feel free to leave any of them blank.
You are not obligated to provide information you are not comfortable offering.
1. Sex: M
or F
2. At what age did you start playing basketball:
years of age
3. How many times a year, month or week do you play basketball: _ _ _ _ _
4. On a scale from one to ten what would you rate your current basketball skills (ten
being the best):
5. Have you ever had any sort of basketball lessons: Yes
or No
6. If you answered "yes" to the above question for how many years did you have
lessons:
# of years.
7. From one being nothing at all to ten being it made me a much better player, rate
how much you leamed and improved during these lessons:
8. Have you ever been on a basketball team in which you had to be evaluated and
compete with others in order to gain a spot on the team (the team was coached):
Yes
or No
1. If so what level of basketball was the team playing in:
2. How old were you on this team:
3. How successful was your team:
141
Social Facilitation
4. Circle what position you played: (pg/ sg/ sf/ pf/ c)
5. Did you come off the bench or were you a starter:
6. How many minutes on average did you play:
7. Did your team play in front of an audience: Yes
or No
8. If "yes" how many people were watching on average:
9. Did you know the people watching and if so what percentage of the people did you
know: Yes
or No
and
% of people
10. If you were not on a team, where do you play basketball and with
whom:
11. How much experience do you have performing in front of an
audience:
12. Would you be nervous playing in front of an audience: Yes
or No
13. Are you currently experiencing any injuries which could inhibit your basketball
performance:
14. Have you had any previous major injuries in the past: Yes
15. If so what are they:
\
or No
Social Facilitation
Appendix B
Expert
Novice
Mean
Crowd Condition
Audience
Alone
Sl=20
Sl= 18
S2=22
S2= 19
S3= 18
S3= 15
34=20
S4= 17
S5= 19
S5= 16
S6=21
S6= 17
S7=20
S7=20
S8= 15
S8= 16
S9= 13
S9= 13
S10= 12
S10= 13
Sll=4
Sll=6
S12=4
S12=8
S13=6
S13=7
S14=5
S14= 10
S15=3
S15=7
S16=8
S16= 10
S17=5
S17=5
S18=8
S18=ll
S19= 10
S19= 12
S20=9
S20= 15
12
12.5
Mean
17
7.5