HÖGSKOLAN I HALMSTAD Tel vx 035 - 16 71 00 Besöksadress:
Box 823 Tel direkt 035 - 16 7…… Kristian IV:s väg 3
301 18 HALMSTAD Telefax 035 - 14 85 33 Pg 788129 – 5 Performance in Public:
Young Tennis Players’ Reactions to Different Types of Audiences
Halmstad University
School of Social and Health Sciences: Author
Sport Psychology, 91-120ECTS, Spring 2012 Sebastian Marek Dorling Supervisor: Professor Natalia Stambulova
Examinator: Professor Urban Johnson
Dorling, S. (2012) Performance in public; Young tennis players reactions to different types of audiences. (Masters thesis in Sport Psychology, 91-120ects). School of Social Health Science: University of Halmstad.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effect audience types have on young tennis athlete’s performance and behaviours and to investigate how previous experiences, social relationships, and audience awareness correlate to audience effect and coping strategies. Participants (n=4) (m=11.5 years) were given 4 weeks task- motivational climate training followed by 2 match days consisting of 5 matches of varying audiences; no audience, family, others, coaches and cameras. Quantitative data was evaluated by experts. Qualitative data was obtained by post-match semi-structured interviews. Each participant displayed different reactions to audience effects.
Quantitative results were not generalizable but were used in interviews to stimulate participants. General themes of audience types were found; cameras resulted in physical appearance awareness, coaches resulted in mistake avoidance, and no audience resulted in lower concentration levels. Playing tennis helped develop coping strategies for performance in public, where further training by stimulation of various audience types was highlighted. These results support previous theoretical frameworks but highlight a need of further emphasis on audiences. A Multi-dimensional Model of Audience Effect in Athletic Performance was proposed. Training in front of varying audience types should be implemented in tennis training, and further research into different sports is needed.
Key words: Audience Types, Audience Effect, Tennis, Performance, Training
Dorling, S. (2012) Performance in public; Young tennis players reactions to different types of audiences. (Magister-uppsats i psykologi inriktning idrott, 91-120 hp).
Sektionen för Hälsa och Samhälle: Högskolan i Halmstad.
Abstrakt
Syftet med denna studie var att undersöka relationer mellan publik typer och ungdoms tennis idrottare prestenda och beteende och att undersöka hur sambandet av tidigare erfarenheter, sociala relationer, och publik medvetenhet och hur dem påverkas av publik. Deltagarna (n=4) (m=11.5år) hade 4 veckor 'task-motivational climate' träning följt av 2 matchdagar bestående av 5 matcher med varierande publik; ingen publik, familj, andra, tränare, och kameror. Kvantitative data utvärderas av experter. Kvalitativa data genomförs genom semi-strukturerade intervjuer efter matcherna.Varje deltagare visade olika grader och polaritet till publik effekten. Kvantitativa resultaten var inte generaliserbart, men användes i intervjuerna att stimulera deltagarna. Almänna teman hittades mellan publik typer; kameror resulterade med utseende medvetenhet, tränare resulterade med misstag undvikande, ingen publik resulterade med
lägrekoncentrationsnivåer. Att spela tennis hjälpte utveckla copingstrategier för prestanda framför publik, där vidare träning med stimulering av olika publiks typer behövs. Resultaten stödjer tidigare teoretiska ramar men belyser ett behov att ha en ytterligarebetoning på publik. En 'Multi-Dimensional Model of Audience Effect in Athletic Performance' föreslogs. Träning framför olika publiks typer bör genomföras i tennis träning och ytterligare forskning med olika idrotter behövs.
Nyckelord: Publiks typer, Public Effekt, Tennis, Prestanda, Träning
P a g e | 1 Introduction
Sport is becoming more and more a part of peoples’ lives. The introduction of commercialism and sponsorship has shaped sport into how we see it today – large crowds and fanaticism, the well-respected lucrative jobs of athlete and coach, and the bigger is better attitude on sporting stadiums and events. Consequently it has shaped the modern day elite athlete. What distinguishes the best athlete from the rest is their ability to handle pressure and situation-specific events. Technically athletes reach a ‘ceiling’
and the difference between one athlete and another is almost purely psychological and tactical.
In the beginning of an athlete’s career the focus is on having fun, developing motor skills and social development. As they enter their second decade of life, they develop and improve. They start training several times a week and their focus is more technical and tactical. They start to deliberately practice instead of playing, and how they train becomes planned and intentional.
If successful, sooner or later they will start to compete in bigger events with lucrative prizes and larger spectatorships. Their coach, sponsors, family, friends, media, television and even people they’ve never met watch over and evaluate them. Every shot they make will be analyzed, as well as every body and verbal expression too. Why did the athlete miss that shot? Why did the athlete shout out and swear? Why did the athlete look down at the ground?
How do athletes react to performing in public and is there a difference in performing in front of different audience types? These are questions of interest in this paper.
Key Terms
Social facilitation. Social facilitation is the phenomenon which deals with the influence that social situations and circumstances have on individuals. There has been quite extensive research on this phenomenon stemming from the early 1900’s and
conclusively finding that there is a complex relationship, which have either positive and facilitative, or negative and debilitative effects (Zajonc, 1965, Triplett, 1898, Michaels et al, 1982, Moore and Brylinsky, 1993, Hollifield, 1982).
There are two branches to the study of social facilitation. Group effects focus on the impact that social relationships and social psychology has on individuals. This means it aims to investigate roles and other factors co-actors in a group have on each other.
The second branch of social facilitation is audience effects. It aims to understand the impact that a viewing audience has on performing individuals.
These two branches can be independent of each other. It is therefore important to study team sports, including co-actor roles and group effects, independently to
individual sports.
Audience. Audience is the term stays in focus throughout this study. It is a complex term which is different to those of spectators, viewers or public.
An Oxford dictionary definition of audience describes audience as “the assembled spectators or listeners at a public event …” or “people giving attention to something”. These definitions can be problematic in the field of research, as they can vary extensively.
P a g e | 2 Jowett (2007) explains the scientific definition in terms of social psychology as the “presence of others who are attending to and evaluating task performance” (Jowett, 2007, p.105) where the emphasis is on attending and evaluating performance. Previous research of audience effects fails to distinguish between spectators and audiences, and therefore most previous research classifies a presence of others as an audience. This is not valid.
Audiences can vary in many different ways and therefore it is important to control as many variables as possible to discover the individual effects of each varying factor. Some audience variables are listed below.
Audience Characteristics – Size
– Density – Role – Gender
– Relationship to athlete Audience Behaviours
– Noise
– Verbal Language – Body Language
Theoretical Frameworks and Previous Research
Drive Theory (Zajonc, 1965). Zajonc’s (1965) Drive Theory follows up on the pioneer research of Triplett (1898) who found that cyclists performed fast track times when in the presence of other cyclists. Zajonc suggests in his theory that when individuals are in the presence of others, perceived and actual activation levels are affected. He tested this theory in various research on both animals and humans, where his findings supported his theory. He therefore claimed that the phenomenon of performing differently when in the presence of others in comparison to performing alone is an innate and habitual response.
Zajonc also found in basic research that when people are performing tasks that are simple or well learned, performance is facilitated in the presence of others. However on the contrary, when performing complex tasks performance decreased.
Sports are combinations of various tasks, where most athletes train several hours a week. It is fair to assume that their skills are well learned, so one might expect
positive effects of social facilitation to exist (Carron, Burke, & Prapavessis, 2004).
Although the skills may look simple, we must not ignore that they are in fact quite complex. The body has many degrees of freedom which can vary extensively in terms of position or reaction time (Ivančević, 2011). Therefore in terms of sport, Zajonc’s Drive Theory poses many problems as each sport is different with varying degree of difficulty and type of tasks. These issues have led to varying support and criticisms of Zajonc’s Drive Theory.
Michaels et al. (1982) conducted an experiment on students whilst playing pool.
Better players who were unaware of observers converted 71% of their shots, but when they knew about the 4 spectators they converted 80% of their shots. Average players converted 36% of their shots when alone, and this decreased to 25% when they knew there were 4 observers.
Moore and Brylinsky (1993) found contrary evidence to Michaels et al. (1982) and Zajonc’s Drive Theory. They compared results in basketball, in terms of total points
P a g e | 3 and conversion rates. The two experimental groups were; in the presence of an audience and in the absence of an audience. They found that conversion rates were higher when there was no audience. However, this is a completely different sport involving open skill sets compared to Michaels et al.’s study on closed skill sets and individual sport.
Hollifield (1982) also found counter evidence to Zajonc’s Drive theory. Eighty 9 year old boys were instructed to complete a motor task, divided into two groups. One group had already learned the task, the other group were new to the task. The two groups were to perform the tasks in two conditions; in front of an audience, and without an audience. Results showed no significant difference between the two groups. Both performed worse in front of 4 adults, which contradicts Zajonc’s Drive Theory.
This research amongst others show inconsistent explanations of audience effects, and suggests Zajonc’s Drive Theory is not the best explanation of it. The theory assumes that it is an innate quality of human beings to have increased arousal levels when in the presence of others. Schlenker and Leary (1982) suggested that individuals are
concerned of their self-presentation to others, and seek to gain a favourable social impression and avoid undesirable impressions. Cottrell et al. (1968) found that a blind- folded audience has no effect on drive, indicating the mere presence of a group of people doesn’t affect arousal states. Cottrell et al. (1968) suggested an alteration of Zajonc’s theory. The Learned Drive Theory, also known as Evaluation-Apprehension Theory, indicates that increased arousal levels in the presence of others is not innate, and is a learned behaviour from watching of others.
Inverted-U Hypothesis (Landers & Arent, 2003). Landers and Arent (2003) also became dissatisfied of Zajonc and Cottrell’s drive theories of social facilitation.
They felt that a better but also more general model of arousal and audience effects could be possible. They suggested an inverted-U hypothesis on the relationship between arousal and performance. They found that in general, performance suffers when an athlete is under-aroused in the same way that an athlete is over-aroused, but agreed that the exact level of arousal may differ between individuals.
Landers and Arent critiqued Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation for being too simplistic, as performance is too broad of a term. Post-Zajonc critics say that social facilitation should be expressed in terms of cognitive and physical arousal states.
Strauss (2002) found that the need for coordination differentiates complex from simple tasks. Research on audience effect on motor coordination task performance has varied findings, where some support facilitation (Travis, 1925, Martens, 1969, Landers et al., 1978), and others indicate debilitation effects (Husband, 1931, Pessin and Husband, 1933, Singer, 1965). Conditioning tasks such as strength and speed performance seem to be facilitated by an audience (Moede, 1920, Beckmann & Strang, 1992) and tasks involving both coordination and conditioning have had very varied results (Brennan et al., 1980, Ben-Ezra et al., 1986, Bell & Yee, 1989, Dube & Tatz, 1991). Strauss
indicated that different sports have different optimal arousal states. For example, golf and putting needs a high level precision and control. If someone has high arousal they will likely be tense and unable to control the ball very well.
Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning (Hanin, 2000, 2007).Although Hanin’s theory of Individual Zones of Optimal Functioning is a theory based on emotion, anxiety, and arousal, and wasn’t really intended for social facilitation or audience effects, it is worth mentioning here. Zajonc stated that increased arousal is a by-product of being in the presence of others, and anxiety can be correlated to arousal
P a g e | 4 and therefore Hanin’s theory has some relevance here.
The theory takes into account that people have different levels and optimal coping levels of anxiety and arousal that are unique to the individual. Some perform best with low anxiety, some with a medium amount and others with a high amount.
These different effects are highly based on individual characteristics.
“Under similar environmental conditions, people perceive themselves differently, think differently, cope differently, and experience and display emotions differently” (Lazarus, 1998, p.213). This assumption indicates that the degree of
audience effect does not just depend on audience characteristics such as behaviour, body and verbal language as previously mentioned, but it also depends on individual
characteristics such as personality, psychological factors, coping strategies,
physiological and previous experiences where Hanin (2003) defines experiences as
‘past and present characteristics that determine the particular quality of a person’s performance’. Hanin expanded on the need for highlighting past experiences with his
‘individual-oriented strategy’ which emphasized needing to analyze an athlete's past performance history to identify emotions accompanying individually best performances.
Hanin differentiates between state-like experiences, or emotional states, trait like experiences, or relatively stable emotional patterns, and meta-experiences, or lessons learned and reflected experiences in successful and less than successful performances (Hanin, 2004).
Hanin (2000, 2003) expanded on the notion of experiences, specifically
emotional experiences, and claimed that emotional experiences have 5 main categories.
Hanin (2007) explains that “Each emotional experience takes place in some form (subjectively perceived or observable); it has specific content (or quality); it is
characterized quantitatively by its intensity and as a process that unfolds over time in a particular context” (Hanin, 2007, p.34).
Blascovich and Mendes (2000) found that previous experience of a task was correlated to different physiological responses when performing in front of an audience or on their own. They found that the importance of a performance is increased when there is an audience, and if the skill is well-learned, the performance becomes a challenge. They also found that if the skill is not well-learned, it becomes a threat. The physiological variables differed in each group, but there were common differences of cardiac output, vascular resistance, and cardiac performance. The study was limited in the fact that it did not explore previous emotional experiences, but rather explored previous motor skill experience. They also failed to define what they meant by the term audience.
Mullen et al. (1997) conducted a meta-analysis on all studies investigating the relationship between presence of others and arousal. The findings showed an increase in self-reported perceived cognitive arousal as well as physical arousal found by changes in electrical conductance in participants’ skin. They also found that there was a
difference in facilitation on whether the audience was monitoring them or not. Jowett also supports this finding by defining an audience as the presence of others who are attending to and evaluating task performance (Jowett, 2007). However, in this current research, the type of audience or the size of an audience has not been controlled in a sufficient manner.
Dowie (1982), Agnew and Carron (1994) reported that the size of a crowd or audience had no significant difference on performance of their team. However Schwartz and Barsky (1997) found that the size density, or how compact the audience is, does have an effect. They found that low crowd density resulted in lower win ratios for the
P a g e | 5 home team, compared to when the crowd density was high.
Expanding on the findings of physiological and cognitive changes whilst in the presence of an audience, (Blasovich and Mendes, 2000; Mullen et al., 2007) Geukes et al. (2012) found psychological changes as a consequence of audience effect. They investigated the correlation of personality traits and audience effect. Previous studies indicated that trait anxiety (Wang et al., 2004, Wine, 1971), self-consciousness (Baumeister, 1984, Wang et al., 2004), and narcissism (Wallace & Baumeister, 2002, Wallace et al., 2005) have been seen to be correlated to the degree and polarity of audience effects. Geukes et al. (2012) investigated private and public self-consciousness and narcissism as predictors of the impact of audience effects. They found that
participants who scored high on public self-consciousness dealt with audiences better, as they were accustomed to the demands of high pressure and being watched. Higher scores for narcissism also showed better performance in front of an audience. This was hypothesized to be because of participants placing higher importance on socially evaluative situations and receiving admiration, and therefore were not distracted negatively. Personal self-consciousness was not significantly correlated.
Schlenker et al. (1990) found that the self-esteem of an athlete affects how they receive feedback from an audience. They found that athletes who had lower self-esteem did not change their perception of their ability when the audience gave good feedback, such as cheering, but it became worse if the audience gave bad feedback such as jeering.
In comparison, athletes with good self-esteem had better perception of their ability when the audience gave good feedback, but was unchanged when receiving bad feedback.
There has been little research investigating the effect of an audience on self- efficacy. Geisler and Leith (2007) found that there are some effects on self-efficacy when in the presence of an audience. Bandura (1995) uses the term "self-efficacy" to describe the conviction one has to execute successfully the behaviour (e.g. a sports performance) required to produce a certain outcome (e.g. a trophy or self-satisfaction) and, thus, can be considered as a situationally specific self-confidence. In addition, as Bandura notes, self-efficacy is not concerned with the skills an individual has but with the judgments of what an individual can do with the skills he or she possesses. He also distinguishes between perceived self-efficacy and self-confidence. Self-confidence, for him, refers to the strength of the belief or conviction but does not specify the level of perceived competence. Bandura prefers to use the term "self-efficacy" to specify the level of perceived competence and the strength of that belief.
Research has found that both psychological and physiological factors are variables to the polarity and degree of audience effect that occurs (Blasovich and Mendes, 2000; Mullen et al., 2007; Geukes et al., 2012; Schlenker et al., 1990; Geisler and Leith, 2007). However social factors can also be considered variables to audience effect. Although no study has so far directly studied degree of audience effect in varying relationships one has with an audience member, it can be hypothesized that there is a link. Omli and Lavoi (2012) investigated the roles of parents in sport and the emotional experiences of youth, and found that youth athletes are likely to feel less pressured if parents display less involvement, anger and pressure. Keegan et al. (2010) also found similar psychological consequences of different parental and coach relationships to youths. They found that in the perception of the children, the optimal parental roles revolved around support and facilitation, where the optimal coach roles revolved around instruction, management, and selection. Any other roles played by parents and coaches were associated with negative affects on the children.
Keegan et al. (2010) found that parent and coach roles play an important role to
P a g e | 6 youth development in sport. Hays (2002) also found similar findings, but draws
parallels between artists, of music and acting, to athletes of sport. Hays claims that the phenomenon of audience effects and its implications to performance are in principle the same, where the term ‘stage fright’ is commonly used. Hays claimed that in order to deal with audiences positively, performers must develop coping strategies at an early age. Compared to most sports, artistic performers are in contact with audiences at an earlier age and this may help them to cope and thrive under audience conditions compared to performers who are not used to the same conditions.
Summary and Working Model
The existing research on audience effects show gaps and in my opinion has not been controlled in a sufficient manner to limit the number of variables or establish a working consistent definition of ‘audience’. However, there is unanimous agreement that audience effects do exist and that it is a complex phenomenon. The existing research provides a framework for the current study, aiming to investigate the
relationship between audience types and performance and coping strategies in youths in the specialization stage of development. The current study will have many variables, however only some will be controlled and investigated. The parts of the model that were controlled and equal across participants will be audience density, training, the type of task, and the age of athletes. Three main variable types of the model will be investigated and controlled but are different across participants including audience types, audience relationships, and situational and global traits. Variables that will be uncontrolled but investigated are coping strategies and performance, where variables that will be uncontrolled and not investigated are personality traits.
Below is a working model, Figure 1., of what my understanding of audience effects are. The personality of an athlete is central to how they cope with audience effects which in turn will affect their performance. The personality characteristics of an athlete include how old they are, whether they are introverts or extroverts, their meta experiences, and global and situational traits. The athlete’s personality is governed or molded by what type of task they are performing as well as whether it is learned, difficult, or done as part of a group. The athlete’s personality is also governed by the type of training they receive and what the focus is on in the training they receive.
Finally the audience also has its’ own effect on the athlete’s personality, where audience density, body and verbal language, and the type of audience and their relationship to the athlete play a role in degree and polarity.
In the current study I aim to control as many variables as possible. The main emphasis of study will be the audience types and relationships to the athlete to highlight the importance of appropriate coach and parent roles, coping strategies and preparing athletes in the specialization stage to deal with audience effects.
P a g e | 7 Figure 1.Working Multi-Dimensional Model of Audience Effect in Athletic
Performance Objectives
The main purpose of this study is to understand the effect of audience types on the performance of young tennis athletes in the specialization stage of development.
The study aims to develop a better understanding of the antecedents of this relationship; how previous experiences, of both situational and social relationship nature, and awareness of audiences may effect the degree and polarity of audience effect and corresponding coping strategies.
Methodological Approach Sample
A non-random sampling method was used for both convenience and being able to control certain variables. Participants with no or little experience of audiences in their sport were favoured, and were of ages 10-12 so they fit the specialization stage of athletic career development (Côté et al. 2003). Côte et al. (2003) indicated that in sport, when youths are around the ages of 11-12 they enter a specialization stage of
development from a previous initiation stage. In this phase they learn key skills, tactics and rules and become more involved in their sport, beginning to compete. Four
participants were found matching the criteria with a mean age of 11.5.
A study including various sports and a larger range of participants would be ideal, however due to limited resources tennis was the sport of interest in the purpose of this study. Further applications and implications of the study could be broadened to different types of sports involving different skill sets.
The responsibility of recruiting audience members was shared between the researcher, coach, athlete and their family and friends.
P a g e | 8 Design and Procedure
Four participants received four weeks of controlled training in a task-orientated motivational climate. This was similar to how they were being trained before, but extra emphasis was put on team work and effort. They then participated in 5 matches spread across two match days, one week apart. Each match lasted 30 minutes and there was a 10 minute break in between each match. Each game was exposed to a different audience type consisting of 5 audience members in a controlled sized area..
Generalization of training. Training was controlled so that one athlete would receive no more training than another and the training was identical.
Each training session included
- 5 minutes warm-up, including static and dynamic stretches.
- 15 minutes non-opponent ball drills.
- 20 minutes opponent based ball drills.
- 20 minutes game play.
The emphasis was on teamwork and effort, as a task motivational climate was of focus. Task-motivational climates have been shown to have various positive effects (Ames, 1992a; Carpenter and Morgan, 1999), helping to focus athletes on themselves rather than their competition, which is something that was hypothesized to help develop coping strategies. During the warm-up, participants were encouraged to warm-up in a line to encourage teamwork and for the case of the warm-up, there was no
competitiveness allowed.
During the non-opponent ball drills, participants were told the focus is to concentrate on their technique. They were told that it doesn’t matter if they miss the shot as long as the technique is correct.
During the opponent based drills, no outcome goals were used– rather the emphasis was to be on their own game and technique. Positive and negative feedback were directed at their effort and concentration.
During the game play part of training – match like situations took place. They were told to focus on their own game and the most important thing is to concentrate and make an effort.
Experimental tests. After the training weeks, two match days took place in an experimental setting over a period of 2 weeks. Participants played 5 matches over a two week period, where each match was timed to last 30 minutes. Each match consisted of different audiences with varying roles including: no spectators, family, random people, coaches, and being filmed with no direct audience. As participants entered the court their attention was brought to the balcony. If there was an audience they were explained to what and who they were. No further instructions or comments were made.
For each match, the space for spectators was controlled at 3x5meters.
Controlling the spectator space allows the control of crowd density and size variables in accordance to Dowie (1982), Agnew and Carron (1994), and Schwartz and Barsky (1997).
Instruments
Quantitative.
Expert evaluation. For each match, athletes were evaluated by ‘hidden’ expert
P a g e | 9 who were taking notes on their performance. Forced errors, unforced errors, 1st / 2nd serves in, the score of each game, looks to the audience, verbal language, points won, and body language were noted (Appendix 3).
Self-Evaluation. Athletes evaluated their own performances by filling in a Lickert-scale on the following topics: ground strokes, serves, footwork, tactics, awareness of audience, audience being facilitative, audience being debilitative, self- confidence, and overall performance (Appendix 4 and 5).
Qualitative. Athletes had a debriefing meeting after each match day. This took the form of a semi-structured interview with prepared questions whilst still allowing freedom for the interviewer to probe for further elaboration. The interview guides (Appendix 6) aimed to understand the athletes’ reactions to different types of audience, by exploring past experiences, relationships, their performance and feelings under each match.
Interviews started with general questions about the player to ‘break the ice’, get a general background of the player and make them feel comfortable. Expert evaluation sheets as well as self-evaluation sheets were used to triangulate and stimulate athletes’
memory and responses to questions.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Quantitative. The raw quantitative data was collected and was put into Microsoft Excel. This raw data was manipulated to calculate useful indices and comparative data.
The raw data was translated by various calculations into game quality indices.
The data is categorized by the 4 athletes A, B, C and D and is broken up into three sections; expert evaluated performance index(quality of serves, quality of ground- strokes, overall performance), self-assessed performance(serve, ground-strokes, self- confidence, overall performance), self-assessed audience effect(looks to audience, audience awareness, audience effect)
Expert evaluated performance index. The Quality of Serves was calculated by taking the difference of Serves in and Serves out. Serves in was calculated by adding 1st Serves in and 2nd Serves in. The Serves out were calculated by adding 2nd Serves in, as they had already missed their first serves, and the double faults. The difference was then divided by the total amount of serves.
The Quality of Strokes was calculated by taking the difference of Good Strokes and Bad Strokes. The Bad Strokes was calculated by adding the amount of unforced errors with the amount of double faults. The Good Strokes was calculated by finding the difference between the total amount of Points Won and the opponent’s Bad Strokes, which in other words means how many Winners and shots that caused an opponent to make a forced error. The difference of Good Strokes and Bad Strokes was then divided by the total number of points which is equal to Good Strokes + Bad Strokes + Neutral Strokes (Opponents Good Strokes + Opponents Bad Strokes).
Overall Performance quality was calculated to be the average of Quality of Serves and Quality of Strokes.
Self-assessed performance index. The Lickert Scales were based on a Very Bad, Bad, Okay, Good, Very Good Scale. These were translated to -1, -0.5, 0, 0.5, and 1. The Strokes Column in Table 2. represent an average of score for Ground Strokes, Tactics, and Footwork.
P a g e | 10 Self-confidence was included as at first glance it appears to be correlated to their verbal and body behaviour, which were aspects that were noted by experts.
Self-assessed audience affect. The Lickert Scales were based on a 1-5 system where 1 was low and 5 was high. These were translated to a 0-1 scale. The Overall Effect was calculated by the sum of the Overall Positive Effect and the Overall Negative Effect. The Overall Negative Effect scores were adapted and reversed so instead of having positive values, they had negative values.
The Looks to Audience were not based on Self-Assessed Lickert Scales. They were noted by the Expert Evaluation, and standardized for each participant. It was calculated by Situational Looks to Audience by Participant divided by Overall Maximum Looks to Audience by Participant.
This standardized data was put into SPSS where possible correlations, relationships and useful statistical representation were investigated and analyzed.
Qualitative. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. (See Appendix 7, 8, 9, and 10). Transcripts were then analyzed to differentiate participants from each other, making a unique account for each athlete in terms of their background and experiences. Transcripts were also assessed in order to try and find comparable themes between participants using categorical-content analysis.
Results Quantitative
The quantitative results are presented individually for each participant and also together, to try and represent both idiosyncrasy and general trends.
A.
Table 1
Participant A quantitative results Variable No
Audience
Family Others Coaches Cameras
Serve Quality
0.38 0.28 0.53 0.45 0.09
Stroke Quality
0.14 0.22 0.02 0.09 0.04
Performance Quality
0.26 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.07
Self- assessed Serve
0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50
Self- assessed Strokes
0.17 0.34 0.00 0.17 0.17
Self- assessed Confidence
0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Self- assessed Performance
1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50
P a g e | 11 Looks to
Audience
0.00 0.25 0.65 1.00 0.15
Audience Awareness
0.00 0.60 0.60 0.80 0.80
Audience Effect
0.00 0.60 0.40 0.00 -0.20
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
No Audience Parents Others Coaches Cameras
No Audience 0.26 1 0 0 0 0
Parents 0.25 1 0.5 0.25 0.6 0.6
Others 0.28 0.5 0.5 0.65 0.6 0.4
Coaches 0.27 1 0.5 1 0.8 0
Cameras 0.07 0.5 0.5 0.15 0.8 -0.2
Performance Quality
Self-assessed Performance
Self-assessed
Confidence Looks to Audience Audience
Awareness Audience Effect
Figure 2. Participant A quantitative results.
Participant A performed best according to expert evaluation whilst being
watched by Others and then Coaches, where the worst performance was displayed in the Camera audience condition. Participant A evaluated himself to play best in the Family audience condition, according to self assessed overall performance, strokes and serve scores. Participant A looked to the audience most in the Coaches condition. He also felt most aware of the audience in the Coaches condition as well as Cameras. Cameras had the most debilitative effect where Family had the most facilitating effect.
Table 2
Participant B quantitative results Variable No
Audience
Family Others Coaches Cameras
Serve Quality
0.21 0.14 0.53 0.42 0.24
Stroke Quality
-0.08 -0.12 0.38 0.13 -0.14
Performance Quality
0.07 0.01 0.46 0.27 0.05
Self- assessed Serve
0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Self- assessed Strokes
0.00 0.34 0.50 0.67 0.17
P a g e | 12 Self-
assessed Confidence
0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00
Self- assessed Performance
0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
Looks to Audience
0.00 1.00 0.00 0.80 0.60
Audience Awareness
0.00 0.80 0.60 0.60 0.80
Audience Effect
0.00 0.00 0.40 0.20 0.20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
No Audience Parents Others Coaches Cameras
No Audience 0.07 0 0 0 0 0
Parents 0.01 0.5 0 1 0.8 0
Others 0.46 0.5 0.5 0 0.6 0.4
Coaches 0.27 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.2
Cameras 0.05 0 0 0.6 0.8 0.2
Performance Quality
Self-assessed Performance
Self-assessed
Confidence Looks to Audience Audience
Awareness Audience Effect
Figure 3. Participant B quantitative results
Participant B performed best according to expert evaluation whilst being
watched by Others and then Coaches, where the worst performance was displayed in the Family audience condition. Participant B evaluated herself to play best in the Coaches audience condition, according to self assessed overall performance, strokes and serve scores. Participant B looked to the audience most in the Family condition, where no looks to audience were noted in the Others condition. She felt most aware of the audience in the Family condition as well as Cameras. There was no condition that was debilitative according to her self-assessments, where Family had a neutral effect and Others had the most facilitating effect.
Table 3
Participant C Quantitative Results Variable No
Audience
Family Others Coaches Cameras
Serve Quality
-0.11 0.10 -0.04 0.10 0.12
Stroke Quality
-0.14 0.24 -0.09 -0.16 -0.10
Performance Quality
-0.12 0.17 -0.07 -0.30 0.01
P a g e | 13 Self-
assessed Serve
-1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00
Self- assessed Strokes
-0.17 0.67 0.50 0.67 0.67
Self- assessed Confidence
-0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00
Self- assessed Performance
-0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50
Looks to Audience
0.00 0.33 0.08 1.00 0.17
Audience Awareness
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.20
Audience Effect
0.00 0.60 0.60 0.20 0.40
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
No Audience Parents Others Coaches Cameras
No Audience -0.12 -0.5 -0.5 0 0 0
Parents 0.17 0.5 1 0.33 0.2 0.6
Others -0.07 0.5 0.5 0.08 0.4 0.6
Coaches -0.3 0 0.5 1 0.4 0.2
Cameras 0.01 0.5 1 0.17 0.2 0.4
Performance Quality
Self-assessed Performance
Self-assessed
Confidence Looks to Audience Audience
Awareness Audience Effect
Figure 4. Participant C quantitative results
Participant C performed best according to expert evaluation whilst being watched by Family, where the worst performance was displayed in the Coaches
audience condition. Participant C evaluated himself to play best both in the Family and Cameras audience condition, according to self assessed overall performance, strokes and serve scores. Participant C looked to the audience most in the Coaches condition.
He felt most aware of the audience in the Others condition as well as Coaches. There was no condition that was debilitative according to his self-assessments, where Family and Others had the most facilitating effects.
P a g e | 14 Table 4.
Participant D quantitative results Variable No
Audience
Family Others Coaches Cameras
Serve Quality
0.11 0.19 0.27 -0.03 0.22
Stroke Quality
-0.22 -0.17 -0.3 -0.32 -0.1
Performance Quality
-0.05 0.01 -0.2 -0.18 0.06
Self- assessed Serve
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
Self- assessed Strokes
0.17 0.34 0.17 0.00 0.34
Self- assessed Confidence
0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00
Self- assessed Performance
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
Looks to Audience
0.00 1.00 0.13 0.88 0.25
Audience Awareness
0.00 0.80 1.00 1.00 1.00
Audience Effect
0.00 -0.20 -0.1 0.20 0.40
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
No Audience Parents Others Coaches Cameras
No Audience -0.05 0.5 0 0 0 0
Parents 0.01 0 0.5 1 0.8 -0.2
Others -0.2 0 0 0.13 1 -0.1
Coaches -0.18 0 0 0.88 1 0.2
Cameras 0.06 1 1 0.25 1 0.4
Performance Quality
Self-assessed Performance
Self-assessed
Confidence Looks to Audience Audience
Awareness Audience Effect
Figure 5. Participant D Quantitative Results
Participant D performed best according to expert evaluation whilst being watched by Cameras, where the worst performance was displayed in the Others
audience condition. Participant D evaluated herself to play best in the Cameras audience condition, according to self assessed overall performance, strokes and serve scores.
P a g e | 15 Participant D looked to the audience most in the Family condition. She felt most aware of the audience in the Others, Coaches, and Cameras conditions. Both Others and Family were regarded to be debilitating conditions according to her self-assessments, with the latter being most negative. Coaches and Cameras were regarded to be facilitating where the latter being most positive.
Figure 6. Relationship between self-assessed performance (perceived), expert quantified performance (actual) and match type
Figure 6 shows that there are discrepancies between actual (quantified) and perceived (self-assessed) performances. It also shows no unilateral trend between audience types and both actual and perceived performances. Finally there are also no general trends between participants which shows that the relationship between audience types and performance is not simple and further investigation is required.
P a g e | 16 Figure 7. Relationship between looks to audience, audience awareness, total audience effect and match type
Figure 7 shows that there is no general relationship between the number of times a participant looks up towards the audience and their awareness of audience compared to the total audience effect and polarity. However, it is possible to see that audience awareness of 0.8-1.0 values results into lower or negative audience effects. It also shows that the relationship is not the same or linear between different audience types. Finally there are no general trends between participants which shows that the relationship between looking to the audience and the awareness of an audience contributing to a total audience effect is different for each individual.
Qualitative
Participants.
A.
Background.
- Male
- Started tennis through school, and then started to train at the club because it was fun. Didn’t start with any friends but made friends while there.
- Family are not tennis players.
- Parents drive and watch almost all the time. A notices them but doesn’t look up.
- Has previous audience experience with class theatre performing as a group of 3
P a g e | 17 in front of a class of 24. There were some mistakes and pressure, but the general experience was good.
- Hasn’t played any instruments.
- Has played football and handball. Parental involvement is not the same in those sports.
No Audience. Participant A was pleased with how the match went. The result was 5-2, where the opponent was neither great or poor, but somewhere in the middle. It was fun to play against him, even though sometimes the play becomes a little bit balloon-play.
“I don’t want to say anything negative about him but like he was okay.. It was fun to play with him ... he’s average.. sometimes the play becomes balloon-like.. back and forth..”
Play became more ‘friendly’ when playing without an audience.
“Yeah I noticed..(that no one was watching) it became more ’friendly’ play.. just for fun”
Participant A was concentrated and positive, and dared to play well.
“Jag thought about how I should hold my arm.. at training I think about it but I do it only two or three times, but now when I dared during the match – it helped.
Without trying too hard I got more power!”
Showing frustration is more common without an audience both in terms of body and verbal language.
“When I miss I want to scream no, but when there are people watching I don’t know what to do.. it gets louder in any way (without audience), when there is an audience I whisper it to myself”
Family. Participant A was pleased with how the match went. The result was 10- 0, where the opponent was quite ‘friendly’ in terms of her play. His confidence was higher in comparison with the other matches where his ground-strokes and footwork was better according to his own self-assessment.
Participant A felt comfortable with the audience. He was aware that they were there, but only looked up 5 times. He didn’t have any explanation to it.
It was more positive than Others watching him.
“when you play when the family is watching, you dare a little bit more … It was fun that they wanted to watch me, I wanted to show how capable I am playing”
However their opinions weren’t as important to him as Others were.
“because they have watched me a lot and know how I play, yet I feel that it is a positive thing.. and thats what I think myself.”
Participant A is close to his family, where he can be himself and talk about most things.
Others. Participant A was pleased with how the match went, where the result was 5-3.
“It was also good, not because I won but because it was fun to play”
His self-confidence was better in this match because he was feeling good after his first match. The opponent played well, but A fought the whole match.
He was aware of the audience, and was aware that he was looking at the audience many times, but was unaware to why.
“yeah I noticed it, and I looked up very much .. I don’t know why I looked up so often but maybe it was a reflex, I’m not sure why.” It was neither comfortable or
P a g e | 18 uncomfortable but more about mistake avoidance.
“it becomes more like, now I don’t want to make any mistakes incase they see it.”
There were a little bit of nerves, but they weren’t negative.
Coaches. Participant A was pleased with how the match went, where the result was 6-2. His own performance was good, but could have been better. He played against Participant C, where the previous match was described as ‘friendly’ play. When coaches were watching it became more serious.
He has a good relationship with the coaches, where he can be himself and they are aware of his needs and how he feels.
He felt nervous in this match. He was not used to playing in front of so many coaches at the same time. He felt that the coaches would be judging his play and his mistakes.
“It was a little bit nervvous because there were so many watching... there’s usually one or two who are there watching, or at least not that many of them … It thought it was (strange) ... Oh, what if I do something wrong.. what will they think? I don’t think it’s exactly bad but..”
He was very aware of the audience.
“I think they knew I was looking up at them a lot.. They saw when I looked up..
They saw that I had seen them many times during the match.. They thought oh that’s a lot of times he’s looking, does he want something? I think.. ... I didnt think too much about it but still I continued to look up and then later began to think about it again.. oh..
what do they think now?”
There was a difference of how coaches reacted or thought compared to other audience types.
“Maybe trainers.. they can maybe know more about tennis.. how you’re supposed to hit, technique and good ‘tennis’ .. all audience types applause for both players but there is a difference, the trainers know more about tennis and how you’re supposed to play”
Cameras. Participant A thought the match went well, where he was calm but nervous throughout. He was very aware of the audience type but unaware of how many times he looked up
“it was nervous when you ABSOLUTELY don’t want to look up, yet I did it ANYWAYS .. yeah two times, but it felt like more, you really didn’t want to look up.
For those who were filming, you don’t really want to wave and say hello..”
Participant A didn’t really feel like himself. He was confused at what side he should be on, the score, and he also ran a lot in between balls.
“It didn’t really feel like it (that you could be yourself) but I wanted to.. now I have to play okay and not look silly when they’re filming, and that’s how I thought all the time that I wasn’t going to do anything strange … it can be because of the cameras because you think that you should change sides when you’re not supposed to change sides. Then it’s quite embarrassing to be wrong, so you don’t really know or you trust yourself too much incase you would be wrong, but it’s embarrassing if you ask.”
The cameras has more of a negative effect than other audience types.
“You become a little bit more concentrated on the cameras when you look at the walls, you feel like they’re filming you, like what should I do ... if I do something wrong, a little negative, more pressure”
The body and verbal language was quiet where Participant A didn’t want to say
P a g e | 19 much in case it was wrong.
His self-confidence was the same, if not worse.
B.
Background.
- Female
- Started playing tennis with dad, and then started to train at the club because it was fun. Had a turbulent first year and thought training was boring, so B quit.
However she kept playing with her dad, and returned 2-3 years later to training with harder balls and has enjoyed it since.
- Family are tennis players. Dad is a seasoned player and younger brother plays just as often. Mum enjoyed watching tennis and has over the last couple years started to learn.
- Parents drive and watch as much as they can. B notices them but doesn’t look up.
- Has previous audience experience at school where they present a news report in front of the class every Friday. There are some nerves, but generally it is okay.
- Has played the flute and performed as a group in front of 50 people. Some pressure and stress, but it forces you to concentrate, and overall it went well.
- Has played football and handball. Parental involvement is not the same in those sports. Part of the reason B continues with tennis is because the parental
involvement is pleasant.
No Audience. Participant B thought the match went okay, where she didn’t play very well. She couldn’t recall the score, and was surprised to hear that she won with 5- 3. Her opponent, D, played well and better than usual. Participant B never really got going, where she missed many easy shots. She felt relatively confident but couldn’t get the balls directly where she wanted them.
She wasn’t completely focused.
“A little bit on myself (where was your focus?) but I don’t think I was completely there, I was thinking about other things.”
Family. Participant B thought the match went okay. She played better than the first match but still made easy mistakes. She felt that she was more focused and got going a bit more.
She was aware of the audience.
“I felt that they were there ... a little bit (if there was any pressure) I didn’t want them to think I played badly”
After 3 or 4 games, she was able to become more confident.
“I stopped feeling like my family was up there and concentrated and tried to pep myself up.”
After accepting the situation, the family gave her a soothing effect.
“It calmed me, and when they clapped it felt good.”
It was negative when she was too aware of them, in both the beginning and end of the match. It was positive when she had controlled her thoughts and mind.
