You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
A crowd can lift a home team to heights they never reach in training — or freeze a debutant into a shadow of their trained self. The mere presence of others changes performance, sometimes for better and sometimes for worse, and explaining when and why is one of social psychology's oldest and most elegant problems. This topic, the second of the two social topics in the OCR sport option, examines social facilitation and social inhibition and the phenomenon of home advantage. Its prescribed key research is Zajonc, Heingartner and Herman's (1969) study of social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach — an ingenious animal experiment that isolated the effect of an audience from the confounds that plague human studies. This lesson works through the Background (theories of audience effects and home advantage), the Key research (Zajonc et al. in full), and an Application (a strategy for training for and playing spectator sports).
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 03, Section B (Sport & exercise) topic | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Social facilitation and social inhibition | Audience effects — Background (Social) | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| Home advantage and its explanations | Audience effects — Background (Social) | AO1; AO2 applying to sport |
| Zajonc et al. (1969): social enhancement and impairment in the cockroach | Audience effects — Key research | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| A strategy for training for and playing spectator sports | Audience effects — Application | AO2 applying to a novel situation |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for exact wording. This lesson develops AO1 (theories of audience effects and home advantage and the key research), AO2 (designing a strategy for spectator sports) and AO3 (evaluating the theories, the animal study and the home-advantage evidence).
The starting observation is over a century old. Norman Triplett noticed cyclists rode faster when racing others than alone, and his reel-winding experiment with children — who wound faster in pairs — is often cited as social psychology's first experiment. The phenomenon he glimpsed has two faces:
The puzzle for decades was that the presence of others sometimes helped and sometimes hurt, with no obvious rule. Two "presence" situations are distinguished: an audience (others watching passively) and coaction (others doing the same task alongside you). Both can facilitate or inhibit.
The breakthrough was Robert Zajonc's (1965) elegant application of drive theory. His argument runs in three steps:
This single principle resolves the century-old puzzle: whether an audience helps or hurts depends on the task and the performer's skill level. An expert executing an over-learned skill is facilitated by a crowd (their correct response is dominant); a novice attempting a difficult new skill is inhibited (their errors are dominant). This is one of the most powerful ideas in the option, and it connects directly to the arousal topic (the audience is a source of arousal) and to drive theory met there. Zajonc famously summarised the practical implication: audiences enhance the performance of dominant responses, so an audience helps you do what you already do well and hinders what you have not yet mastered.
Zajonc claimed mere presence is inherently arousing, but later theorists asked why:
These refinements matter for evaluation: Zajonc's mere-presence account is elegant and supported by animal studies (where evaluation apprehension is implausible — a cockroach hardly fears judgement), while evaluation apprehension better fits human data. The animal evidence is therefore crucial ammunition for the mere-presence side of the debate — which is exactly why Zajonc turned to cockroaches.
It is worth understanding why Zajonc's 1965 resolution was such a landmark, because it shows how a good theory tidies up a messy literature. Before Zajonc, the audience-effects literature was contradictory to the point of embarrassment: some experiments found that being watched helped, others that it hindered, and there was no principled way to say which would happen. Reviews of the field were essentially catalogues of inconsistent results. Zajonc's insight was that the apparent inconsistency dissolved once you took account of task difficulty and skill level: the studies that found facilitation had used simple or well-practised tasks, while those that found inhibition had used complex or novel ones. A single moderating variable — whether the dominant response is correct — reconciled findings that had looked irreconcilable. This is a textbook example of the value of a parsimonious theory, and it is why the dominant-response principle remains the organising idea of the topic more than half a century later. For the exam, being able to say what problem Zajonc's theory solved, not just what it claims, is a mark of genuine understanding.
The notion of the dominant response repays a moment's care because it is where students most often stumble. The dominant response is simply the response that is most probable in a given situation for a given performer — the one most likely to "win out". For a task that is simple, or that an individual has practised until it is automatic, the most probable response is the correct one, so strengthening it with arousal improves performance. For a task that is complex, or that the individual has not yet mastered, the most probable response is frequently an error (the wrong turn, the mistimed movement, the reversion to an old habit), so strengthening it with arousal makes performance worse. Crucially, "dominant" is defined relative to the performer's skill, not the task in the abstract: the same golf putt is a well-learned simple task for a professional (audience facilitates) but a difficult, error-prone task for a beginner (audience inhibits). This is why the single most powerful applied recommendation in the topic is to over-learn a skill until the correct response becomes the dominant one — a point developed in the application. Getting this definition right, and tying it explicitly to skill level, separates strong answers from those that merely recite "simple versus complex".
Home advantage is the well-documented tendency for sports teams to win more often when playing at home than away. It is one of the most robust findings in sport, observed across many sports and leagues, though its size varies (it tends to be larger in some sports and, historically, in higher-pressure or more hostile venues).
Several, non-exclusive explanations are proposed:
| Factor | Proposed mechanism |
|---|---|
| Crowd support | A supportive home crowd raises arousal/motivation of the home team (social facilitation) and may influence officials |
| Familiarity | Knowledge of the home venue, pitch, surface and conditions |
| Travel | Away teams are fatigued and disrupted by travel |
| Territoriality | An evolutionary tendency to defend "home" territory more vigorously |
| Referee bias | Officials may (often unconsciously) favour the home team under crowd pressure |
The crowd is central but not the whole story, and — importantly — the crowd can be a double-edged sword. While home support usually facilitates, there is evidence that in certain very high-pressure situations (a decisive match, a crucial moment) a supportive home crowd can increase pressure and contribute to "home choking", where the home team's heightened arousal and self-focus impair performance on the most important occasions. This nuance — that the crowd usually helps but can, under extreme pressure, hinder — connects home advantage back to the catastrophe idea from the arousal topic and is a strong AO3 point. A careful candidate also notes that home advantage is multiply caused (crowd, familiarity, travel, territoriality, officiating), so attributing it solely to the crowd is reductive.
The evidence on which factor matters most is itself instructive, and worth carrying into evaluation. Some of the most striking findings concern referee (official) bias: studies of crowd noise suggest that officials award more decisions to the home side when a loud, partisan crowd is present, and that removing or muting the crowd reduces this bias — evidence sharpened by "natural experiments" such as matches played behind closed doors (with no spectators), where the size of home advantage often shrinks. This points to the crowd's influence on officials as a real contributor, not just its arousing effect on players. Other research attempting to disentangle the factors finds that familiarity and travel contribute but are usually smaller than the crowd/official effects, and that territoriality — a more speculative, evolutionary account — is harder to test directly. The behind-closed-doors evidence is especially valuable methodologically because it approximates an experiment: if home advantage falls when the crowd is absent but familiarity and (reduced) travel remain, the crowd is implicated as a major cause. A candidate who cites the behind-closed-doors reasoning demonstrates exactly the "how would we test this?" mindset that Section B rewards, and shows that home advantage, far from being a vague folk belief, has been probed with genuine empirical ingenuity.
It also helps to be precise about the audience–coaction distinction and its sporting relevance. An audience effect is the influence of others watching (spectators in a stadium, judges at a gymnastics meet), whereas a coaction effect is the influence of others doing the same task alongside you (the rest of the field in a race, other swimmers in adjacent lanes, a training partner). Both raise arousal and both obey the dominant-response rule, but they arise in different sporting situations and can be exploited differently: a runner may use coactors (a fast field or a pacemaker) to facilitate a well-learned pace, while a nervous performer of a not-yet-automatic skill may be inhibited by either an audience or coactors. Recognising which kind of "presence" a source describes lets a candidate apply the theory precisely rather than lumping all social influence together.
Home advantage is an evaluation goldmine. Because it is multiply determined and its size varies by sport and situation, any claim that "the crowd won it" invites scrutiny: was it the crowd, the familiarity, the travel, the referee — or, on the biggest occasions, did the crowd's pressure actually hinder? Deploying the multiple explanations, and the double-edged-sword nuance, is a reliable route to AO3 marks.
Human studies of audience effects are bedevilled by confounds: people watching other people invariably brings in evaluation apprehension, competitiveness, social expectations and demand characteristics, so it is hard to show that mere presence alone drives the effect. Robert Zajonc, with Alexander Heingartner and Edward Herman, had a bold solution: use cockroaches. An audience of cockroaches could hardly induce evaluation apprehension or social expectation in another cockroach, so any effect of their presence would demonstrate that mere presence is arousing — a clean test of Zajonc's drive theory. The aim was to test whether the presence of other cockroaches (as an audience or as coactors) would facilitate performance on a simple task and impair it on a complex task, as drive theory predicts.
The study was a laboratory experiment using cockroaches as subjects. The researchers used two tasks differing in difficulty:
Cockroaches performed these tasks under different social conditions: alone, in the presence of an audience of other cockroaches (housed in clear "spectator" boxes alongside the runway/maze, able to be present but not interfere), and in some conditions as coactors (running alongside another cockroach). The researchers timed how long each cockroach took to reach the goal box on the simple and complex tasks under these conditions. (A bright light was used to motivate the cockroach to run toward the dark goal; the audience/coactor manipulation was the presence of other roaches.)
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.