The Self Serving Bias in Athletics

The world of competitive athletics is filled with a myriad of factors that contribute to the success or failure of the endeavor. The most variable element contained in any sporting activity is the human element. This paper focused on looking at one aspect in particular of the human element to determine the extent of its impact on the success or failure of the athletic competition. That aspect was the Self-Serving Bias. As defined by Baron, Byrne, and Branscombe in their textbook (2006), the self-serving bias is when an individual attributes positive outcomes to their own actions and negative outcomes to external factors. It is a common occurrence of individuals to unduly take credit for a success and deny responsibility for any failures (Taylor & Doria, 1981). Self-Serving Bias

In all types of competitive athletics, protecting one's sense of self was key to continued excellence in performance. Confidence in one's self and abilities was the foundation upon which overall performance was built. Research has concluded that athletes that exhibited high self-confidence were more successful than those athletes that did not (Covassin & Pero, 2004). One particular study concluded that those individuals that had high self-esteem were able to bounce back after a setback more effectively than those athletes that had low self-esteem (Taylor & Brown 1988). This finding was also supported by a study performed by Dodgson and Wood (1998), where it was reported that high self-esteem individuals were more likely to disregard the negative implications of failures, while low self-esteem people tended to internalize the negative. In addition, it has been noted that belief in one's ability decreased more significantly after a set-back or loss for low self-esteem athletes compared to high self-esteem athletes (Lane, Jones, & Stevens, 2002). The Lane et al. study also concluded that a variety of coping strategies should be employed to help protect the player's self-efficacy. One such coping strategy could be the use of self- or group-serving biases.

Another note-worthy conclusion suggested that with regards to winning, an individual was more likely to give credit to their team's play if their personal goals were met (Taylor & Doria, 1981). An aside to this finding stated, that regardless of the team's success or failure, participants down played the effect of the opposing team's play or effort on the success or failure of the team (Taylor & Doria). That is to say if a player on a baseball team met his goal of hitting for the cycle and his team won, that player would credit the victory on both his outstanding play and the overall play of the team; yet, he would not say the victory was the result of the other team playing bad. Finally, the research has shown not only a tendency for the self- and group-serving biases to exist independently of each other, but also for them to operate analogously with each other (Taylor & Doria). It was then concluded by this researcher that there is a place for both the self-serving and group-serving bias to exist. Although it appears that a complex interaction of the two was more plausible than simply one condition or the other.

The existence of the self-serving bias has been a widely researched and documented phenomenon. A host of studies have all come to similar conclusions akin to Duval and Silvia (2002), that individuals attributed success more to themselves and their abilities. One study, with collegiate wrestlers as its participants, found: 1) on both subjective and objective measures of winning and losing, self-serving attributions were present, 2) winning athletes reported higher external control than losing athletes, and 3) personal control and locus of causality were both strongly correlated with stability in both winning and losing situations (De Michele, Gansneder, & Solomon, 1998). These three factors may be indicative of the presence of high self-confidence for successful athletes. Confidence in one's own athletic proficiency and aptitude has been a keystone of most athletic endeavors.

Decades of research has shown that athletes who were high in self-confidence tended to internalize their successes and externalized their failures (Covassin & Pero, 2004). Athletes used this technique to explain their victories as being a result of their superior skill and fine play; whereas, loses were seen as an opponent's luck or the happenstance of chance (Covassin & Pero). To come to these conclusions, 24 collegiate level tennis players were asked to answer a series of questionnaires before a regional team tournament. The data collected clearly illustrated that the winning players displayed higher self-confidence, lower anxiety, and lower overall mood disturbances than the losing players (Covassin & Pero). These and other similar research lends validity to the importance of confidence on an athlete's current and continued performance.

A final, unexpected, conclusion concerning the self-serving bias arose out of a study conducted by David Sherman and Heejung Kim. By conducting two studies, one with intramural volleyball players and the second with intramural basketball players, the researchers concluded that individuals in a team setting demonstrated both self- and group-serving biases (Sherman & Kim, 2005). For example, in the case of a team victory, the individual credited both the group and their own play for the win, with more credit going to their individual performance (Sherman & Kim). In the situation of a loss, then only the group-serving bias was demonstrated thereby explaining the loss on the group's overall performance, rather than their own (Sherman & Kim). Based on many similar findings, much of the newer research available has indicated another factor at work in these instances, the group-serving bias.

Before a discussion of the group-serving bias can be presented, it is necessary to provide some background information upon which this phenomenon is based. The group-serving bias is tied closely to the social identity theory. The social identity theory is predicated on two premises: 1) the maintenance or enhancement of self-esteem motivates individuals and 2) an important part of an individual's self-concept is membership in groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; as cited by Sherman & Kim, 2005). The social identity theory has related effectively with the modern idea of "being a team player". Deriving out of this social model, modern competitive athletic teams have accepted a new social norm that of protecting the team's image (Taylor & Doria, 1981). This fact has clearly been demonstrated by the vast majority of professional sport teams that employ public relations personnel and who will fine and reprimand any players or coaches that speak unfavorably of the team. Generally player's negative outbursts result from poor team outings; however, the current research indicated a contrary view.

The Taylor and Doria (1981) study found strong evidence for the presence of the group-serving bias even when teams and players were faced with failure. The Taylor and Doria study was conducted by interviewing 52 male and female intercollegiate athletes who actively participated in team sports. The participants were then asked to answer a series of questionnaires rating their own play as well as their team's play. That data was then collected and analyzed to determine individual and team "success versus failure" attributions.

Sherman and Kim (2005) concluded that the role of self played a major role in the making of group-serving attributions. The researchers conducted two studies with athletes of team sports. Those studies concluded that team sport athletes place more credited their own play in gaining a team victory then crediting their own play when their team lost (Sherman & Kim). A second conclusion that came from this study was that the group-serving bias was either reduced or eliminated in affirmed players; that is, those players whose self of sense was not anchored directly to group performance (Sherman & Kim). The anchoring or non-anchoring of self to the performance of the group opens a natural avenue of discussion about the relative presence and importance of cohesiveness among team members.

The textbook, Social Psychology, defines group as "a collection of persons who are perceived to be bonded together in a coherent unit to some degree" (Baron, Byrne, & Branscombe, 2006, p. 566) and cohesiveness as "all of the factors that bind group members to remain a group" (p. 564). Group has also been defined as a "collection of individuals whose existence as a collection is rewarding to the individuals" (Bass, 1960, p. 39). Both definitions describe the "team" entity and opens the debate about group cohesion within the "team" environment.

Strong group cohesion has been declared essential for the success of any team effort (Taylor & Tyler, 2001). The Taylor and Tyler study was conducted with a hockey team where the individual players were asked to answer a questionnaire about 12 fictitious players. There were two conditions used during the study. The first condition consisted of questions about the team's success. The second condition consisted of questions about the team's failure. The researchers concluded that several factors related to team cohesiveness with respect to the individual players were present. Some of those factors included the popularity of the individual players, that player's level of selfishness, and that individual's team leadership (Taylor & Tyler). For example, players that were viewed as more popular, less selfish, and a team leader were seen as contributing more to the overall cohesiveness of the team than players that were less popular, more selfish, and not viewed as a team leader.

Another interesting conclusion that surfaced from this study was that group-serving players were viewed by their teammates as more skilled than non-group-serving players were (Taylor & Tyler). This result is contradictory to the "spoiled, selfish superstar" syndrome demonstrated in modern sports by such players as Terrell Owens and Barry Bonds. This means that players who self promote themselves as being superstars or possessing above average talent and ability are not seen that way by their teammates. This then leads to the question of how much of an impact on team cohesiveness does an outspoken non-group-serving player have on the cohesiveness of a team in the face of failures?

A final interesting, yet quizzical, conclusion that has been put forth was that even in the presence of failure, group cohesion actually grows stronger (Taylor & Doria, 1981). This new finding has gone against the traditional view of the impact of failure upon cohesion. A possible explanation could be the renewed fervor in the concept of "team first". This would then result in a minimal impact of the negativeness of a non-group-serving player even if they are the team superstar.

With regards to the self-serving bias and the group-serving bias, it appears that each has its stronghold firmly rooted in different sporting venues. Quite naturally, the self-serving bias was more prevalent in individual type sports such as tennis and golf; whereas, the group-serving bias manifested more in team based sports like football and hockey (Taylor & Doria, 1981). A fledgling finding that arose out of this same study found supporting evidence to show that the self-serving bias and the group-serving bias work analogously as well (Taylor & Doria). Certain conditions had to be met for this to occur, yet it was not a rare occurrence. Those conditions included the anchoring of self to the performance of the group (Sherman & Kim, 2005).

When speaking of group cohesion, the research has demonstrated an inclination to the notion that the group members of a particular group define the amount of cohesion for the group by how they define the successes and failures of the group (Taylor & Tyler, 2001). Another important conclusion with respect to group cohesiveness was found by Paskevich, Brawley, Dorsch, and Widmeyer. The researchers of this study found evidence to support the idea of a positive correlation between group cohesiveness and group efficacy (1999). The more proficient the group was the more cohesive it was.
Overall, this study concluded that an intricate and delicate situation is present regarding individuals that participate in individual and team sports. A myriad of factors contribute to the success and failure of athletic endeavors. The self-serving, group-serving, and group cohesion are merely three of those contributing factors. It is important that further research is conducted on these three aspects in particular with the explosion of sports participation by youths in American society. The mental well-being of these young athletes are at stake as the pressure to succeed becomes greater with each passing generation.

Baron, R.A., Byrne, D., & Branscombe, N.R. (2006). Social Psychology (11^th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bass, B.M. (1960). Leadership, psychology, and organizational behavior. New York: Harper.

Covassin, T. and Pero, S. (2004). The relationship between self-confidence, mood state, and anxiety among collegiate tennis players. Journal of Sport Behavior, 27(3), 230-242. Retrieved on January 12, 2007 from Academic Search Premiere database.

De Michele, P.E., Gansneder, B., & Solomon, G.B. (1998). Success and failure attributions of wrestlers: Further evidence of the self-serving bias. Journal of Sport Behavior, 21(3), 242-255. Retrieved on February 1, 2007 from the PsycINFO database.

Dodgson, P.G. & Wood, J.V. (1998). Self-esteem and the cognitive accessibility of strengths and weakness after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 178-197. Retrieved on January 15, 2007 from PsycARTICLES database.

Duval, T.S. and Silvia, P.J. (2002). Self-awareness, probability of improvement, and the self-serving bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 49-61. Retrieved on February 1, 2007 from PsycARTICLES database.

Lane, A.M., Jones, L., & Stevens, M.J. (2002). Coping with failure: The effects of self-esteem and coping on changes in self-efficacy. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(4), 331-345. Retrieved on January 15, 2007 from the Academic Search Premiere database.

Paskevich, D.M., Brawley, L.R., Dorsch, K.D., & Widmeyer, W.N. (1999). Relationship between collective efficacy and team cohesion: Conceptual and measurement issues. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(3), 210-222. Retrieved on February 2, 2007 from the PsycARTICLES database.

Sherman, D.K. and Kim, H.S. (2005). Is there an "I" in "Team"? The Role of the self in group-serving judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 108-120. Retrieved on January 10, 2007 from the Academic Search Premiere database.

Taylor, D.M. and Doria, J.R. (1981). Self-serving and group-serving bias in attribution. The Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 201-211. Retrieved on January 15, 2007 from the Academic Search Premiere database.

Taylor, D.M. and Tyler, J.K. (2001). Group members' responses to group-serving attributions for success and failure. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(6), 775-781. Retrieved on January 15, 2007 from the Academic Search Premiere database.

Taylor, S.E. and Brown, J.D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193-210. Retrieved on January 26, 2007 from PsycARTICLES database.