Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115

www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

The impact of opponents’ non-verbal behaviour on the

first impressions and outcome expectations of
table-tennis players
Iain Greenlees a,
, Andrew Bradley b, Tim Holder a, Richard Thelwell c
a
School of Sport, Exercise & Health Sciences, University College Chichester, College Lane,
Chichester PO19 6PE, UK
b
St. Andrew’s School, Eastbourne, UK
c
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
Received 11 April 2003; received in revised form 6 June 2003; accepted 10 October 2003

Abstract

Objectives: One aspect of social cognition that has received little research attention in sport psychology
is the impact of non-verbal behaviour on sporting encounters. The purpose of this study was to examine
the effect that opponents’ clothing and body language have on the way in which they are perceived.
Method: Experienced table-tennis players (n ¼ 18) viewed videos of four models warming up for a
match. Each model portrayed one of four combinations of body language (positive versus negative) and
clothing (sport-specific versus general sportswear). Following the presentation of each model, participants
rated their impressions of the model and a measure of outcome expectations.
Results: Multivariate analysis of variance revealed that models portraying positive body language
received more favourable first impression ratings. Clothing had no impact on first impression ratings. In
addition, participants reported lower confidence in their ability to defeat the opponent when they viewed
opponents wearing table-tennis specific clothing and opponents portraying positive body language than
when they viewed opponents with negative body language or wearing general sportswear.
Conclusions: Preliminary support was found for the potential importance of non-verbal behaviour in
sport.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Non-verbal behaviour; Interpersonal perception; Outcome expectations

Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1243-816080; fax: +44-1243-816437.
E-mail address: i.greenlees@ucc.ac.uk (I. Greenlees).

1469-0292/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2003.10.002
104 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115

Part of sporting folklore suggests that sporting encounters can be won or lost before they
have even started (Grant, 1986; Potter, 1968). Part of the explanation for this ‘naı̈ve’ theory of
sport psychology is that performers can be convinced of the quality of their opponents, based
on reputation or non-verbal behaviour (body language, extent of eye contact, facial expression,
clothing) available prior to a competition. This, in turn, is proposed to influence perceivers’
thoughts, actions and performance. In this tradition sports performers, coaches and commenta-
tors have confirmed the role of such perceptions in sports as varied as tennis (Shriver, 2001),
track and field athletics (Christie, 1996), boxing (Collins & Howard, 1995) and soccer (Eriksson,
2001). The role of these initial impressions has also been acknowledged within the applied sport
psychology literature with a number of applied texts (e.g., Loehr, 1986; Weinberg, 1988) and
magazine articles (e.g. Loehr, 1990) offering advice on how to deliberately create the desired
impression on opponents and teammates.
Unfortunately, despite this anecdotal and experiential evidence, no empirical research has
directly examined the process of how sports performers form first impressions of opponents or
how these impressions influence expectations concerning a sporting contest. However, within
mainstream social psychology the process of perceiving those we share social interactions with
(interpersonal perception) has been a popular and fruitful field of enquiry since the 1950s
(Jones, 1996). As sport can be seen as a distinct form of social interaction, it can be proposed
that theoretical frameworks and research from this area may aid our understanding, and guide
research concerning the role of person perception in sport.
One theoretical position that may guide research on interpersonal perception in sport is Warr
and Knapper’s (1968) framework for the person perception process. Warr and Knapper (1968)
proposed that when perceivers enter into social interactions they actively seek to make sense of
the interaction and so predict and control how it is likely to progress and conclude. This allows
perceivers to regulate their own behaviour to maximise the chances of attaining their goals for
the interaction. Warr and Knapper argued that perceiving others produces three interdependent
responses. Firstly, there is an ‘attributive response’ which is concerned with the judgements we
make concerning the characteristics, traits, states and goals of the people we perceive (e.g. their
aggressiveness, their confidence, their ability). Secondly, there is an ‘affective response’. Warr
and Knapper asserted that perceiving another person can elicit a variety of emotional responses
such as attraction, liking, anxiety, hostility or respect. The third response proposed by Warr and
Knapper was termed an expectancy response. Specifically, they argued that when judgements
are made about an individual they also entail expectations about how that person is likely to act
and how any interaction with that person is likely to proceed and conclude. According to
Warr and Knapper, and other person perception theorists that have followed (e.g., Burton &
Dimbleby, 1995; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Jones, 1996), expectancies are central determinants of
the way in which social interactions proceed and conclude.
In support of this, research has demonstrated that expectancies do influence the behaviour of
perceivers in a variety of social settings (Farina, Allen, & Saul, 1968; Miller & Turnbull, 1986).
Snyder, Tanke, and Berscheid (1977) demonstrated that male college students led to believe they
were having a phone conversation with an attractive female behaved more sociably towards her
than those led to believe they were having a conversation with a ‘plain’ female. In addition to
this research has also shown that, in competitive settings, the non-verbal behaviour of an
opponent may influence the behaviour of an individual. Langer (1975) found that participants
 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115 105

who were competing in a game of chance against an opponent who behaved nervously and
dressed poorly (the ‘snook condition’) betted significantly greater amounts of money against
that opponent than participants competing against a well-dressed, confident looking opponent
(the ‘dapper condition’). Thus, although this study put the finding in the context of illusion of
control, this research shows that non-verbal behaviour may influence the course of competitive
encounters.
Despite these findings, and the popularity of the area in mainstream psychology, little
research has examined person perception amongst sports performers. However, research has
indicated that such processes may exert an influence in other areas of sport. In subjectively
judged sports such as gymnastics, expectancy effects have been proposed as an explanation for
scoring bias. Research in this tradition (Ansgorge, Scheer, Laub, & Howard, 1978; Plessner,
1999; Scheer, 1973; Scheer & Ansgorge, 1975; Scheer, Ansgorge, & Howard, 1983) has identified
a systematic scoring bias in favour of those competitors performing last for their team. Specifi-
cally, a routine viewed as the final routine from a team of gymnasts receives higher scores than
the identical routine presented first in the team rotation. A commonly cited explanation for this
finding has been that team order provides an expectation concerning the quality of the per-
former, with the best gymnast performing last for the team, which influences the way in which
the routine is judged (Plessner, 1999). This research thus indicates some support for the notion
that the initial perception of others may be influential in determining the outcomes of inter-
personal interactions in sport.
A similar expectancy effect has also been shown in soccer refereeing. Jones, Paull, and
Erskine (2002) asked 38 soccer referees to view a series of video clips showing incidents from
soccer games and report the action they would take if they were refereeing that incident. Prior
to viewing the clips half the referees were told that one of the teams they were viewing had a
reputation for aggressive play whilst the remaining referees received no information. The results
indicated that the referees given prior knowledge about the team’s reputation penalised that
team more than referees with no prior knowledge. Jones et al. (2002) argued that this provides
support for the role of initial expectancies in sport.
Thus, although limited, sport specific research indicates that sport may not be immune to the
impacts of person perception and that such processes may have consequences for the outcome
of sporting events. Therefore, the examination of how athletes form pre-event impressions of
opponents, and expectations of their likely behaviours and performance levels, may be ben-
eficial. The aim of the present study was, therefore, to provide a preliminary examination of
interpersonal perception in sports performers by examining the impacts of different types of
non-verbal behaviour provided by the target person on initial impressions and expectancy
judgements prior to sporting encounters.
One difficulty that arises from the purpose of this study lies in identifying the specific infor-
mation that is used by performers to form judgements of opponents before a competition
begins. In addition to stipulating the consequences of person perception, Warr and Knapper
(1968) outlined a number of determinants that may influence the nature of the judgements made
about others. Warr and Knapper (1968) argued that perceivers use information they receive
from direct observation of the target person to form impressions and expectancies. In support
of this, research has identified numerous cues (e.g. physical appearance and attractiveness,
clothing, posture) that influence the impressions we form of others (Argyle, 1994; Knapp, 1978).
106 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115

Although not directly studied in sport, sport psychologists (e.g., Loehr, 1986; Weinberg, 1988)
have asserted that informative forms of non-verbal behaviour are body posture, bodily move-
ment, eye contact and clothing of an athlete. The potential impact of these cues is supported by
social interaction research which has identified clothing (e.g., Hoult, 1954), body posture and
movement (Ekman & Friesen, 1969) and gaze (Knapp, 1978) as influencing the perception of
others. Thus, the current study examined the impact of both body language and clothing on
person perception in sport.
The specific focus of the present investigation was to examine the impact of opponents’ cloth-
ing (sport specific versus general sportswear) and body language (positive versus negative pos-
ture and eye contact) on how they are judged. Firstly, it was hypothesised that table-tennis
players displaying positive body language would be more positively perceived than individuals
displaying negative body language. Secondly, it was hypothesised that individuals wearing table-
tennis specific clothing would be more positively perceived than players wearing general sports-
wear. It was also an aim of this research to examine the effects of an opponent’s clothing and
body language on perceivers’ expectations regarding the outcome of a hypothetical sporting
encounter with the target person. As outcome expectations may be influenced by perceptions
of sporting opponents, and have been shown to influence performance levels (Eyal, Bar-Eli,
Tenenbaum, & Pie, 1995; Feltz & Riessinger, 1990; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979), it was
felt that this would be a valuable form of expectancy to study. Thus, it was hypothesised that
participants would report lower outcome expectations for matches against individuals display-
ing positive body language than for matches against individuals displaying negative body lan-
guage. It was also hypothesised that participants would report lower outcome expectations for
matches against individuals wearing sport-specific clothing than for matches against individuals
wearing general sportswear.

Method

Participants

The participants (n ¼ 18) were experienced, male, English National League table-tennis
players. All self-reported themselves as being of white-European ethnicity. Their mean age was
43.2 yr (SD ¼ 17:9) and their mean number of years experience of competitive table-tennis was
21.7 (SD ¼ 15:8). All participants volunteered to participate after being approached at a
regional table-tennis tournament and signed informed consent forms prior to participation.

Materials

Participants were required to rate four table tennis players by viewing video clips of them
warming up and preparing to play. Each video clip was specially filmed, using a HI-8 video
camera, to simulate aspects of the pre-match warm-up in table tennis. Each clip lasted for 90 s
and consisted of the target player entering the competition venue, performing a series of
stretches and warm-up exercises and then approaching the table-tennis table in readiness for the
first serve of the game. All videotapes were filmed at the same venue—an English National
 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115 107

League Table-Tennis venue. The models for the videos were all experienced table tennis players.
All models were filmed in each of four conditions (positive body language and table-tennis spe-
cific clothing; positive body language and general sportswear; negative body language and sport
specific clothing; negative body language and general sportswear). Body language was manipu-
lated using Weinberg’s (1988) guidelines. For the positive body language condition the models
were instructed to stand and walk with an erect posture (shoulders back and chest out), head
up, chin level with the ground with their eyes looking directly at the camera (the opponent) for
prolonged periods of time. Instructions for the negative body language condition consisted of
adopting a slouched posture, head and chin pointing down with eyes looking down or briefly
glancing at the opponent. All the warm-up activities were choreographed by the second author
to ensure that the nature and sequence of the warm-up activities was the same in each video. In
all, 16 separate video clips were produced with each model performing each of the conditions.
Videos were edited by the principle researcher to ensure that the clips used were of equivalent
length, contained the same routine of warm-up activities, and (for the positive and negative
body language condition) contained approximately equivalent amounts of eye contact with the
camera.
From the 16 video-clips (each of the four models in each of the four conditions) eight sets of
four video clips were produced. These contained clips of each of the four conditions and each of
the models but which varied order of presentation of each condition and model and also varied
which model was shown in each condition. This was done in order to control for any order
effects or for the effects of an individual model’s physical appearance other than that manipu-
lated. A 20 s interval separated each video-clip to allow the participant to give their impressions
of the model. In order to ensure that (a) the video-clips used for each condition were compara-
ble and (b) there were significant differences between the conditions all 16 video-clips were
shown to six qualified English Table Tennis Association coaches. Coaches were chosen to per-
form this rating as the research team felt that they would have more experience and knowledge
of table-tennis specific behaviours than any other group of people (e.g. sport psychologists or
non-verbal behaviour experts).
The coaches were asked to rate both the quality of the body language used and nature of the
clothing worn in each video-clip on a nine point likert-type scale (1 ¼ negative body language,
9 ¼ positive body language; 1 ¼ general sportswear and 9 ¼ sport specific clothing). A ser-
ies of one way analyses of variance (ANOVA) used to analyse differences between models
within each condition revealed no significant differences between models (P > 0:5). This indi-
cates that within each condition models were rated as similar in the quality of their body lan-
guage and clothing.
In addition to this, two further one-way ANOVA’s were conducted to examine differences
across the conditions using the coaches’ ratings of body language and clothing. Results indi-
cated significant main effects for both measures (body language: F ð3; 76Þ ¼ 168:75, P < 0:001;
clothing: F ð3; 76Þ ¼ 663:59, P < 0:001). Scheffé post-hoc analyses indicated that such differ-
ences supported the video manipulation. Positive body language video-clips (positive body lan-
guage/specific clothing: mean ¼ 8:00, SD ¼ 0:79; positive body language/general clothing:
mean ¼ 8:15, SD ¼ 0:81) were rated as showing more positive body language than negative
body language clips (negative body language/specific clothing: mean ¼ 3:20, SD ¼ 1:06; nega-
tive body language/general clothing: mean ¼ 3:30, SD ¼ 1:12). No differences emerged between
108 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115

the two positive or between the two negative body language conditions. Secondly, sports specific
clothing (positive body language/specific clothing: mean ¼ 8:70, SD ¼ 0:47; negative body lan-
guage/specific clothing: mean ¼ 8:45, SD ¼ 0:69) were rated as such whilst general sportswear
was rated as general sportswear (positive body language/general clothing: mean ¼ 2:05,
SD ¼ 0:83; negative body language/general clothing: mean ¼ 1:6, SD ¼ 0:68). No significant
differences emerged between the two sport-specific or between the two general clothing con-
ditions.

Measures

Outcome expectations
Participants were asked to rate their perceptions of the likely outcome of a table-tennis match
with each of the targets they viewed. In accord with guidelines proposed for measuring self-
efficacy expectations (Feltz & Chase, 1998) participants were asked to indicate their agreement
or disagreement (yes or no) with 10 hierarchically ordered statements indicating the number of
times out of 10 (from 1 to 10 times) they would defeat the target player. For each of these
responses they were also asked to state the degree of certainty they had for their answer
(1 ¼ not sure at all–10 ¼ totally convinced). A total outcome expectation score was calculated
by summing the certainty scores for all the levels of performance that the participants had felt
they would achieve (i.e. answered yes).

Impressions of opponent
To examine perceptions of the table-tennis players, participants were asked to rate the models
on 10 dimensions reflecting general ability, readiness and mental states on a nine-point semantic
differential scale. The characteristics used were: not assertive–assertive; not aggressive–aggress-
ive; not competitive–competitive; novice–experienced; unfit–fit; unconfident–confident; on edge–
composed; negative–positive; not focused–focused and tense–relaxed. Such scales have been
used extensively within the interpersonal perception literature and are proposed as a valid
method for measuring interpersonal attitudes (Argyle, 1994; Warr & Knapper, 1968). Scores on
each scale were added to give a composite score (ranging from 10 to 90) of how positively the
target player was viewed.

Procedure

The participants were informed that the purpose of watching the video footage was to view a
number of opponents they could be facing in the forthcoming season. They were told that the
experimenter was interested in gaining an insight into what they thought of each player. Parti-
cipants viewed each of the video clips and then completed the impressions of opponent form
and the outcome expectations form. The experiment was a 2  2 design varying body language
(positive/negative) and sportswear (specific/general) with repeated measures on both factors.
Following the testing session all participants were fully debriefed as to the nature of the study.
At this stage participants were asked if they had any suspicions about the nature of the study.
No participants indicated any suspicions.
 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115 109

Results

A 2 (positive vs negative body language)2 (sport-specific vs general sportswear) multivariate

analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine the effect of body language and
clothing on impressions of opponents and outcome expectations. The results revealed a signifi-
cant main effect for body language (Wilk’s k ð2; 16Þ ¼ 0:13, F ¼ 52:91, P < 0:001, effect size
g2 ¼ 0:87, estimated power at 5% probability: 1.00). Neither a significant main effect for cloth-
ing (Wilk’s k ð2; 16Þ ¼ 0:75, F ¼ 0:259, P < 0:11, effect size g2 ¼ 0:25, estimated power at 5%
probability: 0.44) nor a significant interaction effect (Wilk’s kð2; 16Þ ¼ 0:88, F ¼ 1:14, P < 0:34,
effect size g2 ¼ 0:13, estimated power at 5% probability: 0.22) were observed. Separate uni-
variate analyses were then examined for outcome expectations and impression of others.

Outcome expectation scores

The follow-up ANOVA conducted on outcome expectation scores (see Fig. 1) revealed signifi-
cant main effects for body language (F ð1; 17Þ ¼ 32:50, P < 0:001, effect size g2 ¼ 0:66, esti-
mated power at 5% probability: 1.0) and clothing (F ð1; 17Þ ¼ 5:51, P < 0:03, effect size
g2 ¼ 0:25, estimated power at 5% probability: 0.60). This indicates that participants felt less
confident in their chances of defeating models displaying positive body language (positive body
language/sports specific clothes: mean rating ¼ 34:72, SD ¼ 16:41; positive body language/
general sportswear: mean rating ¼ 35:17, SD ¼ 19:31) than they did against those models dis-
playing negative body language (negative body language/sports specific clothes: mean
rating ¼ 50:67, SD ¼ 27:09; negative body language/general sportswear: mean rating ¼ 58:56,
SD ¼ 22:74). The results also indicate that participants viewing models wearing sport specific
clothing reported lower levels of outcome expectations than when they viewed models wearing
general sportswear. No significant body language by clothing interaction (F ð1; 17Þ ¼ 1:74,
P ¼ 0:20, effect size g2 ¼ 0:09, estimated power at 5% probability: 0.24) was observed.

Fig. 1. Mean outcome expectations by body language and clothing conditions.

110 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115

Impression of opponent scores

The follow-up ANOVA (see Fig. 2) conducted on the impression of opponents scores
revealed a significant main effect for body language (F ð1; 17Þ ¼ 75:96, P < 0:001, effect size
g2 ¼ 0:82, estimated power at 5% probability: 1.00). This indicates that the models displaying
positive body language were rated more positively (positive body language/sports specific
clothes: mean rating ¼ 63:77, SD ¼ 14:13; positive body language /general sportswear:
mean rating ¼ 65:28, SD ¼ 13:30) than those models displaying negative body language (nega-
tive body language/sports specific clothes: mean rating ¼ 37:00, SD ¼ 12:49; negative body lan-
guage/general sportswear: mean rating ¼ 38:89, SD ¼ 11:17). Neither a significant main effect
for clothing (F ð1; 17Þ ¼ 0:004, P ¼ 0:95, effect size g2 < 0:001, estimated power at 5% prob-
ability: 0.05), nor a significant interaction effect (F ð1; 17Þ ¼ 0:36, P ¼ 0:57, effect size
g2 ¼ 0:02, estimated power at 5% probability: 0.09) were observed.
In order to examine in greater detail the impact of body language and clothing on specific
impressions of opponents a second 2 (positive/negative low confidence body language) 2
(sport-specific/general sportswear) MANOVA was conducted. This time each of the ten items
from the impressions of others questionnaire were entered as dependent variables. The MAN-
OVA identified a significant main effect for body language (Wilk’s k ð10; 8Þ ¼ 0:10, F ¼ 7:29,
P ¼ 0:005, effect size g2 ¼ 0:90, estimated power at 5% probability: 0.97). Neither a significant
main effect for clothing (Wilk’s k ð10; 8Þ ¼ 0:24, F ¼ 2:53, P < 0:10, effect size g2 ¼ 0:76, esti-
mated power at 5% probability: 0.57) nor a significant interaction effect (Wilk’s k ð10; 8Þ ¼ 0:20,
F ¼ 3:24, P < 0:05, effect size g2 ¼ 0:80, estimated power at 5% probability: 0.70) were
observed. Separate univariate analyses revealed main effects for nine out of then tem items (see
Table 1 for a summary). Only the item ‘Tense –relaxed’ failed to show a significant main effect for
body language. However, due to the relatively small cell size to dependent variable ratio (18:10)
these results must be treated with caution and viewed as exploratory.

Fig. 2. Mean ratings of first impressions of opponents by body language and clothing conditions.
Table 1
Mean rating of individual items of the Impression of Opponents questionnaire by body language and clothing (SD in parentheses) and summaries
of main effects for body language
Item Conditiona F P< g2 Power
1 2 3 4
Not assertive–unassertive 6.44 (1.65) 6.00 (1.57) 3.06 (1.30) 3.44 (1.58) 60.43 0.001 0.78 1.00
Not aggressive–aggressive 6.39 (1.91) 5.61 (2.15) 2.94 (1.26) 3.33 (1.81) 52.29 0.001 0.76 1.00
Uncompetitive–competitive 7.33 (1.50) 7.00 (1.65) 3.11 (1.49) 3.78 (1.63) 119.05 0.001 0.88 1.00
Novice–experienced 7.11 (1.32) 6.61 (1.75) 4.50 (1.70) 4.00 (1.45) 59.14 0.001 0.77 1.00
Unfit–fit 6.28 (1.93) 6.56 (1.38) 4.33 (1.97) 3.94 (1.66) 45.87 0.001 0.73 1.00
Unconfident–confident 7.17 (1.46) 6.50 (1.54) 3.33 (1.50) 3.78 (1.40) 64.32 0.001 0.79 1.00
On edge–composed 5.67 (2.03) 6.50 (1.98) 4.50 (1.85) 4.11 (1.23) 25.05 0.001 0.60 0.98
Negative–positive 6.61 (2.09) 6.50 (1.82) 3.06 (1.86) 3.50 (1.70) 49.36 0.001 0.74 1.00
Not focused–focused 7.22 (1.90) 6.67 (1.75) 3.06 (1.80) 3.33 (1.71) 82.55 0.001 0.83 1.00
Tense–relaxed 4.72 (2.16) 6.00 (2.02) 5.72 (2.14) 4.67 (2.30) 0.07 P=0.79 0.004 0.06
2
Wilks’ lambda 10;8 ¼ 0:09, g ¼ 0:90
a
Conditions: 1: positive body language/sport specific clothes; 2: positive body language/general sportswear; 3: negative body language/sports
specific clothes; 4: negative body language/general sportswear.
I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115
111
112 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to examine the impact of two forms of non-verbal behav-
iour in sporting encounters. Specifically, it was hypothesised that the clothing and body lan-
guage displayed by a potential sporting opponent would influence pre-event judgements
concerning that opponent and pre-event outcome expectations. Anecdotal evidence from both
sports performers and from sport psychologists (e.g. Grant, 1986; Loehr, 1986; Weinberg, 1988;
Collins & Howard, 1995) has suggested that such non-verbal behaviour may play an important
role in determining how sporting encounters develop and conclude. The results indicate support
for the hypothesis that participants viewing opponents displaying positive body language will
perceive them more positively than opponents displaying negative body language. This was
shown across a range of descriptors. The results also indicate that participants viewing oppo-
nents displaying positive body language and opponents wearing table tennis specific clothing
will report lower outcome expectations than when viewing opponents displaying negative body
language or wearing general sportswear. No support was found for the hypothesised influence
of clothing on judgements of others.
The results therefore support the idea that sports performers may use information available
early in a social interaction to form impressions of others, and to make judgements concerning
their chances of success in sporting encounters. Given that research has indicated support for a
relationship between similar measures of outcome expectations taken before competition and
performance (Eyal et al., 1995; Feltz & Riessinger, 1990; Weinberg et al., 1979), it is plausible to
suggest that such expectations may have some influence on the outcome of sporting encounters.
The present study also provides preliminary support for the potential validity of using theo-
rising from the interpersonal perception literature to understand the origins of pre-match cog-
nition, behaviour during sporting encounters and, perhaps, the outcomes of such encounters.
The results did not, however, provide support for the hypothesised impact of clothing on the
impressions perceivers formed of the target models. This is perhaps surprising given that out-
come expectations were related to the clothing worn by the model. A potential explanation for
these partially conflicting findings may lie within the measure of the impressions formed.
Although semantic differential scales have been widely used and accepted within the inter-
personal perception literature (Warr & Knapper, 1968; Argyle, 1994), research may still be war-
ranted within sport settings to examine the reliability, validity and sensitivity of such scales.
In addition to reliability and validity issues with the measurement of impressions of others,
the findings may also be explained through an examination of the nature of the descriptors that
were used in the semantic differential scale. The ten descriptors used were chosen to represent a
broad range of judgements concerning the moods and general characteristics of the target model
with most referring to judgements of states (tense–relaxed; not confident–confident; negative–
positive). However, it is possible that these did not assess the types of impressions influenced by
clothing. Warr and Knapper (1968) distinguish between episodic and dispositional judgements
with episodic judgements referring to impressions of a target’s states (specifically moods and
goals) and dispositional judgements referring to enduring characteristics (personality traits, atti-
tudes and abilities). In the present study participants were not given explicit instructions to pro-
vide either episodic or dispositional judgements. Therefore, future research may be needed that
distinguishes between the type of judgements asked for. This would clarify the impact of cloth-
 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115 113

ing and body language on both episodic and dispositional judgements. Argyle (1994) argues
that different forms of non-verbal behaviour will be used to form different judgements suggest-
ing that body language and gaze patterns may be more revealing of episodic information whilst
clothing may reflect more dispositional information. In line with this contention, Knapp (1978)
suggests that, although clothing can provide information on the mood of the wearer, it is far
more common for clothing to provide information about the disposition (specifically status and
personality) of the wearer.
The present study may also provide the impetus for further research examining interpersonal
perception in sport. The present study examined only a relatively small part of Warr and
Knapper’s (1968) theorising on the person perception process and used only a narrow range of
cues likely to influence person perception. Warr and Knapper (1968) propose that it is not only
directly observable cues that determine person perception. Firstly, they propose that infor-
mation about the stimulus person that is stored in memory (e.g., reputation, reports from
coaches) is an important determinant of our perception of others. Secondly, they propose that
information about the context in which the observer and target determine the impression
formed also provides crucial information. For instance, high quality, sport-specific clothing may
lead to very different perceptions when worn by someone attending a beginner’s class than
someone attending a training camp for a national squad. Thus future research may wish to
examine the role of these factors and their interaction with directly observable information. In
addition to this Warr and Knapper argue that observer characteristics (e.g., age, gender, person-
ality, experience, ability) and situational characteristics (e.g., type of interaction, time con-
straints) will influence how individuals use information to form judgements of others. Thus,
future research should examine how these factors may influence person perception in sport set-
tings and how, and when, different individuals use different information to form their judge-
ments of others.
In addition to this extension to the current research, future studies should also seek to exam-
ine the consequences of initial impressions and expectancies. One question that emerges from
the present study is whether the initial impressions and expectancies formed have any impact on
sporting encounters (as anecdotal evidence would suggest) or whether they are soon amended
when more relevant information is obtained (i.e., the actual performance of the opponent).
Theory and research (e.g., Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske, Neuberg, Beattie, &
Milberg, 1987) from the person perception literature suggests that both proposals are valid.
Specifically, it has been argued that individuals have two strategies for processing information
concerning social interactions: data-based and expectancy based processing (Jones, 1996). The
first of these, data (or attribute) based processing, refers to the systematic, unbiased and ‘piece-
meal’ processing of information, as and when it becomes available (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). In
this mode of processing perceptions are continually modified as individuals receive new pieces of
information. If this mode of processing predominates in sport then the initial impressions exam-
ined in this study would be relatively unimportant, as they would be modified as more relevant
and predictive information (i.e., opponent’s performance) is viewed.
In contrast to this, expectancy-based processing is proposed to result in initial impressions
and expectancies having an important influence on the course of sporting encounters (e.g. Fiske
& Taylor, 1991; Jones, 1996). According to such theorists, when individuals use expectancy
based processing, the initial expectation they hold about an individual not only influences their
114 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115

behaviour, but also influences the way in which future information is processed (Miller & Turn-
bull, 1986). Thus, expectancies are proposed to guide what information is attended to and
encoded (Howard & Rothbart, 1980), and what information is remembered (Zadny & Gerard,
1974). In addition to this it is argued that expectancies may influence the way in which individu-
als attribute the performance of others (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Thus, if an opponent who is
expected to play well performs poorly, then perceivers may attribute this performance in a man-
ner (to external and unstable factors) that maintains a positive view of the opponent. Ultimately
then, expectancies will influence the course of social interactions in a number of ways. Thus, if
expectancy based processing is being used in sports, first impressions will influence how a per-
former perceives the performance of their opponent, what they remember about him or her,
how they attribute the performance of the target person and, potentially, their own behaviour
and performance (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Unfortunately, the present study does not examine
such predictions and further research is needed to examine the impact of first impressions across
the course of a sporting encounter. Furthermore, if it is found that such expectancies do influ-
ence performance levels, then the conditions under which different processing strategies are used
need to be identified.
The present study thus highlights the potential utility of examining the interpersonal percep-
tion processes used by sports performers just as research has indicated the impact of such proc-
esses in coaching and sports officiating (e.g., Plessner, 1999; Solomon, Golden, Ciapponi, &
Martin, 1998). The current study suggests that important pre-event cognitions may be shaped
by pre-event, non-verbal behaviour. This supports the contention of sport psychologists
(Weinberg, 1988) regarding the potential impact of portraying negative body language before
and during competition and provides initial support for proposals derived from the inter-
personal perception literature. This suggests that interventions based either on encouraging
sports performers to deliberately display appropriate non-verbal behaviour (e.g., Weinberg,
1988) and suppress inappropriate behaviour or on discouraging individuals from using expect-
ancy based processing may be effective strategies for enhancing pre-event cognitions. However,
before a strong rationale can be given for such interventions it is clear that further research is
needed to establish the extent to which expectancy based processing is used and also the extent
to which expectancies adopted from early information persist in the presence of disconfirming
information.

References
Ansgorge, C. J., Scheer, J. K., Laub, J., & Howard, J. (1978). Bias in judging women’s gymnastics induced by expect-
ations of within team order. Research Quarterly, 49, 399–405.
Argyle, M. (1994). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour. (5th ed). London: Penguin.
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull, & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances
in social cognition (pp. 3–53). New York: Academic Press.
Burton, G., & Dimbleby, R. (1995). Between ourselves: an introduction to interpersonal communication. (2nd ed).
London: Arnold Publishers.
Christie, L. (1996). To be honest with you. London: Penguin Books.
Collins, S., & Howard, P. (1995). Celtic warrior. Dublin: The O’Brien Press.
Eriksson, S. G. (2001). On football. London: Carlton Books.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry, 32, 88–106.
 I. Greenlees et al. / Psychology of Sport & Exercise 6 (2005) 103–115 115

Eyal, N., Bar-Eli, M., Tenenbaum, G., & Pie, J. S. (1995). Manipulated outcome expectations and competitive per-
formance in motor tasks with gradually increasing difficulty. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 188–200.
Farina, A., Allen, J. G., & Saul, B. B. (1968). The role of the stigmatized person in affecting social relationships.
Journal of Personality, 36, 169–182.
Feltz, D. L., & Chase, M. A. (1998). The measurement of self-efficacy and confidence in sport. In J. Duda (Ed.),
Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 65–80). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Tech-
nology.
Feltz, D. L., & Riessinger, C. A. (1990). Effects of in vivo emotive imagery and performance feedback on self-efficacy
and muscular endurance. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 12, 132–143.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating
processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances
in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fiske, S. T., Neuberg, S. L., Beattie, A. E., & Milberg, S. J. (1987). Category-based and attribute-based reactions to
others: some informational conditions of stereotyping and individuating processes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 23, 399–427.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
Grant, R. W. (1986). The psychology of sport. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company.
Howard, J. W., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorisation and memory for ingroup and outgroup behaviour.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301–310.
Hoult, R. (1954). Experimental measurement of clothing as a factor in some social ratings of selected American men.
American Sociological Review, 19, 324–328.
Jones, E. E. (1996). Interpersonal perception. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Jones, M. V., Paull, G. C., & Erskine, J. (2002). The impact of a team’s aggressive reputation on the decisions of
association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 991–1000.
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311–328.
Loehr, J. E. (1986). Mental toughness training for sports: achieving athletic excellence. Lexington, MA: The Stephen
Greene Press.
Loehr, J. E. (1990). Non-verbal communication in doubles. World Tennis, 38, 46–48.
Miller, D. T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37,
233–256.
Plessner, H. (1999). Expectation biases in gymnastics judging. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21, 131–144.
Potter, S. (1968). Golfmanship. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scheer, J. K. (1973). Effect of placement in the order of competition on scores of Nebraska high school students.
Research Quarterly, 44, 79–85.
Scheer, J. K., & Ansgorge, C. J. (1975). Effects of naturally induced judges’ expectations on the ratings of physical
performances. Research Quarterly, 46, 463–470.
Scheer, J. K., Ansgorge, C. J., & Howard, J. (1983). Judging bias induced by viewing contrived videotapes: a func-
tion of selected psychological variables. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 427–437.
Shriver, P. (2001). Negative body language belies Lindsay’s positive position. The Australian, 22 January, p. 23.
Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behaviour: on the self-fulfilling
nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656–666.
Solomon, G. B., Golden, A. J., Ciapponi, T. M., & Martin, A. D. (1998). Coach expectations and differential feed-
back: perceptual flexibility revisited. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 21, 298–310.
Warr, P. B., & Knapper, C. (1968). The perception of people and events. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Weinberg, R. S. (1988). The mental advantage: developing your psychological skills in tennis. Champaign, IL: Leisure
Press.
Weinberg, R., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and performance: an empirical test of Bandura’s self-
efficacy theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 345–354.
Zadny, J., & Gerard, H. B. (1974). Attributed intentions and informational selectivity. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 10, 34–52.