The N-Effect

Way back in February, WCC explored how individual effort is mediated by social forces. Research by Garcia & Tor has shown that people will try harder at a task when they perceive that they have less competition: in studies of test situations, students performed better when they either had, or believed they had, fewer rivals. People appear to work harder when they consider that they have greater chance of success. This is known as the N-Effect.

Revisiting this idea sheds some light on England’s performances over the group stage of this World Cup. The final group game yielded a much stronger performance from England than was witnessed in their first two matches. This Slovenia fixture was, essentially, a must-win game for England and this led to more focused effort. As England needed to win, this meant that awareness of future competitors was suppressed: effort could thus be channelled into the fixture, without the subconscious distraction of, as yet, unknown future rivals. England’s poorest game was against the lowest ranked team in the group Algeria, and this fixture almost presented England with a no-win situation. They would be expected to beat Algeria comfortably, so the potential acclaim/vilification trade-off was negatively skewed. And following the Algeria match, England would then be faced with further competition – Slovenia. As they were presented with these circumstances against Algeria, it should perhaps be no surprise that England put in a very stilted display.

A nation competing in the World Cup is presented with the task of winning the tournament, but this task is broken down into separate stages, i.e. seven games for a team making the final. Players are therefore psychologically presented with two interrelated tasks: winning the tournament, and winning discrete games. Certain conditions will enable a player to focus on a particular game, free from considerations of the additional efforts that will be required to win the tournament. This is why England managed to put in a spirited showing against Slovenia, when exclusive focus on the match in hand was required. Previous tournaments also contain many examples of England failing to perform to the expected standard in group stage games, but then improving in more crucial fixtures. England’s best performance in a group game over the last decade was against Argentina in 2002. Faced with a principal rival, the players were able to focus on succeeding in the immediate contest, unencumbered with thoughts of future obstacles to overall success.

It’s not simply about wanting it the most, as wanting it too much can constrict performance levels. The ideal situation is to create a context within which performances are shaped by directed effort that is free from excessive pressure. When England are presented with a crucial fixture against a key rival, then the social pressures induced by the broader competition are diminished. Extraneous pressures are actually greater when facing lesser rivals in less crucial games. In these circumstances, pervading anxieties about winning the World Cup impinge upon the more immediate concerns of winning a particular game and a fixture against Algeria therefore ends up being perceived as an impediment to overall success, rather than a discrete must-win fixture.

This is why second place in Group C may be the best outcome for England. Ghana in the round of 16 would have appeared too beatable: England players would be subconsciously aware of future trials in the later knock-out rounds, and their performances could accordingly become constricted by this extraneous pressure. But with Germany as their rivals in the next round, England will be able to direct their mental effort solely on this game – and be psychologically free from considerations of the tournament’s additional competitors.