IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS: SOCIAL
FACILITATION AND INHIBITION
Jo Ashby
TODAY’S LECTURE
Question
What effect does the presence of other people have
on human performance?
Do we perform tasks better alone or as part of a
group?
What role is played by the audience?
OUTCOMES
Become familiar with the terms social
facilitation and inhibition.
Understand the concepts of:
Non-dominant and dominant responses
Process and production losses
Evaluation apprehension
Social loafing
SCENARIO 1
You are a newly qualified typist. You have a new temping
post, keen and ready to start the new post. You arrive at
the office with many typists typing away ‘ferociously’.
You are ushered to a seat handed a bunch of papers and
left to ‘get on with it’
You look down and have no clue what to do, but look up
and the others are hard at work
What would you do???
SCENARIO 2
You arrive at the gym one morning and it is unusually
busy. You go over to the bench press and arrive just as a
person has finished. The last person loaded 60 kilos on
to the machine – you usually press 45 kilos – the
previous user is now sat next to you resting and taking a
drink of water.
The gym instructor is showing a bunch of new recruits
around the gym and she stops at the end of your
treadmill to talk to them just as you are beginning your
workout – you normally just do a power walk
What would you do???
PERFORMANCE/PRODUCTIVITY: TRIPLETT (1898)
Cyclists: faster
when in a group
TRIPLETT’S THEORIES:
Pacer in front provided ‘suction’
‘brain worry’ theory
Friends provide support and
encouragement
Hypnosis!
Dynamogenic theory
Presence of others rouses a ‘competitive
instinct’ releasing nervous energy
IMPROVED PERFORMANCE IN COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS
Competition:
Energised
and
improved
performance
SUBSEQUENT RESEARCH – THE MERE PRESENCE OF OTHERS
Performance improved when in the presence of others
SOCIAL FACILITATION (e.g. Allport, 1920)
‘Co-action effect’ – increased task performance when in the
presence of others doing the same task (non-competitive)
Performance impaired when in the presence of others
SOCIAL INHIBITION (e.g. Pessin, 1930)
AUDIENCE EFFECTS
Social facilitation occurs
not only when with a co-
actor but also when in
the presence of a passive
spectator/audience
Laughter as a social
phenomena
Brown, Brown & Ramos
(1981)
PERFORMANCE/PRODUCTIVITY
Individual task performance
Process losses
Difference between actual performance and potential
performance
Intra and interpersonal processes may have an effect
COCKROACHES??
Zajonc,
Heingartner and
Herman (1969)
Bright light at the end of a
runway (they don’t like
light) timed how long it
took a cockroach to
escape the light by
running to the other end
Research question:
Did they perform this
simple feat faster
when they were by
themselves or when in
the presence of other
cockroaches??
Did they perform
faster when other
cockroaches were
watching??
GYM – GOOD WAY OF IMPROVING PERFORMANCE???
Relatively
simple
task
MORE COCKROACHES!
Zajonc again:
This time:
Cockroaches had to solve a maze that had several
runways – only one of which leads to the dark
When working on difficult tasks the cockroaches took
longer to solve the maze when in the presence of others
Replicated with animals and humans
SOCIAL FACILITATION/INHIBITION – WHY?
Zajonc’s proposition:
May depend on the task
If working on simple, well-learned tasks the audience
may facilitate performance
If task more complex not (yet) well learned, the
audience may inhibit performance
What processes are involved?
AROUSAL AND DOMINANT RESPONSE
Zajonc (1965)
Basic premise – innate response (drive)
Presence of others ‘preparedness’
When others are present we become aroused:
breath faster; perspire; tense muscles; raised blood pressure; faster
heart rate (Moore & Baron, 1983)
When others present arousal increases and we tend to perform
Dominant Responses (DR). These can be correct or incorrect
LOGICAL CONCLUSION
If the task is complex and not (yet) well learned the DR is
bad performance
If the task is simple and well-learned the DR is good
performance
Why? Innate drive – must be alert to the possibility that
they (audience) will act
Vigilance
YERKES-DODSON LAW
Optimal level of
Bell shaped curve
Individuals will differ
Need to consider interaction of task and the individual
Extrovert revel in audience – arousal low
Introvert already be experiencing levels of arousal, thus
any kind of arousal too much
EVALUATION APPREHENSION
Is the ‘mere’ physical presence of others enough
to have an effect?
Cottrel et al. (1968) when audience blindfolded or
showed no interest social facilitation effects did not
occur
Logical conclusion again: more than mere presence of
others increasing arousal/drive!
COTTRELL:
EVALUATION APPREHENSION
NOT mere presence, but possibility of evaluation
Hench and Glass (1968)
4 conditions; alone; expert together; non-expert together;
alone recorded
Facilitation of DR (well learned) expert together and alone
recorded
Enhanced DR when being evaluated
Worringham and Messick (1983)
Runners run more quickly if woman is watching them
DISTRACTION-CONFLICT THEORY
Baron (1986(
Presence of others distracting
Cognitive overload
Attention is divided
Performance impaired on difficult
tasks
EFFICACY THEORY
Self efficacy – Bandura (1997)
The perceived ability to carry out a desired action
Sanna (1992) distinguished between
Efficacy expectancy (will I be successful with this task?)
Outcome expectancy (if I am successful will there be
positive outcomes for me ?)
o Not task difficulty but:
o Subjective belief
o Expectancy of favourite outcomes
RINGELMANN EFFECT
Output of individual is diminished when working in a
group
Ringelmann effect (1913)
Rope pulling
Production loss in groups
Two explanations
Coordination loss
Motivation loss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqlhn8-Wa78&feature=related
SOCIAL LOAFING
Motivational loss – ‘social loafing’
Tendency to work less hard
Reduction in individual effort compared to working alone
Group size does matter!
‘free rider effect’ – let others do the work!
Can have reverse effects where group productivity increases
DOES PRESENCE OF OTHERS IMPROVE OR HINDER
PERFORMANCE?
2 factors
Possibility of evaluation
Simplicity of task
IF EVALUATED..
Produces arousal
Social facilitation/inhibition effects
Enhances performance on simple tasks
Diminishes performance on complicated tasks
IF NOT EVALUATED
Relaxation
Social loafing effects
Diminishes performance on simple tasks
Enhances performance on complicated tasks
MESSAGES
Our ability is not the only independent variable in
performance
Performance can be both facilitated and inhibited by the
presence of others
Can think about this in your own interactions with
others and your view of other’s performance
CASE STUDY EXAM!!
REFERENCES
Hewstone, M, Stoebe, W. and Stephenson, G.M. (2008)
Introduction to Social Psychology: A European
Perspective. London, Blackwell. (Chapter 11)
Latane, B., Williams, K. & Harkins, S., (1979) Many Hands
Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of
Social Loafing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 37, 822-832.