Social facilitation explores the effect of social presence on the performance of a task. The presence of others can come in the form of either co-actors (fellow competitors) or an audience (spectators). Research is based on the notion that the presence of an audience of one or more spectators can facilitate performance.
Triplett (1897) observed that cyclists recorded faster times when competing with other cyclists, than performing individual time trials. Triplets experiment consisted of 40 children that had been asked to wind 16 metres of thread onto a fishing reel as fast as they could, either alone or in pairs. The majority of the children completed the task faster with a co-actor than when alone (2-3 seconds on average). However, it was also observed that small number of children performed worse with a co-actor. Tripletts experiment demonstrated the co-action effect, whereby the task performance is increased by the mere presence of others. However, Zajonc (1965) proposed that the effect on task performance of co-actors or spectators depends on the complexity of the task; with performance being facilitated by the presence of others when easy or well learned tasks are attempted, but inhibited with difficult or novel tasks. Zajonc tested cockroaches in easy and difficult mazes, and found that the cockroaches escaped quicker in the easy maze if two cockroaches ran the maze or an audience of cockroaches watched, but took longer to escape the difficult maze under the same conditions. Zajonc put forward Drive Theory, where the term ‘dominant response’ was used to refer to the behavior most likely to be displayed in a given situation. For easy, well learned tasks the dominant response would be the correct one, resulting in facilitation of performance, whereas complex, unlearned tasks the dominant response is most likely to be the incorrect one, therefore inhibiting performance. The aim of this experiment is to compare the times recorded from a group of participants performing a muscular endurance task in two separate conditions, alone (with only a timer present), and in a co-action and audience situation. The hypothesis for this experiment is that the participants will display increased performances in the co-action, audience situation compared to performing the task alone.
Method
Six participants performed a wall sit test. They were instructed to stand approximately 18” from the wall with feet shoulder width apart. They then descended into a squat position until knees were at 90 flexion, and torso flat against the wall, arms crossed against chest. They were then instructed to maintain that position for as long as possible. Time was recorded with a stopwatch which began as soon as the knees were at 90 flexion and ended as soon as the knees deviated from this angle. The task was performed in two different conditions, firstly the test was performed alone with only a timer present, and secondly, following a period of one week, all six participants performed the test together to create a co-action effect, and also in the presence of spectators to create an audience effect. Time taken when task was performed alone was compared to time recorded in co-action/audience situation. Using SPSS software, a paired samples t-test was performed to indicate any significant difference between the recorded times, with significance level was set at P = 0.05.
Table 1 shows time recorded for participants performing muscular endurance task in both isolation and co-action/audience situation.
[endif]--Results
Performance Time (Seconds)
Isolation Co-Action/Audience
Participant 1 143secs 166secs
Participant 2 138secs 362secs
Participant 3 184secs 385secs
It was observed that there was a clear difference in performance time when the task was performed in isolation (M = 155.3, ± 24.9) compared to a co-action/audience situation (M = 304.3, ± 120.3), although the difference was shown to be not significant (= 2.35, P = >0.05).
Discussion
The objective of this experiment was to investigate the effect that a co-action/audience situation has on the performance of a muscular endurance task. The fact that significance was not shown can be explained by the limited sample size (n = 3). It can therefore be assumed that in this experiment performance was facilitated when participants experienced the co-action/audience effect compared to performing the task in isolation.
The findings of the present experiment correspond quite closely to the findings of Zajonc (1965) who showed that the presence of an audience enhances the dominant response. The low complexity of the task seems to explain why performance was enhanced; when performing in front of co-actors or audiences, simple tasks result in a facilitative response to performance while complex tasks reduce performance due to the increased cognitive energy required (Zajonc, 1965). This can be explained by the participant experiencing heightened levels of arousal in the presence of co-actors or an audience. Where Zajonc claimed that arousal in the presence of others was a biological innate response, Cottrell (1972) argued that arousal is triggered by the perception of being evaluated. Evaluation apprehension theory proposes that social facilitation effects only occur when the individual feels they are being evaluated by either co-actors or spectators, therefore resulting in either positive or negative outcomes in performance; if an individual is being evaluated on a simple, learned task then the arousal produced leads to an improvement in performance whereas, if the task is complex or novel then the pressure of evaluation will result in a decrease in performance. Evaluation apprehension may explain why the participants in the current experiment increased their task performance in the co-action/audience situation, as the co-actors and spectators were
The most interesting area of this phenomenon in a sporting context relates to the home advantage many teams experience, with the presence of a supportive audience the most critical factor in facilitating performance (Cox, 2011). Although, there are many other factors that may contribute to home advantage other than a supportive audience such as familiarity with surroundings, travel – the fact that the home side does not need to travel, referee bias and territorial influence – with home players experiencing an increase in testosterone production, believed to be an evolutionary instinct related to defending ones own territory (Pollard, 2008). Another influence that social facilitation may have on team sports is that athletes that train together may be more likely to put in more effort (Woods, 1998). This may especially be pertinent during a testing battery, when evaluating fitness parameters within the team.
Conclusion
In this experiment participants were observed to increase performance of a low skill task in the presence of co-actors and spectators compared to performing the same task in isolation. Therefore, it can be assumed that in this case the mere presence of others exhibited a facilitative effect on performance.
References
1.Triplett, N. (1898). The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition. The American Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 507.
2.Cottrell, N.B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C.G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 185-236). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston
3.Cox, R.H. (2011). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications. 7th edn. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education
4.Pollard, R. (2008). Home advantage in football: A current review of an unsolved puzzle. The Open Sports Sciences Journal TOSSJ, 1(1), 12-14.
5.Woods, B, and McIlveen, R. (1998) Applying pscychology to sport. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
6.R.B. Zajonc (1965) Social facilitation: A solution is suggested for an old unresolved social psychology problem. Science, New Series, Vol. 149, No. 3681 (pp269-274)
![endif]--