Jonathan E. Burton and Ezra Edmonds Observation and Higher Level Cognition: A Study on Performance under Scrutiny Jonathan E. Burton and Ezra Edmonds Longwood University Results This study investigates the relationship between observation and tasks requiring the use of higher-level cognitive function. Our hypothesis was that observation would decrease the speed of performance on tasks requiring higher level cognitive function, as well as an increase in the number of mistakes made on the task. Each participant was either observed or not observed by a person walking behind them, while completing a task requiring higher-level cognitive function. Our results showed that observation decreased the speed with which participants completed the tasks, but failed to demonstrate that observation increased the number of mistakes made. These results could significantly improve the way that we understand observation. Abstract Independent t test for time taken With experimenter observation (M = 275.80, SD = 73.60) Without experimenter observation (M = 249.5, SD = 60.27) Significantly different groups: t(91) = 1.86, p = .033, d = .398, 95% CI[-1.27, 53.88] (one-tailed) Independent t test for number of mistakes made Experimenter observation on mistakes (M = .80, SD = .75) Without experimenter observation (M = .60, SD = .73) Difference was not statistically significant: t(91) = 1.35, p = .091, d = .270, 95% CI[-.10, .52] (one-tailed) Materials and Procedure Materials Three logic puzzles Demographic information Two Likert scale questions Stop watch application on a cell phone used to record time Procedures Participants briefed on procedure of experiment Participants completed the logic puzzles In experimental: Experimenter walked behind participants In control: both experimenters stood at the front of the room After completing the logic puzzles, participants filled out demographic info Participants then debriefed Background Hawthorn studies showed effect of observation on performance (Muchinsky, 1987) but only examined tasks that were familiar and repetitive. Observation increases Heart rate, and other physiological reactions, beneficial to tasks that are familiar or simple, but detrimental to tasks that require higher-level cognition. (Nagano, 2005) Observation causes release of cortisol, stress hormone, decreases prefrontal activity (Yantz, & McCaffrey, 2005) Social effects of observation; Social facilitation. Social facilitation is the effect of having someone observe ones’ actions. This is beneficial for familiar tasks, but detrimental to novel tasks. (McCaffrey, Lynch, & Yantz, 2005) Hypothesis When presented with a logic task, participants who are closely observed will take more time to complete the logic task, and have a greater number of mistakes. IV: presence or absence of observer walking behind the participant DV: Time take (in seconds) and number of mistakes made (wrong answers) Discussion The results were significant for the time taken but not number of mistakes Partially supports our hypothesis Possible reasons small sample size not enough questions participants focused on not making mistakes rather than doing it quickly Confounding variables noise level varying number of participants per execution of the experiment presences of experimenters in the room during control condition Directions for future research Paired subjects design Testing how familiarity impacts ability to perform under scrutiny Real world applications Business Increased efficiency with strategic use of observation Academic applications Observation during test taking. E.g. Proctors observing test takers. Purpose This study was conducted to better understand how observation impacts performance on tasks requiring higher-level cognitive function. Method Participants 112 total; 89 female, 23 male Mean age = 19.13 (SD = 1.27) Class rankings (1st = 50) (2nd = 27) (3rd = 19) (4th = 16) 59 in control condition, 53 in experimental 19 participants were excluded from the study 17 from control, 2 from experimental 10 excluded from control because of loud noise. Seven excluded from control: failed to follow the instructions Two excluded from experimental condition: failed to follow the instructions References (McCaffrey, R. J., Lynch, J. K., & Yantz, C. L. (2005). Third party observers: Why all the fuss? Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4(2), 1-15. doi:10.1300/J151v04n02_01) (Muchinsky, P. M. (1987). Psychology applied to work: an introduction to industrial and organizational psychology / Paul M. Muchinsky. Chicago, Ill. : Dorsey Press, 1987.) (Nagano, Y. (2005). The effect of evaluation observation during mental tasks on cardiovascular responses. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 76(3), 252-259. doi:10.4992/jjpsy.76.252) (Yantz, C. L., & McCaffrey, R. J. (2005). Effects of a supervisor’s observation on memory test performance of the examinee: Third party observer effect confirmed. Journal of Forensic Neuropsychology, 4(2), 27-38. doi: 10.1300/J151v04n02_03