1. 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 = , 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 = (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), doi: /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), doi: /jjpsy )
(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), doi: /J151v04n02_03