1. Lecture 2: Social Influence
Social Facilitation

2. Outline Recap—what did we learn last week? Social Influence:
What is social influence?
Social facilitation
Triplett (1898): the first study of social facilitation
Social facilitation in the animal kingdom
Contradictory findings: social interference/inhibition
Theories of Social Facilitation
Mere presence theory (Zajonc, 1965)
Distraction theory
Evaluation Apprehension theory

3. Let’s recap…. Mexican Waves
Social psychology examines how the thoughts, feelings, and behaviours of individuals are influenced by the actual or implied presence of others
Social psychology uses descriptive or experimental methods to accomplish this aim

4. Descriptive Methods Experimental Methods
Naturalistic Observation
Field Experiments
Archival Studies
Laboratory Experiments
Surveys

5. What is Social Influence?
The process whereby people directly or indirectly influence the thoughts, feelings and actions of others
Social influence is a pervasive and important part of everyday life.

6. Social Influence Have you ever… Asked a friend fashion advice?
Agreed to buy something you didn’t want?
Agreed to attend a social event because someone else asked you to?
Changed your behavior in response to a direct order from a police officer, parent, teacher, or school official?
Found yourself laughing over something that wasn’t funny
Performed a stupid act on a dare or a bribe?

7. Social Facilitation Triplett (1898)
Conducted the first empirical social psychology experiments
(that is, he used scientific methods to explore a social phenomenon)

8. Observation: cyclists recorded faster times when racing against others than when they were cycling by themselves
(i.e., the presence of others improves performance).

9. Theory: Triplett had 7 theories for why the presence of others improves performance
Suction theory
Shelter theory
Encouragement theory
Brain worry theory
The hypnotic suggestion theory
Automatic theory
Dynamogenic factor theory

10. 7. Dynamogenic factor theory: the presence of another person is a stimulus to arousing the competitive instinct.
This then releases or frees nervous energy that is not released when the person is alone.
Further, the sight of movement in the other person (perhaps if they are performing better, faster) is also an inspiration to greater effort

11. Children wound fishing reels either….
To test out the dynamogenic factor theory, Triplett designed an experiment
Children wound fishing reels either….
a. alone
b. in the presence of other children

12. Children performed 6 trials (alternating between winding the line alone or competitively)

13. FOUND: Children performed the task faster when performing competitively than when they performed the task alone
support for the dynamogenic factor theory

14. This phenomenon came to be known as
social facilitation: the presence of others enhances/improves performance
Two types of social facilitation studies:
Co-action effects: observe behaviour when individuals are all simultaneously engaged in the same activity in full view of each other
Audience effects: observation of behaviour when it occurs in the presence of passive spectators

15. Can we see social facilitation in the real world?
Tower (1986): drivers take 15% less time to travel the first 100 yards at an intersection when there is another driver beside them, than when they are alone

16. Social Facilitation in the Animal Kingdom
Bayer (1929) looked at the eating behaviour of chickens
the apparently full chicken then ate 2/3 again as much grain as it had already eaten

17. Is social facilitation also evident in ants?
Chen (1937)
Is social facilitation also evident in ants? *

18. Day 1
Ant digs alone
excavates 232mg
Day 2
Ant digs with another ant
excavates 765mg

19. Day 3
Does the number of ants matter?
excavates 728mg
Day 4
Ant digs alone again
excavates 182mg (fatigued)

20. BUT contradictory findings started to emerge….
Thus, the presence of others facilitates (improves) performance, in both humans & animals.
Two types of social facilitation studies:
Co-action effects: observe behaviour when individuals are all simultaneously engaged in the same activity in full view of each other
Audience effects: observation of behaviour when it occurs in the presence of passive spectators
BUT contradictory findings started to emerge….

21. Pessin (1933)
Asked participants to learn lists of nonsense syllables (gyx, pix, kpi, pln) either a) alone or b) in front of an audience
FOUND:
Alone: took 9.85 trials to learn a list of 7 syllables
Audience: took trials to learn a list of 7 syllables
contradicts findings of Triplett and Chen

22. Social Interference (social inhibition): when the presence of other people hinders performance.
Can we see social interference in the real world?
e.g., presentations, someone watching you type

23. So, now we have a problem….
There is evidence that the presence of others facilitates/improves performance (social facilitation; Triplett & Chen)
And there is evidence that the presence of others can hinder performance (social interference; Pessin, 1933)

24. Mere Presence Theory of Social Facilitation
Zajonc (1965)
Theory that explains both sets
of findings
The presence of other people,
as spectators or co-actors, leads to
arousal (activation or drive)

25. (i.e., helps or harms performance)
Arousal has different effects on performance
(i.e., helps or harms performance)
If the task/behaviour is easy or well learned arousal helps performance
If the task/behaviour is hard or not well learned
arousal hinders performance

26. Zajonc termed a well-known behaviour “the dominant response”
“performance is facilitated and learning is impaired by the presence of spectators”
Zajonc termed a well-known behaviour “the dominant response”
“arousal facilitates the performance of the dominant response”

27. The mere presence of others
Increases our arousal
Increases our performance on
well-learned tasks
Impairs our performance on poorly learned tasks

28. Evidence for the Mere Presence Theory
If the mere presence effect exists, it should be evident in animals.
Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969)
looked at social facilitation and cockroaches
What is the dominant response in cockroaches?
When a light switches on, cockroaches run in a straight line

29. Thus, cockroaches in the mere presence (audience condition) performed the maze faster than those in the alone condition
Arousal facilitates the performance of the dominant response

30. Thus, cockroaches in the mere presence (audience) condition were slower to perform the complex maze than those in the alone condition
Arousal inhibits the performance of the non-dominant response

31. These studies looked at audience effects Also looked at co-action
Found:
Cockroaches who ran the maze in groups ran the simple maze faster than cockroaches who ran the maze solo.
Cockroaches who ran the maze in groups ran the complex maze slower than cockroaches who ran the maze solo.
Evidence for the mere presence theory

32. What about with humans? Michaels and colleagues (1982)
Questions:
How often do players sink a ball?
Is their performance impaired or
enhanced by the presence of other
people?

33. Tested two types of players
a) good players,
b) poor players
Tested at two times
a) when the players were alone
b) when the players were in the presence of others

34. How often do players sink a ball in the PRESENCE OF OTHERS?
Good players = 85%
Poor players = 21%
How often do players sink a ball when ALONE?
Good players = 71%
Poor players = 36%
Arousal facilitates the performance of the dominant response
Arousal impairs the performance of non-dominant response

35. So, we have consistent evidence for the mere presence theory in both humans (pool players) and animals (cockroaches).
How can you make the mere presence theory work for you?

36. How can you make the mere presence theory work for you?
Zajonc (1965)
“advise the student to study all alone, preferably in an isolated cubicle, and to arrange to take all his examinations in the company of many other students, on stage, and in the presence of a large audience. The results of his examinations would be beyond his wildest expectations, provided, of course, he had learned his material quite thoroughly”