The Effects of Mere Presence on the Social Facilitation of Behaviour

The audience effect is another term for social facilitation and behavior. People behave differently in the company of other people than when they are alone. According to research, when a person is presented with a simple repetitive duty, he performs better when surrounded by other people (Dickerson, Mycek, & Zaldiva, 2008)

On the other hand, when a person is coping with a difficult issue, he tends to perform poorly in the presence of others. This paper will analyze under what circumstances the mere effect of others takes place and also identify when it will inhibit rather than facilitate behavior. The research will then proceed to point out gaps in the literature which will form the basis for future research and analysis.

Personality Does Matter

Based on literature review, social facilitation is sometimes attributed to certain people more than others. People who have more self-assured and confident characters tend to be more efficient when in the mere presence of other people. A person, who lacks confidence and has a low self-esteem, will tend to be more productive when alone but will be very ineffective in the presence of other people (Dickerson, Mycek, & Zaldiva, 2008). Personality determines the likely response of an individual to social presence. People with high self-esteem and extroverts usually tend to get positive orientation when faced with social presence. People with a low self-image tend to have a negative orientation (Barnet, Parsons, & Reynolds, 2017).

Personality make’s some people prone to facilitation and hence might either hamper or enhance their performance. There are three empirical relationships which exist in social facilitation which includes evaluation, activation, and attention theory. Activation theory mainly explains how people get aroused plus its impact on their ability to function. The method of assessment involves the assessment of merits of some objects (Izuma, Saito, & Sadato, 2010a).

Several past studies by different psychologists have indicated that the mere presence of others is non-specific and non-dominant arousal that enhances the dominant response of the performer or actor. Some of the past studies which emphasize these findings are Zajonc and Sales (1966), using a pseudo recognition task, and Martenes (1969) who used a complex motor task and Hilley and Hunt (1973). This test further proves that for simple and well rehearsed tasks, the mere presence of others improves the performance of the actor and the more complex and unfamiliar jobs, the presence of an audience has a considerably detrimental effect. According to Mc Leod (2011), social facilitation is the improved performance which occurs when there is the presence of others. Studies about social facilitation and behavior will usually extend up to when an individual’s behavior is affected by real, implied, or imagined the presence of other people.

Social facilitation also suffers from the audience effect whereby a person will perform simple, well-rehearsed tasks better when there is an audience than when there is no audience (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2009). The extent of inhibitions in social facilitation depends on the nature of the task and the performer. According to Cottrel (1968), what matters is not the presence of other people that determines social facilitation, but it is the fear of being evaluated (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2009).

In 1965, Robert Zajonc realized that there was a conflict where some people will perform better at certain times in the presence of others and perform poorly at other times. He then came up with the drive hypothesis (Victoria Lynne et al., 2017) The drive theory contrasts sharply with social participation since it espouses that social behavior will be as a result of the type of information available to a person. Complex forms of social expression will require decisions, inferences, judgments, and attributions (C Hamilton, 2016).

Team Work Works

The attention theory considers the state of the mind which includes concentration and focalization. According to Triplett experiments of 1897, a cyclist used in the research, performed much better when he was racing with his colleagues than when he was cycling by himself. From this experiment, Triplett concluded that there exists a competitive nature in man that releases energy when faced with a competitive situation which will not be released when one is peddling alone. Triplet’s study concluded that the mere presence of others does influence behavior (Izuma, Saito, & Sadato, 2010a).

Hazel Markus of the University of Michigan performed a test where an individual was made to wear a set of familiar clothes and also another collection of unfamiliar garments. He was put in three different scenarios, in one situation he was made to wear the clothes by himself. In another situation, he wore the clothes with an inattentive audience which was passive. In the third experiment, he was made to wear the clothes in front of a very attentive audience. In the situation where there was an attentive audience, the individual was more efficient in wearing the familiar clothing than wearing the unfamiliar clothing that he was handed over. The experiment concluded that individuals would do better in the presence of other people when they are faced with simple tasks but will perform poorly when they are exposed to an active audience, and they have to complete a difficult task (Krahe, Paloyelis, 2015).

Norman Triplett experimented with bicycles and with children. In one experiment the child was made to cycle alone, and in another, the same child was made to cycle in the presence of other children who were also cycling. The performance of the child was monitored in both instances, and Triplett confirmed that the Child’s performance improved greatly when he was cycling in the company of other children as compared to when he was cycling alone. This experiment enabled Triplets to identify what he called a co-action effect which is a scenario that increased performance happens by the mere presence of others (C Hamilton, 2016).

The co-action effect explains why one can work better in a library than at home. A library is quiet, and people are doing the same thing. Shen (1937) observed that worker ants which work in groups dig much faster than ants working alone. Animals also are likely to eat more food if there are others of the same species present (Dickerson, Gruenewald, & Kemeny, 2009).

The Yerkes-Dodson Law states that The presence of others improved the accuracy and speed of a participant in well-practiced tasks and diminished performance in functions which are not familiar to the person. (Izuma., Saito, & Sadato, 2010b) Floyed Alport (1924) who came up with the term social facilitation had done studies which showed that people perform better when they are in the company of others who are doing the same task.

A study in 2010 showed that people donate more in the presence of others than when they give privately. The neuroimaging that was done showed that the observers present affected the ventral striatum before they decided whether to donate or not (Hamilton & Lind, 2016).

In examining the impact of social facilitation on vigilance by Victoria Lynne and James Szelma, it was found that an individual will be more alert and vigilant with the mere presence of the supervisor, but this is coupled with an increase in stress and workload.

Based on the research by Antonia and Hamilton on the importance of a direct gaze, it was found that eye contact or direct gaze leads to arousal and it moderates action of individuals. However, this depends on participants believe that the other person is watching them. Direct gaze would result in reputation management and response modulation by the individual (Pönkänen et al, 2011). This research explains why the behavior of an individual will only be affected if the audience is interested in them and watching them. If the audience is indifferent and not involved, then the behavior of the individual will not be affected.

According to Michael, Barnett, Thomas, Persons, Brooke and Bedford Article on the impact of rapport, it was found that excellent rapport between the therapist and the patient led to better results than in the case of a low rapport. This research shows that when an individual is in the presence of a stranger, then there is a threatening situation which inhibits performance. Where the therapist builds rapport and becomes friendly with the patient, the fear and threat level goes down. The performance, in this case, is facilitated by the mere presence of the therapist.

The Smart Phones Do Interfere

Another researcher Mr. Bill Thornton, et al. did a study to evaluate the impact of the mere presence of mobile phones in our lives. Bill identified that mobile phones have greatly improved communication between individuals and groups of people who stay far away from each other. However, a close observation of people who are using the cell phone while walking or driving or who are sending text messages while performing other duties, then the mobile phone proved to be distracting to their attention which led to the diminished performance of the staff member. According to the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, the mere presence of smart phones, have led to brain drain. Smart phones expose an individual to a lot of entertainment, news, and chat groups. Experiments indicate that when one avoids looking at the phone regularly, the mere presence of the device does reduce cognitive capacity. Smartphone owners utilize their phones more than 85% a day. In this case, the mere presence of the telephone inhibits the ability of the person from exercising his cognitive faculties regarding thought and inhibits his interaction with the environment around him making him antisocial (Krahe, Paloyelis, 2015).

The Company One Keeps Matters

In another research done by Sara Hill, the mere presence of a man in between several women increased the desirability of the man to the opposite sex. However, when a man was alone or with a group of other men, he was less desirable to other women. In other words, his desirability increased to the opposite sex when he was with women but decreased when he was in the company of other men. This phenomenon can be referred to as the desirability enhancement effect. On the other hand, men found that a lady who was either by herself or with a group of other women, more desirable than a lady who was in the middle of a group of men. This is referred to as the desirability diminution effect (Krahe, Paloyelis, 2015). In this case, the mere presence of the opposite sex had different reactions in the case of both men and women.

In a study done by Sally S. Dickerson and Peggy J. Mycek, 89 graduates were to deliver a speech in one of three conditions, the first group presented in front of a panel which was to evaluate their performance. The second team performed in front of an inattentive audience, the third group presented alone in a room. Based on the results the group that presented in front of an evaluative panel had a considerably higher level of cortical response than the other two control groups. The physical appearance of a person dramatizes the power of that person to cause injury or to lend assistance, deliver praise, or provide information. According to the Social Facilitation Theory, the mere presence of others is a source of non-specific and non-arousal (Krahe, Paloyelis, 2015).

The social presence can be either ambiguous or significant. The ambiguity is because one is not sure about the reaction of an individual in the face of social presence. It is vital because when dealing with human beings, any outcome whether negative or positive is likely to manifest itself at a future date when the individual is faced with similar circumstances (Izuma., Saito, & Sadato, 2010).

Conclusion

Social facilitation can be described as the change in the behavior of an individual due to the presence of others. The difference in behavior can either positively or negatively affect his performance. It is however impossible to predict how the individual will react since his reaction depends on several factors which include; his relationship with the others present. If they are friendly, then his performance is enhanced. If they are hostile or indifferent, the performance is impaired.

The personality of the individual also matters. Confident extroverts are enabled by the presence of others, while the presence of others will impair individuals with low self-esteem and lacking in confidence.

An individual may also be impaired by an audience in one instance and be enhanced by the same audience in another example due to the drive concept. If the individual is trained and given an incentive, he performs better.

Social facilitation also suffers the desirability enhancement and desirability diminution effects. Enhancement occurs when ladies view a man as being more desirable when he is in the company of other women. Diminution occurs when men see a lady as being less desirable when in the company of other men. The presence of a mobile phone can also enhance or impede performance. It improves communication but also hinders performance when one is multi-tasking, texting while walking, or driving while speaking on the phone. Constant use of a smart phone also leads to brain drain and anti-social behavior.

Co-action effect occurs when the performance of humans and animals is enhanced when in the presence of animals of the same species that are doing the same activity.

Individuals tend to be more efficient when they perform simple well rehearse activities in the presence of others, but their performance is impaired if they are performing complex and familiar tasks.

There exist research gaps where the social facilitation effects should be researched on while considering the individual differences as regards to culture, level of education, development, and age. Researchers should endeavor to answer this very intriguing question; what changes when in the mere presence of others?

References

Antonia F. de C. Hamilton& Frida Lind (2016). What can they tell us about social neuroscience, theory of mind and autism? Audience effect.

Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6): 625-641.

C Hamilton, & A. F. (2016). Gazing at me: The importance of social meaning in understanding direct-gaze cues. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371(1686).

Dickerson, S.S., Gruenewald, T.L., & Kemeny, M.E. (2009). Psychobiological responses to social self-threat: Functional or detrimental? Self and Identity, 8: 270–285.

Dickerson, S. S., Mycek, P. J., & Zaldivar, F. (2008). Negative social evaluation, but the not mere social presence, elicits cortisol responses to a laboratory stressor task. Health Psychology, 27(1): 116-121.

Izuma, K., Saito, D. N., & Sadato, N. (2010a). Processing of the incentive for social approval in the ventral striatum during charitable donation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(4), 621–631.

Izuma, K., Saito, D. N., & Sadato, N. (2010b). The roles of the medial prefrontal cortex and striatum in reputation processing. Social Neuroscience, 5(2), 133–147.

Krahe, C., Paloyelis, Y., Condon, H., Jenkinson, P. M., Williams, S. C. R., & Fotopoulou, A. (2015). Attachment style moderates partner presence effects on pain: A laser-evoked potentials study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10, 1030–1037.

M.D. Barnet, T.D. Parsons., & B.L. Reynolds. (2017) Impact of rapport on neuropsychological test performance. Taylor & Francis.

Pönkänen, L. M., Alhoniemi, A., Leppänen, J. M., & Hietanen, J. K. (2011). Does it make a difference if I have an eye contact with you or with your picture? An ERP study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(4), 486–494.

Victoria Lynne Claypoole, & James L., & Szalma, (2017). Examining social facilitation in vigilance: a hit and a miss: 1485-1499. “The Effects of Mere Presence on the Social Facilitation of Behaviour.”