Social facilitation states that there is an increased likelihood that someone will perform better at a task due to the mere presence of others (either in the form of a co-actor or an audience). This was brought up by Norman Triplett, who looked into social facilitation within cyclists. He found that when cycling alone, the times were slower than when cycling in a group. This was a very early study, which led on to many more.
Arousal theory states however that performance is not as straight forward as aforementioned. According to Zajonc, arousal acts as a drive that brings out the dominant response. The ‘dominant response’ refers to the behaviour we are most likely to perform in a given situation. In an easy or well practised talk, dominant responses tend to be correct so social facilitation occurs, but in a task which is difficult or not well learnt, the dominant responses tend to be incorrect, so social inhibition occurs. However, arousal only increases with performance until an optimum point, where it will then decline; this is called the ‘inverted U hypothesis’. This theory states that a well skilled player needs a lot of arousal to get started in the first place, where as too much arousal for an unskilled player leads to a quicker optimum point, where it will then decline (due to too much arousal). A study by Michaels et al is evidence to this theory. The aim was to see if the presence of an audience would facilitate well-learned behaviours and inhibit poorly learned ones. Students were observed playing pool, and 6 above average and 6 below average students were chosen. Next, 4 passive observers stood and watched their pool game. The above average players’ accuracy increased by 11%, however the below average players’ accuracy decreased by 9%. This supports Zajonc’s dominant response theory, as the dominant response of the skilled pool players is to improve in the presence of an audience, whereas the dominant response of the unskilled players is to do worse.
To evaluate this study, it has many positives as the behaviour was studied in its natural setting, increasing ecological validity. Additionally, the participants were unaware of their participation in a study, meaning reduced demand characteristics. However this leads to ethical concerns of invasion of privacy and lack of informed consent. Additionally, this theory does not acknowledge the role of cognitive processes. For example, some people may be highly competitive so thrive off of an audience, whereas another person may be anxious and constantly worried about judgement.
Evaluation Apprehension (which was put forward by Cottrell), states that it is not just the mere presence of others; it is the worry of being judged that affects performance. This theory states that if you are confident in your ability, then being watched drives you to perform well. This is because you want to show off your ability. However, if you are not confident, the presence of others leads to a constant worry of being evaluated (judged), so you consequently do worse.
Bartis et al conducted a study which supports this theory. His aim was to find out whether evaluation apprehension would improve performance on a simple task and inhibit it in a complex one. All participants had to think of different uses for a knife. Half were asked to think of creative uses of a knife (complex) and half to merely list the uses of a knife (simple). The two groups were further divided, half told they would be individually identified (evaluation apprehension) and half told that their results would be pooled with everyone else’s. In the evaluation apprehension condition, the simple task gave more uses for a knife, compared to the complex task, which gave fewer uses for a knife. This concludes that evaluation apprehension increases performance on simple tasks, but decreases performance on complex tasks. A further study by Cottrell additionally supports this theory. In Cottrell’s study the audience was blindfolded and he found no facilitating effect, as there wasn’t any judgement.
This study was very contrived and artificial, and was also performed in a lab setting. This means it lacks ecological validity, and has high demand characteristics. This theory is also only one possible cause of arousal in the presence of others, and may not be the only factor. It also cannot explain animal behaviour, as most presumably do not experience evaluation apprehension.
Distraction theory was put forward by Saunders et al, who suggested that when a person is performing a task the mere presence of others creates a conflict between concentrating on the task and concentrating on the other people. This conflict increases arousal, which leads to social facilitation (improved performance). Doing a task you are confident at leads to enhanced performance, as the dominant response outweighs the negative effects of distraction. However when performing a task you are unskilled at, you are unable to fully concentrate as you can’t stop thinking of the audience- they distract you and lead to social inhibition.
The Sanders et al study of 1978 supports this. The aim was to investigate whether distraction would result in social facilitation on a simple task and social inhibition on a complex task. Participants were given a simple and complex digit-copying task. This was either done alone, or at the same time as a co-actor, who was either doing the same (distracting) or a different (not distracting) task. By doing the same task, experimenters believed it would be a source of social comparison and therefore distracting. Participants in the distraction condition made more mistakes on the complex task, but copied more digits correctly on the simple task than the other conditions. This shows that performance on simple tasks was facilitated by distracting others, but inhibited by distracting others on more complex tasks.
In evaluation, the study was fairly subjective; how do you distinguish between ‘simple’ and ‘complex’? However, it was highly controlled, meaning a low risk of extraneous and confounding variables, but also meaning low ecological validity and high demand characteristics. This theory can be applied to any distracting stimulus (e.g. noise, movement) not just social presence, which is a positive as it has useful application in the outside world. It can also explain animal behaviour, as animals do become distracted.