Lecture 2: Lecture 2:

Social InfluenceSocial InfluenceSocial Facilitation

OutlineOutline• 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

Let’s recap….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

Descriptive Methods

Naturalistic Observation

Archival Studies

Surveys

Experimental Methods

Field Experiments

Laboratory Experiments

What is Social Influence?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.

Social InfluenceSocial InfluenceHave 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?

Social FacilitationSocial Facilitation

• Triplett (1898)

• Conducted the first empirical social psychology experiments (that is, he used scientific methods to explore a social phenomenon)

• Observation: cyclists recorded faster times when racing against others than when they were cycling by themselves

(i.e., the presence of others improves performance).

• Theory: Triplett had 7 theories for why the presence of others improves performance

1. Suction theory2. Shelter theory3. Encouragement theory4. Brain worry theory5. The hypnotic suggestion theory6. Automatic theory7. Dynamogenic factor theory

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

• To test out the dynamogenic factor theory, Triplett designed an experiment

• Children wound fishing reels either….a. aloneb. in the presence of

other children

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

FOUND: Children performed the task faster when performing competitively than when they performed the task alone

support for the dynamogenic factor theory

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

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

• Bayer (1929) looked at the eating

behaviour of chickens

Social Facilitation in the Animal Social Facilitation in the Animal KingdomKingdom

the apparently full chicken then ate 2/3 again as much grain as it had already eaten

• Chen (1937)Is social facilitation also evident in

ants?

Day 2Ant digs with another ant

excavates 765mg

Day 1Ant digs alone

excavates 232mg

Day 4Ant digs alone again

excavates 182mg (fatigued)

Day 3Does the number of ants matter?

excavates 728mg

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….

• 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 syllablesAudience: took 11.27 trials to learn a list of 7 syllables

contradicts findings of Triplett and Chen

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

So, now we have a problem….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)

Mere Presence Theory of Mere Presence Theory of SocialSocial FacilitationFacilitation

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)

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

“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”

The mere presence of others

Increases our arousal

Increases our performance on

well-learned tasks

Impairs our performance on

poorly learned tasks

Evidence for the Mere Presence Evidence for the Mere Presence TheoryTheory

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

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

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

These studies looked at audience effectsAlso 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

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?

Tested two types of playersa) good players, b) poor players

Tested at two timesa) when the players were alone

b) when the players were in the presence of others

• How often do players sink a ball when ALONE?

• Good players = 71%

• Poor players = 36%

• How often do players sink a ball in the PRESENCE OF OTHERS?

• Good players = 85%

• Poor players = 21%

Arousal impairs the performance of non-dominant response

Arousal facilitates the performance of the dominant response

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?

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”