The study investigated the effects of status and surveillance in the induction of social facilitation. The mere presence of an experimenter affected task performance, but the presence of an expert only influencedperformance when task surveillance was possible. The results are interpreted in light of Cottrell's (1968) theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Carment, D. W. , & Latchford, M.Rate of simple motor responding as a function of coaction, sex of the participants, and the presence or absence of the experimenter. Psychonomic Science, 1970, 20, 253-254.
2.
Cohen, J. L. , & Davis, J. H.Effects of audience status, evaluation, and time of action on performance with hidden-word problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27, 74-85.
3.
Hoppe , & G. A. Milton (Eds.), Social facilitation and imitative behavior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1968.
4.
Cottrell, N. B. , Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H.Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 245-250.
5.
Dashiell, J. F.Experimental studies of the influence of social situations on the behavior of individual human adults. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1935.
6.
Geen, R. G. , & Gange, J. H.Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 6, 1267-1288.
7.
Gore, W. V. , & Taylor, D. A.The nature of the audience as it affects social inhibition. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1973, 4, 18-27.
8.
Henchy, T. , & Glass, D. C.Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10, 446-454.
9.
Laird, D. A.Changes in motor control and individual variations under the influence of "razzing" . Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1923, 6, 236-247.
10.
Martens, R. , & Landers, D. M.Evaluation potency as a determinant of coaction effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1972, 8, 347-359.
11.
Paulus, P. B. , & Murdoch, P.Anticipated evaluation and audience presence in the enhancement of dominant responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 280-291.
12.
Rittle, R. H. & Bernard, N.Enhancement of response rate by the mere physical presence of the experimenter. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 127-130.
13.
Rosenquist, H. S.Social facilitation in rotary pursuit tracking . Paper presented at the 1972 annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association.
14.
Sasfy, J. , & Okun, M.Form of evaluation and audience expertness as joint determinants of audience effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, 10. 461-467.
15.
Van Tuinen, M. and McNeel, S. P.A test of the social facilitation theories of Cottrell and Zajonc in a coaction setting. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1975, 1, 604-607.
16.
Weiss, R. F. , & Miller, F. G.The drive theory of social facilitation. Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 44-56.
17.
Winer, B. J.Statistical Principles in Experimental Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1971.
18.
Zajonc, R. B.Social facilitation . Science, 1965, 149, 269-274.
