The study aims to understand how the impact of social presence on task performance (social facilitation effect), usually measured in face-to-face settings, can be generalised towards remote videoconferencing. The social facilitation effect is expressed in the improvement of task performance on easy tasks, and detriment on difficult tasks, during a social situation versus when performing alone. We tested which videoconferencing channels are responsible for this performance change. The interaction occurred within an experimentally controlled naturalistic videoconferencing setting. The participants performed visual-reasoning tasks as quickly and accurately as possible under several conditions: when screen-sharing their task performance, having their video on, seeing the video of the researchers’ interactive avatar, and with all these channels on or all off. Based on two social facilitation effect phenomena, we predicted that participants’ performance might change when it is watched (audience effect) by the researcher through screen-sharing and when participants or the researcher co-share their videos during videoconferencing (mere presence effect). We found that having participant video visible to the companion improved participants’ performance accuracy on difficult tasks, whilst task screen-sharing improved speed on correct easy tasks, with no significant effect from the researchers’ visual presence. We entertain the notion of soft-presence and propose ways forward.
AielloJ. R.KolbK. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoring and social context: impact on productivity and stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(3), 339–353.
2.
BlascovichJ.MendesW. B.HunterS. B.SalomonK. (1999). Social facilitation as challenge and threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.68
3.
BleakleyA.RoughD.EdwardsJ.DoyleP.DumbletonO.ClarkL.RintelS.WadeV.CowanB. R. (2022). Bridging social distance during social distancing: exploring social talk and remote collegiality in video conferencing. Human–Computer Interaction, 37(5), 404–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2021.1994859
4.
BondC. F. (1982). Social facilitation: A self-presentational view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6), 1042–1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.42.6.1042
Campos-CastilloC.HitlinS. (2013). Copresence: Revisiting a building block for social interaction theories: revisiting a building block for social interaction theories. Sociological Theory, 31(2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275113489811
7.
CañigueralR.Krishnan-BarmanS.DeA. F.HamiltonC. (2022). Social signalling as a framework for second-person neuroscience. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3758/S13423-022-02103-2
8.
ChevallierC.Parish-MorrisJ.TongeN.LeL.MillerJ.SchultzR. T. (2014). Susceptibility to the audience effect explains performance gap between children with and without autism in a Theory of Mind task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 143(3), 972. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0035483
9.
CottrellN. B.WackD. L.SekerakG. J.RittleR. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025902
10.
DumontheilI.HoultonR.ChristoffK.BlakemoreS. J. (2010). Development of relational reasoning during adolescence. Developmental Science, 13(6), F15–F24. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-7687.2010.01014.X
FallerJ.CummingsJ.SaprooS.SajdaP. (2019). Regulation of arousal via online neurofeedback improves human performance in a demanding sensory-motor task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(13), 6482–6490. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817207116
13.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
14.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
15.
GeorgeJ.MirsadikovA.NaborsM.MarettK. (2022, January4–7). What do users actually look at during ‘Zoom’ Meetings? Discovery research on attention, gender and distraction effects [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA.
16.
GrantT.DajeeK. (2003). Types of task, types of audience, types of actor: interactions between mere presence and personality type in a simple mathematical task. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(3), 633–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00241-6
GuerinB.InnesJ. M. (1982). Social facilitation and social monitoring: A new look at Zajonc’s mere presence hypothesis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-8309.1982.TB00506.X
20.
GuerinB.InnesJ. M. (1984). Explanations of social facilitation: A review. Current Psychological Research & Reviews, 3(2), 32–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02686548
21.
HamiltonA. F. de C.LindF. (2016). Audience effects: What can they tell us about social neuroscience, theory of mind and autism?Culture and Brain, 4(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40167-016-0044-5
22.
HassellM.CottonJ. L. (2017). The consequences of seeing oneself on camera: Toward improved virtual team performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 17840. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2016.17840ABSTRACT
23.
HoytC. L.BlascovichJ.SwinthK. R. (2003). Social inhibition in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603321640932
24.
IzumaK.SaitoD. N.SadatoN. (2010). The roles of the medial prefrontal cortex and striatum in reputation processing. Social Neuroscience, 5(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910903202559
25.
JoinsonA. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177–192.
26.
KawaseS. (2009). An exploratory study of gazing behavior during live performance. In ESCOM 2009 : 7th Triennial Conference of European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music. https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/20882
27.
KendallW.ChanK.KingstoneA. (2014). The effect of camera presence on arousal, attentional control and inhibition. Journal of Vision, 14(10), 646–646. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.10.646
28.
KhazaeiS.AminM. R.FaghihR. T. (2021, November 1–5). Decoding a neurofeedback-modulated cognitive arousal state to investigate performance regulation by the Yerkes-Dodson Law. In Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (pp. 6551–6557). IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Virtual Conference.
29.
LangnerR.EickhoffS. B. (2012). Sustaining attention to simple tasks: A meta-analytic review of the neural mechanisms of vigilant attention. Psychological Bulletin, 139(4), 870. https://doi.org/10.1037/A0030694
30.
LeeJ. E. R.NassC. I.BailensonJ. N. (2014). Does the mask govern the mind?: Effects of arbitrary gender representation on quantitative task performance in avatar-represented virtual groups. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(4), 248–254.
31.
LeeJ.-E. R. (2009). To reveal or to cloak? Effects of identity salience on stereotype threat responses in avatar-represented group contexts. International Journal of Internet Science, 4(1), 34–49.
LyyraP.AstikainenP.HietanenJ. K. (2018). Look at them and they will notice you: Distractor-independent attentional capture by direct gaze in change blindness. Visual Cognition, 26(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2017.1370052
34.
ManningJ. M. (2020). Professionalism. In The path to building a successful nursing career (pp. 147–171). Springer International Publishing.
35.
MenneckeB. E.TriplettJ. L.HassallL. M.CondeZ. J. (2010, January 5–10). Embodied social presence theory [Conference session]. 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 1–10), Koloa, HI, USA.
36.
MillerM. K.MandrykR. L.BirkM. V.DeppingA. E.PatelT. (2017, May 6–11). Through the looking glass: Effects of feedback on self-awareness and conversation during video chat [Conference session]. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings, 2017-May (pp. 5271–5283), Denver, CO, USA.
37.
O’NeillD. K.ReinhardtS.JayasunderaK. (2022). What undergraduates say about choosing an online or in-person course: Qualitative results from a large-sample, multi-discipline survey. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(4), 1199–1214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1896484
38.
OzonoS.SchindlerC.NakamuraY.ArakawaY.MinkerW. (2025). How do bias strategies and appearance shape Avatar preferences?: Toward the development of Avatars for health support. https://arakawa-lab.com
39.
PuceA.PerrettD. (2003). Electrophysiology and brain imaging of biological motion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 358(1431), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1221
40.
RajeckiD. W. (2010). Zajonc, cockroaches, and chickens, c. 1965–1975: A characterization and contextualization. Emotion Review, 2(4), 320–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073910375477
41.
RajeckiD. W.IckesW.CorcoranC.LenerzK. (1977). Social facilitation of human performance: Mere presence effects. The Journal of Social Psychology, 102(2), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1977.9713277
42.
RedcayE.SchilbachL. (2019). Using second-person neuroscience to elucidate the mechanisms of social interaction. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 20(8), 495. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41583-019-0179-4
43.
RichardsJ. M.GrossJ. J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The cognitive consequences of emotion suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1033–1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992511010
44.
RiedlR.KostoglouK.WriessneggerS. C.Müller-PutzG. R. (2023). Videoconference fatigue from a neurophysiological perspective: Experimental evidence based on electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG). Scientific Reports, 13(1), 18371. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-023-45374-Y
45.
SandersG. S. (1981). Driven by distraction: An integrative review of social facilitation theory and research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(3), 227–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90024-X
46.
SandersG. S.BaronR. S.MooreD. L. (1978). Distraction and social comparison as mediators of social facilitation effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(3), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90017-3
47.
SchilbachL.TimmermansB.ReddyV.CostallA.BenteG.SchlichtT.VogeleyK. (2013). Toward a second-person neuroscience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(04), 393–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000660
48.
SchmittB. H.GilovichT.GooreN.JosephL. (1986). Mere presence and social facilitation: One more time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(3), 242–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(86)90027-2
49.
SomervilleL. H.JonesR. M.RuberryE. J.DykeJ. P.GloverG.CaseyB. J. (2013). The medial prefrontal cortex and the emergence of self-conscious emotion in adolescence. Psychological Science, 24(8), 1554–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613475633
50.
StrojnyP. M.Dużmańska-MisiarczykN.LippN.StrojnyA. (2020). Moderators of social facilitation effect in virtual reality: Co-presence and realism of virtual agents. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1252. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.01252/BIBTEX
SutskovaO.SenjuA.SmithT. J. (2022). Impact of video-mediated online social presence and observance on cognitive performance. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 3(2: Summer 2022). https://doi.org/10.1037/TMB0000023
53.
SutskovaO.SenjuA.SmithT. J. (2023). Cognitive impact of social virtual reality: audience and mere presence effect of virtual companions. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2023, 6677789. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6677789
54.
WilliamsE. H.CristinoF.CrossE. S. (2019). Human body motion captures visual attention and elicits pupillary dilation. Cognition, 193, 104029. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COGNITION.2019.104029
55.
WolfL. K.BazarganiN.KilfordE. J.DumontheilI.BlakemoreS. J. (2015). The audience effect in adolescence depends on who’s looking over your shoulder. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.003
56.
YeeJ.LeeJ.DesowitzA.BlumsteinD. T. (2013). The costs of conspecifics: Are social distractions or environmental distractions more salient?Ethology, 119(6), 480–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/ETH.12085
57.
YerkesR. M.DodsonJ. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.920180503
ZanbakaC. A.UlinskiA. C.GoolkasianP.HodgesL. F. (2007, 28 April–3 May). Social responses to virtual humans [Conference session]. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI’07 (pp. 1561–1570), San Jose, CA, USA.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
