The purpose of this study was to assess effects of an audience on learning a novel motor skill. Subjects (N = 64) were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions and administered 15 30-sec. trials with 30-sec. intertrial periods on a pursuit rotor task on two different days. Comparison of Time-on-Targer performance between conditions indicated that the No Audience condition had significantly higher performance than the Audience condition in Session 1. Comparison of Absolute Retention and Final Retention scores among the four experimental conditions in Session 2 after 48 hr. yielded no significant differences attributable to the presence of an audience, thus supporting the hypothesis that an audience would have no effect on learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A.ReynoldsB. (1954) Effect of shift in distribution of practice conditions following interpolated rest. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 32–36.
2.
BendingA. W. (1964) Factor analysis scales of need achievement. Journal of General Psychology, 90, 59–67.
3.
BirdA. M. (1967) Cross sex effects of subjects and audience during motor performance. Research Quarterly, 40, 379–384.
4.
ButkiB. D. (1994) Adaptation to effects of an audience during acquisition of rotary pursuit skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1151–1159.
5.
CarronA. V. (1969) Physical fatigue and motor learning. Research Quarterly, 40, 682–686.
6.
CottrellN. B.WackR. H.SekerakG. J.RittleR. H. (1968) Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 245–250.
7.
CoxF. N. (1966) Some effect of test anxiety and presence or absence of other persons on boys’ performance on a repetitive motor task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3, 100–112.
8.
HollifieldN. C. (1982) Effect of prior performance experience before audiences on a dominant and nondominant motor response. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 317–323.
9.
LandersD. M.McCullachP. D. (1976) Social facilitation of motor performance. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews, 4, 125–162.
10.
LataneB. (1981) The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.
11.
LavertyJ. J. (1962) Retention of simple motor skills as a function of type of knowledge of results. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 16, 300–311.
12.
LeeT. D.GenoveseE. D. (1988) Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Learning and performance effects reconsidered. Research Quarterly, 59, 277–287.
13.
LeeT. D.GenoveseE. D. (1989) Distribution of practice in motor skill acquisition: Different effects for discrete and continuous tasks. Research Quarterly, 60, 59–65.
14.
LeeT. D.MagillR. A. (1983) The locus of contextual interference in motor-skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 730–746.
15.
LerstenK. C. (1968) Transfer of movement components in a motor learning task. Research Quarterly, 39, 575–581.
16.
LivingstonM. V.LandersD. M.DorranceP. B. (1972) Comparison of coacting individuals’ motor performance for varying combinations of initial ability. Research Quarterly, 45,310–317.
17.
MartensR. (1967) Effect on performance of learning a complex motor task in the presence of spectators. Research Quarterly, 40, 317–323.
18.
MartensR. (1969) Effect of an audience on learning and performance of a complex motor skill. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 252–260.
19.
MartensR. (1972) Evaluation potential as a determinant of coaction effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 347–359.
20.
MartensR.LandersD. M. (1976) Coaction effects on a muscular endurance task. Research Quarterly, 40, 733–737.
21.
McCullaghP. D.LandersD. M. (1976) Size of audience and social facilitation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 42, 1067–1070.
22.
MurrayJ. F. (1983) Effects of alone and audience motor performance for males and females. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 14, 92–97.
23.
SchmidtR. A. (1988) Motor control and learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
24.
SchmidtR. A.YoungD. E. (1987) Transfer of motor control in motor skill learning. In CormierS. M.HagmanJ. D. (Eds.), Transfer of learningOrlando, FL: Academic Press.47–49.
25.
SchmittB. H.GilovichT.GooreN.JosephL. (1986) Mere presence and social facilitation: One more time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 242–248.
26.
SheaJ. B.MorganR. L. (1979) Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5, 179–187.
27.
SheaJ. B.OptonG. (1976) The effects on skill acquisition of an interpolated motor short-term memory task during the KR-delay interval. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 277–281.
28.
SingerR. N. (1970) Effect of an audience on performance of a motor task. Journal of Motor Behavior, 2, 88–95.
29.
StelmachG. E. (1969) Efficiency of motor learning as a function of intertrial rest. Research Quarterly, 40, 198–202.
30.
ThayerR. E.MooreL. E. (1972) Reported activation and verbal learning as a function of group size (social facilitation) and anxiety-inducing instruction. Journal of Social Psychology, 88, 277–287.
31.
WankelL. M. (1975) The effects of social reinforcement and audience presence upon motor performance of boys with different levels of initial ability. Journal of Motor Behavior, 7, 207–216.
32.
WrisbergC. A. (1994) The arousal-performance relationship. Quest, 46, 60–77.
33.
ZajoncR. B. (1965) Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.
