Social facilitation

Motivation and Emotion, VoL 4, No. 1, 1980
Social Facilitation
A u d i e n c e versus E v a l u a t i o n A p p r e h e n s i o n Effects I
Jerry L. Cohen 2
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
The effects o f the presence o f another individual and evaluation apprehension were independently manipulated within a 3 (alone, mere presence,
observation) × 4 (none, low, medium, high evaluation)factorial design. Ten
subjects (five male, five female) were randomly assigned to each o f the 12
conditions. Subjects" behavioral performance on a hidden-word task and a
measure o f autonomic arousal were the main dependent variables. Analysis
o f variance results showed a significant performance difference on the
hidden-word task among the f o u r evaluation apprehension conditions as
predicted. No significant effects were f o u n d f o r the palmar sweat
conductivity measures. The results add support f o r the concept o f
evaluation apprehension as the mediating variable in producing socialfacilitation effects, and suggest that arousal as an intervening variable may
be multidimensional.
One of the oldest and most interesting of phenomena within social
psychology is the area of social facilitation-inhibition. The concern with
how the presence of others affects the task performance of an individual
dates back to Triplett's (1897) work on cycling performance and racing.
Since that time, there have been many investigators using sundry tasks and
procedures to gain a better understanding of this problem (for details see
the reviews by Cottrelt, 1972; Geen & Gange, 1977).
Zajonc (1965) provided a theoretical explanation based on general
drive notions that coalesces the early research findings into a single explanatory system: "To put the statement in conventional psychological
'The author wishes to thank Joseph E. McGrath, James H. Davis, and Samuel S. Komorita for
their helpful comments on a previous draft of this article.
2Address all correspondence to Jerry L. Cohen, Department of Psychology, University of
Illinois, Champaign, Illinois 61820.
0146-7239[80/0300-0021503,00]0 © 1980 Plenum Publishing Corporation
language, performance is facilitated and learning is impaired by the
presence of spectators" (p. 270). The presence of an audience is assumed to
have arousal (i.e., drive or activation) consequences. The "audience
enhances the emission of dominant responses" (p. 270), thus inhibiting
acquisition of new responses (i.e., learning) and facilitating the performance of already well-learned responses.
Zajonc and Sales (1966), using a pseudorecognition task, found experimental evidence in support of this explanation. The presence of passive
spectators increased the emission of dominant responses at the expense of
subordinate responses, as compared to conditions in which no observers
were present. Martens (1969a) also found support for Zajonc's (1965)
explanation using a complex motor task. Cottrell, Rittle, and Wack (1967)
found results that supported Zajonc's proposal in a paired-associate
learning task. Using a very simple, familiar task of changing mode of dress,
Markus (1978) found the mere presence of another individual sufficient to
facilitate task performance.
Cottretl (1968) has modifed Zajonc's (1965) explanation by emphasizing potential evaluative aspects of an audience. According to Cottrell, "the presence of others has nondirective energizing effects upon performance only when their presence creates anticipations of positive or
negative outcomes" (p. 103). This notion of evaluation apprehension is
considered to be a learned drive that affects the emission of dominant responses within the task situation. Evaluation apprehension is generally
manipulated by attributing task performance expertise to members of the
audience (i.e., expert or nonexpert) or by procedures that prevent knowledge of relevant task information from reaching the audience (e.g.,
blindfolding spectators or withholding outcome feedback from the
audience). The role of evaluation apprehension within social facilitation has
received wide support (e.g., see Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, & Rittle, 1968;
Henchy & Glass, 1968; Paulus & Murdock, 1971; Landers & Goodstadt,
1972; Sasfy & Okun, 1974; Cohen, 1979).
The distinction between these two proposals is the explanation given
for the occurrence of the drive or arousal produced by the presence of
others. Zajonc assumes that the mere presence of others increases the
individual's general drive tevel, while Cottrell postulates that "the physical
presence of others is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient condition
for producing audience and coaction effects upon performance" (p. 197).
According to Cottrell, the individual has acquired a learned drive of anticipation of positive or negative outcomes in the presence of others. As
Cohen and Davis (1973) have pointed out, these explanations are not
necessarily in conflict with one another, but rather Cottrell's explanation is
a refinement of Zajonc's more general explanation. The results of the
Cohen and Davis (1973) study found support for the effect of the mere
Social Facilitation
presence of an audience and also found that evaluation apprehension
exacerbates the mere presence effect. Their interpretation was that the
presence of others implies some form of evaluation and that explicitly
labeling the others within an evaluative role increases the intensity of the
The present study was designed to address two crucial aspects of the
mere-presence evaluation:apprehension distinction. First, it provided a
means for quasi-independently testing the effects of mere presence and of
evaluation apprehension, as well as testing these effects in combination.
Although virtually impossible to completely separate the effects of mere
presence and evaluation, these two variables were manipulated orthogonally so that the mere presence manipulation was not affected by nor
influenced the manipulation of evaluation apprehension. Second, it
provides a basis for assessing the effects of the manipulations upon arousal
(postulated by both Zajonc and Cottrell) separately from the performance
consequences of the task. The arousal assessment occurs at several stages
throughout the experiment. Thus it is possible to assess whether mere
presence and evaluation apprehension have separate and measurable effects
on arousal and on task performance and whether those effects are additive
when the two variables are manipulated in combination.
The importance of the separate measurement of arousal and of task
performance arises both because arousal is postulated by both Zajonc and
Cottrell as the key intervening variable responsible for social facilitationinhibition effects and because of indications within the stress literature that
the form of arousal may be conceived of in three different forms:
electrocortical, autonomic, and behavioral. In the context of the present
study, we can consider the palmar sweat measure as an indicator of
autonomic arousal, and the task performance measures as indicators of behavioral arousal. No direct indicator of electrocortical arousal was included
in the study, but one might presume that electrocortical arousal would
affect task performance in a highly cognitive task like the one used in this
study. It is also possible that the two main independent variables--presence
and evaluation apprehension--have differential effects on the different
forms of arousal. In the context of the present study, one variable might
show greater effects on the sweat (autonomic) measure, while the other
shows greater effects of the task performance measures (behavioral). It is
hard to untangle the evidence from prior studies on this question, since by
and large they did not deal with the possibility of different forms of arousal
and separate measurements of each.
The presence of the experimenter within the experimental situation
was varied over three levels: (a) the subject alone, (b) the experimenter
present in the room but not attending to the subject, and (c) the
experimenter observing the subject performing the task without the
potential for evaluation. On the basis of the previously cited studies, it was
hypothesized that the presence of the experimenter in the room with the
subject would be more arousing and would increase the emission of the
dominant response as compared to the subject performing the task alone,
and that the experimenter observing the subject would produce the highest
level of arousal and therefore the greatest number of dominant responses.
Evaluation apprehension was manipulated through the use of instructional sets and the utilization of a computer-assisted instructional system.
Four levels of evaluation apprehension were used: (1) no evaluation of
task performance, (2) a low, (3) a moderate, and (4) a high degree of evaluation apprehension of task performance.
It was hypothesized that as the level of evaluation apprehension increased, arousal would increase and that subjects would emit a greater
number of dominant responses. The combination of mere presence and
evaluation apprehension was predicted to produce an incremental increase across all levels of these variables, and therefore, no significant
interaction between these variables was expected.
One hundred and twenty undergraduate students (60 males and 60
females), enrolled in the introductory psychology course at the University
of Illinois, participated in the study. Their participation fulfilled a course
Ten subjects (five males and five females) were randomly assigned to
each of the 12 conditions formed by a 3 X 4 factorial design of experimenter's presence (absent, mere presence, or observation) and evaluation
apprehension (none, low, medium, or high degree).
Apparatus and Stimulus Materials
The hidden-word task used by Cohen and Davis (1973) was adapted
for use on the PLATO computer system. This system is composed of a
plasma panel display terminal and keyset connected to a central computer.
Information is displayed on the terminal screen and the individual can type
a response on the keyset; the system can be programmed to evaluate the
individual's response and provide appropriately designated feedback.
The task used in this study was a hidden-word task in which the subject has to find a word embedded in a string of letters without transposing
Social Facilitation
the order of the string of letters. The first 13 problem words (the training
trials) were constructed so that only one solution could be achieved.
Through this procedure, an Einstellung or set solution is achieved, producing a dominant response. The next four problems (the performance
trials) were constructed in such a way that the set solution (dominant
response) or an alternative solution (subordinate response) could provide a
correct response. These are the crucial trials in the assessment of the use of
the dominant response in the behavioral task performance. The last
problem (the extinction trial) required the subjects to break set in order to
produce the correct response.
Arousal Measure
A simple measure of palmar sweating known as the sweat bottle
measure (Strahan, Todd, & Inglis, 1974) was used to assess physiological
arousal. This procedure involved the collection of sweat samples by
inverting a small bottle of distilled water on the fingertip. This inversion
procedure collects ions from the sweat, which increases the electrical
conductivity of the bottle's content; the more sweat (i.e., ions) collected, the
greater the conductivity.
A very small, nearly constant, alternating current is passed through
the sweat solution and the voltage drop across the solution is measured by a
digital multimeter (Heathkit Model IM-1202). The more sweat (ions)
contained in the solution, the less the voltage drop across the soIution;
reciprocals of the voltage readings provide measures of conductivity.
In the present experiment, eight sweat bottle measures were taken for
each subject. This measure was chosen because of the ease of
administration and the need for subjects to perform the arousal assessment
by themselves. Each bottle contained 25 ml of distilled water and was
inverted on the middle finger of the subject's right hand for 10 seconds.
Before the start of the experiment, all subjects washed their hands with soap
and water to remove any surface contaminants.
All subjects were tested individually by the same male experimenter.
Each subject was greeted at a separate waiting room and escorted to the
experimental room; the room contained one PLATO terminal and chair for
the subject and another small table and chair in the far corner. Figure 1 is a
schematic representation of the experimental room.
After the subject was seated, the experimenter explained that data for
a physiological measure (the sweat bottles) were also being collected in the
Fig, l. Schematic representation of experimentalsetting.
experimental session. The experimenter instructed the subject concerning the
procedure to be followed and watched the subject undertake the f i r s t m e a sure. The subject was unaware of the nature of the experiment at this time,
as no explanation nor instructions had been given. After the first bottle
measure was completed, the experimenter moved away from the subject to
the table in the corner of the room. The subject was instructed to sign on to
the PLATO system to begin the experiment. The instructions and
explanations of the experiment were presented on the PLATO screen. This
sign-on procedure itself was part of the evaluation apprehension manipulation. Individuals in the no-evaluation and low-evaluation conditions
signed onto the system without using their names. They chose a number
between 1 and 20 and used this value instead of their name. This value was
unknown to the experimenter, as he stood behind the terminal and could
not see the subject's choice. Subjects in the medium- and high-evaluation
conditions used their names for the sign-on procedure, which implied that
their individual performance could be readily retrieved for inspection if
Each subject first saw an introduction to the PLATO system and
instructions on using the keyboard and the use of special functions (e.g.,
erasing). Next, all individuals saw an explanation of the sweat bottle
procedure and instructions of the procedure to be followed while on the
computer system. On the subject's right were eight bottles designated la
through 8a; on the subject's left was an empty rack with the spaces
designated I b through 8b for the placement of the bottle after its use. The
instructions on the computer screen specified the procedure to be followed
(i.e., uncapping, inversion, timing, recapping, and placement) for each
bottle during the experiment. After the sweat bottle procedures were
presented on the screen, the subject was asked to take the s e c o n d m e a s u r e .
The subject proceeded on through the general task instructions followed by the instructional set that manipulated evaluation apprehension.
Social Facilitation
The task instructions indicated that the task was to find a hidden four- or
five-letter word embedded in a sequence of letters without changing the
order of the letters as they appeared; each trial consisted of a period of 2½
minutes. For the no evaluation apprehension conditions, the subjects were
instructed that the purpose of the experiment was to assess their reactions to
performing the task on a computerized system and that the present study
was to pretest the task, and that no performance data were being collected.
It should be pointed out that these subjects signed on to the system without
using their names.
The subjects in the low degree o f evaluation apprehension condition
were instructed that the interest of the experiment was word recognition
performance. Their task data would "automatically be combined with the
already existing data" so that "up-to-the-minute records for each problem"
would exist since the interest of the experiment was "in the overall group
performance and not in individual performance." These subjects also did
not use their names in the sign-on procedure.
In the medium degree o f evaluation apprehension condition, subjects
were instructed that by using a computerized system it was possible to compare and evaluate their task performance against preestablished standards.
Subjects were further instructed that "in this manner, we can evaluate and
rate your performance on the word recognition task." These individuals had
used their names in the sign-on procedure and thus their task performance
was readily identifiable.
The strongest manipulation of evaluation apprehension (high degree)
contained the same information presented to the medium degree conditions
with the addition of one statement: " I f your performance is rated below the
minimum performance level, we will reschedule you to come back and
perform the task again." These individuals also used their names to sign on
to the computer system.
After the evaluation apprehension instructional set was presented, the
experimenter answered questions concerning the task and initiated the
manipulation of the variable of experimenter's presence. In the absence
conditions, the experimenter told the subject that he (the experimenter) had
some work to do in the next room and left the subject alone to complete the
task. Mere presence was obtained by the experimenter telling the subject
that he (the experimenter) had some work to do and then sat down at the
table in the far corner of the experimental room. The experimenter then
absorbed himself in reading a book and could not observe the subject
without radically changing his position. (See Figure 1 for positioning
representation.) In the observation conditions, the experimenter placed a
chair 1.2 m from the subject at an angel of 180 °. The experimenter could
observe the subject's movements but could not see (and thus not evaluate)
the subject's response, which appeared on the terminal screen. The subject
was told in this condition that the experimenter was available to correct any
difficulties that may be encountered in interacting with the computer
system. In this manner, task-relevant evaluations by the experimenter were
After the manipulation of the experimenter's presence, the subject
carried out the third sweat bottle measure. The subject then encountered a
practice trial and feedback concerning the task. The subject then started the
first trial and continued on through the sixth trial. After the sixth trial, the
fourth sweat bottle measure was taken and then the subject continued on
through the 15th trial, after which the f i f t h sweat bottle measure was
self-administered by the subject. The sixth sweat bottle measure followed
the extinction trial. The subject was then informed (on the screen) that the
hidden-word task was completed and was asked to respond to 10 questions
presented individually on the terminal screen. These questions served as
manipulation checks for the procedures. Each question was answered by the
subject choosing one of the seven scale positions on a bipolar scale with
appropriate end points for the question being asked. The questions dealt
with (a) clarity of instructions, (b) rating of own performance, (c)
description of mood, (d) task interest, (e) task difficulty, (f) concern with
bottle measure, (g) task suitability for computer system, (b) description of
motivation, (i) comfort in situation, and (j) concern about performance.
After the 10th question, the subject was informed that the experiment was
over and was asked to take the seventh sweat bottle measure. After the
bottle procedure was completed, the subject was instructed to sign off the
computer system and to inform the experimenter that the experiment was
The experimenter then debriefed the subject and answered any
questions that the subject had. After the debriefing, the eighth and final
sweat bottle measure was taken just before the subject left the experimental
room. The entire experiment lasted approximately 20 minutes.
Dependent Variables
The computer recorded the subject's response for all trials, the latency
of each response, and the responses to the postsession questions. The main
dependent variables of interest were the nonset solutions in the performance
phase and the conductivity measures for each of the eight sweat bottles.
Each dependent variable was analyzed within an analysis of variance
factorial design. The basic design was a 3 (experimenter's presence) × 4
Social Facilitation
(evaluation apprehension) factorial2 For the training and performance
measures and the sweat bottle measures, an additional within-subject factor
of trials or time of bottle measure was added as a repeated measure.
Training Trial Measures
The latency of solution and the number of incorrect solutions (nonsense words) were analyzed within separate 3 (experimenter's presence) X 4
(evaluation) X 13 (trials) factorial designs. These analyses were performed
to assess any differences among the various conditions that might affect the
later performance measures. No differences among the conditions were
expected on these measures.
Latency. The main effect of experimenter's presence was found to be
significant (F(2,108) = 3.63, p < .05). The mean time to solution for the 13
training trials was 24.88 for the mere presence group, 24.91 for the observation group, and 33.53 for the alone group. A significant Experimenter's
Presence X Evaluation Apprehension interaction was found for the training
latencies (F(6,108) = 3.19, p < .01). This interaction cannot be interpreted
in a meaningful way as the latency values form no systematic pattern over
the combined levels of the variables.
The effect of trials was also found to be significant (F(12,1296) =
tl.20, p < .01). Previous use of the hidden-word task (Cohen & Davis,
1973; Cohen, 1979) has indicated that trials 1, 4, 8, and 12 required longer
latencies for solutions than the other nine trials and that this effect was
assessed by the use of Scheff6's post hoc comparison test. The average
latency for trials 1, 4, 8, and 12 ()7 = 35.488) was compared to the average
latency of the remaining nine trials (Y7 = 24.342) and was found to be
significantly greater (F(1,1547) = 34.20, p < .01).
Errors. A significant effect of trials (F(12,t152) = 9.19, p < .01) was
found for the training errors. The average number o f errors on trials 1, 4, 8,
and 12 ()~ = . 117) exceeded the average number of errors made on the other
nine trials (J7 = .063) (F(1,1547) = 15.32, p < .01), Scheff6 test.
Performance Trial Measures
Latency. A 3 (experimenter's presence) X 4 (evaluation) X 4 (trials)
analysis of variance of the time to solution for the four words in the
performance phase of the experiment found a significant effect for trials
sSex o f subject was initially included as a factor in the analyses but is not included here because
no a priori differences were expected and sex o f subject was f o u n d to be a factor only in higher
order interactions with no meaningful interpretations.
(F(3,324) = 7.06, p < .01). The mean times to solution for the four trials
were 15.89, 12.22, 15.09, and 13.12 seconds.
Solutions. For the performance phase, the dominant set response or
a more direct (subordinate) response would provide a correct solution to the
problem. All subjects gave either the set response or the alternative response
to these problems. This dependent variable is of primary concern because
the type o f response given at this stage is inferred to be an indicant o f
arousal within social-facilitation theory. The analysis looked at the number
o f alternative solutions given to each o f the four problems; thus the higher
the mean value, the less the dominant response was offered as a solution.
Within the analysis o f variance, a significant main effect o f evaluation
apprehension was found (F(3,108) = 3.39, p < .05). The no-evaluation
conditions had a mean value o f alternative responses of .450; the tow
evaluation conditions, .283; the medium conditions, .258; and the high
evaluation apprehension condition, .200. This result indicates that as the
degree o f evaluation apprehension increases, the number of dominant
responses emitted also increases (i.e., the continuance o f using the set
response). A post hoc comparison, using the Scheff6 method, was
performed for the performance solution data. The no- and low-evaluation
conditions were compared to the medium- and high-evaluation conditions
and were found to be significantly different (/7(1,108) = 5.58, p < .05).
The trial effect was also found to be significant (F(3,324) = 17.53,
p < .01). The first o f the four performance trials had the lowest mean value
of alternative solutions as compared to the other three trials. The means for
the four trials were: .100, .391, .341, and .358.
Extinction Trial
The extinction trial was constructed in such
way to obtain a meaningful solution (i.e., not a
break the set (i.e., dominant response) pattern and
tion (i.e., a subordinate response). No significant
for either latency or solution for this trial.
a manner that the only
nonsense word) was to
find a more direct soludifferences were found
Sweat Bottle Measures
The mean conductivity o f the first sweat bottle measure was
analyzed within a 3 X 4 factorial design in order to assess the initial level o f
palmar sweating. No significant differences were found on this intial
measure and the subsequent analysis o f the sweat bottle measures was undertaken using the raw conductivity scores for all the eight measures.
Social Facilitation
For the 3 (experimenter's presence) X 4 (evaluation) X 8 (measures)
analysis of variance of the sweat conductivity scores, no significant effects
were found. Subjects' autonomic arousal, as assessed by the sweat bottle
measure, did not significantly differ among the various conditions.
Postsession Questionnaire
Subjects' responses to each o f the postsession questions were analyzed
within a 3 X 4 factorial design. Two questions showed a significant main
effect of evaluation apprehension. For the question of "describing your
mood during the experiment" (F(3,108) = 3.24, p < .05) from extremely
anxious (1) to extremely at ease (7), the four conditions ordered themselves
as follows: high degree of evaluation (X = 3.93), no evaluation (.,Y = 4.20),
medium evaluation ()7 = 4.70), and low degree of evaluation (Y7 = 5.16). A
post hoc comparison of the no- and low-evaluation conditions and the
medium- and high-evaluation conditions for the mood question found no
significant difference between the sets of conditions (F(1,108) = t.45,
p > .05).
The same ordering was found for the question of "how comfortable
were you in this experimental situation" (F(3,108) = 4.05, p < .01). The
response scale had end points of extremely uncomfortable (1) to extremely
comfortable (7). The means for the four conditions were: high evaluation =
4.20, no evaluation = 5.26, medium evaluation = 5.33, and low evaluation
= 5.43. A significant difference for the post hoc comparison of the no- and
low-evaluation conditions and the medium- and high-evaluation conditions
was found for this question (F(1,108) = 4.10, p < .05).
The emphasis of the present study was to assess independently the
effects of the presence of another individual and the effects of evaluation
apprehension upon task performance. The results indicated that only the
variable of evaluation apprehension affected the performance on the
hidden-word task. This effect was as predicted: the greater the degree o f
evaluation apprehension, the greater the tendency for the subject to emit the
dominant response (the set solution).
The intent of the manipulation of the variable of evaluation
apprehension was to produce different degrees of the effect among the four
conditions. The labels applied to the conditions should be thought of as an
ordinal relation and not in absolute terms. The condition labeled " n o
evaluation" was intended as a base reference point in order to compare the
other conditions and should not be interpreted as a condition with the
complete absence of evaluation apprehension. Such a condition would be
virtually impossible to create in a laboratory setting using college
sophomores as the subject population. Evaluation apprehension appears to
have been successfully manipulated wkhin the present context as reflected
in the results of the performance solution data and the results of the postsession questionnaire data. The two conditions intended to be at the low end
of the evaluation continuum (the no- and low-evaluation conditions)
produced significantly more nonset solutions on the performance trials than
the two conditions (medium and high) intended to reflect a high degree of
evaluation apprehension. According to Zajonc's (1965) explanation, this
result is an indicant of the different drive levels induced within the subjects.
The subjects' self-report of mood did not reflect this difference between the
two sets of conditions, but the self-reports o f " c o m f o r t within the situation"
did show a significant difference between the no and low conditions and the
medium and high conditions. The responses to the mood and comfort
questions were moderately related (r = .45, p < .05) but loaded on different
factors in a principal-components analysis. It may be the case that subjects
found it easier to respond to the more general question concerning how
comfortable they felt in the experimental situation than to express their
subjective mood in terms of anxiety.
It thus appears that in the context of the present results, the anticipated evaluation is the mediating variable in producing the social-facilitation effects and not the presence or absence of another individual. This result indicates that the evaluation apprehension is the stronger of the two
effects and does not rule out mere presence as a sufficient condition for the
social-facilitation effect. Previous research has shown that a small audience
has produced the intended social-facilitation effects but these audiences
were not orthogonally manipulated from the effect of evaluation
apprehension (e.g., Zajonc & Sales, 1966; Henchy & Glass, 1968).
Zajonc's explanation states that the presence of others is suficient to
increase the arousal level of the performer, thus affecting the task performance. Cottrell's explanation postulates that the anticipation of positive
or negative outcomes in the presence of others is necessary to increase the
arousal level and thereby affect the task performance. According to Cohen
and Davis (1973), the apparent effect of the mere presence of other individuals within a task setting is that the presence of others implies some form
of evaluation to the performer. Within the present study, mere presence was
orthogonally manipulated from evaluation apprehension and no significant
effects were found for the presence of an audience.
It may be the case, as Lacey (1967) has suggested, that arousal is not a
unitary concept but may have different forms. The present results suggest
that evaluation apprehension results in behavioral arousal and thus affects
Social Facilitation
task performance and self-reports of mood and comfort, while no
significant effects were found for the physiological measurements of sweat
conductivity. This distinction of arousal modes may have important
implications for future attempts to assess arousal as the mediating variable
within the framework of social-facilitation theory. Arousal is postulated by
both Zajonc and CottreI1 as the key intervening variable in producing
social-facilitation effects. In general, those investigators who attempt to
measure arousal use autonomic measures that may not be appropriate for
the performance task utilized. Autonomic arousal may have direct effects
upon psychomotor performance tasks (Martens, 1969b) but not upon more
cognitively demanding tasks (Henchy & Glass, t968). The present results
suggestothe necessity of using independent measures of arousal in more than
one form in order to better understanding the role of arousal in producing
social-facilitation effects.
The present study has demonstrated the effect of evaluation apprehension as opposed to the presence of an audience in affecting behavioral
task performance. Future research in the area should now be focused on
understanding the determinants of the subjects' evaluation apprehension.
This formulation should encompass concepts from attribution theory and
achievement motivation as well as social comparison notions. Work in the
area of social facilitation has consistently demonstrated that the presence of
other individuals (or the implied presence) does affect a subject's task
performance and that the mediating construct of greatest impact is
evaluation apprehension. It is now time to seek iflformafion concerning the
subject's perception of the task demands, his resources and capabilities to
meet those demands, and the consequence of his behavioral performance to
the situational outcome.
Cohen, J. L. Social facilitation: Increased evaluation apprehension through permanency of record. Motivation and Emotion, 1979, 3, 19-33.
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.
Cottrell, N. B. Performance in the presence of other human beings: Mere presence, audience,
and affiliation effects. In E. C. Simmel, R. A. Hoppe, & G. A. Milton (Eds.), Social
facilitation and imitative behavior. Boston: Atlyn and Bacon, 1968.
Cottrell, N. B. Social facilitation. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychotog); New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, t972.
Cottrell, N. B., Rittle, R. H., & Wack, D. L. The presence of an audience and list type (competitional or noncompetitional) as joint determinants of performance in paired-associates
learning. Journal of Personality, 1967, 35, 425-434.
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.
Geen, R. G., & Gange, J. J. Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and
research. Psychological Bulletin, 1977, 84, 1267-1288.
Henchy, T., & Glass, D. C. Evaluation apprehension and social facilitation of dominant and
subordinate responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 10,
Lacey, J. I. Somatic response patterning and stress: Some revisions of activation theory. In M.
Appley & R. Trumbull (Eds.), Psychological stress: Issues in research. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Landers, D. M., & Goodstadt, B. E. The effect of S's anonymity and audience potential to
evaluate S on rotary pursuit performance. In I. D. Williams & L. M. Wankel (Eds.),
Proceedings of the fourth Canadian psycho-motor learning and sport psychology
symposium. Ottawa, Canada: Department of National Health and Welfare, 1972.
Markus, H. The effect of mere presence on social facilitation: An unobtrusive test. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 1978, 14, 389-397.
Martens, R. Effect of an audience on learning and performance of a complex motor skill.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 12, 252-260. (a)
Martens, R. Palmar sweating and presence of an audience. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 1969, 5, 371-374. (b)
Paulus, P., & Murdoch, P. Anticipated evaluation and audience presence in the enhancement
of dominant responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1971, 7, 280-291.
Sasfy, J., & Okun, M. Form of evaluation and audience expertness as joint determinant of
audience effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, 10, 461-467.
Strahan, R. F., Todd, J. B., & Inglis, G. B. A palmar sweat measure particularly suited for
naturalistic research. Psychophysiology, 1974, 11, 715-720.
Triplett, N. The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal of
Psychology, 1897, 9, 507-533.
Zajonc, R. B. Social facilitation. Science, 1965, 149, 269-274.
Zajonc, R. B., & Sales, S. M. Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 160-168.