Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and research.

Abstract

Research on social facilitation over the 12 years since 196S is reviewed. It is concluded that the drive-theory analysis proposed by Zajonc in 1965 still provides the best overall theoretical framework for explaining social facilitation, but that Cottrell's elaboration, which emphasizes learned drives as the motivational basis of the phenomenon, appears justified. The main tenet of the drivetheory approach, that the presence of conspecific organisms is arousing, has received additional support from studies not based on Zajone's Hullian assumptions. The secondary motive state associated with social facilitation is probably aversive in nature and is describable in terms such as learned fear of failure, anxiety, or anticipatory frustration. Alternative explanations for social facilitation based on current cognitive views of behavior may ultimately shed light on important mediating processes but as yet do not possess the economy of constructs offered by the drive-theory approach.The study of social facilitation is as old as experimental social psychology itself. In the first social psychological laboratory investigation, Triplett (1898) found that speed on a simple motor task was greater among members of coacting pairs than among subjects performing alone. In the decades that followed, several investigators continued to report effects on performance of not only coactors but also passive audiences. The effects, however, were not always facilitative; often social settings produced performance decrements, thereby creating a paradox that remained essentially unsolved until the mid-1960s. Nonetheless, the collection of data on the problem proceeded at a brisk pace, peaking in the decade from 1925 to 1935. The early studies have been reviewed elsewhere (Cottrell, 1968(Cottrell, , 1972Dashiell, 1935) and will not be discussed here.Interest in social facilitation eventually waned. By 1954, Kelly and Thibaut could conclude that "these phenomena [i.e., audience and coaction effects], which were once thought to be basic to the study of social Requests for reprints should be sent to

Human-computer interaction: A preliminary social psychological analysis

“…Two social psychological theories that may be relevant to the possible consequences of a human-like style of computer responses are social facilitation theory (see Geen & Gange, 1977) and attribution theory (see Kelley & Michela, 1980). An application of social facilitation theory suggests that the user might view a human-like interactive computer as a potential source of personal evaluation and thereby experience a sense of apprehension and emotional arousal.…”

Socially facilitated drinking behavior in chicks (Gallus domesticus): Relative effects of drive and stimulus mechanisms

“…If the subject's dominant response is inappropriate (or irrelevant), the presence of conspecifics impairs performance. Zajonc's (1965) drive theory is viewed as the most parsimonious account of how conspecifics affect a subject's performance (Geen & Gagne, 1977, p. 1283. Nevertheless, this analysis does not preclude the audience's exerting a stimulus/directive influence on the subject.…”

“…Requests for reprints should be addressed to the first author at Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. behavior in the same response situation has received little attention (e.g., Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969). In fact, as Geen and Gagne (1977) indicate for animal studies in particular, drive and stimulus views of audience effects are frequently competing analyses (e.g. , Clayton, 1978;Rajecki et al, 1976;Rajecki, Kidd, Wilder, & Jaeger, 1975;Strobel, 1972).…”

Group size: A possible distorting factor in learning experiments

“…However, a survey of recent literature revealed a virtual absence of publications in which the effect of group size as a potentially noisy variable on the dependent measures is taken into account. In view of the older studies on audience effects in social learning (for review, see Geen & Gange, 1977), this lack of methodological care and completeness in reporting is rather surprising.The present paper describes three experiments that were not designed for investigating the effect of group size, but in which group size did emerge as a significant factor. In each experiment, it was expected that the main variable (either test expectancy in Experiments 1 and 2 or the experimenter's characteristics in Experiment 3) was not powerful enough to reveal major effects with a small number of observations.…”

“…However, a survey of recent literature revealed a virtual absence of publications in which the effect of group size as a potentially noisy variable on the dependent measures is taken into account. In view of the older studies on audience effects in social learning (for review, see Geen & Gange, 1977), this lack of methodological care and completeness in reporting is rather surprising.…”