Social facilitation refers to the finding that individuals perform better in the presence of others than when working alone, but as a contrast other studies found evidence of social inhibition, which actually is the case in this experiment. Social inhibition is one of the social facilitation effects, where the performers do worse in the presence of others. In some other cases participants did better when performing in the company of others under some conditions, but did worse under other conditions.
Aim: To see if the mere presence of other people will enhance the participants’ performance, measured in how fast they will solve respective puzzle under the two conditions.
Method
Design
An experimental method was used in this research in order to investigate the aim to see if it is valid. The aim was to conclude whether or not the presence of other people influenced the participants’ performance in their solving each possible under the two different conditions.
The independent variable was the presence of another person, in this case working in pair in groups. And the dependent variable was the time it took for the participants to solve each puzzle, measured in seconds. Participants working alone while solving the first puzzle was taken to be the control, while participants working in pairs (with no collaboration) while solving the second puzzle, was the experimental condition. The experiment was carried out at the first graders own school in their own, familiar environment. Unfortunately, this can have given rise to confounding variables, nevertheless they were controlled as much as possible.
Participants
The sample included ten females and eight males from the first grade, where almost all of which were seven-year-olds. The participants attended the experiment randomly, without knowing that this was an experiment. They believed that I was there to visit them and that this was only a game. The same group of participants was used under the two given conditions; first working alone, and then working in pairs in the presence of conspecifics.
Materials
Wristwatch
Two different puzzles
Procedure
All data was collected in the same day, in the morning and in the afternoon. The researcher first met the first grade class, and presented herself to the participants before carrying out the experiment. The first puzzle was then assembled in a parallel class-room to the participants’ own one.
The participants were brought into a parallel class room to their own one, and were read standardized instructions. Under the first condition when the participant was alone: “What you see here is a puzzle, you will use these pieces in order to solve the puzzle as fast as you can. If it seems too difficult, you may then stop”. Under the second conditions where they worked in pairs: “What you see here is a new puzzle. You will once again get to use the same pieces as before, and I want you to solve the puzzle as fast as you can, without helping your friend, or looking at their puzzle. If it seems too difficult, you may stop”.
The participants entered the class-room randomly and performed as fast as he/she could. After a small break, the participants who now sat in pairs at a time solved the second puzzle. During both of the conditions the researcher noted the time secretly, at the same time as she pretended to read a book. This was done in order to make the participants feel comfortable and not constantly observed by the researcher. Under the second condition the researcher had to observe more closely in order to prevent both collaboration and cheating. At the end, each child was encouraged and told that he or she performed very well.
Results
The length of the time it took for the children to complete the two puzzles, were measured in seconds. This is the data collected, shown below:
The mean number of seconds for the alone group was 121 seconds and 156 for the together group. The alone group had a median number of 97 seconds while the together group obtained a median number of 105 seconds. The whole alone group together, received a mode number of 97 seconds and the whole experimental group together obtain two number of modes, 82 seconds and 204 seconds, thus the values are bi-modal. Together the whole alone group have the number 278 as the number of range. Together the whole experimental group have the number 652 as the number of range. Standard deviation. The whole experimental group together obtained 84 seconds as the standard deviation. The whole experimental group obtained 142 seconds as the number of standard deviation.
From the above mentioned results and the graph on the next page, it becomes apparent that even though the participants’ performance and their quickness in solving the second puzzle (while working in pairs), should take less time to solve than the first puzzle,(while working alone), the results and the graph show the exact opposite, where it actually has taken the participants’ longer time to solve the task under the second condition. The presence of others did thereby not enhance the participants’ performance.
Discussion
The analysis of results and the conclusion obtained from the results are obviously not significant, which means that the data received does not have any scientific value since the difference between the two conditions, working alone and working in pairs, among the female and male participants are too small in size in order for the researcher to find a pattern. The results obtained in the experiment are probably due to the opportunities for errors.
The experiment was certainly far from perfect and thereby it provided for many opportunities for error. The third variables and the external influence due to the setting where the experiment took place have probably affected the participants. The third variables could unfortunately not be controlled. Also the task in the experiment could have been either replaced by a easier or a more difficult one. Even though the researcher desired for the task to be playful and only somewhat difficult, it would probably have been better if the puzzles had been more complex and more difficult to solve, thereby the participants’ true performance would occur, or even the other way around, the puzzle maybe should have been even easier in order to create the appropriate level of impact. Although the researcher tried to prevent the participants from feeling like they were being watched, the mere presence of the researcher herself can have affected the results.
Another factor, can actually be the fact of evaluation apprehension, which means that anxiety is created by an individual’s concerns about being judged or evaluated by others. Concerns about what others will think about us can produce either social facilitation or social inhibition effects. It might be very possible that the presence of the others in the second condition, when the participants were paired up, has affected their level of impact and thereby their performance. Instead for the participants to even work faster and solve the second puzzle quicker than the first time, it took more time for them to finish the task. In some cases rivalry among participants leads to better performances and better results in their accuracy, but in the case of this experiment rivalry created tress and the participants became overly affected. This created even more anxiety and the solving of the puzzle in the presence of another, became difficult and resulted in lower performance.
References
Books
Gross, Richard (1996). PSYCHOLOGY The Science of Mind and Behaviour, third edition. Great Britain: Hodder & Stoughton.
Hogg, Michael A.; Vaughan, Graham M.(1995). SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY An introduction. Great Britain: Prentice Hall! Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Hayes, Nicky (1993). Principles of Social Psychology. Great Britain: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weber, Ann L. (1992). Social Psychology. United States: Harper Collins.
