This experiment investigated the effect of the presence of others on the number of word associations produced by a single individual. It was a replication of an experiment carried out by Allport (1920).

and judgment test, overall performance was better for individuals working in groups. The results can be attributed to the fact that tasks such as word association have responses that are generally well-established, whereas tasks like the problem solving test given to participants (disproving arguments of ancient philosophers) had less established responses. In other words, the probability of answering a question incorrectly was quite high.    In 1965, Robert Zajonc managed to breathe new life into social facilitation research by taking into account the previously unexplained dual nature of the phenomenon. According to the researcher, the presence of others serves as a source of arousal. Arousal increases the likelihood of an organism producing habitual responses. This allows for better performance at simple tasks and impairs performance at complex or difficult tasks; Zajonc demostrated this effect in human individuals. One study by the researcher showed that the ability of subject to follow a rotating object with stylus improved with an audience. In another study the subjects were told a supervisor would be watching their progress. The supervised subjects did 34% better than unsupervised subjects. At the end, their results were even more different. However, in other tasks audience effects did not enable participants to remember better. So performance is facilitated and learning is impaired by the presence of spectators. If the dominant responses initially in a new task are wrong, an audience will impair learning. If the responses are predominantly right, an audience will improve learning.    It is apparent that the presence of other individuals does play a role in affecting performance standards, and so the decision was made to replicate Allport’s experiment with the aim of investigating whether performing tasks in the presence of others interferes with the ability to produce a greater number of word associations.Research Hypothesis (HI): the presence of individuals around a single person will help him come up with a greater number of word associations from a set list of words than he/she would if he/she were to perform the designated task on his/her own Null Hypothesis (Ho): the presence of individuals around a single person will not help him come up with a greater number of word associations from a set list of words than he/she would is he/she were to perform the designated task on his/her own  MethodDesignThis laboratory experiment required the use of independent samples so that participant expectancy effect could be avoided. Participating individuals performed the required tasks under two conditions. Some were asked to perform the designated task on their own while others were asked to work as part of a group. All participants had to come up with responses within a 5 minute interval. The independent variable in the experiment was whether the participants were working on their own or in a group. The dependent variable was the number of associations participants would come up with for 2 lists of words, with each list containing 15 words. In order for ethical considerations to be addressed participants were informed of their right to withdraw at any time from the experiment and they were all presented with standardized instructions. Informed consent forms were handed to participants before the experiment commenced and scheduling called for them to be debriefed following the study. Care was taken to secure conditions, such as type of table, light, air, and seating of the subjects in the rooms used for individual work comparable to those conditions in the room where the subjects worked as a group. In the experimental procedure, a constant interval of time was given (5 minutes), for each set list of stimulus words, in the group by spoken signal and alone through the blowing of a whistle. No method of deception of the participants was employed throughout the experimental procedure. The writing materials (pen, pencil, and so on) used by each participant were kept constant throughout the experiment.ParticipantsThe experimental sample was selected to be 16 participants. As far as the target population is concerned, it was selected to be Greek IB students attending a private school. Their social background reflected that of the high and middle social class. Participants were aged between 16 and 17 years and were of both sexes. All of them spoke English fluently. The students that were picked were not studying psychology since it was thought that they could possibly have knowledge of the study that was replicated. Random sampling procedure was employed for the selection of the participants so that more representative results could be obtained from the study. The students were picked randomly using a ballot and the aim was to have an equal number of male and female individuals participating in the study.MaterialsConsent Form (seen in Appendix I)Standardised Instructions (seen in Appendix II)Debriefing Notes (seen in Appendix III)Lists of words (seen in Appendix IV)Raw Data (seen in Appendix V)ProcedureParticipants were asked to complete the consent form provided to them before the experimental procedure commenced. Additionally, standardized instructions were read to participating students. Following that, all participants were placed in groups of 3 with changes of personnel allowed only if a participant chose to exclude himself from the procedure and leave. For the duration of the group work, the participants were seated one on each side of a table. The same seats were retained by participants throughout the course of the experiment. Participants working on their own were placed in a separate testing room. The word associations which were to be written were started by a stimulus word, for example 'chaos' or 'peace', written at the top of a sheet of paper given to each participant. Two set lists of stimulus words were presented to the participants. After finishing their work on the first list, participants were allowed a single minute of resting. The same stimulus words were employed in the two conditions, T (Together) and A (Alone). Control tests were given in the group, using the blowing of the whistle for signals. At the end of the entire experimental procedure the participants were debriefed. ResultsRaw data may be found in appendix V. We were able to calculate the mean of word associations for the stimulus words of lists #1 and #2 under both conditions (Together and Alone) using the formula μ =  EMBED Equation.3  where μ is the mean, Σχ is the sum of all values in a set of stimulus words and N is the total number of values in a set of stimulus words. The mean of associations for all stimulus words (Together) was 8.4 word associations. The mean of associations for all stimulus words (Alone) was 7.0 word associations. A standard deviation was also calculated for all stimulus words (Together) and all stimulus words (Alone), using the formula σ = = EMBED Equation.3  where σ is the standard deviation x is each value in the lists of stimulus words for both conditions (T and A), μ is the mean of the those values and Ν is the number of values in the two lists. The standard deviation for all stimulus words (Together) was found to be 0.54, whereas the standard deviation for all stimulus words (Alone) was found to be 0.52. Figure 1 below represents the mean of word associations for the two conditions:Figure 1Discussion    Our results show that working in a group helps an individual come up with a greater number of word associations for 2 lists of stimulus words when compared to the number of word associations produced by an individual working solo. If we were to generalize, it would be possible to state that the presence of individuals around a single individual can actually affect that individual’s performance standards in a positive way, meaning it can actually help him become more productive while performing a designated task. Our research seems to support the findings of Allport’s research in 1920 which showed that people in groups produced more word associations than people working in isolation.    In order for our results to be as representative as possible we took the following measures: The random sampling procedure was employed for the selection of participating individuals. There was an equal distribution of participants in terms of gender, with 8 male and 8 female subjects. All of the participants were members of a specific target population and featured pretty much identical socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.The conditions, under which the experiment was carried out, in terms of place and carrying out the designated task applied to all subjects without alterations or modifications and all participants were treated in the exact same manner.    A possible limitation of the study includes the small sample of participating individuals involved which makes it difficult for our results to be generalized to the target population. Moreover, the fact that individuals were informed regarding the aim of the experimental procedure that was carried out could have enabled participant - expectancy effect to come into play, thus causing the participants to expect a particular result for the study and perform in a different manner than originally expected. Finally, a confounding variable present in our study relates to the fact that individuals working in groups were not instructed not to communicate with one another during the experimental procedure, something that could have affected the number of word associations they would come up with. Having taken into account the aforementioned limitations, the following modifications can be proposed for our investigation: A larger sample of participants should be employed so that more representative results can be obtained for the target population. A double-blind methodology should be used to eliminate participant-expectancy effect by deceiving the participating individuals. It should be stated clearly in the standardized instructions that no communication between participants should be allowed. Our investigation can be slightly altered so that different variables can be investigated, such as the amount of time required for participants to come up with a specific number of word associations while working alone or in groups, or the average number of associations of various types the participants were able to come up with (personal, free rising, suggested by environment and so on). It would also be proper to conduct the experiment using a sample based on a different target group than the one employed in our study so that comparisons can be drawn in terms of the cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds of the different target populations.      The implication of our findings is that the presence of others can help increase the productivity of a person carrying out a designated task. Our research hypothesis was supported. The presence of individuals around a single person will help him come up with a greater number of word associations from a set list of words than he would if he were to perform the designated task on his own.ReferencesAllport, F.H., 1920, The Influence of the Group Upon Association and Thought, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 159-182.Triplett, N., 1898, The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition, The American Journal of Psychology, 9, 507-533.Zajonc, R., 1965, Social facilitation, Science, 149, 269-274.AppendicesAppendix ISample Consent Form (signed by participants)Sample Consent Form I have been informed about the nature of the experiment I understand that I have the right to withdraw from the experiment at any time, and that any information/data about me will remain confidential My anonymity will be protected as my name will not be identifiable The experiment will be conducted so that I will not be demeaned in any way I will be debriefed at the end of the experiment, and have the opportunity to see the results I give my informed consent to participating in this experimentName and date _______________________________________________Contact Number ______________________________________________Appendix IIStandardized Instructions“You will now be participating in a psychology experiment, where we will be testing how the presence of other individuals affects your ability to come up with a greater number of word associations for two set lists of stimulus words. You can withdraw from the experiment at all stages and we will debrief you at the end. Your participation will naturally be anonymous. Please do provide us with individual answers. We would like you to regard your work during the experimental procedure that will follow as a non-competitive process. You should attempt to do your best in both the group and the individual parts of the study. You will be placed in groups of 3 and you are going to be seating one on each side of a table. You will retain these seats for the duration of the experimental procedure. Some of you will be asked to move to a separate testing room so that you can perform the task that will be assigned to you on your own. You are all going to be presented with 2 set lists of stimulus words and you will have 5 minutes to come up with and write down as many word associations as you possibly can for the 15 words featured in each list. After completing your work on the first list you will be allowed a single minute of resting time. Control tests will be given to those of you working as part of a group and will feature the blowing of a whistle. You are all asked to gather up in this particular room following the completion of your work on the second list so that you can be debriefed.Appendix IIIDebriefing note“The aim of this study was to investigate whether the presence of other individuals would affect the number of word associations you would come up with for two set lists of stimulus words. Our hypothesis was that working alongside one another as part of smaller groups would enable you to come up with a greater number of word associations for the two sets of stimulus words that were provided to you. We felt that this would happen because we believed that the presence of other individuals around you would affect your performance standards and result in you producing more than if you were your own. The results strongly supported our hypothesis. Participants that worked as part of a group were able to produce more word associations for the two lists of stimulus words that were given out, in contrast with participants that worked on their own and eventually came up with fewer associations. The average number of associations for all stimulus words that were given to individuals working in a group was found to be 12, while the average for those that worked on their own was found to be 8. You all provided us with useful results and we appreciate your participation in our study”.Appendix IVTwo lists of words were used so that more precise and representative results could be obtained.List #1                                                        List #21) Chaos                                                    1) Divinity2) Peace                                                     2) Logic3) Science                                                  3) Hope4) Earth                                                      4) Courage5) Sun                                                        5) Perception6) Relaxation                                             6) Downfall7) Red                                                        7) Language8) Green                                                     8) Nature9) Star                                                        9) Addiction10) Building                                              10) Knowledge11) Sky                                                      11) Jealousy12) Pain                                                     12) Space13) Heart                                                   13) Emotion14) Friendship                                           14) Annihilation15) Perfection                                            15) ArtsAppendix V: Raw Data Stimulus Word(List #1)Mean of associations (Together)Mean of associations (Alone)Stimulus Word(List #2)Mean of associations (Together)Mean of associations (Alone)Chaos9.27.4Divinity8.57.3Peace9.47.1Logic8.97.5Science8.16.9Hope8.26.8Earth7.86.3Courage7.86.4Sun8.67.0Perception8.37.4Relaxation9.17.6Downfall8.26.9Red7.66.2Language9.07.6Green8.56.7Nature9.17.8Star7.96.0Addiction8.47.1Building9.37.7Knowledge8.77.2Sky8.77.2Jealousy8.67.0Pain7.86.9Space8.06.6Heart8.37.3Emotion8.87.9Friendship8.87.8Annihilation7.96.7Perfection7.56.4Arts7.76.4 PAGE   PAGE  1