The Effects of Performing a Simple on Muscular Endurance Task Alone and in Co-Action with an Audienc
Introduction
Individual performance can be facilitated through the presence of an audience of one or more. Behavioural consequences can either increase or decrease performance through the sheer presence of an audience or counterpart (Zajonc, 1965), whether passive through the audience or in co-action with another competitor.
This study was designed to compare times performed by individuals performing a simple muscular endurance task first alone and secondly in co-action with other competitors and an audience presence. The first social psychologist to study the phenomena was Triplett, 1897, in a similar study to the current one, who observed the performance of cyclist’s speed in an individual race and in co-action. However according to Cottrell, 1968, the mere presence of an audience is not important for social facilitation but the apprehension of being evaluated by them.
Null hypothesis (H0) there will be no difference between alone and co-action skier’s squat times. Experimental hypothesis (H1) there will be a difference between alone and co-action skier’s squat times with co-action expected to be higher.
Methodology
Participants were required to volunteer for the task with five agreeing to take part. Each participant performed a muscular endurance task known as a “skier’s squat” where the participant stands shoulder width apart and 18’’ from a wall. Leaning back and maintaining connection against the wall the participant slides down until knees are at a 90º angle, with arms folded across the chest the participants objective is to maintain the position for as long as possible, the time begins once in position and ends once the knees deviate from 90º. Each participant performed the task alone with only an adjudicator present recording the time and participants positioning. One week later each participant performed simultaneously, in co-action, and in the presence of an audience.
Statistical Analysis
A paired t-test was performed with the three participants who completed the skier’s squat both alone and co-acting. Two participants were removed from the statistical analysis as they only completed one aspect of the test. Significance was set at p=0.05.
Performing the skier’s squat in co action does not significantly (p=0.14) increase upon performing the same exercise alone. Therefore H0 is accepted. With mean scores of 155±25.2 for alone and 304±120 for co-action a 49% increase occurred.
Participant X and Participant Y’s alone scores were not included in the statistical analysis as they did not complete the skier’s squat in co-action with anyone else and would therefore give no indication if the presence of others had affected their performances.
Discussion
The H1 was set because as described by Zajonc, 1965, social facilitation was based upon the sheer presence of others. However in this study and within sport this rarely occurs. Each participant was interacting with one another and with the audience. In sport numerous interactions arise within audience situations. The size of the audience, it’s intimacy in regards to how close they are to the action, it’s density and the hostility of the crowd towards the participants can impact performance (Cox, 2002).
Drive theory, as described in Cox, 2002, derived from the inverted U theory of Yerkes & Dodson, 1908, arousal increases depending on the skill level performance will either be facilitated or inhibited. Based on Zajonc’s 1965 theory through the presence of others arousal will increase and the dominant response will follow. Given the task and therefore skill level learned the dominant response would either be correct or incorrect. If the skill is well learned a positive response will occur or if the skill is not well learned a negative response will occur. Rhea, Lnaders, Alvar & Arent, 2003 found that when performing maximal effort in the presence of an audience is facilitates performance. They go on to suggest that when in a research environment, social facilitation effects should be controlled when in weightlifting activities or competitions. This advises to augment the audience and that researchers should initiate how, when and where the audiences take effect. These recommendations were recreated in the present study, although inadvertently, as restrictions were made on when and where the participants performed their skier’s squat. First alone with no interaction and secondly in front of an audience who were allowed to interact and encourage the participants.
The findings show that this study does not have similarities with existing literature as the results were found not to be significant despite the means, when alone 155±25.2 and when co-acting 304±120 respectively, nearly doubling. This is likely due to the very small sample size, if this study were to be repeated a much larger sample of sports science students would be beneficial to agree with existing literature.
In a study with a similar design protocols albeit with different testing methods was Grindrod, Paton, Knez & O’Brien, 2006, who found that during a six-minute walk test participant’s distance was greater when performed in a group than alone. Participants performed individually and then again as part of a sex matched group. A significant increase was found between walking alone and walking within the group. The authors suggest that further research should “investigate the number of people required to induce social facilitation.” The current study could have addressed this issue as, if adjusted, to have four-six groups of two participants performing the skier’s squat.
Head to head (HH) competition in sport is common and Corbett et al, 2012, studied its effects on performance. 14 cyclists performed three 200m-time trials and a simulated. Participants underwent familiarization (FAM) tests followed by time trials (TT) and finally HH, participants did perform better when in a simulated HH but, interestingly pacing was similar in FAM and TT. HH was evident in this present study, where participants faced each other after performing alone. Participant’s times did increase and there was interaction between the participants but, as previously mentioned, was not significant due to the sample size being too small.
As previously mentioned in this paper Cottrell, 1968, a comprehensive review of Zajonc, 1965, argued that social facilitation wasn’t because of the presence of an audience but the fear of being socially evaluated that caused affects onto performance. Later Shaver & Liebling, 1976, discussed that social facilitation was dependent on task and decision making. They argued that when performing a social facilitation experiment two factors must be considered; “(a) performance of the task is sensitive to motivational changes; (b) both simple and complex problems are included”. Meaning that the fear of being evaluated might be mirrored by similarly observing peers in drive level of performing a task.
Conclusion
The results indicate that when performing a simple exercise task social facilitation with audience effect does not facilitate performance but inhibits it. What the findings do suggest is that there may be a difference, due to the means, between performing alone and in co-action. These findings do not support existing literature and the author advises repeating the same study design but with a larger sample size to further add to existing studies.
References
1.Corbett, J; Barwood, M. J; Ouzounoglou, A; Thelwell, R; & Dicks, M. (2012). Influence of competition on performance and pacing during cycling exercise. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol 44 (4),pp 509-515
2. Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968) Social Facilitation of Dominant Responses by the Presence of an Audience and the Mere Presence of Others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 245–250.
3. Cox, R. H. (2002). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Companies.
4. Grindrod, D., Paton, C. D., Knez, W. L., & O’Brien, B. J. (2006). Six minute walk distance is greater when performed in a group than alone. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 40(10), 876–877.
5. Rhea, M. R., Landers, D. M., Alvar, B. A., & Arent, S. M. (2003). The effects of competition and the presence of an audience on weight lifting performance. The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(2), 303.
6.Shaver, P., & Liebling, B. A. (1976). Explorations in the drive theory of social Facilitation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 99(2), 259–271.
7. Triplett, N. (1898). The Dynamogenic factors in Pacemaking and competition. The American Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 507.
8. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459–482.
9. Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social Facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274.
