1. UTM UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA Presence of others: Social Facilitation and Inhibition Supplementary notes for Group Behaviours, Teams and Conflicts. Prepared by : Siti Rokiah Siwok srsiwok@gmail.com

2. Social Facilitation ( SF) involves the positive effects of the presence of others on an individual behavior. Social inhibition (SI) involves the negative effect of other’s presence. SF and SI are further influenced by audience effect and co-action Social Facilitation 2

3. Audience effects takes place when a group of people passively watching an individual ( such as a sport event) The strengths of the audience effects is a function of three (3) factors: audience size, physical proximity and status. Other factors such as personality play a role ( extroverts vs introverts) Audience effects 3

4. Social Facilitation and Social Inhibition theories explain the increase and decrease in performance when others are present, by either watching or working with him/her. Social Facilitation/Inhibition 4

5. The effect on behaviour when two or more people are performing the same task in the presence of one another is called coaction. Examples: two runners competing against each other without the audience; two guys cycling against one another; shopping; eating Coaction 5

6. Performance does not always increase in the presence of others. There are others conditions such as: Performance increases when the task is easy or well learned and vice versa. There are four possible explanations for the above: Explanation of Social Facilitation/Inhibition effects 6

7. 1.The mere presence of others naturally produce arousals and thus increase energy, helps individuals to perform well-learned tasks. But for a poorly learned tasks, presence of others hinders. Explanation of Social Facilitation/Inhibition effects 7

8. 2. Provides a means for comparison. In some jobs this comparison effect increase competition and productivity, whereas in some jobs comparison effects may cause the employees to slow down ( decrease productivity) Explanation of Social Facilitation/Inhibition effects 8

9. 3.Creates evaluation apprehension. Judgment by others causes the differential effects ( Cottrel, 1972 in Aamodt 2010). The individual concerned are aware that the presence of others can be rewarding or punishing. For well learned tasks, knowing that s/he normally performs well, and thus expecting a rewarding experience with the presence of others. Explanation of Social Facilitation/Inhibition effects 9

10. If the task is not well learned, the individual may believe that s/he will not perform well and will be embarrassed, thus, with the presence of others, performs worse. Social Facilitation/Inhibition effects: Evaluation apprehension 10

11. 4. The presence of others can be a source of distraction. For a well learned task, the distraction may not be a cause of concern as the task is being performed “automatically”. However, for a new task or a task not well learned the presence of other people is a source of distraction and thus prevents the individual to concentrate on the task. Explanation of Social Facilitation/Inhibition effects 11

12. Social loafing theory explains the effect on individual performance when people work together on a task. First investigated by Ringleman ( reported by Moede, 1927) in a study of “pulling a rope”. More recent studies support the theory and found that social loafing occurs in many tasks. Social loafing occurs more in poor performers ( Hardy and Crace, 1991), the reasons are not clear. Some possible explanations are (next slide): Social Loafing 12

13. Explanation: (1)Belief that individual efforts are not being noticed, no chance being rewarded. (2) Free-rider theory ( Kerr and Bruun, 1983). When realises that things are going on well, s/he thinks that his/her effort is not necessary and thus does not work as hard as s/he would if s/he were alone. If this is true, then free rider (3)Sucker effect ( Kerr, 1983) Social loafing phenomena 13

14. This happens when one group member notices that the other group members are not working hard and thus are “playing him for a sucker”. To avoid this situation, the individual lowers his/her performance to match the others’ performance. This theory however does not explain the loafing of other members. Social loafing: Sucker effect