UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social facilitation through a one-way screen Criddle, William David 1969

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1969_A8 C75.pdf [ 3.67MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104048.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104048-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104048-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104048-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104048-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104048-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104048-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104048-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104048.ris

Full Text

S O C I A L F A C I L I T A T I O N THROUGH A ONE - WAY S C R E E N W I L L I A M D A V I D C R I D D L E B . S . , U n i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n , 1 9 6 7 A T H E S I S S U B M I T T E D I N P A R T I A L F U L F I L M E N T O F THE R E Q U I R E M E N T S FOR THE DEGREE O F MASTER O F A R T S i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H COLUMBIA S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 6 9 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I a g r e e t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and Study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thes.is f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada A b s t r a c t T h e s t u d y e x a m i n e s t h e e f f e c t s o f b e i n g o b s e r v e d v i a a o n e - w a y s c r e e n o n i n d i v i d u a l s ' a b i l i t y t o l e a r n c o m p e t i t i v e a n d n o n - c o m p e t i t i v e l i s t s o f p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s . A b e t w e e n - g r o u p s d e s i g n w a s u s e d , w i t h d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s s e r v i n g i n e a c h o f t h e f o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s . T h e s t u d y w a s i n i t i a l l y c a r r i e d o u t w i t h m a l e b u s i n e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s t u d e n t s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f : W a s h i n g t o n a n d w a s r e p e a t e d w i t h s t u d e n t n u r s e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . . A l l s u b j e c t s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d t h e M a n i f e s t A n x i e t y S c a l e ( T a y l o r , 1953) a n d t h e S u s p i c i o u s n e s s S c a l e ( E n d i c o t t e t a l . , 1969). T h e r e s u l t s s h o w e d t h a t t h e m a l e s u b j e c t s w e r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d b y o b s e r v a t i o n f r o m b e h i n d a o n e - w a y s c r e e n b u t t h a t t h e f e m a l e s made s i g n i f i c a n t l y m o r e e r r o r s o n t h e c o m p e t i t i v e l i s t w h e n o b s e r v e d a s o p p o s e d t o w h e n n o t o b s e r v e d . I n l e a r n i n g t h e n o n - c o m p e t i t i v e l i s t t h e f e m a l e s w e r e a l s o n o t a f f e c t e d by- o b s e r v a t i o n , b u t t h e o v e r a l l o b s e r v a t i o n - b y - l i s t i n t e r a c t i o n w a s s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e f e m a l e s . No r e l a t i o n s h i p s w e r e f o u n d b e t w e e n p e r f o r m a n c e s o n t h e e x p e r i -m e n t a l t a s k a n d t h e M a n i f e s t A n x i e t y S c a l e s c o r e s f o r e i t h e r m a l e s o r f e m a l e s . S u s p i c i o u s n e s s S c a l e s c o r e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t -l y a n d n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e n u m b e r o f e r r o r s m ade b y t h e m a l e s w h e n t h e f o u r e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s w e r e c o m b i n e d ; t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p a p p r o a c h e d s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h e f e m a l e s . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h a r e d i s c u s s e d . i i i T A B L E O P CONTENTS C h a p t e r P a g e I R E V I E W O P ' T H E L I T E R A T U R E 1 I I R A T I O N A L E AND H Y P O T H E S E S O P T H E 1 2 P R E S E N T STUDY I I I METHOD 1 6 I V R E S U L T S 2 3 V D I S C U S S I O N 37 B I B L I O G R A P H Y 5 3 A P P E N D I C E S 57 i v L I S T O P T A B L E S T a b l e P a g e I M e a n n u m b e r o f e r r o r s o n l a s t t w o p r a c t i c e t r i a l s 2 4 I I S u m m a r y o f a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e o n p r a c t i c e l i s t 2 4 e r r o r s I I I M e a n n u m b e r o f e r r o r s o n e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k : m a l e s 2 5 I V S u m m a r y o f a n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o h e r r o r s made b y 26 m a l e s o n e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k V M e a n n u m b e r o f e r r o r s o n e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k ; f e m a l e s 2 6 V I S u m m a r y o f a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e o f e r r o r s made b y 27 f e m a l e s o n e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k V I I S u m m a r y o f D u n c a n M u l t i p l e - R a n g e T e s t o n f e m a l e 29 e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k d a t a V I I I C o r r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n M a n i f e s t A n x i e t y S c a l e s c o r e s 30 a n d t o t a l e r r o r s made I X C o r r e l a t i o n s ( r a n d r h o ) b e t w e e n S u s p i c i o u s n e s s 31 S c a l e s c o r e s a n d t o t a l e r r o r s made X S u m m a r y o f m e a n r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n s o n 32 p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e V L I S T O F F I G U R E S F i g u r e P a g e 1 S e q u e n c e o f E v e n t s i n t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l 2 2 S i t u a t i o n 2 G r a p h o f F e m a l e E x p e r i m e n t a l R e s u l t s a n d M a l e 2 8 v e r s u s F e m a l e R e s u l t s o n N u m b e r o f E r r o r s M a d e o n I n i t i a l 1 5 T r i a l s C H A P T E R I REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE The presence of others affects the behaviour of ind i v i d u a l s , and t h i s phenomenon has been ca l l e d " s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n " ( A l l p o r t , 1924)- The concept of s o c i a l f a c i l i -t a t i o n encompasses two different types of s o c i a l situations, the audience s i t u a t i o n and the coaction s i t u a t i o n . In the coaction  s i t u a t i o n other individuals are present behaving simultaneously and independently of the subject, but are p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the same a c t i v i t y ( A l l p o r t , 1924). In the audience s i t u a t i o n passive spectators observe the subject ( C o t t r e l l , i n Simmel, 1968). This study focuses on the audience s i t u a t i o n and a l l further references to s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n w i l l refer to the audience s i t u a t i o n unless otherwise specified. Social f a c i l i t a t i o n within the audience setting has been the focus of psychological research p e r i o d i c a l l y since 1925 when Travis found that an audience improved the subjects' a b i l i t y to perform a pursuit rotor task. Wapner and Alper (1952) obtained si m i l a r r e s u l t s using a choice s i t u a t i o n as the task. Contrary to these findings, Pessin (1933) found that an audience impaired the subjects' learning of nonsense s y l l a b l e s , and Husband (1931) obtained si m i l a r results with finger maze learning. C o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s have alap been obtained from co-action studies (e.g., A l l p o r t , 1924; Lashre\ll, 1930) . 2 Zajonc (1965) formulated a hypothesis based on H u l l -Spence drive theory to account for the apparently contradictory r e s u l t s . He suggested that the presence of others increases an individual's general drive l e v e l , thus enhancing the most dominant responses at the expense of less dominant responses. I t follows from t h i s hypothesis that behaviours well-learned and f a m i l i a r to individuals would be enhanced by the presence of others. When such behaviours are demanded by a given task, the individual's performance would therefore be improved. On the other hand, i f new, less f a m i l i a r behaviours were required for the performance of a given task, f a c i l i t a t e d , dominant behaviours would int e r f e r e with these and thus hinder the subjects' performance. This hypothesis seemed to account for the existing seemingly contradictory r e s u l t s . Audiences had enhanced indiv i d u a l s ' performances i n such f a m i l i a r and/or habitual tasks as l i f t i n g a weight (Meumann, i n Zajonc, 1 9 6 8 ) , a pursuit rotor task a f t e r extensive t r a i n i n g (Travis, 1925), and simple m u l t i p l i c a t i o n (Dashiell, 1 9 3 0 ) . Passive spectators have been found to impair individuals' performances on tasks requiring less f a m i l i a r behaviours and/or responses such as the learning of nonsense s y l l a b l e s (Pessin, 1933) and the learning of a finger maze (Husband, 1931)-More recently research has s p e c i f i c a l l y focused on testing Zajonc's hypothesis. I t was f i r s t tested by Zajonc and Sales ( I 9 6 6 ) . They used a pseudo-recognition task i n which subjects were instructed to guess at the recognition of a word supposedly flashed by a tachistoscope on a screen. Since on 3 the c r i t i c a l test t r i a l s no word was actually exposed, the subjects' responses were a function of th e i r previous d i f f e r e n t -i a l t r a i n i n g which had been used to establish habits of d i f f e r i n g strengths. The r e s u l t s obtained were consistent with Zajonc's hypothesis; "the probability of dominant responses was found to be higher for subjects working i n the presence of an audience than for those working alone. The opposite result was observed for subordinate responses" (Zajonc & Sales, 1966, p.160). C o t t r e l l et a l . (1967) tested the same hypothesis using a different task which f i t t e d t h e i r s p e c i f i c a l l y stated c r i t e r i a ; "the task must have clear-cut accuracy c r i t e r i a ; i t must be independently c l a s s i f i a b l e as either having correct responses i n a position of dominance or as e l i c i t i n g strong, incorrect response tendencies; and i t must have been independently validated as a behavioural indicator of variations i n general drive l e v e l " ( C o t t r e l l , et a l . , 1967, p.426). The task used was the learning of competitional and non-competitional l i s t s of paired associates that had been developed by Spence et a l . (1956). Spence et a l . had demonstrated that under high drive levels (as determined by the Manifest Anxiety Scale, hereafter referred to as the MAS) subjects made more errors on the competitional l i s t s (where dominant responses were not correct) and fewer errors on the non-competitive l i s t (where dominant responses were correct). Thus the task met a l l three requirements of C o t t r e l l e_t a l . stated above. Spence _et a l . had met the c r i t e r i a by examining the performances of subjects scoring high versus low on the MAS. Those scoring high, ind i c a t i n g a high drive l e v e l , performed 4 better on the non-competitive l i s t and worse on the competitive l i s t than did those subjects scoring low on the MAS - This finding has been replicated by others who used the MAS as a measure of drive l e v e l . It has also been replicated using drugs and e l e c t r i c shock to manipulate drive l e v e l ( C o t t r e l l e_t a l . , 1967)• In the C o t t r e l l e_t a l . study the paired associates were presented on a memory drum. The experimenter was always present and the audience was introduced as "some people interested i n t h i s (experiment)". They did not obtain the predicted results with a l l t h e i r subjects; but had to s p l i t t h e i r experimental groups into slow, medium, and fast learners. This decision was based on work by Katahn (1966) indicating that for some present-day college students who are exceptionally good at paired associate learning, the older competitive l i s t s of Spence _et a l . (1956) are not s u f f i c i e n t l y competitive. This d i v i s i o n yielded s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s , as predicted, for slow and medium speed learners. Under observed conditions these tended to do better on the non-competitive l i s t and worse on the competitive l i s t than when not observed. Level of performance was determined by the number of errors made i n reaching a c r i t e r i o n of two consecutive errorless t r i a l s . C o t t r e l l , Wack, Sekerak, and R i t t l e (1968) attempted to refine Zajonc's o r i g i n a l hypothesis which stated that the "mere presence" of others elevates an individual's drive l e v e l and thus induces s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n . They incorporated two types of observation conditions using the pseudo-recognition 5 task o r i g i n a l l y employed by Zajonc and Sales (1966). Under one audience condition the audience confederates entered as subjects for another experiment and obtained permission to watch the experiment i n progress. Under the alternative audience condition the confederate subjects were blindfolded on the pretense of having to adapt to dark conditions for a subsequent color-perception exiDeriment, Again the experimenter was "present i n a l l conditions. They found that the mere presence of non-observing individuals did not enhance the emission of dominant responses but that the presence of those who could evaluate the subjects' performances did enhance dominant responses. The r e s u l t s of the mere presence condition were very si m i l a r to those of the alone condition. C o t t r e l l ( i n Simmel e_t a l . , 1968) explains these re s u l t s i n terms of s o c i a l learning theory and conditioning. "I believe the additional process involved (besides the mere presence of others) i s the a n t i c i p a t i o n of positive or negative outcomes; the presence of others has nondirective energizing effects upon performance only when th e i r presence creates a n t i c i p a t i o n of positive or negative outcomes" ( C o t t r e l l , i n Simmel et a l . , 1968, p.103). He suggests that individuals learn through experience (e.g., i n school, with parents, etc.) that those observing one's performance usually express an evaluation of i t . He hypothesizes further that t h i s a n t i c i -patory reaction to observer evaluation i s established through c l a s s i c a l conditioning. He supports t h i s suggestion with evidence from animal research which indicates that s o c i a l 6 f a c i l i t a t i o n of eating responses i s a learned behaviour (James and G i l b e r t , 1955; Harlow, 1932; James, I960; a l l i n Simmel et a l . , 1968). He also points out that his explanation f i t s more adequately the findings of Dashiell (1930) that subjects working under coaction conditions but assured of no i n t e r -personal comparisons of performance did not y i e l d the s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n effects found when interpersonal competition was emphasized. This learned drive hypothesis appears to be the most parsimonious explanation for the phenomenon of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n at the present time. Outside t h i s nucleus of basic studies focusing on s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n by Zajonc and C o t t r e l l and th e i r colleagues, there are a number of more isolated but interesting relevant studies. Wilson (1968) examined the effects of observation on groups w r i t i n g human rel a t i o n s s t o r i e s . I t was found that under observation (the observer s i t t i n g i n the room with the group) there were higher rates of communication and of "task-oriented i n t e r a c t i o n " than i n the non-observed groups, but that actual productivity was higher i n the non-observed groups. I f i t i s assumed that task-oriented responses are most dominant i n such situ a t i o n s , t h e i r f a c i l i t a t i o n by an observer f i t s the model suggested by Zajonc (1965) and C o t t r e l l (1968). Chase (1967) studied the effects of direct observation on fourth grade boys' performances on the Information, Arithmetic, and Vocabulary items of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences between observed and non-observed conditions were found. On these tasks there are both 7 very easy items (non-competitive) and very hard items (competitive) and thus the d i f f e r e n t i a l effects of observation could have cancelled each other out. The author does not mention t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , but concluded that "the presence or absence of an inactive observer did not affect problem solving behaviour for 'normal1 boys i n a structured testing s i t u a t i o n " (Chase, 1967, p.3322). In the studies reviewed up to t h i s point, i n d i v i d u a l differences i n personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and r e s u l t i n g d i f f e r e n t i a l effects of being observed have largely been ignored; and the observer(s) has always been physically present to the subjects during the observation. A number of studies have examined the effects of being observed by individuals who are not physically present and the different effects of such observation on individuals with varying scores on personality scales. Ganzer (1968) examined the effects of observation from behind a one-way screen on the s e r i a l learning of nonsense sy l l a b l e s by individuals as a function of their Test Anxiety Scale score (hereafter referred to as the TAS; Sarason, I960). The performances of subjects with high and middle TAS scores were impaired by observation from behind a one-way screen, the subjects with the high TAS scores being impaired the most. The performance of the low TAS scorers was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected by such observation. (The fact that the low TAS scoring subjects did best i n a l l conditions suggests that C o t t r e l l (1967) may have unknowingly separated out low-anxious individuals v/hen he found that his f a c i l i t a t i o n r e s u l t s held 8 only for his slow and medium learners and not for h i s fast learners). Ganzer (1968) explains h i s r e s u l t s i n terms of a ". ... habit interpretation of anxiety (Child, 1954; Sarason, I960) which states that high and low scorers on anxiety scales d i f f e r i n the kinds of response tendencies aroused by evaluative or personally threatening situations. High scorers respond to threat with habitual, personalized responses of a self-deprecatory, c r i t i c a l nature. These s e l f -preoccupations are essentially task irrelevant and int e r f e r e with e f f i c i e n t learning and performance. On the other hand, low scorers do not respond i n t h i s manner and may be expected to react to threat or stress with increased e f f o r t and attention"• (pp.197-198). This hypothesis complements C o t t r e l l ' s hypothesis i n terms of an t i c i p a t i o n or threat of evaluation and s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n . A further interesting r e s u l t of t h i s study was that the effects of observation were not found when subjects relearned the same material on a second day. Whether th i s was due to adaptation to the experimental s i t u a t i o n or to the fact that the task was s i g n i f i c a n t l y easier on the second day (the required responses being more dominant) i s not known. However, Ganzer suggests the adaptation interpretation. These two p o s s i b i l i t i e s could be complementary i f adaptation was due to the change i n dominant responses. Robe (1967) also attempted to examine the relationship between test anxiety and the effects of being observed but obtained no s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . Moos (1968) studied the effects of observation via a wireless radio transmitter on inpatients' behaviour i n a hospita l ward setting. Ke found very minor effects but there was a tendency toward more purposeful and less purposeless behaviour when being so observed. Also the results suggested that observation had the greatest effect on individuals scoring 9 l o w e r o n t h e C o r r e c t i o n ( K ) s c a l e a n d h i g h e r o n t h e P s y c h o p a t h i c D e v i a t e ( P d ) , P a r a n o i a ( p a ) , S c h i z o p h r e n i a ( S c ) , a n d H y p o m a n i a (M a ) s c a l e s o f t h e M i n n e s o t a M u l t i p h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y I n v e n t o r y ( H a t h a w a y a n d M c E i n l e y , 1942). A g a i n t h i s i l l u s t r a t e s e v i d e n c e o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e a c t i o n s t o b e i n g o b s e r v e d . W a p n e r a n d A l p e r ( 1 9 5 2 ) c o m p a r e d t h e e f f e c t s o f d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n ( i . e . s u b j e c t s c o u l d s e e o b s e r v e r s ) w i t h t h o s e o f o b s e r v a t i o n f r o m b e h i n d a o n e - w a y s c r e e n . T h r e e c o n d i t i o n s w e r e e m p l o y e d w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r p r e s e n t a t a l l t i m e s . U n d e r t h e n o n - o b s e r v a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s t h e s c r e e n w a s c o v e r e d b y c u r t a i n s ; u n d e r d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n , o b s e r v e r s c o u l d b e s e e n b e h i n d t h e m i r r o r s i n c e t h e o b s e r v a t i o n r o o m w a s i l l u m i n a t e d ; u n d e r t h e u n s e e n a u d i e n c e c o n d i t i o n t h e o b s e r v a t i o n r o o m w a s d a r k s o t h a t t h e o b s e r v e r s b e h i n d t h e s c r e e n c o u l d n o t b e s e e n b y t h e s u b j e c t s . T h e i n s t r u c t i o n s • t o t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e e i t h e r t a s k -o r i e n t e d , e m p h a s i z i n g t h a t t h e t a s k i t s e l f w a s t h e f o c u s o f t h e s t u d y r a t h e r t h a n t h e s u b j e c t h i m s e l f ; o r e g o - o r i e n t e d , e m p h a s i z -i n g t h a t t h e s u b j e c t ' s p e r s o n a l i t y w a s b e i n g a s s e s s e d . B o t h m a l e s a n d f e m a l e s p a r t i c i p a t e d . T h e t a s k c o n s i s t e d o f c h o o s i n g o n e o f t w o a l t e r n a t i v e w o r d s t o c o m p l e t e a g i v e n p h r a s e . T h e p h r a s e s v a r i e d i n b o t h d i f f i c u l t y ( e a s y a n d d i f f i c u l t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s ) a n d o r i e n t a t i o n ( p e r s o n a l i t y o r i e n t e d a n d i m p e r s o n a l d i s c r i m i n a -t i o n s ) . D e c i s i o n t i m e a n d a d a p t a t i o n t o o b s e r v a t i o n ( e a r l y v e r s u s l a t e t r i a l s ) w e r e e x a m i n e d . D e c i s i o n t i m e w a s f o u n d t o b e l o n g e s t w h e n t h e o b s e r v e r s w e r e n o t v i s i b l e a n d s h o r t e s t w i t h n o a u d i e n c e , w i t h t h e r e s u l t s f o r t h e v i s i b l e a u d i e n c e b e i n g i n t e r m e d i a t e b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o g r o u p s . T h e s e r e s u l t s h e l d o n l y f o r t h e f i r s t h a l f o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l s e s s i o n , i n d i c a t i n g 10 adaption to the observation and/or that the i n i t i a l l y u n f a m i l i a r task had become more h a b i t u a l . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between the type of audience and the other v a r i a b l e s . These r e s u l t s do not obviously f i t the C o t t r e l l s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n hypothesis. However, i f i t i s assumed that a dominant response for c o l l e g e students i s to stop and t h i n k about d e c i s i o n s , then these r e s u l t s do f i t the hypothesis. Apart from the experiments mentioned above, a few s t u d i e s have been c a r r i e d out i n p s y c h i a t r i c s e t t i n g s which have examined the e f f e c t s of being observed through recordings and f i l m s (Haggard et a l . , 1965; Lamb and Mahi, 1956; R e d l i c h et  a 1. , 1950; Sternberg e_t a l . , 1958) . An unpublished summary of these f i n d i n g s ( C r i d d l e , 1968) revealed that p a t i e n t s are l e s s d i s t u r b e d than are t h e r a p i s t s by the recording devices. As w e l l as being'more disturbed themselves, t h e r a p i s t s tend to exaggerate the p a t i e n t s ' a n x i e t y , but there i s no evidence that the devices d i r e c t l y hinder p a t i e n t - t h e r a p i s t i n t e r a c t i o n . There i s some evidence that both p a t i e n t s and t h e r a p i s t s adapt quite q u i c k l y to such devices. However, most of the above mentioned studi e s f a l l short of s t r i c t experimental c r i t e r i a . Haggard e_fc a l . (1965) used only four subjects (three experiment-, a l , one c o n t r o l ) and four d i f f e r e n t therapists.' R e d l i c h et a l . (1950) and Lamb and Mahi (1956) presented no q u a n t i t a t i v e data, but only s u b j e c t i v e impressions o f t h e i r s u b j e c t s . Sternberg et a l . (1958) did not a c t u a l l y record or observe t h e i r s u b j e c t s , but questioned them about the h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n of being observed. Only one study (Haggard et a l . , 1965) used the two 11 conditions of being observed and not being observed for comparison. Thus those who advocate or oppose the use of s p e c i f i c types of recording techniques i n psychiatric settings are basing t h e i r bias on assumptions which almost completely lack any w e l l controlled experimental data for support. This concludes a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on the effects of being observed and s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n . Although i t may have to be interpreted rather l i b e r a l l y i n some instances, Zajonc's Hull-Spence drive hypothesis, further refined by C o t t r e l l with his anticipated evaluation hypothesis, accounts for most of the experimental resul t s reasonably w e l l . 12 C H A P T E R I I RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES OP THE PRESENT STUDY The primary purpose o f the present study i s to examine the e f f e c t s on dominant responses o f being observed through a one-way screen. V/apner and Alp:er (1952) i l l u s t r a t e d that d e c i s i o n time may be longer when subjects are observed from behind a one-way screen than when they are d i r e c t l y observed, but no accuracy data were a v a i l a b l e from t h e i r study nor was any attempt made to study dominant versus non-dominant responses. Thus i n t e g r a t i o n of the r e s u l t s w i t h s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n theory was not r e a d i l y p o s s i b l e . Ganzer (1968) obtained accuracy data, but d i d not e x p l i c i t l y examine the e f f e c t o f one-way screen observation i n l i g h t of Zajonc's and C o t t r e l l ' s hypotheses. The present study does both. Thus one secondary purpose of the study i s to determine whether or not the s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n e f f e c t holds when the audience i s not p h y s i c a l l y present but i s capable o f observing the subject's performance. Another secondary purpose i s to begin to explore e m p i r i c a l l y the v a l i d i t y of one assumption behind the use o f one-way screens: that t h e i r use does not s i g n i f i c a n t l y change the behaviour of the i n d i v i d u a l s observed by t h i s means. The experimental design o f the present study i s very s i m i l a r to that of the C o t t r e l l et a l . study (1967) where the e f f e c t s o f being d i r e c t l y observed on the l e a r n i n g of the c o m p e t i t i o n a l and non-competitional l i s t s were examined. The same task i s used i n t h i s study because i t meets the three requirements proposed by C o t t r e l l (see page 3) . In a d d i t i o n , 13 the task requires no i n i t i a l t r a i n i n g to establish dominant and non-dominant responses, and i s r e l a t i v e l y easy to s e l f -administer. The combination of two types of tasks plus the two observation conditions, alone and observed through a one-way screen, resulted i n four separate experimental groups: non-observed - competitional, observed - competitional, non-observed - non-competitional, and observed - non-competitional. A basic change i n procedure from most previous s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n studies i s that i n the present study the non-observed subjects perform completely alone with no experimenter present. It i s f e l t that t h i s procedure w i l l y i e l d data less contaminated by the observation done by the experimenter himself. Of course, t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s not completely free from "observation" since the recording of the performance i s a kind of observation. For p r a c t i c a l purposes, however, some recording of individuals' performances when alone had to be obtained and the task had to be carried out i n the absence of the experimenter. Such requirements could best be met by using tape recorders. Previous studies were usually carried out with sub-jects of only one sex. Most of these involved males, including the studies by C o t t r e l l ejb a l . (1967, 1968) and Zajonc and Sales (1966). In our society there are s p e c i f i c expectations based on sex role which would be predicted to operate i n s c c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n studies (Mischel, 1968; Kagan i n Hoffman and Hoffman, 1964). Rosenthal (1966) and Lindzey and Aronson (1968) have presented reviews of empirical evidence suggesting that females are more susceptible to s o c i a l 14 influence than are males.' It was o r i g i n a l l y planned to use comparable groups of both males and females i n the present study to test the generality of these findings to the one-way screen s i t u a t i o n . Due to p r a c t i c a l considerations, discussed l a t e r , comparable groups of males and females were not obtained and although sex differences were explored, the comparisons were less rigorous than o r i g i n a l l y anticipated. Individual differences have also been ignored i n most previous studies, especially i n those focusing d i r e c t l y on s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n . However, i t could be hypothesized that suspicious individuals or individuals with paranoid tendencies would be more affected by unseen observers than those not having such tendencies. Moos (1968, see page 8) found that observ-ation affected the behaviour of patients who tended to have high Paranoia Scale scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. To examine the relationship between such a personality variable and s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , a recently developed Suspiciousness Scale (Endicott et a l . , 1969) was administered to a l l subjects and the relationship between their scores on t h i s scale and the degree of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n was examined. Ganzer (1968) and Robe (1967) have examined the effects of being observed on-subjects scoring high, average, and low on test anxiety, but obtained no clear relationship between s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n and anxiety (see pages 7 and 8). Subjects i n the present study were administered the MAS (Taylor, 1953) to explore further the anxiety - s o c i a l 15 f a c i l i t a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p . The hypotheses of the present study are based on the empirical findings reviewed in:Chapter I and on the consider-ations discussed above. Three major hypotheses were formu-lated ; 1. Subjects' dominant responses w i l l be f a c i l i t a t e d , at the expense of less dominant responses, under observed conditions compared to non-observed conditions. This r e s u l t s i n two subrhypotheses; (a) Where dominant responses are correct, on the non-* competitional l i s t , subjects' performances w i l l be f a c i l i t a t e d by observation. (b) Where dominant responses are not correct, on the competitional l i s t , the subjects' performances w i l l be impaired by observation. 2. Females w i l l be influenced by observation more than males i n the learning of l i s t s . 3- Subjects' scores on the Suspiciousness Scale and the MAS w i l l be d i r e c t l y related to the degree to which t h e i r performances are affected by observation. 16 C H A P T E R I I I METHOD Sub j ects"^ The subjects were 40 male and 63 female under-graduates. A l l but two of the males were business administra-t i o n majors at the University of V/ashington, and a l l but two of these received as an incentive to participate i n the experiment an elevation of t h e i r lowest weekly quiz score i n a personnel class to 100$. These males were s o l i c i t e d by the professor of thei r class. Two of the business administration students were volunteers with no stated incentive and two other participants were from introductory psychology classes where p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n psychological research was mandatory. They ranged i n age from 19 to 37 (mean = 23-2; 3D = 3-82) and were a l l t h i r d or fourth year students except for the two non-business administr-ation students who were second year students. The females were a l l volunteers from the School of Nursing at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, a l l but one - a second year student - being f i r s t or t h i r d year students. They ranged i n age from 18 to 25 (mean = 19-3; SD = 1.84). The females were s o l i c i t e d by the experimenter who asked for volunteers both i n classes and on psychiatric wards where the student nurses were trained. They were told that they would receive a summary of the The author would l i k e to thank a l l the subjects who participated as w e l l as Miss Mary L. Richmond, Director of Nursing, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, and Drs. Kent Collings and Lance K. Canon, both of the University of Washington, who made the necessary arrangements i n making the subjects available. 17 r e s u l t s and that i t was hoped the r e s u l t s would have, some relevance to procedures used i n the h o s p i t a l . Pour male and three female subjects were discarded for various reasons. Two males and one female were discarded because they did not meet the minimum requirement of one correct response on the practice l i s t of paired associates. One male was eliminated due to a complete lack of motivation (he made very few attempts to respond and admitted his lack of motivation) and one was randomly eliminated for s t a t i s t i c a l purposes ( i . e . to obtain an equal number of subjects i n each group). One female was discarded because a jack-hammer next to the experimental room made such excessive noise during the experimental session that she often could not hear the tape; another was discarded because, rather than l i s t e n i n g on the f i r s t presentation of the l i s t , she guessed w i l d l y and thus had to l i s t e n on the second t r i a l , automatically giving her twelve more errors than a l l other subjects. Since no other subject responded i n this manner i t was f e l t that her performance was not v a l i d l y comparable to the other subjects' performances. O r i g i n a l l y i t was hoped that comparable samples of males and females could be used i n the study i n order to examine sex differences since the majority of the studies i n the past have used only males or females. Because of unavoidable p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s set by subject a v a i l a b i l i t y , t h i s was not possible. E s s e n t i a l l y the study was run with males and then repeated with a non-comparable sample of females. 18 Apparatus and Experimental Setting T h e i n i t i a l p a r t . o f t h e s t u d y ( u s i n g male subjects) was conducted i n a small experimental room i n the building housing , the Psychology Department at the University of Washington. The one-way screen covered most of one w a l l and when not i n use was covered with a piece of fiberboard. The second part of the study (using nurses) was carried out i n a large room i n the University of B r i t i s h Columbia Faculty of Medicine Hospital, a room often used for psychological t e s t i n g . The one-way screen again covered most of a wall but i n t h i s room was covered with curtains when not i n use. For both groups two easily operated portable tape recorders were used i n the learning of the paired associates, one to present them and one to record the responses of the subjects. The l i s t s of paired associates, including the practice l i s t , were those developed by Spence et a l . , (1956) 2 described e a r l i e r (page 3). The personality scales were the Manifest Anxiety Scale (Taylor, 1953) and the Suspiciousness Scale (Endicott et a l . , 1969).^ Post-experimental questionnaires were administered to a l l subjects. 4 These had three purposes. Primarily they were Appendix A for copy of paired associate l i s t s . Appendix D for copy of personality inventory. Appendix C for copy of post-experimental S e e ^See 4 S e e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . 1 9 an attempt to determine whether or not subjects (both observed and non-observed) f e l t they were actually being observed, since t h i s was the c r u c i a l independent variable. Secondly, they were an attempt to obtain the subjects' subjective opinion on how nervous they f e l t , how they f e l t t h e i r performance had been (or would have been) affected by both observation and the taking of the personality questionnaire. Lastly, the questionnaires gave the subjects an opportunity to state what they thought the purpose of the study was, which at least suggests the extent to which t h i s knowledge could have affected the performances of the subj ects. Procedure Subjects were assigned to experimental groups i n sequential order such that each male group had 9 subjects and each female group had 1 5 subjects. Each subject was met at the door of the experimental room by the experimenter and the experimenter obviously glanced around the h a l l explaining that he was expecting some fellow graduate students who had made arrangements to observe his study that day. He explained that they might as wel l get started even though the observers had not arrived yet. The subject was taken into the room and to l d thai: the study involved an examination of the relationship between certain aspects of verbal learning and personality and was then instructed to f i l l out the personality inventory. The one-way screen was covered 20 at t h i s point i n a l l c o n d i t i o n s . Subjects were assured of anonymity. While the subjects worked on the p e r s o n a l i t y inventory the experimenter got up and looked out i n t o the h a l l , again pretending to look f o r the mentioned observers. A f t e r f i n i s h i n g the p e r s o n a l i t y inventory, the subjects were shown how to work the two recorders and t o l d the nature o f the l e a r n i n g task. Each subject completed the f i r s t task o f f i v e t r i a l s on the p r a c t i c e l i s t w h i l e the experimenter scored t h e i r responses and made sure the subject worked the recorders properly. At t h i s point there was a b r i e f r e s t period during which the experimenter looked out i n t o the h a l l again c l a i m i n g to be l o o k i n g f o r the expected observers. In the observed c o n d i t i o n s he looked back i n t o the room s t a t i n g that the observers had a r r i v e d and that he would r e t u r n i n a minute. The experimenter then went behind the screen and made various noises (moving c h a i r s i n the case o f the male su b j e c t s , or p u l l i n g a s l i d i n g blackboard up and down over the opposite side of the screen f o r the female subjects) and switched the l i g h t s on and o f f q u i c k l y to i n d i c a t e the presence of observers behind the screen. The experimenter then r e t u r n e d and t o l d the subject that f o r the next l e a r n i n g task he would be l e f t alone and to proceed the same as he had before w i t h the pra.ctice l i s t except to record h i s responses t h i s time. A second microphone was placed on the desk w i t h the explanation that i t was there so the observers could hear. Each subject was then l e f t alone and the experimenter went behind the screen to observe and returned a f t e r the subject had f i n i s h e d the task. 21 A l l male s u b j e c t s were g i v e n twenty t r i a l s on the l i s t s o f p a i r e d a s s o c i a t e s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r performance. Because t h i s was found to be an e x t r e m e l y b o r i n g t a s k f o r the s u b j e c t s and s i n c e most had l e a r n e d the l i s t s by the f i f t e e n t h t r i a l , the number o f t r i a l s f o r a l l females was cut to f i f t e e n . When the ex p e r i m e n t e r r e t u r n e d to the e x p e r i m e n t a l room a f t e r the s u b j e c t had completed the t a s k , he as k e d each s u b j e c t to f i l l out a b r i e f q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o c u s i n g on how he had f e l t about b e i n g observed and a t t e m p t i n g to t a p h i s b e l i e f t h a t someone was a c t u a l l y w a t c h i n g from b e h i n d the s c r e e n . When t h i s was completed each s u b j e c t was thanked and t o l d he would r e c e i v e a summary o f the r e s u l t s o f the stu d y . ' The females were asked two or t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s (two i f n o t observed; t h r e e i f o b s e r v e d ) : 1 ) what, i f any, s p e c i a l t y o f n u r s i n g they planned to go i n t o , 2 ) i f they r e a l l y b e l i e v e d t h a t they were b e i n g o b s e r v e d from b e h i n d the s c r e e n ( o n l y asked o f observe d s u b j e c t s ) , and 3) i f t a l k i n g i n t o t he r e c o r d e r b o t h e r e d them. The proc e d u r e f o r the s u b j e c t s i n the non-observed groups was i d e n t i c a l except t h a t the ex p e r i m e n t e r r e t u r n e d a f t e r h i s second e x i t from the room s a y i n g t h a t the s t u d e n t s were n ot around and would have to observe some o t h e r t i m e . The p o s t -e x p e r i m e n t a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r t h e s e s u b j e c t s was s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t , aimed a t t a p p i n g how the s u b j e c t s thought they would have f e l t i f they had been observed and i f they thought t h a t 5 they were a c t u a l l y b e i n g observed i n some way. "'A t e x t o f i n s t r u c t i o n s appears i n Appendix A. 22 A summary o f the sequence o f steps appears i n Figure 1 below. Step 1; The subject i s met at the door of the experimental room and informed that some graduate students are expected by the experimenter to observe the study. Step 2: The subject i s seated and f i l l s out p e r s o n a l i t y questionnaire (MAS and Suspiciousness Scale) during which the experimenter looks i n h a l l once f o r observers. Step 3' Experimental task i s explained and p r a c t i c e l i s t i s run through. Step 4 ; The experimenter looks again f o r observers and informs the subject whether or not he or she w i l l be observed; i f observed, the experimenter goes behind screen and makes noises i n d i c a t i n g observers g e t t i n g s e t t l e d ; i f not observed, the experimenter merely r e t u r n s s t a t i n g no observers have a r r i v e d . Step 5: The experimenter explains experimental task which the subject completes a f t e r the experimenter leaves the room. Step 6: The experimenter re-enters and administers f i n a l post-experimental questionnaire, thanks subject and asks him or her not to t e l l other prospective subjects about the study. Figure 1; Sequence of steps i n the experimental s i t u a t i o n 23 C H A P T E R IV RESULTS Performance on Learning Task A two by two f a c t o r i a l design analysis of variance was used. The d i f f e r e n t i a l effects of observation on the learning of the two types of l i s t s of paired associates was tested as was performance on the practice l i s t i n order to check for any i n i t i a l differences between groups i n a b i l i t y to learn paired associates. The measure of performance l e v e l used i n these analyses was the mean number of errors made on the given task. For the practice l i s t , those errors made on the f i n a l two t r i a l s were used since a number of subjects asked questions during the f i r s t three of the f i v e t r i a l s i n dicating that they did not exactly understand what was expected of them. However, a l l subjects understood the task by the beginning of the t h i r d t r i a l . This procedure does not make a l l subjects' performances on the l a s t two t r i a l s s t r i c t l y comparable since some were t o t a l l y confused for the i n i t i a l t r i a l s while others were performing as expected and hopefully learning. However, th i s factor would only lead to greater differences between groups and thus i f no s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found i n i n i t i a l a b i l i t y measured i n t h i s way i t would strengthen rather than weaken an assumption of equal i n i t i a l a b i l i t y . Also i t i s assumed that variations .in understanding what was expected were randomly distri b u t e d among the experimental groups. Table I shows the mean number of errors for each group on the l a s t two t r i a l s of the practice l i s t . Table II summarizes the analyses of 24 TABLE I (a & b) Mean number o f e r r o r s on l a s t two p r a c t i c e t r i a l s a - Males b - Females j i ' Not tQbserved j observed |Observed Not observed Competit-i o n a l i 18.3 | 16.6 < i I j Competit-i 21.5 i o n a l S 19-1 Non-comp-e t i t i o n a l | 20.8 | 19.6 \ ) < ! \ 1 \ t 1 Non-comp-j 17.7 e t i t i o n a l ] 1 18.0 TABLE I I (a & b) Summary of analyses of variance on p r a c t i c e l i s t e r r o r s Males Source ss i df | ( m ' s F i p T o t a l 637 .6 I 35 I i ) -L i s t 66 .7 1 i j 66 .7 3.88 ns Observation 20 .2 i I 20 i .2 1.17 ns L x Ob. 0. 69 i I 1 1 0. j 69 0.04 ns E r r o r 550 .0 1 3 2 ; 17 .2 _ b - Females Source | ss df j  ms F P T o t a l 997.4 59 L i s t j 91.26 1 Observation 17.06 j . L x Ob. 26.68 1 E r r o r 862.4 56 91.26| 5.93 17 .06 | 1.11 26.68 : 1.73 15.4 j -C025 ns ns 25 variance i n d i c a t i n g that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between observed and non-observed groups on a given type of l i s t ( lmale " 1 > 1 7 ' d f " l / 3 2 ; Pfemale = d f = l / 5 6 ; b o t h n s ) ' Sig n i f i c a n t differences i n i n i t i a l a b i l i t y did exist between the competitional and non-competitional groups of females (P = 5-93, df = 1/56, p<.025), a difference that can only be explained by chance groupings since up to the time of the practice l i s t a l l subjects had undergone i d e n t i c a l experimental treatment. However, these differences do not int e r f e r e with the' testing of the main hypotheses as would a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n i n i t i a l a b i l i t y between those i n the observed versus non-observed conditions. Tables I I I and IV summarize the means and analysis of variance for the test t r i a l s of the males. Observation had no s i g n i f i c a n t effect on the male subjects learning either type of l i s V o ' f p-aired"'associate's'' (!'F:'= .141 df^ = '1/3-2, ns) i TABLE I I I Mean number of errors on experimental task by males. ! Observed Competitional Hon-competit-ional 92.0 28.3 Not observed 89-3 21.9 26 TABLE IV Summary of analysis of variance on errors made by males on experimental task Source ss df ms P P Total L i s t Observation L x Ob. Error 72791-6 38677.8 186.8 32.1 33894-9 35 1 1 1 ! 38677.8 | 186.8 1 i 32.1 1371.7 28.2 0.14 0.02 <.001 ns ns 1 s TABLE V Mean number of errors on experimental task by females J j Not L Observed observed Competitional S 95.2 65.1 { Non-competit- \ 21.9 16.9 ion a l f 27 TABLE VI Summary of analysis of variance o f errors made Toy females on experimental task Source j ss df ms i F I P Total | 89,658.18 L i s t j 55,388.81 Observation 4,628.81 L x Ob. j 2,343-76 Error J 27,296.8 59 1 1 1 ' 56 r 55,388.81 4,628.81 ; 2,343-76 I j 487.44 j ! 113-63 <..001 9 .50 <.005 4.81 <.05 Tables V and VI and Figure 2 summarize the effects of observation on the performances of the females. Both main effects are s i g n i f i c a n t (F = 113, df = 1/56, p<.001, F = 9-5, df = 1/56, p < .005) as well as the interaction of observation and l i s t type ( P = 4.81, df = 1/56, p<.05). These results indicate that o v e r a l l observation hindered the performance of females, doing so on both types of l i s t s , impairing th e i r performance more on the competitive l i s t than on the non-competitive l i s t . A Duncan Multiple Range Test (Brunning and Kintz, 1968) was applied to these results to c l a r i f y more exactly the intergroup relationships. Table VII summarizes the r e s u l t s of t h i s t e s t . They indicated that observation s i g n i f i c a n t l y impaired the performance of the females on the competitive l i s t ( p<.0l) but did not do so on the non-competitive l i s t ( p i s ns). 28 901 80 70 female -competitional male -competitional 60 50 40 30 20 _female - non-competit i o n a l male - non-competitions! 10 0 -Not observed Observed Figure 2i Female Experimental Results and Male versus Female Results on the Number of Errors Made on I n i t i a l 15 T r i a l s . 29 TABLE VII Summary of Duncan Multiple-Range Test on female experimental task data Comparison 1 x 2 P 30.1 <• 01 78.3 N- 001 73.3 <. 001 43.2 V Q 001 48.2 y v. • 001 5.0 ns *0bserved-Competitional vs Non-observed-Competitional Observed-Competitional vs Non-observed-Non-competit Observed-Competitional vs Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competit. vs Observed- ;on-competitional Non-observed-Competit. vs Non-observed-Non-competit. *Non-observed-Non-competit. vs Observed Non-competit. ^ C r i t i c a l comparisons for hypotheses of study, To help c l a r i f y more exactly how the females differed from the males the mean number of errors made by the males on the f i r s t f i f t e e n t r i a l s was calculated. A graph of the male-female comparison i s presented i n Pigure 2 (see page 28) which indicates that the males i n general made more errors than the females i n a l l conditions except that of observed-competitional where the males made fewer errors. None of these differences are s i g n i f i c a n t however(t's = .45, .34, .88, .88; df - 22 for a l l ) . Personality Scales On the MAS the females scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than did the males (female mean = 16.9, male mean = 11.9, t = 3.38, df - 95, p < . 0 0 l ) . However no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n -30 ship was found between an individual's score on the MAS and the number of errors made; t h i s result held for both males (r - -.31, z = -1.83, ns) and females (r = -.18, z = -1.38, ns) and for the i n d i v i d u a l experimental groups (see Table V I I I ) . TABLE VIII Correlations between MAS scores and Total Errors made _ Group, Male: Observed-Competitiona1 Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competitional Non-observed-Non-competitional Overall Female s Observed-Competitional Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competitional Non-observed-Non-competitional Overall r r r r r r r r r r -.18 -.18 -.12 + .10 -.31 + .006 + .14 -.34 + .28 -.18 t t t t t t t t 3 r % p 0.48 7 ns 0.48 7 ns 0.32 ns 0.27 ! ? ns -1.83 ! - ns .02 |l3 ns .51 13 ns -1.3 13 ns +1.05 13 ns -1.38 ; 1 i ns The females also scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the Suspiciousness Scale than did the males (female mean = 2.5, male mean =1.3, t = 3.33, df = 94, P <.01). A s i g n i f i c a n t inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p was found between scores on the Suspiciousness Scale and the t o t a l number of errors made for the males (r = 0.41, rho = -.37, z = 2.19, p<.03). This relationship approached significance for the females (r = -.30, 31 rho m -.23, z = 1.77, p <.08). The Spearman Rank Order Correlation (rho) was used here for significance tests because of the very l i m i t e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of the Suspiciousness scores (Hayes, 1963). Again no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship was found between Suspiciousness Scale scores and error scores within the experimental groups, as i s shown i n Table IX. TABLE IX Correlations (r & rho) between Suspiciousness Scale scores and t o t a l errors made Group Male: Observed-Competitional Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competitional Non-observed-Non-competit. Overall Female; Observed-Competitional Observed-Non-competitional Non-observed-Competitional Non-observed-Non-competit. Overall rho t or 2 -.21 t - 0.57 -.49 t = 1.49 + .19 t = 0.51 + .11 t = 0.29 -.37 % = 2.19 -.08 t = 0.29 + .13 | t = 0.33 -.09 j t = 0.46 + .24 t = 0.92 -.23 a •n = 1.77 df 7 7 7 7 13 13 13 13 P ns ns ns ns <.03 r r r r r -.58 - . 6 1 - . 3 4 - . 0 2 - . 4 1 ns r - -.31 ns r = -.02 ns r = -.25 ns r = -.004 <.08 . r - -.30 32 Post-experimental Questionnaire A l l scores and means i n the following discussion are based on a numbering system which designates the i n i t i a l space of the r a t i n g scales used^ as having a value of 0, the second space a value of 1, ... up to 6. The only exception i s question three on the non-observed questionnaire on which the range i s from 0 to 7 rather than 6. TABLE X Summary of mean responses to questions on post-experimental questionnaire' Question i ;, Sex j i -Mean rat i n g t df P Observed; \ : i male 2.4 1 female 3.5 2.2 46 <.05 male 3.8 2 female 3.7 .27 46 ns male 2.4 A. female 3.7 2.45 46 <.02 male 2.3 4 female 2.1 .34 46 ns Non-observed: male 3.7 1 female 5.0 3.17 46 <.01 male. 3.2 2 female 4.4 2.11 • 46 <.05 male 5.9 3 female 5.4 .78 46 I ns j See Appendix C f o r ques t i o n n a i r e s . 7 'Male and female responses to the l a s t two questions on both questionnaires were almost i d e n t i c a l : 6.'3 versus 6.2 and 4.0 versus 4.1 f o r males versus females r e s p e c t i v e l y . 33 Observed Subjects' Questionnaire As the tabled summary of questionnaire r e s u l t s indicates, the males diff e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the females i n t h e i r answers to two of the s i x questions. The females rated themselves as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more nervous due to the observation than did the males (t = 2.20, df = 46, p <.05). The females also rated themselves as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more aware of the observers than did the males (t = 2.45, df = 46, p <.02). Comparisons were also made between male and female questionnaire responses wit h i n the observed-competitional groups alone since i t was i n these groups that the pattern of results- of the two sexes appeared to deviate on the results of the learning task (see Figure 2). Comparing only the observed-competitional groups, the means of the males were s i g n i f i c a n t l y different from those of the females on questions 1, 2 and 3- ind i c a t i n g again that the males rated themselves as being less nervous (t = 2 . 6 0 , df = 2 2 , p-r; .-02), less hindered i n t h e i r performance by the observation (t = 2.50, df - 22, p <..02) and again less aware of the observers than the females ( t = 2-31, df = 22, p <.05). Males and females did not d i f f e r i n how they perceived t h e i r performances as affected by observation and by taking the personality questionnaires. Neither did they d i f f e r on the extent to which they could detect the presence of observers, nor i n t h e i r rating of the extent to which they were annoyed by the content of the personality questionnaire. In addition, females who rated themselves higher i n nervousness due to observation (4 to 6 on the scale) made more errors than those who rated themselves lower i n nervousness 34 (0 to 3 on the scale); t h i s finding approached significance for the non-competitional group (t = 2.12, df = 13, p<.06) hut was not s i g n i f i c a n t for the competitional group. Also those females i n the competitional group rated t h e i r performances as "being hindered by observation (mean = 2-.8) whereas those i n the non-competitional group rated t h e i r performance as being r e l a t i v e l y unchanged (mean = 4.5, t = 4.15, df = 28, p <.001). Non-Observed Subjects' Questionnaire On the non-observed post-experimental questionnaire the males di f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the females i n t h e i r s e l f -ratings on questions 1 and 2. On question 1 the males f e l t that they would be less hindered by observation than did the females (female mean - 5.0, male mean = 3»7, t = 3.17, df = 46, p <.01). The sexes also d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r estimate of how nervous such observation would make them, the males rating themselves as being less so than the females (female mean = 3.2, male mean = 4-4, t = 2.11, df = 46, p<".05). The males and females did not d i f f e r i n t h e i r s e l f ratings concerning being annoyed by the personality inventory nor i n how i t affected t h e i r performance; they were minimal for both sexes. Since actual observation did affect the performance of the females on the competitive l i s t and since some non-observed females did indicate that they f e l t they were being observed, a comparison was made of the mean number of errors 35 made by those who f e l t that they might have been observed (0 to 3 scale ratings) with those who were more sure that they were not being observed (scale ratings of 4 to 7). No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found for either the competitive or the non-competitive 'groups (competitives t = .13, df = 13, ns; non-competitives t = 1.23, df <= 13, ns). The f i n a l question of both questionnaires concerned what the subject f e l t was the purpose of the study. Ten males and seventeen females indicated that they f e l t the purpose was to study the effects of observation on one's performance. This finding i s not surprising since the nature of the previous questions on the questionnaire strongly suggest t h i s fact. Five males and four females mentioned the effects of stress i n general as a possible focus of the experiment. Nineteen males and t h i r t y females gave some other unrelated explanation and seven males and nine females either stated they did not know the purpose of the study or l e f t the question blank (two females). As mentioned i n the procedure section, a l l female subjects were asked either two or three questions at the end of the study. All females were asked what specialty of nursing they v/ere planning to enter and i f t a l k i n g into the recorder bothered them at a l l . Observed female subjects were asked i f they ever doubted the existence of actual observers behind the screen. Most of the nurses replied to the f i r s t question that they had made no d e f i n i t e decision on a nursing specialty. Concerning the recorder, f i f t y - f i v e said i t did not bother them at a l l , three said i t did a l i t t l e , and two stated that i t bothered them considerably. Most of the observed females 36 stated that they believed someone was actually behind the screens twenty-four reported no doubts, f i v e reported that a doubt had at least passed through t h e i r mind, and one doubted i t very much. 37 C H A P T E R V DISCUSSION Theoretical Discussion The major hypothesis (Hypothesis 1, page 15) was supported p a r t i a l l y by the female sample but not at a l l by the male sample. The performance of the females on the more d i f f i c u l t competitive task was considerably impaired by observation from behind a one-way screen whereas t h e i r performance on the easy, non-competitive task was neither improved nor impaired by the observation. The performance of the males was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected on either task. The results of the female sample on the competitive l i s t f i t the predictions from s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n theory. The lack of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n on" the easy, non-competitive task and i t s presence on the competitive task suggest f i r s t , that the physical presence of the audience may be necessary i n some situations to produce s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n but not i n other situations and secondly, that one dependent variable function-ing i s the nature of the task being performed. This suggest-ion which focuses on the importance of the physical presence of the observers i s not i n accord with C o t t r e l l ' s hypothesis which considers the a b i l i t y of the audience to evaluate the subject's performance to be the c r u c i a l factor i n the production of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n . But i t i s obvious that an i m p l i c i t c r i t e r i o n for s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n i n any s i t u a t i o n i s that the subjects or performers be aware of the observers. In C o t t r e l l ' s hypothesis, the subject's awareness of the observer's a b i l i t y to be p o t e n t i a l l y evaluative i s the c r u c i a l 38 factor. This awareness factor i s the c r u c i a l variable manipulated by the one-way screen since i t i s obvious that on a purely objective l e v e l the potential degree of sensory awareness i s reduced by the screen to a lack of actual v i s u a l awareness of observers. Since t h i s reduction i n awareness was equal for the competitive and non-competitive l i s t groups, and s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n s t i l l occurred, some other factor must have been operating to eliminate s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n i n the non-competitive s i t u a t i o n . I f the s o c i a l learning and. conditioning basis for C o t t r e l l ' s hypothesis i s accepted, the explanation for the ob-tained r e s u l t s may l i e i n a. difference between how individuals learn to perceive potential negative evaluation of a poor perfor-mance versus positive evaluation of a. good performance. A suggestion by t h i s author focuses on what might be c a l l e d the amount of "ego involvement" of the task, "ego involvement" being defined as the amount of s e l f esteem the subject attaches to his a b i l i t y to perform or not perform we l l on a given task. I t seems reasonable that college students would consider the learning of paired associates as a rather mundane, simple minded task that they should be able to handle quite re a d i l y ; therefore i t would be very embarrassing, upsetting, or s e l f esteem reducing not to be able to do reasonably w e l l on such a task. On the other hand a, very superior performance would not be considered as a great, s e l f esteem building achievement. (One could also argue that they would tend to be consistent and thus attach l i t t l e importance to not being able to do we l l on a simple minded task; however t h i s i s an empirical question to be c l a r i f i e d i n l a t e r research.) Based on these assumptions, i t 39 can be hypothesized that college students would react to an evaluation of t h e i r performance much more intensely (general drive l e v e l increased to a greater extent) when making many errors on the competitive l i s t than when making few errors on the non-competitive l i s t . This suggestion i s supported by C o t t r e l l et a l . ' s (1967) findings, since the effects of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n were considerably more potent i n the competitive compared to the non-competitive l i s t performances. A direct test of t h i s hypothesis i s possible via direct manipulation of the types of tasks used on a continuum of "ego involvement". So far t h i s hypothesis suggests a possible reason why only those females learning the competitive l i s t f u l f i l l e d the s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n hypotheses; however i t may have some relevance to why the males were es s e n t i a l l y una,ffected by observation. The finding that the males were es s e n t i a l l y unaffected by observation was not expected. C o t t r e l l e_t a l . (1967), Zajonc and Sales (1966) and others have obtained s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n using male subjects, and similar r e s u l t s were expected i n t h i s study. The hypothesized sex difference was only i n terms of the degree of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , more being expected i n the females than i n the males, and t h i s was based on previous research on sex roles and sex differences (eg. Lindzey and .Aronson, 1968; Rosenthal, 1966). Since s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n has been demonstrated consistently i n males, i t appears that some additional factors were functioning i n the present study to y i e l d r e s u l t s indicating a complete lack of f a c i l i t a t i o n i n males yet considerable f a c i l i t a t i o n i n females. 40 There were many differences between the male and the female portions of the study. I n i t i a l l y i t i s of value to examine exactly how the males diffe r e d from the females on the dependent variable, the number of errors made on the f i r s t f i f t e e n t r i a l s of the learning task. It i s obvious from Figure 2 that the major difference i s most probably i n the r e l a t i v e performances of the observed-competitional groups, with the females of t h i s group making considerably more errors than a l l other competitional groups. Also the observed and non - observed competitional males diffe r e d to about the same extent as did the observed and non-observed non-competitional males (both being nonsignificant). Of course the opposite assumption could be madei that the competitive l i s t males differed from the females i n the r e l a t i v e performances of the two non-observed groups. However, the pr i o r hypothesis gains support from the fact that on the non-competitive l i s t , i n both the observed and non-observed conditions, the males made more errors than did the females and t h i s i s also the case i n the r e l a t i v e number of errors of the two non-observed competitional groups ( i . e . male and female), but not i n the case of the male-observed-competitional versus the female-observed-competitional groups. Based on the above considerations the differences between the male and female observed competitional groups on the post-experimental questionnaire were examined s p e c i f i c a l l y along with the o v e r a l l differences between the male and female samples taken as a. whole on these measures. The two samples di f f e r e d i n many ways. The sexes diffe r e d i n t h e i r mean scores on both the anxiety and suspiciousness scales, the females being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more 41 anxious and suspicious than the males (p's C.001 and C01 respectively). On the post-experimental questionnaire the observed females rated themselves as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y more nervous and more aware of the observers than did the males; these differences held for the observed-competitional groups taken alone as w e l l as for the observed samples taken as a whole. In addition the male and female observed-competitional groups also di f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n that the females f e l t that t h e i r performance was mere hindered by the observation than did the males. I f one assumes that the two samples are using close to i d e n t i c a l i n t e r n a l , subjective c r i t e r i a i n t h e i r s e l f - r a t i n g s , these differences help explain why the females were more affected by observation than were the males. However, th i s assumption i s probably not a completely v a l i d one since females i n general may have a tendency to rate themselves d i f f e r e n t l y than do males, a phenomenon found i n many psychological studies (Tyler, 1964). This factor must be taken into consideration when weighing the significance of the sex differences found i n the s e l f - r a t i n g measures. The more e x p l i c i t differences i n the two samples and the two experimental settings may offer a more p o t e n t i a l l y v a l i d , but admittedly i n t u i t i v e and post hoc, explanation of the observed sex differences. The males were considerably older than the females (means of 23.2 versus 19.8) and also were generally from a more advanced college class, the nurses being mainly f i r s t and t h i r d year students and the males mainly fourth with some t h i r d year students. Thus the males may have had more experience i n s i m i l a r evaluative and/or experimental 42 situations and therefore possibly were more relaxed and less anxious (having a lower general drive level) i n response to the study than were the females. The samples diff e r e d completely i n college major. This difference i s of considerable importance when one considers the different settings i n which the male versus female parts of the study were conducted. The male portion of the study was carried out i n a small experimental cubicle i n the Psychology Department at the University of Washington among many other ongoing psychology experiments. The female section was carried out i n a ho s p i t a l s e t t i n g , i n the psychology department, i n a large room usually used for psychological testing and interview-ing, a fact most student nurses are w e l l aware of since they often accompany patients to such interviews and testing sessions, patients who are often anxious about the testing or interview. Thus the physical setting of the study was probably much more personally threatening for the females than for the males. The means of s o l i c i t a t i o n of subjects also differed i n an important way for the males and females. The nurses were s o l i c i t e d by the author v i s i t i n g classes and nursing stations (on the psychiatric ward) asking for volunteers; no incentive was offered other than feedback of experimental r e s u l t s . The males were s o l i c i t e d by t h e i r professor who offered them the incentive of having t h e i r lowest weekly quiz grade of the quarter raised to 1 0 0 $ i f they participated i n the study (the. study was .carried out one and two weeks p r i o r to f i n a l examination periods at the end of the academic year). The females, being purely volunteers, were probably more personally 43 involved and motivated than were the males who were es s e n t i a l l y bribed for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . These assumptions would be predicted from dissonance theory (Festinger, 1 9 5 7 ) and are supported by the fact that the males generally made more errors than the females on the experimental task. I f such suggestions are v a l i d , the presence of observers would have been much more threatening to the nurses, especially i f they were doing poorly on the task, than to the males. These subjective impressions of the experimenter and ratings of the subjects may or may not be the explanatory factors involved i n the sex differences found i n the r e s u l t s . A t h i r d independent factor could have been the cause of the sex difference found i n both the major experimental r e s u l t s and i n the explanatory factors mentioned. Both sets of sex differences could have been the re s u l t of a t h i r d factor such as the s o c i a l role expectations of males versus females. i n important theore t i c a l implication of t h i s study, mentioned b r i e f l y i n the previous discussion, concerns the physical presence of the observer(s) and i t s relevance to s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n . I t i s obvious from the result s that s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n can occur through a one-way screen, without the audience being either v i s u a l l y or physically present. But i t . i s also obvious that s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n may not occur under such conditions, depending on at least two other factors which seem to be relevant; the nature of the task involved and the nature of the sample and/or setting. 44 The fact that s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n did occur using observers behind a screen supported C o t t r e l l (1968) i n h i s refinement of Zajonc's (1966) o r i g i n a l hypothesis focusing on the mere presence of observers. C o t t r e l l e_t a l . ' s study (1968) i l l u s t r a t e d that the physical presence of the audience plus the a b i l i t y of the audience to evaluate the subject's performance yielded s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , thus, r e f i n i n g Zajonc's mere presence hypothesis. The results of the present study i l l u s t r a t e that the physical presence of the audience can be eliminated completely and s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n can s t i l l occur. This phenomenon had previously been i l l u s t r a t e d i n co-action situations (Da s h i e l l , 1935), but not i n audience situations. However the c r i t i c a l factor hypothesized by C o t t r e l l was present; the audience could evaluate the subjects' performances and the subjects r e a l i z e d i t . The attempt to fin d relationships between indi v i d u a l s ' socres on the MAS and Suspiciousness Scale ahd the number of errors made on the learning task was only p a r t i a l l y successful. Ho relationship was found between individual's scores on the MAS and the number of errors made, either for the in d i v i d u a l experimental groups or for the samples taken as a whole. This does not corroborate the findings of Ganzer (1968; see page 8), although he pre-selected his sample based on t h e i r test anxiety scores which d e f i n i t e l y aids one i n establishing such a rel a t i o n s h i p . Individuals' scores on the Suspiciousness Scale were s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to the number of errors made for the males (r = -.41, rho = -.37, p <.03) and approached significance for the females (r = -.30, rho = -.23, p-C.08). 45 These relationships did not hold i n the in d i v i d u a l experimental groups. For the groups taken as a whole ( s t i l l divided by sex), the more suspicious one rated himself the fewer errors he tended to make on the learning task. I f suspiciousness implies an elevated drive l e v e l , these results contradict the Spence-Hull Drive l e v e l explanation for s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n which would predict no o v e r a l l relationship but a direct relationship for the competitive l i s t subjects and an inverse relationship for the non-competitive l i s t as found by Spence et a l . (1954) using the MS. Individuals with paranoid tendencies, one of which i s suspiciousness, have some cha r a c t e r i s t i c a b i l i t i e s that may suggest an explanation for the above findings. Paranoid individuals generally have higher than average i n t e l l i g e n c e quotients (Rappaport et a l . , 1968). They do especially w e l l on tasks requiring l i t t l e emotional involvement and l i t t l e common sense, (eg., D i g i t Span and Picture Completion tasks of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Rappaport at a l . , 1968) ) both of which are aspects of the paired associate task of t h i s study. Schafer (1949, p.94) states as t y p i c a l of the paranoid condition "a precision of r e c a l l i s emphasized" as a character-i s t i c of t h e i r learning e f f i c i e n c y . They are generally over-a l e r t and pay attention to d e t a i l s (Schafer, 1949). Endicott et a l . (1969) compare th e i r t y p i c a l suspicious i n d i v i d u a l to one who has paranoid tendencies, but not to the extreme degree of a. true paranoid i n d i v i d u a l . However, they developed t h e i r scale with mental patients. A l l the above a b i l i t i e s which are char a c t e r i s t i c of the paranoid person, and to a lesser degree of 4 6 the suspicious person, would lead one to expect that they would do especially w e l l on tasks such as paired associate learning. P r a c t i c a l , C l i n i c a l Implications One-way viewing screens are used frequently i n teachin hospitals, schools and c l i n i c s and th i s practice i s based on at least two assumptions; 1. The observation affects the behaviour of those being observed minimally; at least less than direct observation. 2. Any loss of v a l i d i t y as a re s u l t of such minimal behaviour change i s out-weighed by the value of the screen as a teachin aid . Very l i t t l e good experimental data has been collected to v e r i f y these assumptions."^" As stated e a r l i e r (see page 12) one purpose of th i s study was to begin to explore empirically the v a l i d i t y of the f i r s t assumption stated above. In general, the o v e r a l l r e s u l t s indicate that the assumption does not hold i n a l l cases since the observed females made over 46% more errors on the competitional l i s t than did those not observed. This magnitude of difference i n performance on most psychological tests would greatly a f f e c t the f i n a l r e s u l t s and perhaps the future of the ind i v i d u a l tested. But there are many differences, as w e l l as s i m i l a r i t i e s , between the experimental s i t u a t i o n and an actual c l i n i c a l setting. See Chapter I for review of relevant l i t e r a t u r e . 47 The female portion of the study approximated the t y p i c a l c l i n i c a l setting more so than did the male/s portion. As individuals they were more anxious and more suspicious. The room used for the females was an actual testing and interviewing room i n the psychology department, a fact known to the nurses. I t was also a ho s p i t a l setting and the experimenter was introduced as a graduate student i n c l i n i c a l psychology. In contrast, the male study was carried out i n a s t r i c t l y research setting and no mention was made of c l i n i c a l psychology. These factors suggest that the female re s u l t s probably approximate more closely those that would be found i n a true c l i n i c a l s i t u a t i o n . The observation-by-task interaction also has some c l i n i c a l implications. It suggests that observation would be more l i k e l y to impair one's performance on psychological tests and other tasks which require unfamiliar s k i l l s . One might expect that a very verbal i n d i v i d u a l would be impaired on performance oriented tasks or on numerical tasks requiring more quantitative a b i l i t i e s . An introvert might be considerably more impaired i n an interview by observation than an i n d i v i d u a l who was used to discussing himself with others. Such tests as the Raven Matrices and Rorschach require non-dominant, unfamiliar responses for most individuals and thus might be more affected by observation. Also, based on the dominant response theory of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , one would predict that as one became more accustomed to the task at hand the expected, correct responses would become more and more dominant and observation would therefore have less negative effect. This, expectation i s supported by Ganzer's (1968) findings that on 48 the second day of nonsense s y l l a b l e learning highly anxious individuals were no longer affected "by observation. In one very important aspect the present experimental s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r e d from the standard c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g ; the subjects were completely alone while performing the task whereas i n most c l i n i c a l settings the psychologist i s present. Senaenter (1959) and Wrightsman (I960, i n Simmel et a l ^ , 1968) present data suggesting that the presence of others going through a s i m i l a r anxiety arousing s i t u a t i o n can serve to reduce anxiety by providing comfort and support. In c l i n i c a l settings the psychologist being observed i s often a student or a model for students, who explains to the patient that he i s also under observation, usually by a superior, and i s therefore the prime focus of the observation. He thus puts himself i n the threatening s i t u a t i o n with the patient, i f not i n the place of the patient to a. certain extent. Also psychologists i n such situations usually discuss the patient's feelings about the observation, especially i f the patient i s anxious about i t , and therefore i n a sense the patient i s desensitized. Through these techniques the psychologist attempts to reduce the patient's drive l e v e l (anxiety) and thus minimize the effects of observation. This element of comfort was replaced i n the present study with a p o t e n t i a l l y anxiety producing machine, the tape recorder, making a permanent record of the subjects' performances. Even though the females generally stated that they were not bothered by the recorder, t h i s factor must be taken into consideration when generalizing from the present experimental r e s u l t s to the c l i n i c a l setting. 49 Suggestions for Farther Research Throughout the previous discussion questions have arisen which only further research can s e t t l e . One of the most basic questions concerns the method of observation used, espec-i a l l y since new elaborate methods are becoming more available such as closed c i r c u i t t e l e v i s i o n and videotape. A useful comparison would be between direct observation ( i . e . with observer(s) physically present i n the same room) with observation via a one-way screen or some other mechanical means where the observers are not physically present. Wapner and Alper ( 1 9 5 3 ) are the only ones to d i r e c t l y compare two such methods of observation; t h e i r study could be made more relevant to s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n theory or to actual c l i n i c a l settings by changing the task either to one meeting C o t t r e l l ' s ( 1 9 6 7 ) c r i t e r i a or to one used i n psychological assessment. Another p o t e n t i a l l y valuable comparison would be between means of observation that y i e l d a permanent and very complete record of one's performance (eg. camera, recorder, videotape) and means where one's performance i s l e f t only i n the observers' memories (eg. direct observation, TV) or i s only p a r t i a l l y recorded (eg. notes or scores recorded). Many patients, psychologists and p s y c h i a t r i s t s i n t h i s author's experience have indicated that they would rather be observed d i r e c t l y than i n d i r e c t l y so that they could see who was observing them and/or observe the audience's reactions to t h e i r behaviour. Another area not yet examined empirically i s the effect on the patient or performer of the presence of the experimenter or psychologist i n the observed s i t u a t i o n . This 50 factor could be ea s i l y manipulated experimentally using the same apparatus as i n the present study and adding further experimental groups. The u t i l i t y of t h i s information i n the t y p i c a l c l i n i c a l setting would be minimal since almost always a s t a f f member of some sort i s present when patients are observed, and patients are rarely observed alone through a screen. However, techniques are being developed where individuals are observed alone such as to establish base rates of s p e c i f i c behaviour or to observe c h i l d -parent interactions (Wahler et a l . , 1965) • Such information about the effects of being observed alone versus being observed with an additional i n d i v i d u a l present would be valuable. Theoretically such studies might also c l a r i f y the contradictory hypotheses mentioned e a r l i e r (p»37) of Zajonc and C o t t r e l l versus Schachter and Wrightsman, and y i e l d information c l a r i f y i n g whether or not, or under what conditions, the presence of others i s drive inducing or drive reducing. The area of i n d i v i d u a l differences and the effects of observation has barely been touched by research. Studies more d i r e c t l y focused on i n d i v i d u a l differences could use subjects pre-selected on the basis of high and low scores on sp e c i f i c personality scales (as Ganzer, 1968). Prom a c l i n i c a l stand-point i t would be very useful to select patients as subjects according to some sp e c i f i c c r i t e r i a such as diagnostic category. Here i t would be most useful to use c l i n i c a l l y relevant tasks such as subtests of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale or a s e l f disclosure task of some sort which i s relevant to what i s required i n psychiatric interviews. Another important area that has not been examined i s that of the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the observers. One would expect i n t u i t i v e l y that there would be d e f i n i t e interactions between 51 the nature of or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the observer and those observed. I f an individual's professor, competitor or doctor were observing, i t would probably be a more anxiety inducing s i t u a t i o n than i f complete strangers were observing. This factor would probably also interact with the nature of the task. For instance, i f the observer(s) was not f a m i l i a r with the task and therefore could not evaluate the performance, the effect of hi s observation would be expected to be minimal (according to C o t t r e l l ' s evaluative theory). Thus the degree to which the observers are capable of evaluating the task could be examined by manipulating the information given the performers about the audience. Another factor, mentioned e a r l i e r , i s the amount of ego involvement the task e l i c i t s from the performer. Two studies (Wilson, 1968 and Wapn.erv and Alper, 1952 - reviewed e a r l i e r ) have attempted to manipulate the ego-involvement of the task used. In the Wilson (1968) study the manipulation was not successful. In the Wapner and Alper (1952) study two related manipulations yielded c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s : ego-oriented instructions yielded shorter latencies to response than did task oriented i n s t r u c t i o n s , but items related to the subjects' personality yielded longer latencies than did neutral items (the task was multiple choice phrase completion). P i l o t studies would probably have to be carried out to determine some sort of c r i t e r i o n for the ego-involvement i n a given set of tasks. One might have college students rate different tasks and s k i l l s on a scale of personal importance to them. This variable can also be manipulated by varying the stated consequences and/or 52 purposes of indiv i d u a l s ' performances on tasks as Wapner and Alper attempted to do. Although research i n the area of s o c i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n has been i n progress p e r i o d i c a l l y since 1925, there are many questions l e f t unanswered. New research has continually opened new problems for study so that there are many more unanswered questions today than i n 1925. This i s i n spite of the fact that i t i s a common, everyday phenomenon admitted to and experienced by almost a l l i n d i v i d u a l s . Knowledge of t h i s phenomenon has potential p r a c t i c a l application i n areas other than the education of psychologists and ps y c h i a t r i s t s , for example, i n education, entertainment and personnel work. It i s hoped that more work i n th i s area of almost universal human experience w i l l be carried out i n the future. 53 B I B L I O G R A P H Y A l l p o r t , F-.H. Social Psychology. Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n , 1924. Bruning, J.L. and Kuntz, B.L. Computational Handbook of  S t a t i s t i c s . Palo A l t o : Scott, Porseman & Co.7 1968. C o t t r e l l , N.B., R i t t l e , R.H., and Wack, D.L. The presence of an audience and l i s t type (competitional or non-competitional) as join t determinants of performance i n paired-associate learning. Journal of Personality 1967, 35, 425-433. ^ C o t t r e l l , N.B., Wack, D.L., Sekerak, G.J., and R i t t l e , R.H. Social f a c i l i t a t i o n of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, 245-250. Criddle, W.D. The effects of one-way screen observation on patients' responses and anxiety l e v e l . Unpublished study. Dashiell, J . F. An experimental analysis of some group effects. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1930, 25, 190-199. DashieHI, J . F. Experimental studies of the influence o f s o c i a l situations on the behavior of i n d i v i d u a l human adults. In Murchison, C. (Ed.), A Handbook of Social Psychology. 'Worcester, Mass. ; Clark U. Press, 1935. (In Zajonc, 1968). Endicott, H.A., Jortner, S., and Abramoff, E. Objective measures of suspiciousness. Journal of Abnormal  Psychology, 1969, 74, 26-32. Ganzer, V.J. Effects of audience presence and test anxiety on learning and retention i n a s e r i a l learning s i t u a t i o n . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 8, 54 Haggard, E.A . , Hiken, J.R., and Isaacs, K.S. Some e f f e c t s of recording and f i l m i n g of the psychotherapeutic process. P s y c h i a t r y , 1965, 28, 169-191. Hathaway, S.R., and McKinley, J.C. Minnesota M u l t i p h a s i c Person- a l i t y 'Inventory. Minneapolis: U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota Press, 1942. Hayes, W.L. S t a t i s t i c s f o r P s y c h o l o g i s t s . New York: H o l t , Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Hoffman, M.I. and Hoffman, L.W. Review o f C h i l d Development  Research. New York; R u s s e l l Sage Foundation, 1964. Katahn, M. I n t e r a c t i o n of anxiety and a b i l i t y i n complex l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1966, 3, 475-479-K i e s l e r , S.B. S t r e s s , a f f i l i a t i o n and performance. J o u r n a l  of Experimental Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1966, 1, 227-235. Lamb, R. and Ma h i , C P . Manifest r e a c t i o n s o f p a t i e n t s and i n t e r v i e w e r s to the use o f sound recording i n the p s y c h i a t r i c i n t e r v i e w . American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y , 1956, 112, 731-737. l i n d z e y , G. and Aronson, E. The Handbook of S o c i a l Psychology. London: Addison-Weslev P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1968. M i s c h e l , W. P e r s o n a l i t y and Assessment. New York: John V/i 1 ey Sons, Inc. , 1968 . Moos, R.H. Be h a v i o r a l e f f e c t s of being observed; r e a c t i o n s to a. w i r e l e s s radio t r a n s m i t t e r . J o u r n a l o f  Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1968, 3 2 , 383-388, P e s s i n , J . The comparative e f f e c t s o f s o c i a l and mechanical s t i m u l a t i o n on memorizing. American J o u r n a l o f  Psychology, 1 9 3 3 , 45, 263-270? Rapport, D., G i l l , M.M. and Schafer, R. Diagnostic P s y c h o l o g i c a l Testing. New York; I n t e r n a t i o n a l U. Pres s , 1968. 55 Redlich, Dollard and Newman High f i d e l i t y recording of psychotherapeutic interviews. American Journal  o f Psychiatry, 1950/-107, 42-48. Robe, H.R. Effects of the presence of an observer upon problem-solving behavior for boys who vary i n test anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts, 1967, 27, 3322. Rosenthal, R. Experimenter Effects i n Behavioral Research. New York; Meredith Publishing Co., 1966. Sarason, I.G. Empirical findings and th e o r e t i c a l problems i n the use of anxiety scales. Psychological B u l l e t i n , I960, 57, 403-415. Schafer, R. The C l i n i c a l Application of Psychological Tests. New York! International U. Press, 1950. Simmel, E.C., Hoppe, R.A., and Milton, G.A. Social F a c i l i t a t i o n and Imitative Behavior. Boston: A l l y n and Bacon, Inc., 1968. Spence, K.W. Behavio r theory and conditioning. New Haven; Yale University Press, 1956. Spence, K.W. , Parber, I.E., and McFann, H.H. The r e l a t i o n of anxiety (drive) l e v e l to performance i n competitional and noncompetitional paired-associates learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 52, 296-305. ' " Spence, K.W., Taylor, J . , and Ketchel, R. Anxiety (drive) l e v e l and degree of competition i n paired-associates learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 52, 306-310. Sternberg, R.S., Chapman, J . , and Shakow, D. Psychotherapy research and the uroblem of intrus i o n on privacy. Psychiatry, 1958, 21, 195-203. Taylor, J.A. A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1953, 48, 285-290. 5tf Travis, L.E. The effect of a small audience upon eye-hand coordination. Journal of Abnormal and Soc i a l  'Psychology, 1925, 20, 142-146. • Wahler, R.G„, Wir.kel, G.H., Peterson, R.F. and Morrison, D . C . Mothers as behaviour therapists for t h e i r own children. Behaviour Research and.Therapy, 1965, 3, 113-124. Wapner, S«. and Alper, T.G. The effect of an audience on behavio r i n a choice s i t u a t i o n . Journal of Abnormal  and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 222-229. Tyler, L.E. Tests and Measurements. New Jersey: Prentice-H a l l , Inc., 1964. Zajonc, R.B. Soc i a l f a c i l i t a t i o n . Science, 1965, 149, 269-274. Zajonc, R.B. and Sales, S.M. Social f a c i l i t a t i o n of dominant and subordinate responses Journal of  Experimental Social psychology, 3966, ~2~, 160-168. A P P E N D I C E S A TEXT OP INSTRUCTIONS B LISTS OP PAIRED ASSOCIATES C POST - EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRES D PERSONALITY INVENTORY 58 A P P E N D I X A TEXT OP INSTRUCTIONS This i s a study concerning personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and verbal learning. F i r s t I'd l i k e you to f i l l out t h i s personality questionnaire. Don't put your name or any i d e n t i f i c a t i o n on i t since I want everything to he anonymous and am only interested i n group r e s u l t s . I want to assure you that I w i l l keep no record of names. Now I am going to show you how to run these recorders which w i l l he necessary for the following two learning tasks. You start t h i s one by pushing t h i s button; stop i t with t h i s one. This one you start and stop with t h i s button on the microphone. When you turn on t h i s recorder you w i l l hear a l i s t of twelve word pairs; a l l words are separated by two second i n t e r v a l s . Your task i s to anticipate the second word of each pair and say i t out loud during the i n t e r v a l . The f i r s t l i s t w i l l be presented fi v e times; each presentation i s separated by a four second i n t e r v a l . On the f i r s t presentation you w i l l probably not know any of the pairs. You are to respond as soon as you do think you know a pair. Here i s a b r i e f example. You might hear the pairs "box - plane" and "lake - bike". Your task i s to respond with the word "plane" after you hear the word "box"; th i s response should be within the two second i n t e r v a l between the two words. After your response "plane", you would hear the word "plane" on the tape thus enabling you to check your response. Then the word "lake" would be presented, you would respond with "bike", hear the word "bike"on the tape, and go on to the next pair. Do you have any questions? OK, l e t ' s give 59 i t a t r y . On t h i s f i r s t task I w i l l score your responses here so you don't have to use that recorder. OKs that was fine. I ' l l he hack i n just a moment; I have to check on the observers that are supposed to show up. (Not observed) I don't see them anywhere. They w i l l just have to observe someone else at another time. (Observed) They are here; I have to go and get them se t t l e d . I ' l l be back i n just a. moment. The next task w i l l be the same type as the one you just completed except for two changes: instead of f i v e t r i a l s you w i l l have 20 (15) t r i a l s on t h i s l i s t . Also I w i l l not be i n the room; you w i l l be alone and I want you to turn on the recorder and speak into the microphone so your responses w i l l be recorded. Turn on the recorder and start recording right from the s t a r t and leave i t on constantly; don't turn i t on and o f f as you go. Also be careful not to accidently turn o f f the recorder i f you hold the microphone i n your hand. As long as you speak up i t w i l l pick up everything from here on the table, but you can have i t where you want i t . Any questions? I ' l l be back v/hen you are done. That's i t except for this short post-experimental questionnaire. Just put a check i n the space that best describes your feelings. I t ' s a continuum from one end to the other (pointing). 60 Thank you very much for p a r t i c i p a t i n g , I r e a l l y appreciate i t . You w i l l receive a summary of the r e s u l t s of the study and an explanation of a l l that went on. I would appreciate i t i f you would not t e l l others who might participate i n i t l a t e r the nature of the experiment since I want a l l subjects to enter with equa.l naivety. Thanks again. Female questions: 1. Have you decided on any specialty of nursing to go into? 2. Did t a l k i n g into the recorder bother you at a l l ? 3. At any time did you doubt that anyone was behind the screen? 6 1 A P P E N D I X B PAIRED ASSOCIATE LISTS Practice Non-competitional Competitional alms fang adept . s k i l l f u l l - p etite yonder chalk z o o barren f r u i t l e s s migrant ag i l e f l u t e barb complete thorough serene headstrong glass yeast distant remote gypsy opaque iro n l e a f empty vacant tr a n q u i l placid kink elm f r i g i d a r c t i c quiet double ledge dime insane crazy barren f r u i t l e s s marsh quart l i t t l e minute l i t t l e minute n a i l vest mammoth oversized desert leading rose jaw pious devout a r i d grouchy sand heart roving nomad roving nomad t i l e palm stubborn headstrong undersized wholesome cha l k zoo barren f r u i t l e s s migrant a g i l e glass yeast distant r emo t e gypsy opaque kink elm f r i g i d a r c t i c quiet double marsh quart l i t t l e minute l i t t l e minute rose jaw pious devout a r i d grouchy t i l e palm stubborn headstrong undersized wholesome alms fang adept s k i l l f u l l p e t i te yonder f l u t e barb complete thorough serene headstrong iron l e a f empty vacant t r a n q u i l placid ledge dime insane crazy barren f r u i t l e s s n a i l vest mammoth oversized desert leading sand heart roving nomad roving nomad cha l k zoo barren f r u i t l e s s migrant a g i l e kink elm f r i g i d a r c t i c quiet double rose jaw pious devout a r i d grouchy-alms fang adept s k i l l f u l l p e t i te yonder iron l e a f empty vacant t r a n q u i l placid n a i l vest mammoth oversized desert leading glass yeast distant remote gypsy opaque ma r sh quart l i t t l e minute l i t t l e minute t i l e palm stubborn headstrong undersized wholesome f l u t e barb complete thorough serene headstrong ledge dime insane era zy barren f r u i t l e s s sand heart roving nomad roving nomad 62 A P P E N D I X C POST - EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRES Observed Subjects' Questionnaire 1. To what extent did being observed make you nervous? not at a l l extremely so 2. To what extent do you f e e l that your performance was hindered, improved, or unchanged by your being observed? hindered very much unchanged improved very much 3. To what extent were you personally aware of the observers during your learning task? extremely not at a l l aware aware 4. To what extent could you detect the presence of the observers behind the screen? t h e i r pres-t h e i r presence ence was was undetectable obvious 5. To what extent did the questions on the personality questionnaire annoy you? very much so not at a l l 6. To what extent do you f e e l the taking of the personality questionnaire affected your performance on the learning task? greatly improved did not affect greatly impaired i t i t i t 7• B r i e f l y state what you think i s the purpose of t h i s study. 63 Non-observed Subjects' Questionnaire 1= I f you had been observed through a one-way screen during your second learning task, to what extent do you think your performance would have changed? greatly unchanged greatly improved impaired 2 . To what extent do you think being observed from behind a one-way screen during t h i s experiment would have made you nervous? not at a l l very much so Did you f e e l you were being observed i n any way when you were learning the second l i s t of words by yourself? I was sure I was sure I was I was not being observed being or I never thought about i t observed 4. To what extent did the questions on the personality questionnaire annoy you? very much so not at a l l 5. To what extent do you f e e l the taking of the personality questionnaire affected your performance on the learning task? greatly did not affect i t greatly improved i t impaired i t 6. B r i e f l y state what you think i s the purpose of t h i s study. 64 A P P E N D I X D PERSONALITY INVENTORY 1. My hands and feet are usually warm enough. 2. I-work under a great deal of tension. 3 . I have diarrhea once a month or more. 4. I am very seldom troubled by constipation. 5. I am troubled by attacks of nausea and vomiting. 6. E v i l s p i r i t s possess me at times. 7. I have nightmares every few nights. 8. I find i t hard to keep my mind on a task or job. 9. I f people had not had i t i n for me I would have been much more successful. 10. My sleep i s f i t f u l and disturbed. 11. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be. 12. I am cer t a i n l y lacking i n self-confidence. 1 3 . I am happy most of the time. 14. Someone has i t i n for me. 15. I believe I am being plotted against. 16. I believe I am being followed. 17. I have a great deal of stomach trouble. 18. I commonly wonder what hidden reason another person may have for doing something nice for me. 19. I certainly f e e l useless at times. 20. Someone has been t r y i n g to poison me. 21. I cry e a s i l y . 22. I do not t i r e quickly. 2 3 . I frequently notice my hand shakes when I try to do something. 24. I have very few headaches. 25. Sometimes, when embarrassed, I break out i n a sweat which annoys me greatly. 65 26. There are persons who are trying to s t e a l my thoughts and idea s. 27. I frequently f i n d myself worrying about something. 28. I hardly ever notice my heart pounding and I am seldom short of breath. 29. I have periods of such great restlessness that I cannot s i t long i n a chair. 30. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself. 31. I believe I am no more nervous than most others. 32. I sweat very easily even on cool days. 33. I am e n t i r e l y self-confident. 34. I t i s safer to trust nobody. 35. Someone has control over my mind. 36. I have often f e l t that strangers were looking at me c r i t i c a l l y . 37. I am sure I am being talked about. 38. -I have very few fears compared to my friends. 39. -At one or more times i n my l i f e I f e l t that someone was making me do things by hypnotizing me. 40. Someone has been trying to influence my mind. 41. L i f e i s a s t r a i n for me much of the time. 42. I am more sensitive than most other people. 43. I am easily embarrassed. 44- I worry over money and business. 45. I cannot keep my mind on one thing. 46. I f e e l anxiety about something or someone almost a l l the time. 47. Sometimes I become so excited that I find i t hard to get to sleep. 48. I tend to be on my guard with people who are somewhat more frien d l y than I had expected. 49. I have been a f r a i d of things or people that I knew could not hurt me. 66 50. I am i n c l i n e d to take things hard. 51. People say i n s u l t i n g and vulgar things about me. 52. I am not unusually self-conscious. 53. I f e e l unable to t e l l anyone a l l about myself. 54. I have sometimes f e l t that d i f f i c u l t i e s were p i l i n g up so high that I could not overcome them. 55» I am usually calm and not eas i l y upset. 56. At times I think I am no good at a l l . 57» I f e e l hungry almost a l l the time. 58. I worry quite a b i t over possible misfortunes. 59. It makes me nervous to have to wait. 60. I have had periods i n which I l o s t sleep over worry. 61. I am bothered by people outside, on streetcars, i n stores, etc., watching me. 62. I must admit that I have at times been worried beyond reason over something that r e a l l y did not matter. 63. I am a high-strung person. 64. I p r a c t i c a l l y never blush. 65. I blush no more often than others. 66. I am often a f r a i d that I am going to blush. 67. I shrink from facing a c r i s i s or d i f f i c u l t y . 68. I sometimes feel that I am about to go to pieces. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104048/manifest

Comment

Related Items