10.1 social facilitation and cognition

Social-Facilitation-and-Impairment (SFI) Effects:

The phenomenon where the presence of others (as observers or coactors) affects individual performance, sometimes facilitating and sometimes impairing it.

Dominant Response Theory (Zajonc, 1965):

This theory suggests that the presence of others increases arousal, leading to an enhanced performance of dominant (habitual) responses. This explains why social presence facilitates performance on easy tasks (where correct responses are dominant) but impairs performance on difficult tasks (where errors are dominant).

Distraction-and-Conflict Theory (Baron, 1986):

Proposes that social presence creates a distraction and attentional conflict, leading to a restriction in attention focus. This can facilitate performance on simple tasks requiring focused attention and impair performance on complex tasks needing a broader attentional scope.

Attentional Mechanisms and SFI:

Studies using the Stroop task demonstrate that social presence can reduce interference, suggesting a focus on task-relevant cues. This supports the attentional account of SFI, showing that cognitive mechanisms play a role beyond mere arousal.

Reduced Cognitive Control:

Research indicates that social presence, particularly of individuals perceived as threatening or of higher status, can impair cognitive control and executive functions, leading to decreased performance on complex tasks. This is attributed to the consumption of executive resources by social monitoring and evaluation apprehension

Social Presence and the Brain:

Neuroimaging studies have shown that social facilitation may rely on the dorsal brain network associated with attention, rather than the ventral network involved in motivation.

Social and Asocial Neurons:

Research involving single-neuron recordings in monkeys identified distinct neuronal populations in the prefrontal cortex that are preferentially active in social or solitary contexts. This suggests that social presence may determine which neuronal groups are engaged during task performance.

Triplett (1898):

Pioneering work on SFI effects, observing performance differences in cyclists competing alone versus in groups.

Zajonc (1965):

Proposed the dominant response theory, arguing that social presence increases arousal and the frequency of dominant responses.

Baron (1986):

Introduced the distraction-and-conflict theory, highlighting the role of attentional mechanisms in SFI effects.

Huguet et al. (1999):

Used the Stroop task to demonstrate that social presence can reduce interference, supporting the attentional view of social facilitation.

Huguet et al. (2014):

Showed in baboons that social presence, especially of dominant males, can impair cognitive control and facilitate dominant responses.

Belletier et al. (2015):

Found that the mere presence of the experimenter can lead to choking under pressure in individuals with high working memory capacity, highlighting the impact of evaluative social presence on executive function.

Demolliens et al. (2017):

Identified social and asocial neurons in the prefrontal cortex of monkeys, suggesting that social presence can influence which neuronal populations are activated during task performance.

What is the fundamental concept of social facilitation and impairment (SFI) effects?

SFI effects refer to the influence of the presence of others (as observers or coactors) on an individual's performance. This presence can either improve performance (social facilitation) or hinder it (social impairment), depending on various factors.

How does Zajon ‘s dominant response theory explain the variability in SFI effects across different tasks difficulties?

Zajonc's theory proposes that social presence heightens arousal, leading to the increased execution of dominant responses. On easy tasks where correct answers are dominant, this leads to improved performance. However, on difficult tasks where errors are more likely to be dominant, increased arousal results in impaired performance

According to Baron’s distraction and conflict theory, how does social presence impact attentional focus, and what are its implications for task performance?

Baron's theory posits that social presence causes distraction and attentional conflict as individuals struggle to focus on the task and the people present. This results in a narrowing of attentional focus, which can be beneficial for simple tasks requiring focused attention but detrimental for complex tasks needing broader attentional resources.

How have studies utilising the strop task contributed to our understanding of the attentional mechanisms underlying SFI effects?

Stroop task studies have revealed that social presence can decrease interference, suggesting that individuals become more focused on task-relevant cues (the colour of the word) and less influenced by irrelevant cues (the word itself). This supports the idea that attentional mechanisms, beyond mere arousal, are involved in SFI effects.

In what situations can social presence impaired cognitive control, and what explanation is offered for this phenomenon?

Social presence can impair cognitive control, especially when individuals present are perceived as threatening (e.g., high-status individuals). This is thought to occur because monitoring and managing the social situation consumes the same executive resources needed for cognitive control, leading to poorer performance on complex tasks.

How does the study by Hughet et al (2014) on baboons support the idea that social presence can both enhance dominant responses and hinder cognitive control?

Huguet et al. (2014) demonstrated that the presence of other baboons, especially dominant males, led to a stronger conflict effect (indicating impaired cognitive control) while simultaneously facilitating dominant responses in the subordinate baboons. This provides evidence that both Zajonc's and Baron's theories can coexist in explaining SFI effects.

What are the implications of Belletier et al (2015)’s findings on choking under pressure for our understanding of social presence effects in experimental settings?

Belletier et al. (2015) found that even the passive presence of the experimenter can cause performance impairments (choking under pressure) in individuals with high working memory capacity. This highlights the potential impact of an evaluative social presence on executive function and emphasises the importance of controlling for experimenter presence in experimental settings.

What insights have neuroimaging studies provided into the neural substrates of SFI effects, particularly regarding the role of attentional networks?

Neuroimaging studies have shown that social facilitation is associated with increased activity in the dorsal brain network, which is responsible for attentional processes. This supports the involvement of attentional mechanisms in SFI effects and suggests that social presence may not primarily operate through motivational networks.

What is the significance of the discovery of social and asocial neuron on the prefrontal cortex of monkeys? How does this challenge traditional views of the social brain?

The discovery of distinct social and asocial neuronal populations in the prefrontal cortex suggests that social presence may not merely modulate activity within a single network but can determine which neuronal groups are primarily engaged during task performance. This challenges the traditional view that the social brain is a separate, specialised module and suggests a more integrated and context-dependent understanding of social information processing.

What methodological considerations should researchers be aware of when designing and interpreting studies in SFI effects, particularly concerning the ecperimenter’s presence?

Researchers should carefully consider and report details related to the experimenter's presence, including their proximity to participants, behaviour (evaluative or neutral), and consistency across the study. Variations in experimenter presence could introduce unwanted variability in participant performance and potentially confound study findings.