2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joshua M. Feinberg, Department of Psychology, Saint Peter's College, 2641 Kennedy Boulevard, Jersey City, NJ 07306. E-mail: Jfeinberg@spc.edu
Social Facilitation: A Test of Competing Theories1
Version of Record online: 21 APR 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 36, Issue 5, pages 1087–1109, May 2006
How to Cite
Feinberg, J. M. and Aiello, J. R. (2006), Social Facilitation: A Test of Competing Theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36: 1087–1109. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00032.x
1Research reported in this article is based in part on a master's thesis by Joshua M. Feinberg under the supervision of John R. Aiello and submitted to the Graduate School at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.
- Issue online: 21 APR 2006
- Version of Record online: 21 APR 2006
Evaluation–apprehension and distraction–conflict have typically been treated as alternative explanations for social facilitation. The present study tested both theories under a single design. The study examined (a) whether each explanation predicted social-facilitation performance outcomes and (b) whether combining evaluation and distraction manipulations produced even greater performance outcomes. The present study also explored whether physical presence is necessary to produce social-facilitation effects when evaluation and distraction manipulations are already present. The study found significant facilitation effects on the simple task only in the evaluation–apprehension condition. Significant performance impairment was found for both evaluation and distraction. Combining evaluation with distraction led to greater effects only on the complex task. Furthermore, physical presence does not appear necessary to produce social-facilitation effects.