Does the Presence of Other People and Incentives Affect Individual Task Performance An Experiment
Keywords social facilitation, incentives, individual performance
Does the Presence of Other People and Incentives Affect Individual Task Performance
The presence of other people can affect our behavior in many ways. Certainly, when we know someone is watching us, we behave differently than when we believe we are unobserved. One example of this effect is known as social facilitation (Guerin, 1986), which is the phenomenon that the presence of others can facilitate an individuals performance on a task. You may have noticed this effect when exercising at a gym or playing a sport. When spectators are present, people probably exert a bit more effort and perform a little better. From this observation, it is predicted that when people work in front of other people, they will actually do better than when they work alone.
Social facilitation became a popular object of study in the early 1980s and findings have led to the development of the theory on social facilitation and social loafing. Social facilitation was first observed by Triplett in 1898 among bicycle racers, wherein the presence of others resulted to faster cycling times. It was not until Zajonc (Zajonc Sales, 1966) expounded on his theory of social facilitation inhibition that the phenomena of the presence of others on task performance gained attention. Zajonc purported that there is a difference between an audience and co-actor in the task but that the mere presence of other people will cause the change in performance of the individual. He also pointed out that performance will improve in the presence of others if the task had been mastered, while it will only diminish performance if the individual is still learning the task (Zajonc Sales, 1966). This led Sanders (1981) to point out that distraction-conflict theory is adequate to explain the interaction of kind of tasks and how it affects performance.
The presence of others and its effects on individual performance was reported by several researches on social facilitation as examined by Uziel (2007) in a meta-analysis of social facilitation research, however, the effects of the presence of others were mediated by the kind and complexity of the tasks, whether audiences are passive or co-actors in the task (Sanna Shotland, 1990), and whether the task had been mastered or not (Markus, 1978). In a review of social facilitation studies it was found that social facilitation can occur in two ways when the observer is not known and the behavior is unpredicted, and when the observer represents social norms and standards wherein the individual conforms to the desired behavior (Guerin, 1986). In another study, it is argued that social facilitation can be a function of self-presentation wherein the individual is concerned with maintaining a public and private self in the presence of others and this brought about attentional conflict (Carver Scheier, 1981). This observation was also shared by a more recent examination of social facilitation theory and research by Aiello and Douthitt (2001) wherein they argued that most theories did not provide a clear explanation of how the presence of others affected performance and why complex tasks often diminished individual performance. They pointed out that current research on social facilitation should focus on investigating how social facilitation occurs and in what context it is said to occur.
Alternatively, early studies on social facilitation focused on how the effect of the presence of others differed for simple and complex tasks. Chapman (1973) in his experiment with children and the social facilitation of laughter found that children laughed and smiled the most when there was a co-actor than just having an audience. Chapman found evidence to support the mere presence effect as advocated by Zajonc (Zajonc Sales, 1966) but laughter is a simple and pleasant task. In the same light, Graydon and Murphy (1995) investigated the occurrence of social facilitation in a sports task taking into account the possible influence of the participants personality, they reported that there is no significant effect for audience presence and performance in a sports task, but there was a strong interaction between personality and presence of others. In a more recent study, it was found that social presence exerts effect on task selection as demonstrated by the Stroop task experiment, where subjects favored doing tasks with an audience rather than a co-actor (Klauer, Herfordt Voss, 2008).
On the other hand, some researchers had advocated studying social facilitation and social loafing in the same context as it can be assumed that without social facilitation, social loafing would occur. This was explored by Harkin, (1987) when he conducted an experiment on tasks that is done alone and in group and where evaluation expectation is present and not. His findings showed that the two paradigms are complementary and that performance improved in the presence of others only when the tasks can be evaluated. However, in a recent study by Strauss (2002) motor tasks had not been associated with social facilitation, and the present theoretical models do not explain such findings.
It was observed that the occurrence of social facilitation was greatly influenced by the type of audience. de Castro (1994) found that social facilitation occur during the consumption of food, he found that meals eaten with other people are generally larger and longer than when eating alone, but it was also reported that eating with a spouse or family resulted to larger but faster meals, while eating with friends resulted to larger and longer meals. Moreover, if the audience was perceived as an evaluator of the subjects performance, the anticipation of positive evaluation resulted to increased performance but a presumed negative evaluation led to poor performance (Sanna Shotland, 1990). Recently, Hall and Henningsen (2008) reported that even inanimate objects like a computer icon influenced the performance of a computer task.
The researches into social facilitation also pointed out that factors such as the number of observers and co-actors and the type of tasks affected social facilitation (Schmitt, Gilovich, Goore Joseph, 1986). Another related concept that has been found to influence individual performance is the presence of incentives to be rewarded at the completion of the task. In a study on the role of incentive to individual performance, it was reported that it increased the interest of the individual to perform the task and that it influenced them to achieve more (Harackiewicz Manderlink, 1984). On the other hand, a research on the distraction effects of incentives and co-actors pointed out that in simple individual tasks, incentives served to enhance performance but in complex group tasks, incentives and co-actors became a distraction as it facilitated social comparisons (Sanders, Baron Moore, 1978).
In the same light, the type of incentives and the way it is made known to the performers can also affect task performance. In a study of performance incentives for unpleasant tasks, it was found that when the incentives are announced after the completion of the task, performers perception of the task was more favorable if they received higher pay than what they expected. On the other hand, when the incentives were announced before the task was performed, the performers rated the task more favorably and perceived the pay as appropriate to their expectations (Frey, Irle Hochgrtel, 1979). This would indicate that the way the incentives are framed would also contribute to task performance, announcing an incentive after the task had been performed would be construed as a token of gratitude, while an incentive announced before the task completion served as a motivating factor. Lastly, individual task performance had also been found to be affected by the personality of the individual and how responsive they are to the presence of an audience. A research study reported that extroverts performed better in the presence of an audience when compared to introverts. Also, the introverts performed better on tasks without and with minimal audience when compared to the extroverts (Grant Dajee, 2003).
Social facilitation has been found to occur in more controlled experiments and when participation of the audience has been manipulated. Moreover, the use of incentives also influences individual task performance. The present study seeks to determine how the presence of other people and the knowledge of incentives affect the performance of an individual in a given task. This study will utilize a 100 meter freestyle swimming race as the individual task and the presence of audience and incentives as the independent variable and the swimming time as the dependent variable.
It is hypothesized that the presence of an audience and incentives will lead to shorter swimming time. Also, it is hypothesized that the larger the number of audience and the higher the value of the incentive, the lesser will be the swimming time compared to the no audience and the medal only incentives.
Methods
This experiment will be a 3x3 factorial design which will measure the effect of the presence of others and incentives to individual performance. The dependent variable will be the performance of the participant as measured by the time spent in completing a 100 meter freestyle swimming race. The independent variables will be the presence of others which will be the presence of an audience with three levels, no audience, 20 audiences and 100 audiences. The second independent variable will be the knowledge of incentives which will be a medal, a gift card and a 1500 trip. The following provides a detailed discussion of the participants and procedures of the proposed experiment.
Participants
The participants of the study will be 270 casual male swimmers who frequent the university pool between 18 to 32 years old. The participants will be recruited to participate voluntarily on the experiment and to accomplish an informed consent form (see Appendix A) if they agree to participate. According to the American Psychological Associations code of ethics on the use of human participants in a laboratory experiment it is important to establish informed consent and to inform the participants of possible risks of the experiment. They will also be informed that they can withdraw from the experiment at any given time. The participants will be randomly assigned to any of the nine conditions of the experiment which will be discussed in detail in the procedure section. All the participants will be given a compensation of 5.00 when they complete the experiment.
Design and Materials
A 3 (audience presence) x 3 (incentive) independent groups design will be used to measure the effect of the presence of others and incentives to individual performance. In this study, the presence of others will be no audience, 20 audiences and 100 audiences, while the incentives will be a medal, gift card and a 1500 trip. Individual performance will be measured in terms of the amount of time it would take the swimmers to complete a 100 meter freestyle lap in the swimming pool.
This study would therefore have nine experimental conditions. The nine conditions would be (1) Medal0 audience, (2) Medal20 audiences, (3) Medal100 audiences, (4) Gift Card0 audience, (5) Gift Card20 audiences, (6) Gift Card100 audiences, (7) Trip0 audiences, (8) Trip20 audiences and (9) Trip100 audiences. Participants by groups of 30s will be randomly assigned to the nine conditions to ensure randomization and control for bias.
The experiment will be conducted in an indoor swimming pool which can accommodate 15 swimmers in the pool at a time and 100 audiences in the bleachers. 15 cohorts will be assigned to record the time for each swimmer using a stop watch, the time will be recorded in seconds. While 100 cohorts will serve as audiences for the 3 experimental conditions that would require 100 audiences, 20 cohorts will also be used as audiences for the 3 experimental conditions that require it.
Three placards will be designed which will show a picture of the incentive, the placards will be 3x3 feet and placed strategically in the front of the pool. The design and font will be similar except for the picture of the incentive (see Appendix B).
Procedure
The experiment will be conducted after school hours in an indoor swimming pool. For each of the experimental conditions, thirty male swimmers will be asked to swim and race in a 100 meter freestyle swimming competition the fastest swimmer will receive an incentive while in the presence or absence of audiences. The participants will be instructed to be in their swimming attires, since the pool can accommodate 15 swimmers at a time, there will be two runs for each experimental condition. To randomize the assignment to the first and second batch, participants will be assigned numbers and this will be called using the fish bowl technique. The first 15 numbers to be called will be the first batch of swimmers the rest will be in the second batch. The first 15 participants will be called to position, and the placard of the incentive will be placed in front of the pool. The researcher will announce that the participants who finish the lap in the shortest time will receive an incentive. Meanwhile, audiences will be assembled in the bleachers before the participants are called to position. The audiences will be asked to cheer loudly for the swimmers. 15 cohorts who will record the time will be positioned in the finish line with a stopwatch. The researcher will then call the swimmers into place and use a clapper to signal the start of the race.
The other experimental conditions will be varied in terms of the manipulation of the incentive and the audiences. A script for the researcher is also provided (see Appendix C) to insure standardization of the experimental conditions. Since this study is an independent group design, the participants will only participate in one experimental condition.
The data will be recorded and analyzed using the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences version 15. The time (minutes) that took each participant to finish a 100 meter freestyle swimming race will be recorded as the measure of individual performance. The participants will be given refreshments and their monetary incentives after the experiment proper had been completed. At the same time, the researchers will explain the experiment and the goal of the present study, questions and clarifications will be entertained at this time.
Results
The data from the experiment will be analyzed using the 3x3 independent groups factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis will be run using the alpha level of .05. The time in minutes for each experimental condition will be used in the analysis. The SPSS analysis should come up with results consistent with the hypotheses.
Table 1 presents the estimated means swimming time of participants according to audience level and type of incentive. The mean scores are expected to be consistent with the hypothesis that individual performance will improve in the presence of other people. There will be a significant effect of the presence of other people to individual performance F (2, 264) 19.659, p.05. Also, there will be a significant effect of incentives to individual performance F (2,264) 18.45, p.05. The estimated total mean for 100 audience and 1500 trip incentive (M1.250) is lower than the total mean of 20 audiences (M1.30) and lower still for the total mean of zero audiences (M1.53). Thus between the same number of audience, the incentives appear to mediate the individual swimming time of participants.
The estimated total mean for the 0 audience and medal (M2.015) is greater than the total mean of the 20 audience and medal (M1.910) and greater still for the 100 audience and medal incentive (M1.513). The results showed that the presence of others influenced the swimming time of participants. The computed t value for 0 audiences and 100 audiences for the three incentives medal (6.917), gift card (8.41) and 1500 trip (7.89) are all significant. Figure 1 presents the estimated mean swimming time in graph form.
Discussion
The results of this study will be expected to support the hypotheses that the presence of others improve individual performance and that the knowledge of incentives also improves individual performance. This would imply that people tend to perform better at a given task if there are other people watching them and that the larger the audience the more likely that the individual perform more. Also, it was found that the knowledge of incentives will increase the performance of individuals however, it is dependent on the kind of incentive, since the 1500 trip had the highest mean compared to the medal only. This would imply that people tend to increase their performance if they know that they will be rewarded for their efforts. The expected results therefore support the theory of social facilitation and the mediating effects of incentives such as that proposed by the theory of motivation and use of rewards.
A limitation of the present study is that only the performance of males was measured, thus the results of the study would only be applicable to the general male population. Individual performance in a task such as swimming can also be done by females and it is also worthwhile to compare the difference between male and female response to the presence of others and to the incentives. Future research should try to compare how gender mediates the effect of the presence of others and the use of incentives. Another limitation of the study is that there is no control for previous experience and skill level, some of the participants may actually be very good swimmers and beating their personal time might be what caused them to perform and not the incentives or the presence of the audience. Further research should be able to have better control over personality correlates that would influence performance aside from social facilitation and the use of rewards.
The results of this experiment can be significant in a number of areas such as in workplace design, motivation of employees and employee training. The results of the experiment will show that the presence of others contribute to better task performance, hence, the work place should be designed in such a way that employees are able to see each other and hence promote better performance. Naturally, an employee who is seen by coworkers would work well while someone who is in a closed space could engage in unproductive behaviors like checking emails or visiting social networking sites. Moreover, the experiment would also show that incentives do motivate people to become better and that it is contingent on the type of incentive. It would seem that attaching value to an incentive increases its attractiveness. Lastly, this experiment pointed out the importance of the presence of others to individual task performance, that designing trainings and workshops should consider the role of others in the group and how it facilitates individual performance. Trainings usually aim to provide learning of a new skill or knowledge and although it is an individual task, the presence of others facilitates learning vicariously.
Appendix A
Informed Consent Form
Dear Participants,
My name is xxxxx and I am a student at the xxxxx working enrolled in the course xxxx. I am conducting a research study entitled Does the Presence of Other People and Incentives Affect Individual Task Performance The purpose of this experiment is to determine the effects of the presence of other people and knowledge of incentives to individual performance.
Your participation will involve you swimming in a race to finish a lap in the shortest possible time. The race will last for 45 to 60 minutes. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time, you can do so without penalty or loss of benefit to yourself. The results of the research study may be published but your identity will remain confidential and your name will not be disclosed to any outside party.
In this research, there are no foreseeable risks to you.
If you have any questions concerning the research study, please call me at xxxxx.
As a participant in this study, you should understand the following
You may decline to participate or withdraw from participation at any time without consequences.
Your identity will be kept confidential.
The researcher, have thoroughly explained the parameters of the research study and all of your questions and concerns have been addressed.
If the data are recorded, you must grant permission for the researcher to digitally record the data.
Data will be stored in a secure and locked area. The data will be held for a period of three years, and then destroyed.
The research results will be used for publication.
By signing this form you acknowledge that you understand the nature of the study, the potential risks to you as a participant, and the means by which your identity will be kept confidential.Your signature on this form also indicates that you are 18 years old or older and that you give your permission to voluntarily serve as a participant in the study described.
Signature of the interviewee _____________________________ Date _____________
Signature of the researcher ______________________________ Date _____________
Appendix B
Incentive Placards
Medal
Gift Card
Trip 1500
Appendix C
Script
Good evening everyone
Welcome to our mini swimming race Swimmers please position your selves according to number.
Here are the mechanics of the race, at my signal, swimmers will dive into the water and swim as fast as they can and finish this 100 meter lap freestyle. Whoever finishes the race in the least number of seconds will receive (medal, gift card, 1500 trip).
Now, everyone, on your mark Set Go
Abstract for Presentation
The present study is an experiment that will test the effects of the presence of others and the use of incentives in the performance of an individual task. The experiment will be on the effect of audiences and incentives on the individual 100 meter freestyle swimming time of the participants. The effect of the mere presence of others in an individuals performance had been well documented and is known as social facilitation. Social facilitation refers to the change in behavior that an individual exhibits with the knowledge that he or she is being observed or watched. On the other hand, social facilitation has also been found to be mediated by factors such as the type of task, the type of audience or co-actors and the presence of incentives. The use of incentives is based on the theory motivation.
This experiment will be a 3x3 factorial design which will measure the effect of the presence of others and incentives to individual performance. The dependent variable will be the performance of the participant as measured by the time spent in completing a 100 meter freestyle swimming race. The independent variables will be the presence of others which will be the presence of an audience with three levels, no audience, 20 audiences and 100 audiences. The second independent variable will be the knowledge of incentives which will be a medal, a gift card and a 1500 trip. It is hypothesized that the presence of an audience and incentives will lead to lower individual swimming time and that the larger the audience and the higher the value of the incentive the more lower the swimming time is.
30 male participants will be assigned to any of the nine experimental conditions and will only participate in one condition. They will be asked to swim 100 meter freestyle, and whoever finishes in the least amount of time will be given an incentive. The presence of others will be manipulated as a pool with no audience, with 20 audiences and with 100 audiences. The incentives will be announced before the participants go into the water the incentives could be a medal, a gift card or a 1500 trip.
It is expected that the results of the experiment using the factorial analysis of variance would yield significant values at .05 alpha level to support the hypothesis. That the presence of audiences leads to better performance and the use of incentives also improved task performance. The limitations of this study are that it is conducted with an all male sample, hence the results can only be generalized to the male population. Also, skill level and personal interest in swimming might have affected the performance of the participants and not the variables of the study. The results of this study can be beneficial to workplace design, use of incentives as an attractive performance motivator and in the design of trainings and workshops to facilitate learning with others.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment