Moving in the presence of others - a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 6.4 2区 心理学 Q1 HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM
Edda van Meurs, Jona Greve, B. Strauss
{"title":"Moving in the presence of others - a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Edda van Meurs, Jona Greve, B. Strauss","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/25wh7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social facilitation is one of the most prominent and oldest research topics in (social) psychology. It is the “increase in response merely from the sight or sound of others making the same movement” (Allport, 1924, p. 262) or conditions of “sheer presence of other individuals” (Zajonc, 1965, p. 269). Experiments found facilitation, inhibition or no effect (Bond & Titus, 1983), argued to be a function of task difficulty (Zajonc, 1965). In humans, cognitive tasks have been studied more frequently than motor tasks. Skill-based tasks (i.e., coordination-based) are hypothesized to be negatively affected by the presence of others due to a higher cognitive load (overload hypothesis, Manstead & Semin, 1980), whereas performances in effort-based tasks (i.e., condition-based) should profit due to increased readiness.In a first step, a systematic search of several databases was conducted, identifying articles comparing motor-task performance in the presence of or in coaction with others and alone. We identified N=72 articles investigating motor-related human performance (5,419 participants), published between 1924 and 2019. Effort-based tasks appeared to be facilitated, while within skill-based tasks, differences between tasks performed under time pressure and precision pressure were identified (cf. Bond & Titus, 1983).In a second step, we conducted a meta-analysis (N=28) with subsequent moderator analyses. The results generally align with the systematic review. Moreover, the experimenter’s influential presence was emphasized. Finally, this review supports the overload hypothesis and draws conclusions for the state of the theory and experimental limitations specific to social-facilitation research on motor tasks.","PeriodicalId":47658,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/25wh7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HOSPITALITY, LEISURE, SPORT & TOURISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Social facilitation is one of the most prominent and oldest research topics in (social) psychology. It is the “increase in response merely from the sight or sound of others making the same movement” (Allport, 1924, p. 262) or conditions of “sheer presence of other individuals” (Zajonc, 1965, p. 269). Experiments found facilitation, inhibition or no effect (Bond & Titus, 1983), argued to be a function of task difficulty (Zajonc, 1965). In humans, cognitive tasks have been studied more frequently than motor tasks. Skill-based tasks (i.e., coordination-based) are hypothesized to be negatively affected by the presence of others due to a higher cognitive load (overload hypothesis, Manstead & Semin, 1980), whereas performances in effort-based tasks (i.e., condition-based) should profit due to increased readiness.In a first step, a systematic search of several databases was conducted, identifying articles comparing motor-task performance in the presence of or in coaction with others and alone. We identified N=72 articles investigating motor-related human performance (5,419 participants), published between 1924 and 2019. Effort-based tasks appeared to be facilitated, while within skill-based tasks, differences between tasks performed under time pressure and precision pressure were identified (cf. Bond & Titus, 1983).In a second step, we conducted a meta-analysis (N=28) with subsequent moderator analyses. The results generally align with the systematic review. Moreover, the experimenter’s influential presence was emphasized. Finally, this review supports the overload hypothesis and draws conclusions for the state of the theory and experimental limitations specific to social-facilitation research on motor tasks.
在他人在场的情况下移动——一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
社会便利化是(社会)心理学中最突出、最古老的研究课题之一。它是“仅仅从其他人做出同样动作的景象或声音中做出的反应的增加”(Allport,1924,第262页)或“其他人的纯粹存在”的条件(Zajonc,1965,第269页)。实验发现,促进、抑制或没有效果(Bond&Titus,1983),被认为是任务难度的函数(Zajonc,1965)。在人类中,认知任务的研究频率高于运动任务。假设基于技能的任务(即基于协调的任务)由于较高的认知负荷而受到他人存在的负面影响(过载假设,Manstead&Semin,1980),而基于努力的任务(如基于条件的任务)的表现应因准备度的提高而受益。在第一步中,对几个数据库进行了系统的搜索,确定了在存在他人或与他人合作以及单独的情况下比较运动任务表现的文章。我们发现,在1924年至2019年间发表了72篇研究运动相关人类表现的文章(5419名参与者)。基于努力的任务似乎更容易完成,而在基于技能的任务中,在时间压力和精度压力下完成的任务之间存在差异(参见Bond&Titus,1983)。在第二步中,我们进行了荟萃分析(N=28),随后进行了调节因子分析。结果通常与系统审查一致。此外,实验者的影响力也得到了强调。最后,这篇综述支持了超负荷假说,并对运动任务的社会促进研究的理论状态和实验局限性得出了结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
17.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology is the first scholarly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes critical reviews of research literature in sport and exercise psychology. Typically, these reviews evaluate relevant conceptual and methodological issues in the field and provide a critique of the strengths and weaknesses of empirical studies that address common themes or hypotheses. The reviews present summaries of, and conclusions about, the current state of knowledge concerning topics of interest, as well as assessments of relevant unresolved issues and future trends. Reviews of research literature on theories, topics and issues that are at the interface with mainstream psychology are especially welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信