Situations that elicit social facilitation include coaction, performing for an audience, and appears to depend on task complexity.
[10] This idea was further explored when some studies showed that the presence of a passive audience facilitated the better performance of a simple task, while other studies showed that the presence of a passive audience inhibited the performance of a more difficult task or one that was not well practiced, possibly due to psychological pressure or stress.
[8] However, at this time, social facilitation simply meant an "increase in response merely from the sight or sound of others making the same movement.
"[5] Hazel Markus of the University of Michigan conducted an experiment to test the hypothesis that the mere presence of others can influence an individual's performance.
Compared to the alone condition, both social conditions (audience and incidental audience) enhanced performance on the well-learned aspects of the task of dressing and undressing with the subject's own familiar clothing and hindered the subject's performance on the more complex aspects of the task of dressing and undressing using unfamiliar clothing.
However, what Zajonc found that was revolutionary in this time period was that, when people attempt to perform tasks which are more complex or with which they are not familiar, they complete it with less accuracy when in the presence of others than when they alone.
In 1965, Robert Zajonc developed the stern activation theory, by proposing his generalized drive hypothesis for social facilitation.
Zajonc's generalized drive hypothesis was the first theory that addressed why the presence of others increased performance sometimes yet decreased it at other times.
[5] The monitoring hypothesis posits that social facilitation effects do not occur when the performer is familiar with the observers or the situation.
This theory also explains the evaluative pressure as the source of increased productivity in presence of others rather than the arousal response identified by Zajonc.
This motivation leads people to behave in ways to form good impressions and therefore results in social facilitation in evaluative situations.
A meta-analysis done by Bond found that even when individuals are in the presence of a non-visible or non-evaluative audience, activation still occurs for an increase in dominant responses.
On the other hand, individuals with negative orientation are defined by characteristics such as low self esteem, inhibited and feeling threatened by presence of other people.
On more complex and difficult tasks, however, the increase in drive is not enough to counteract the detrimental effects of distraction and therefore results in impaired performance.
[19] The possible embarrassment that occurs with negative evaluation leads to activation of arousal, or increased drive which will cause more dominant effects.
In 1994, De Castro demonstrated that social facilitation affects food intake by extending the time spent eating a meal.
These results suggest that the presence of other people at a meal increases intake by extending the time spent at the meal, probably as a result of social interaction, and that family and friends have an even larger effect, probably by producing relaxation and a consequent disinhibition of restraint on intake.
The small audience consisted of four to eight upper classmen and graduate students and was an equal number of men and women.
Contrary to Zajonc's drive-arousal theory, it was found that the effect of an audience on performance did not differ significantly between novice and expert players.
This experiment lends support to the idea that the presence of others leads to social facilitation effects in animals similar to those found in humans.
[32] In 1969, Zajonc, Heingartner, and Herman found evidence for social facilitation in animals with limited or no cognitive processing.
This trend had previously been limited to face-to-face or group settings, but electronic performance monitoring establishes the impact of social facilitation in a virtual sense.
Moreover, with the exception of those working in a cohesive group, monitoring was found to increase workers' feelings of stress and anxiety.
[25] In 2009, Thompson, Sebastienelli and Murray conducted an experiment to determine the effect of electronic monitoring on students who used web-based training to learn new online search skills.
These findings adhere to the basic premise of social facilitation and reveal that the heightened awareness of evaluation on complex tasks significantly hinders performance.
In a study in which participants had to learn a list of words, they were too embarrassed to rehearse the material out aloud and as a consequence of this group pressure, their performance suffered.
[33] Business can also use social facilitation to their advantage, specifically in online auctions, which takes into the account the emergence of instant messaging and communication availability technologies.
The interaction between buyers and sellers in traditional, face-to-face markets creates phenomena such as social facilitation, where the presence of others impacts behaviour and performance.
[37] In light of certain weaknesses and inadequacies of drive theory explanation, social facilitation is argued to be in need for a more cognitive approach.
A more cognitive model constructed in an expectancy theory framework is shown as a plausible alternative explanation for employee performance and the effects of social facilitation.