Abstract
The importance of social context in affecting attention has recently been highlighted by the finding that the presence of a passive, nonevaluative confederate can improve selective attention. The underlying mechanism, however, remains unclear. In this paper, we argue that social facilitation can be caused by distractor inhibition. Two distinct sources of evidence are provided from an experiment employing the Stroop task with and without social presence. First, analysis of the response time (RT) distribution indicates that interference is reduced at relatively long RTs. This is consistent with an inhibitory mechanism, whose effects build up slowly. Further support is provided by showing that social facilitation is prevented by using short response-to-stimulus intervals that are thought to reduce cognitive control processes.
Article PDF
References
Baron, R. S. (1986). Distraction-conflict theory: Progress and problems. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 1–36). Orlando: Academic Press.
Chen, Z. (2003). Attentional focus, processing load, and Stroop interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 888–900.
Cohen, S. (1978). Environmental load and the allocation of attention. In A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. Valins (Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology (pp. 1–30). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dumas, F., Huguet, P., & Ayme, E. (2005). Social context effects in the Stroop task: When knowledge of one’s relative standing makes a difference. Current Psychology Letters: Cognition, Brain, & Behaviour, 16, 1–12.
Eimer, M. (1999). Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of masked prime stimuli on motor activation and behavioral performance. Acta Psychologica, 101, 293–313. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00009-8
Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effects of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1737–1747. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1737
Guerin, B. (1993). Social facilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harkins, S. G. (2006). Mere effort as the mediator of the evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 91, 436–455. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.436
Houghton, G., & Tipper, S. P. (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In D. D. Dagenbach & T. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 53–112). San Diego: Academic Press.
Huguet, P., Dumas, F., & Monteil, J.-M. (2004). Competing for a desired reward in the Stroop task: When attentional control is unconscious but effective versus conscious but ineffective. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 153–167. doi:10.1037/h0087441
Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J.-M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: Further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77, 1011–1023. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1011
Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. G. (2007). Mere effort and stereotype threat performance effects. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 93, 544–564. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.544
Klauer, K. C., Herfordt, J., & Voss, A. (2008). Social presence effects on the Stroop task: Boundary conditions and an alternative account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 469–476. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.009
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
Markus, H. (1978). The effect of mere presence on social facilitation: An unobtrusive test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 389–397. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(78)90034-3
McFall, S. R., Jamieson, J. P., & Harkins, S. G. (2009). Testing the mere effort account of the evaluation-performance relationship. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96, 135–154. doi:10.1037/ a0012878
Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422–471. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.422
Muller, D., Atezeni, T., & Butera, F. (2004). Coaction and upward social comparison reduce the illusory conjunction effect: Support for distraction-conflict theory. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 659–665. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.12.003
Rabbitt, P. [M. A.] (1980). The effects of R-S interval duration on serial choice reaction time: Preparation time or response monitoring time? Ergonomics, 23, 65–77. doi:10.1080/00140138008924719
Rabbitt, P. M. A., & Maylor, E. A. (1991). Investigating models of human performance. British Journal of Psychology, 82, 259–290.
Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 494–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ridderinkhof, K. R., Scheres, A., Oosterlaan, J., & Sergeant, J. A. (2005). Delta plots in the study of individual differences: New tools reveal response inhibition deficits in AD/HD that are eliminated by methylphenidate treatment. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 197–215. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.197
Ridderinkhof, K. R., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Wijnen, J., & Burle, B. (2004). Response inhibition in conflict tasks is revealed in delta plots. In M. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (pp. 369–377). New York: Guilford Press.
Sharma, D., & McKenna, F. P. (2001). The role of time pressure on the emotional Stroop task. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 471–481. doi:10.1348/000712601162293
Stroop, J. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 653–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651
Van Selst, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631–650.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by ESRC Grant RE S-000-22-0534 to Dinkar Sharma and Rupert Brown. We thank Kristina Massey for help with data collection.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R. et al. Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 52–58 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.52
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.52