What was noticed of the cycling competitions that inspired the study?
- noticed cyclists ride faster when in a group
- analysis looked at: races against other riders, paced races against time, unpaced races against time
- results: races against other riders and paced races are faster than unpaced races
- improvements over unpaced races: races against other riders (26% speed increase), paced races (23% increase)
What were the theories for the cycling competitions?
- suction (vacuum left behind the pacing machine draws the rider following along with it)
- shelter (following a rider provides shelter from wind resistance)
- encouragement (the presence of a friend on the pacing machine to encourage and keep up the spirits of the rider)
- worry (leading a race or keeping the pace requires a greater deal of concentration or worry than following a pace)
- hypnotic suggestion (strained attention to the wheel of the pacing bike produces hypnotism)
- automatic (followers can ride automatically as they need to pay less attention to strategy)
- dynamogenic (this theory of competition holds that the bodily presence of another rider is a stimulus to the racer in arousing the competitive instinct, that another can thus be the means of releasing or freeing nervous energy)
What were the highlighted limitations of his cycling data?
- difference in pacing is due to the type of men that take part in the paced vs unpaced races rather than the type of race causing the differences specifically, men fast at one kind of racing are found to be comparatively slow at another, racer finds by experience that race in which they’re best fitted to excel and specialize in that
- would’ve been stronger if he had a within-subjects design where they took place in each of the conditions (naturally occurring data so it’s void of demand characteristics)
Who were the participants of the experiment?
- 40 children
- aged 8-17
What was the method of the experiment?
- competition machine: 2 fishing reels that each pull a flag across a 4m circuit when reeled rapidly
- stopwatch and kymograph: record the time and a graphical record of the rate at which participants turned the fishing reel
- practice rounds: until all children are familiar with the machine
- trials: 6 trials of 4 rounds, lasting 30-40 seconds each, 5 minutes rest inbetween
- group A (alone, competition, alone, competition, alone, competition) and group B (alone, alone, competition, alone, competition, alone)
What were the results of the experiment?
- no statistical analysis at the time; presentation of raw data and drawings
- 3 tables presented: positively stimulated (faster times in competition), overstimulated (slower times in competition), little affected (same times competition and alone)
What was the interpretation of the findings?
-overstimulated children: interpretation that it’s not a lack of motivation, but rather an overstimulation of wanting to desperately win so they got tense almost that they couldn’t do it fast enough rather than them being slow because they gave up
What was the statistical analysis of Triplett’s data?
Strube, 2005
- Triplett didn’t have statistical techniques available
- Strube’s analysis of Triplett’s data shows: significant competition effect in trial 3 between A (competition) and B (alone)- no other significant differences
- within-subjects analysis: contrast between average competition times and average alone times shows significant but small difference
- small reduction of 1.81% in trial times
What was the debate on the over-stimulation?
- Triplett made detailed suggestions on the processes behind the effects he observed
- other researchers looked more closely at when groups reduce performance: Ringelmann (social loafing), Zajonc (social facilitation and social loafing in animals and humans), Latane (social inhibition/social loafing)
What is the Ringelmann effect?
- Ringelmann conducted studies in the 1880s that examined how group size affects individual effort
- task: men in groups of different sizes pull on a rope
- result: increase in total force exerted is less than would be expected from the addition of individual scores
- something akin to motivational loss, a kind of diffusion of responsibility
What is Zajonc’s integration?
- inconsistencies in findings regarding social facilitation stifle research
- uses drive theory to explain inconsistencies: presence of other people as arousal source, arousal tends to facilitate dominant response, simple/well-learned (dominant responses tend to be correct), complex/novel tasks (dominant responses usually incorrect/inefficient)
How is social facilitation research different to social loafing research?
- social facilitation research: observers/co-actors/audience members, leads to arousal, evaluation, distraction (people around you don’t necessarily help with individual task)
- social loafing research: co-workers or teammates, opportunity to reduce efforts
What are the features of high-quality research?
-by publishing the first social psychological experiment, Triplett set the standard providing some hallmarks of good research: multiple methodologies, multiple theories and competing hypotheses, precision and attention to detail, modelling of real-world dynamics in a controlled environment, control of confounding variables
What impact did it have on social facilitation and social loafing?
- sparked hundreds of studies on way the presence of other people affects individual motivation and effort
- different others: observers, co-actors/co-workers, audiences
- different tasks: simple/well-learned, complex/novel
- animals and humans
- underlying processes
- development of theories
