ebook img

Presence of Others and Arousal PDF

13 Pages·2004·0.99 MB·English
by  
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Presence of Others and Arousal

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Copyright 1997 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 1997, Vol. ],No. 1,52-64 I089-2699/97/S3.00 Presence of Others and Arousal: An Integration Brian Mullen and Birgit Bryant James E. Driskell Syracuse University Florida Maxima Corporation A meta-analytic integration of research evidence revealed that there was, in general, a marginally significant, small tendency for the presence of others to decrease self-reports of arousal and a significant, small tendency for the presence of others to increase electrodermal responses. However, these effects were moderated by the type of situation and the type of others present. Arousal is increased on both measures in neutral situations for both coactor others and audience others; arousal is increased on both measures in aversive situations for audience others. In aversive situations, coactors rendered an increase in arousal on electrodermal responses but a decrease in arousal on self-report responses. Discussion considers theoretical accounts for these effects of the presence of others on arousal. Hell is alone—T.S. Eliot, 1950 Paradox of the Presence of Others Hell is—other people!—J.P. Sartre, !944 and Arousal The beneficial and deleterious effects of the presence of other people are summed up in these Theory and research in social psychology two maxims: On the one hand, other people leads to two opposing predictions regarding might provide resources necessary for coping what it is like to be in a group. On the one hand, with a stressful situation, and the very presence Schachter's (1959) classic studies of affiliation of others might in some ways be arousal- stimulated the consideration of the arousal- decreasing. On the other hand, other people may decreasing effects of the presence of others. contribute to a stressful environment, and the Subsequent research has examined the reduction very presence of others might in some ways be of arousal that can result from affiliation in the arousal-increasing. Two separate lines of social face of stressful environments (e.g., Wrights- psychological research have pursued these man, 1960). The underlying mechanism for this characterizations of what it is like to be in a arousal decrease might be informational: Other group, with little or no consideration of the people have the potential to provide useful paradox represented by these opposing possibili- information about what to expect and how to ties. The purpose of our effort is to integrate the behave (Epley, 1973; Friedman, 1981). Alterna- evidence regarding this paradox and to consider tively, other people may provide social support a plausible resolution of this paradox that or a sense of "safety in numbers" (Bovard, specifies the interactive effects of the situation 1959; Vaux, 1988). The arousal-decreasing and the types of others present. effects of groups have been recognized in a variety of applied contexts, including self-help and psychotherapeutic groups (e.g., Rose, 1993). Brian Mullen and Birgit Bryant, Department of Psychol- ogy, Syracuse University; James E. Driskell, Florida On the other hand, Zajonc's (1965) classic Maxima Corporation, Winter Park, Florida. formulation of the drive—arousal model of social This research was supported by Contract MDA 903-90-C- facilitation stimulated the consideration of the 0102 with the Army Research Institute. The article is based, arousal-enhancing effects of the presence of in part, on results presented in April 1993 at the 64th annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Arling- others. Subsequent research has examined the ton, Virginia. We express our appreciation to the authors of increased arousal that can result from the the original studies, who provided supplementary informa- presence of other people (e.g., Geen, 1973). The tion needed for inclusion in this integration, and to Jim Blascovish, Don Forsyth, and Blair Johnson for their helpful underlying mechanism for this arousal increase comments. has been a topic of considerable speculation and Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- debate in the literature. Other people have the dressed to Brian Mullen, Department of Psychology, potential to require a readiness to accommodate Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13210. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to [email protected]. interactions (Zajonc, 1980), stimulate periodic 52 PRESENCE OF OTHERS AND AROUSAL 53 social monitoring (Guerin & Innes, 1982), A Possible Resolution engender apprehension about being evaluated (Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, & Rittle, 1968), or This paradox might find its resolution in generate attentional conflict (Baron, Moore, & Kiesler's (1966) speculations regarding some Sanders, 1978; Sanders & Baron, 1975). unexpected patterns in studies of stress and A clear summary of the effects of the presence performance. Kiesler, especially on page 234, of others on arousal cannot be formulated from a suggested that when arousal is low, the presence narrative reading of previous research. One line of coacting others may increase arousal, whereas of research suggests that groups may experience when arousal is high, the presence of coacting a decrease in arousal by virtue of the presence of others may decrease arousal. In other words, others; the other line of research suggests that either the arousal decrease posited by Schachter groups may experience an increase in arousal by (1959) or the arousal increase posited by Zajonc virtue of the presence of others. This paradox (1965) could occur, depending on the degree of was articulated by Cottrell (1968) and has not arousal engendered by the situation. To evaluate been resolved in 30 years of research. Ironically, the veracity of this possible resolution, the two these two lines of research are part of the staple elements of this interaction, the type of situation corpus of social psychology. For example, the and the other people present in the situation, decrease in arousal through the presence of require careful scrutiny. others is described in the interpersonal attraction chapter of Baron and Byrne's (1994) popular Type of Situation social psychology text, and the increase in arousal through the presence of others is Various types of situations have been used to presented in their chapter on groups. Yet, study the effects of the presence of others on nowhere in this text is Cottrell's articulation of arousal, and the available research sorts itself this paradox cited, and nowhere are these two readily into two fairly straightforward catego- apparently opposing lines of research brought ries. On the one hand, the effects of the presence together. Unfortunately, this pattern is quite of others has been studied in aversive settings, in common (cf. Deaux & Wrightsman, 1988; which the participants are engaged in an Forsyth, 1990). embarrassing behavior (e.g., Jackson & Latane\ It is intriguing to note how these two 1981, Study 2) or exposed to some fearful apparently opposing lines of research on reac- stimulus (e.g., MacDonald, 1970). On the other tions to groups have independently contributed hand, the effects of the presence of others has to other disciplines. It seems that only one or the been studied in neutral settings, in which the other of these lines of research on the effects of participants are engaged in some innocuous task the presence of others tend to get cited in other (e.g., Berger, 1981) or are simply waiting (e.g., disciplines. For example, the arousal-decreasing Elliot & Cohen, 1981). Although somewhat effects of the presence of others are cited and broad, this classification of situations into either discussed in organizational theory texts (e.g., neutral or aversive is straightforward and Hersey & Blanchard, 1977; Scott & Mitchell, unambiguous and seems likely to capture the 1976); however, the possible arousal-increasing essence of the interaction implied by Kiesler's effects of others are not mentioned. Alterna- (1966) speculations: Neutral settings would be tively, the arousal-increasing effects of the expected to generate low levels of arousal (and presence of others are cited and discussed in thereby set the stage for the presence of others to sport psychology texts (e.g., Butt, 1987; Wein- increase arousal), and aversive settings would berg & Gould, 1995), but the possible arousal- be expected to generate high levels of arousal decreasing effects of others are not mentioned. (and thereby set the stage for the presence of In addition to the theoretical importance of this others to decrease arousal). long-unresolved paradox, it is imperative to clarify the effects of the presence of others on Type of Others arousal for the sake of these neighboring disciplines that base their own conceptualiza- The others present in the situation can tions and applications on one or the other part of manifest their presence in different ways. A this paradox. relatively small number of the studies have 54 MULLEN, BRYANT, AND DRISKELL included conditions examining the effects of are typically instructed or trained to minimize mere presence others, people who are not these cues (e.g., Geen, 1973). However, audi- engaged in the same behavior as the participant ence others would seem likely to stimulate and who are explicitly not present to monitor periodic social monitoring, engender apprehen- and observe the participant's behavior. Indeed, sion about being evaluated, or generate atten- mere presence others are typically presented as tional conflict, so they would be likely to working on some other task and as not being a engender some arousal increase. part of the participant's experiment (e.g., Geen, Finally, most of the studies in this area have 1973). Mere presence others would be expected examined the effects of coactor others, people to exert minimal effects on arousal: They can who are engaged in the same behavior as the provide very little in the way of social support participant (e.g., Amoroso & Walters, 1969). and/or useful information about what to expect Coactor others would be expected to exert both and how to behave in an aversive situation, so arousal-decreasing effects and arousal-increas- they would not be likely to engender much ing effects. Because the coactor (unlike the mere arousal decrease. Also, they would seem un- presence other or the audience other) is likely to require a readiness to accommodate engaging in the same task in the aversive interactions, stimulate periodic social monitor- situation as the participant, the coactor may ing, engender apprehension about being evalu- provide some social support and/or useful ated, or generate attentional conflict, so they information about what to expect and how to would not be likely to engender much arousal behave in aversive situations, so that they would increase. be likely to engender some arousal decrease. Some of the studies have examined the effects Also, the coactor would seem likely to require a of audience others, people who are not engaged readiness to accommodate interactions, stimu- in the same behavior as the participant but who late periodic social monitoring, engender appre- are explicitly present to monitor and observe the hension about being evaluated, or generate participant's behavior (e.g., Borden, Hendrick, attentional conflict, so they would be likely to & Walker, 1976). Audience others can provide engender some arousal increase. little in the way of social support and/or useful information about what to expect or how to Interaction Between Situations and Others behave in an aversive situation, so they would not be likely to engender much arousal decrease. Table 1 presents the possible interactions Although some information could be conveyed between types of situations and types of others. by audience others' facial or postural cues, These interactions depict the extent to which audience others in these experimental scenarios arousal-decreasing mechanisms and arousal- Table 1 Predicted Interactions of Type of Situation and Type of Others Neutral situations Aversive situations Mere Mere Variable presence Coactor Audience presence Coactor Audience Mechanisms increasing Low High High Low High High arousal (stimulate readi- ness to interact, social monitoring, evaluation apprehension, attentional conflict) Mechanisms decreasing Low Low Low Low High Low arousal (providing social support, providing useful information about what to expect and how to behave) Net change in arousal None Increase Increase None Increase Increase or decrease PRESENCE OF OTHERS AND AROUSAL 55 increasing mechanisms can be engaged in a typified the work of many arousal theorists given situation by the various types of others. leaves us to infer the scientific meaning of For example, mere presence others do not seem arousal from its empirical operational defini- particularly potent sources of either the arousal- tions. Insofar as the present effort represents an decreasing mechanisms or the arousal-increas- attempt to evaluate the weight of available ing mechanisms, and their presence would be evidence (which is de facto based upon the likely to yield little net change in arousal in operational definitions already used in previous either type of situation. Audience others would research efforts), we are compelled to follow be expected to exert robust arousal-increasing this principle of operationalism, in which the effects in both neutral situations and aversive meaning of the term arousal is determined by situations. In neutral situations, there is little the procedures or operations used to measure it. need for others to reduce arousal, and the The construct of arousal has most often been presence of audience others would be likely to operationally defined in terms of self-report yield a net increase in arousal. Although responses. These self-reports have typically participants might turn to audience others to taken the form of Likert-type, or rating, scales or reduce arousal in aversive situations, audience adjective checklists variously labeled as "anxi- others would be likely to be only minimally ety" (e.g., Wrightsman, 1959), "tension" (e.g., useful in this regard, and their presence would Jackson & Latane, 1981), or "arousal" (e.g., still yield a net increase in arousal in aversive Elliot & Cohen, 1981). Although these scales situations. Finally, coactor others would be and checklists may be variously labeled, they all expected to exert both arousal-decreasing ef- require self-report on highly similar sets of fects and arousal-increasing effects, depending items (e.g., uneasy, anxious, restless, tense, on the situation. In neutral situations, there is aroused, and nervous). These items tend to be of little need for others to reduce arousal, so roughly equivalent emotionality ratings and to coactor others would not be likely to engender share relatively high free-association frequency much arousal-decrease in neutral situations and (e.g., John, 1988), which supports the notion the presence of coactor others would yield a net that these various self-report indexes are tapping increase in arousal in neutral situations. In into a common underlying construct of arousal. aversive situations, although these arousal- The construct of arousal has also been operation- increasing effects would remain intact, coactor ally defined in terms of physiological responses. others could also serve to reduce arousal. These physiological responses have included Whether coactor others yield a net decrease or various parameters of heart rate (e.g., Amoroso increase in arousal in aversive situations re- & Walters, 1969), palmar sweat index (e.g., mains an empirical question, determined by the Elliot & Cohen, 1981), pupillary responses relative strengths of the arousal-increasing and (Simpson & Molloy, 1971), and electrodermal arousal-decreasing effects of coactors. responses (e.g., Borden et al., 1976). Thus, mere presence others might be ex- Studies examining the effects of the presence pected to exert minimal effects on arousal in of others using self-reports dramatically outnum- either neutral situations or aversive situations, ber those using physiological indices. In part, audience others would be expected to exert this may be because self-reports of arousal have robust arousal-increasing effects in both neutral been, and continue to be, eminently easier to situations and aversive situations, and coactor collect than are accurate and defensible physi- others would be expected to increase arousal in ological indicators. Alternatively, this may be neutral situations and to either increase or because the monotonic relation between opera- decrease arousal in aversive situations. tionalization and underlying construct is tauto- logical for self-reports: Participants who report Operational Definitions of Arousal that they feel more aroused are assumed to feel more aroused than participants who report that A major difficulty in the theoretical use of they feel less aroused. However, as discussed by arousal has been the failure to develop a clear Blascovich and Kelsey (1990), "for both and unequivocal definition of this ubiquitous yet cardiovascular and electrodermal measures there fuzzy construct. As delineated by Blascovich are many intrinsic influences that may confound (1992), the definitional imprecision that has an arousal interpretation of such measures" (p. 56 MULLEN, BRYANT, AND DRISKELL 64). For example, a participant who evidences electrodermal responses. As discussed earlier, an increase in some specific parameter of heart we expected that mere presence others would rate cannot be assumed to be more aroused than exert little effect on arousal, audience others a participant who evidences a decrease in that would increase arousal in both neutral situations parameter (see Blascovich, 1992; Blascovich & and aversive situations, and coactor others Kelsey, 1990; Lacey, 1956; Williams, Bittker, would increase arousal in neutral situations and Buchsbaum, & Wynne, 1975). either increase or decrease arousal in aversive Electrodermal responses are by far the most situations. common physiological index of arousal used in the study of the effects of the presence of others Method (Blascovich & Kelsey, 1990). Also, studies using this "most common" physiological indica- Using all of the standard literature search tech- tor are still scarce compared with the number of niques, an exhaustive search was conducted for studies using self-reports. Electrodermal re- studies testing the effect of the presence of other sponses are considered to be a "widely accepted people on arousal. Specifically, on-line computer measure" (Blascovich & Kelsey, 1990, p. 58), searches were conducted, using the keywords group(s), coaction, audience, presence, or people, and stress, even if they are not a "magical litmus test" arousal, anxiety, galvanic skin response, or electroder- (Blascovich & Kelsey, p. 64), of arousal The mal response. These computer searches were supple- relatively wide acceptance of electrodermal mented by ancestry approach and descendency responses leads us to consider the effects of the approach searches, correspondence with researchers presence of others on electrodermal responses as active in this domain (the "invisible college"), and well as on self-reports of arousal. Note that this browsing through the past 30 years of social decision to focus our efforts on these two most psychology, applied psychology, and psychophysiol- common operational definitions of arousal ogy journals (see Mullen, 1989, for a discussion of literature search techniques). It should be emphasized (self-reports and electrodermal responses) al- that ail available previous reviews (e.g., Blascovich & lows us to maintain some degree of clarity in our Kelsey, 1990; Bond & Titus, 1983; Cacioppo & Petty, definitions of arousal while maximizing the 1986; Geen, 1989; Guerin, 1986; Shapiro & Crider, amount of available evidence that can be 1969; inter alia) were carefully scrutinized for included in our effort. potentially includable studies. Any studies that were available as of July 1996 were eligible for inclusion in this integration. A Meta-Analytic Integration Studies were included if they met the following In an effort to resolve the paradox of the criteria: Participants in the studies had to be effects of the presence of others on arousal, a adolescents or adults not sampled from abnormal meta-analytic integration (Mullen, 1989; Mullen populations. Studies had to report (or intelligibly imply) a comparison between either self-reports of & Rosenthal, 1985; Rosenthal, 1991) was arousal or electrodermal responses obtained when the conducted. The purpose of this integration was participant was alone versus those obtained in the to determine whether the weight of the available presence of others. Studies were not included that evidence would confirm or disconfirm the examined the effect of the implied presence of others resolution of the paradox developed above. That through one-way mirrors (e.g., Friedman, 1981) or is, the present effort was undertaken to deter- the imagined presence of hypothetical stimulus mine the conditions under which being in a people (e.g., Jackson & Latane". 1981, Study 1), or group increases arousal and the conditions under that used a control condition in which participants were not actually alone (Allen, Blascovich, Tomaka, which being in a group decreases arousal. Hie & Kelsey, 1991). The effect of these criteria for specific goals of this effort were (a) to provide a inclusion was to focus on the effects of the presence precise summary of the significance, the strength, of real people on arousal in studies that were and the direction of the effects of the presence of optimally homogeneous in methodological terms. others on arousal; (b) to examine the possible Hypothesis tests were coded as having a positive moderation of this effect by the type of situation direction of effect if the presence of others increased and the type of others present; and (c) to arousal, and as having a negative direction of effect if examine differences between results based on the presence of others decreased arousal. self-reports of arousal and those based on These selection criteria rendered a total of 16 PRESENCE OF OTHERS AND AROUSAL 57 studies using self-reports of arousal (Amoroso & Self-Report Versus Electrodermal Response Walters, 1969; Berger, 1981; Borden et al., 1976; Cohen, 1980; Elliot & Cohen, 1981; Epley, 1973; For the k — 34 hypothesis tests that used Geen, 1973; Henchy & Glass, 1968; Jackson & self-report, there was a marginally significant, Latane, 1981, Study 2; MacDonald, 1970; McKinney, Z = 1.480, p = .0694, small, Z - -0.022, Gatchel, & Paulus, 1983; Sullins, 1991; Taylor, Fisher r = — .022, tendency for the presence of others Wheeler, & Airman, 1968; Thomas & Geen, 1985; to decrease arousal. For the k — 15 hypothesis Wrightsman, 1959; Zuckerman, Persky, Link, & Basu, 1968). The 16 studies yielded 34 separate tests tests that used electrodermal response, there was of the effects of the presence of others on arousal, a significant, Z = 4.718, p = .0000012, small, representing the responses of 1,560 participants. Also, ^Fisher = 0.184, r = .182, tendency for the these selection criteria rendered a total of 8 studies presence of others to increase arousal. These two using electrodermal responses (Buck & Parke, 1972; Geen, 1979; Glass, Gordon, & Henchy, 1970; Kissel, 1965; Moore, Baron, Logel, Sanders, & Weerts, 1988; Shapiro, Leiderman, & Morningstar, 1964; Shearn, 1 The included studies reported varying numbers of Bergman, Hill, Abel, & Hinds, 1992; Snydersmith & hypothesis tests, ranging from one per study (e.g., Borden et al., 1976) to four per study (e.g., Shearn et al., 1992). In the Cacioppo, 1992). These 8 studies yielded 15 separate meta-analysis reported, each hypothesis test was treated as tests of the effects of the presence of others on an independent observation. This assumption of indepen- arousal, representing the responses of 622 partici- dence is patently false. For example, each of the four pants.1 hypothesis tests included in Shearn et al. was derived from In addition to the requisite statistical information, the same participant population at the same time. However, each hypothesis test was independently coded by two without making this assumption of nonindependence, one would be forced to select the "best" hypothesis test from a judges for two predictors. The type of situation for study, such as that of Shearn et al., or to pool the results from each hypothesis test was coded as neutral (e.g., the reported hypothesis tests into a single test. In the present waiting for the experiment to begin; performing context, these alternatives seem even more arbitrary and verbal problems) or aversive (e.g., impending electric capricious than the present assumption of independence. shock; performing some embarrassing behavior). The The effects of this assumption of independence are type of others for each hypothesis test was coded as examined later in the article. mere presence (not performing the same tasks as the 2 In addition, we attempted to check the validity of this participant and not explicitly monitoring and observ- categorization of hypothesis tests into neutral versus ing the participant's behavior), coactor (performing aversive situations. Specifically, the type of situation used in the same tasks as the participant), or audience (not each of the 49 hypothesis tests included in this effort were independently judged by two judges on a scale ranging from performing the same tasks as the participant but 1 (would induce low arousal) to 7 (would induce high explicitly monitoring and observing the participant's arousal). Given an acceptably high level of interjudge behavior). Type of situation and type of others were agreement (r = .719; Spearman-Brown effective reliability, coded by the two judges with perfect interjudge R ~ .837), these two sets of judgments were averaged across agreement.2 The hypothesis tests included in this judges, and these 49 averaged judgments of arousal were meta-analysis, along with the corresponding statisti- subjected to a 2 (neutral vs. aversive) X 2 (self-report vs. cal information and predictors for each hypothesis electrodermal responses) analysis of variance. Supporting the validity of our categorization of hypothesis tests, the test, are presented in Table 2. mean judged arousal for the neutral situations (2.08) was significantly lower than that for aversive situations (4.93), F(l,45) = 180.192,/?= I.82E-16. It is surprising, however, Results that there was also a weaker but significant main effect for measurement paradigm, F(l, 45) = 11.057, p — .00088, as General Effect well as a significant interaction, F(l, 45) = 6.704, p = .00646. The neutral situations were equivalently nonarous- ing for both the self-report hypothesis tests (2.16) and the Overall, there was a nonsignificant, Z = electrodermal response hypothesis tests (2.00). However, 1.081, p = .1399, small, Z = 0.037, r = the aversive situations were considerably more arousing for Fisher .037, tendency for the presence of other people the self-report hypothesis tests (5.56) than for the electroder- mal response hypothesis tests (4.30). Thus, our categoriza- to increase arousal. However, this global compos- tion of hypothesis tests into neutral versus aversive ite collapses across the distinct operational situations in an effort to distinguish between situations that definitions of self-report versus electrodermal would induce low versus high levels of arousal seems valid. responses, as well as the effects of type of However, it is puzzling that the aversive situations used for electrodermal response studies were less arousing than diose situation and type of other, and should be used for self-report studies. interpreted with extreme caution. 58 MULLEN, BRYANT, AND DRISKELL Table 2 Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis Study Statistic Z r N DOEa Sb Other^ Self-reports Amoroso & Walters (1969) f(56) = 0.420 -0.418 -.056 30 - N C r(56) = 2.791 -2.689 -.349 30 - A C Berger(1981) F(l,22) = 3.109 1.686 .352 24 + N M Bordenetal.(1976) F(l,20) = 8.37 2.611 .543 24 + N A Cohen(1980) r(108) = 1.128 -1.122 -.108 80 - N M f(108) = 0.161 0.161 .015 80 + N A Elliot & Cohen (1981) f(88) - 2.172 2.138 .226 48 + N c f(88) = 1.168 1.160 .124 48 + N c ((88) = 1.510 1.496 .159 48 + N c Epley(1973) K194) = .028 0.390 .028 60 + A c r(194) = .088 1.226 .028 60 + A c Geen (1973) r(156) = 2.707 2.672 .212 40 + N A r(156) = 0.769 -0.767 -.061 40 - N M Henchy& Glass (1968) f(62) =0.891 -0.885 -.112 34 - N M ((62) - 2.582 2.506 .312 34 + N A Jackson & Latane (1981) ((47) = 2.320 -2.245 -.321 20 - A C r(47) = 1.932 -1.885 -.271 12 - A C ((47) - 3.045 -2.893 -.406 22 - A C f(47) = 2.932 -2.795 -.393 18 _ A C MacDonald(1970) ,(64) = 0.450 0.448 .056 40 + A C r(64) = 1.968 1.932 .239 40 + A C McKinney et al. (1983) r(40) = 0.420 0.417 .066 36 + A A r(40) = 0.931 0.920 .146 36 + A A Sullins(1991) f(66) - 0.601 0.598 .074 48 + N M f(66) = 0.342 -0.341 -.042 48 - N C Taylor etal. (1968) r(108) = 3.726 -3.606 -.337 44 _ A C ((108) - 3.637 -3.524 -.330 44 - A c ((108) = 4.469 -4.271 -.395 44 - A c ((108) = 4.659 -4.437 -.409 44 - A c Thomas & Geen (1985) ((60) - 1.502 1.482 .190 32 + N c ((60) = 0.529 0.526 .068 32 + N A Wrightsman (1959) Z = 0.703 -0.703 -.060 136 - A c Z-0.710 -0.710 -.061 136 A c Zuckennan ct al. (1968) ((69) - 0.000 0.000 .000 48 + A c Electrodermal responses Buck &Parke (1972) ((38) - 2.760 2.618 .409 40 + A c Geen (1979) F(l,72) = 12.09 3.331 .379 80 + N A ((72) - 6.239 5.559 .592 40 + A A Glass etal. (1970) ((67) = 0.670 0.666 .082 32 + A c ((67) = 1.765 1.738 .211 32 + A c Kissel (1965) ((83)- 1.593 -1.576 -.172 64 - A A ((83) = 3.846 -3.678 -.389 64 - A A Moore etal. (1988) ((9) = 2.660 -2.221 -.663 12 - N A Shapiro etal. (1964) r(82) = 2.567 2.510 .273 84 + N C Sheam etal. (1992) ((45) = 1.483 1.457 .216 32 t- A A ((45) - 0.270 0.268 .040 32 + A A r(45) = 2.292 2.217 .323 32 + A A ((45) - 5.259 4.617 .617 32 + A A Snydersmith & Cacioppo (1992) F(l,31) = 5.120 2.159 .376 23 + N A F(l, 31) = 0.040 0.198 .036 23 + N A a Direction of effect: Plus signs indicate presence of others increases arousal, minus signs indicate presence of others decreases arousal. b Situation: N = neutral situation; A = aversive situation. L Other: C = coactor others; A — audience others; M — mere presence others. PRESENCE OF OTHERS AND AROUSAL 59 04 , . 03 02 0) N u CO tj 0 1 $ LU J C ro 00 01 -0.2 M(SR) M(ED) C(SR) C(ED) A(SR) A(ED) M(SR) M(ED) C(SR) C(ED) A(SR) A(ED) Neutral Situations Aversive Situations Figure 1. Observed interactions of type of situation and type of others. M = mere presence; C = coaclor;A = audience; (SR) = self-report; (ED) = electroderma! response. effects were significantly different, Z = 3.299, tests for self-report for mere presence others in p = .000484.3 aversive situations. For electrodermal response, four combina- Effects of Type of Situation and Type tions of type of situation and type of other had of Other been examined in previous research. As shown in Figure 1, audience others rendered an Given this significant difference between self-report and electrodermal responses, the effects of type of situation and type of other 3 As indicated in Footnote 1, the assumption that each of were considered separately for each operational the 49 hypothesis tests represented an independent observa- definition of arousal. For self-report, five tion is false. However, it can be seen that such an assumption does not seem to render a distorted summary of this research combinations of type of situation and type of domain. Consider the results of a supplementary meta- other had been examined in previous research. analysis of wholly independent effects, in which multiple As shown in Figure 1, there was no change in hypothesis tests obtained from a single study were combined arousal as a result of mere presence others in into a single test. This heavy-handed solution precludes the examination of the effects of type of situation and type of neutral_situations, k — 5, Z — -0.742, p = other, but it does eliminate the problem of nonindependence. .2291, ZFisher = -0.011, 7 = -.011. Audience This produced 24 distinct, wholly independent hypothesis others rendered an increase in arousal in both tests, one from each includable study. The results of this neutral situations, k = 5, Z = 2.743,p = .00305, supplemental meta analysis revealed the same patterns zFisho- = 0.179, r = .177, and in ayersive reported above: For the it = 16 studies thauised self-report, there was a small, Z = 0.969, p = . 1664, Zpisi,,, = -0.021, situations, k = 2,Z = 0.945, p = .1722,ZRsher = r - -.021, tendency for the presence of others to decrease 0.107, r = .106. Coactor others rendered an arousal. For the k = 8 hypothesis tests that used increase in arousal in neutral situations, k = 6, electrodermal response, there was a small, Z — 3.597, p = .00016, ZKOM = 0.193, r = .191, tendency for the presence Z~ 2.356,p = .00924,ZFi = 0.107,7= .106, sher of others to increase arousal These results indicate that the but a decrease in arousal in aversive situations, degree of distortion engendered by the assumption of k - 16,_Z = 3.925, p = .000044, Z = independence of the original 48 hypothesis tests is (at worst) Fisher —0.130, r = —.129. There were no hypothesis tolerable. MULLEN, BRYANT, AND DR1SKELL increase in arousal in both neutral situations, increase arousal in aversive situations. As /C *+, ,£. - J»j/J, p .UvAJJ /) ^Fisher v7.i.J*T, discussed earlier, coactor others could serve as a r = .230, and in aversive situations, k = 7, Z = uniquely potent source of social support or 1.357, p - .0873, Zither - 0.108, r = .107. useful information, or both, in that aversive Coactor others also rendered an increase in situation. arousal in both neutral situations, k — 1, Z - Thus, both Schachter (1959) and Zajonc 2.510, p - .00060, Z = 0.280, r = .273, and (1965) were in part correct, and both Schachter FiBher in aversive situations, k — 3, Z = 3.007, /? = (1959) and Zajonc (1965) were in part incorrect. .00132, Z = 0.258, r = .252. There were no The paradox represented by these two opposing Fisher hypothesis tests for electrodermal responses for perspectives on the effects of the presence of mere presence others in either neutral situations others does indeed seem to find its resolution in or aversive situations. Kiesler's (1966) speculations regarding an interaction between the type of situation and the type of other people present in the situation. It Discussion bears emphasis that future summaries of the effects of the presence of others on arousal The patterns revealed in this integration are should take a more conditional form. The results consistent with Schachter's (1959) premise that summarized cannot clearly and unequivocally the presence of others can reduce arousal. support either the simple Schachterian position However, this premise must be qualified in or the simple Zajoncian position. several ways. It is true that coactor others may decrease arousal in aversive situations; however, Several elements of these results highlight coactor others do not decrease arousal in neutral some critical features of the topography of mis situations. As discussed earlier, there is little research domain. First, there is less than one half situation-induced arousal to be reduced in as much data to summarize for electrodermal neutral situations. In addition, audience others responses as there is for self-report (and recall do not reduce arousal in either neutral or that electrodermal response is the most common aversive situations. Also, as discussed earlier, physiological indicator in this research domain). audience others are not very potent sources of By dint of sheer numbers, we are thereby led to arousal-decreasing mechanisms. It is interesting have more confidence in the summary of results to note that the increase in arousal due to the for self-report than those for electrodermal presence of audience others was weaker in responses. However, it should be underscored aversive situations than in neutral situations, for that this position is not a reflection of the both self-reports and electrodermal responses. apparent bias toward the acceptance of self- This suggests (a) that participants might turn to report measures when they conflict with results audience others to provide social support and/or based on physiological measures (noted by useful information, about what to expect and Cacioppo & Petty, 1986). Rather, it is simply how to behave in aversive situations and (b) that based on the fact that we have twice as much minimal facial or postural cues from the data available for self-reports as we do for audience others might actually be somewhat electrodermal responses. useful in this regard. Nonetheless, the primary Second, the results for self-report and those effect of audience others in aversive situations for electrodermal response are generally in seems to be on social monitoring, evaluation agreement (specifically, arousal is increased on apprehension, and attentional conflict, rendering both measures in neutral situations for both a net increase in arousal. coactor others and for audience others; arousal The patterns revealed in this integration are is increased on both measures in aversive also consistent with Zajonc's (1965) premise situations for audience others). This runs that the presence of others can enhance arousal. counter to previous claims of a lack of any However, again, this premise must be qualified correspondence between self-reports of arousal in several ways. It is true that audience others and physiological indices (e.g., Glass et al., may increase arousal in both neutral situations 1970; Pennebaker & Hoover, 1984). Only one and aversive situations; however, mere presence inconsistency between these two operational others do not increase arousal in neutral definitions does emerge: the effects of coactor situations. In addition, coactor others do not others in aversive situations. This one inconsis- PRESENCE OF OTHERS AND AROUSAL 61 tency may be due to the relative paucity of data claims that electrodermal measures provide in this specific combination of type of situation little support for drive theory. and type of other for electrodermal responses Clearly, the present meta-analytic effort has (only 3 hypothesis tests), compared with self- served one of the broad and indirect goals of any reports (16 hypothesis tests). Moreover, the meta-analysis, to provide a useful compass small failsafe (fs) number for those three heading for primary-level researchers regarding electrodermal responses data points, N (p = the gaps in our nomological net (Mullen, 1989). fs .05) = 6.3, is smaller than Rosenthal's (1991) Subsequent research on the effects of the benchmark of "5* + 10," 5(3) + 10 = 25. This presence of others using any operational defini- indicates a comparatively lower tolerance for tions should certainly begin to explore the future null results than that documented for the effects of mere presence. The aversive settings 16 data points for self-reports, Nf(p = .05) = used for the study of electrodermal responses s 229.3, which exceeds the 16(3) + 10 = 58 have tended to be somewhat less arousing than those used for the study of self-report, and benchmark. For this reason, we have more subsequent research might address this anomaly. confidence in the self-report measures with their Finally, the field might well benefit from further greater amount of data, and this does happen to study of the effects of the presence of coactor be the one instance in which self-report others in aversive situations on electrodermal measures conflict with results based on physi- operational definitions. ological measures (cf. Cacioppo & Petty, 1986). The purpose of this integration was to However, if future tests of the hypothesis with determine the conditions under which group electrodermal responses confirm the interesting membership increases or decreases arousal. In discrepancy between self-report and electroder- light of the results of this effort, two intriguing mal responses, then this discrepancy would need implications emerge. First, consider theoretical to be explained. One possible account would perspectives that use group-induced arousal as a evoke a misattribution of arousal mechanism mediating mechanism (notably, the many vari- (e.g., Cantor, Zillman, & Bryant, 1975; Schachter ants on Zajonc's (1965) drive-arousal hypoth- & Singer, 1962). For example, in the aversive esis, cited in the beginning of this article). The situation with a coactor, the participant might present results suggest that any summaries of indeed be experiencing an increased level of the effects of the presence of others on arousal arousal (as gauged by the electrodermal re- should take a more conditional form: The sponses). However, unlike mere presence others weight of the available evidence cannot clearly or audience others, the coactor other might and unequivocally support the simple Zajoncian provide an alternative source to which to position that the presence of others increases attribute the arousal (such as, to the support or arousal (e.g., mere presence others do not companionship rendered by the coactor). increase arousal, and coactor others in aversive Thereby, the arousal might not be interpreted in situations do not increase arousal). Therefore, terms of the self-report items of "tense" or when the presence of others exerts predictable "aroused" (see above), but in terms of an effects on performance (e.g., Sanders & Baron, evaluative response toward the coactor. Future 1975), it now seems considerably less plausible research might be directed toward scrutinizing that these performance effects are attributable to this possibility. group-induced arousal. Accounts for the effects Third, the overall results for the electrodermal of the presence of others on performance that do response hypothesis tests supported Zajonc's not rely on arousal as a mediating mechanism, (1965) position. That is, there was a significant such as self-regulation perspectives (e.g., Mullen, tendency for the presence of others to increase 1983, 1987) or expectancy value perspectives arousal as operationally denned by electroder- (e.g., Karau & Williams, 1993), may provide mal responses. Note that previous narrative more compelling theoretical alternatives. reviews have concluded that, "studies in which Second, consider interventions that use group arousal is inferred from electrodermal measures settings to directly affect how people feel likewise provide little support for drive theory" (notably, group psychotherapy [e.g., Rose, (Geen, 1989, p. 21; also see Kushner, 1981, p. 1993] and self-help groups [e.g., Flores, 1988]). 187). The present results run counter to these As discussed by Flannery, Perry, and Harvey

Description:
meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Arling- dressed to Brian Mullen, Department of Psychology, .. General Effect .. A structured stress-reduction group approach modi- G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group.
See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.