Presence of Others and Arousal

13 Pages·2004·0.99 MB·English

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