Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85 (2019) 103851

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Cockroaches, performance, and an audience: Reexamining social facilitation T

50 years later
⁎
Dylan Perez Neider , Megumi Fuse, Gaurav Suri
San Francisco State University, United States of America

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

This paper has been recommended for What are the underlying mechanisms driving social facilitation? Some social psychologists have proposed that
acceptance by Roger Giner-Sorolla. social facilitation may be driven by basic mechanisms such as the level of arousal produced by the presence of an
audience, while others have ascribed it to more socially and cognitively complex drivers such as a self-aware
quest for social approval. In a now seminal study, Zajonc, Heingartner, and Herman (ZHH) (1969) demonstrated
that the audience effect of social facilitation was exhibited in the Blatta orientalis cockroach: cockroaches were
faster to complete a simple task (traversing a runway) when among other cockroaches than when alone, yet
slower when the task was complex (traversing a maze). This finding suggested that arousal was a likely driver of
social facilitation in the cockroach (since self-aware mechanisms were unlikely to apply). It also invited con-
sideration of the possibility that arousal may be a contributing factor to social facilitation in humans. Despite
ZHH's influence, a faithful direct replication has never been attempted. Such a replication is crucial in illumi-
nating the underlying drivers of social facilitation.

1. Introduction much less apparent is why this is the case. What are the underlying
mechanisms that drive social facilitation?
An important objective of social psychology is to understand how
people's behavior is influenced by others. Indeed, this was the precise 1.1. Proposed mechanisms for social facilitation
purpose of one of the earliest experiments within social psychology.
Triplett (1898) found that bicyclists were faster when racing among There currently exist two broad families of theories that propose
other bicyclists than when riding alone. In a follow-up study, he sup- underlying mechanisms for social facilitation: the arousal-based family
ported this finding by showing that when children played a game in- and the self-awareness family (Steinmetz & Pfattheicher, 2017; Uziel,
volving a fishing reel, they reeled faster when playing with another 2007). The arousal-based family consists of theories in which the un-
child than when alone. This phenomenon, known as social facilitation, derlying mechanisms are predicated upon arousal. This family was in-
can be defined as improvement in individual performance when itiated via Zajonc's (1965) influential drive theory. Zajonc theorized
working with others rather than alone. Typically, when a person is a that the presence of others elicits arousal, thus causing actors to revert
novice to a task (or the task is inherently complex) they will perform to their dominant response. When a task is simple or performed by an
better when alone compared to among others. However, when a person expert, the dominant response is often the “correct” response. When the
is an expert at a task (or the task is inherently simple) just the opposite task is complex or performed by a novice, the dominant response is
tends to be true. For example, a novice basketball player may shoot often the “incorrect” response. In subsequent years, other arousal-based
free-throws better when alone compared to when she is being watched theories have developed upon the key points of the drive theory (e.g.
by an audience. On the other hand, a star basketball player may im- Cottrell, 1972).
prove her free throw accuracy in the presence of an audience compared The self-awareness family consists of theories in which the under-
to when she is practicing alone. This example has been shown empiri- lying mechanisms are predicated upon a more cognitively and socially
cally in both basketball (Kotzer, 2007) and pool (Michaels et al., 1982, complex driver than arousal. This consists of theories such as the theory
as cited in Myers, 2012). Everyday experience suggests that it is ap- of objective self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972) and control
parent that audiences profoundly affect human performance. What is theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981), in which researchers posit that it is not

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dperezneider@mail.sfsu.edu (D. Perez Neider).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103851
Received 20 March 2019; Received in revised form 18 July 2019; Accepted 18 July 2019
0022-1031/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
D. Perez Neider, et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85 (2019) 103851

arousal which drives social facilitation, but rather attention towards differ when alone than among an audience of other mice. Contradictory
self-awareness. For example, in the control theory (Carver & Scheier, to expectations, mice in the simple-runway were actually faster alone
1981), it is believed that the presence of others elicits attention to the than when among other mice. Beyond a host of potential methodolo-
self in order to gauge one's performance against one's own standards. In gical differences between this study and that of ZHH,1 there is also
the presence of others, more attention is brought to conforming to this recent evidence that rats and mice may exhibit a degree of metacog-
behavioral standard. When alone, less attention is brought to this be- nition greater than previously understood (Foote & Crystal, 2007;
havioral standard thus causing a behavioral regression to the mean. Mogil, 2019) – which suggests that social facilitation in these species
may be attributable to self-awareness related mechanisms.
1.2. An attempt to adjudicate mechanism: Zajonc, Heingartner, and Second, it is also urgently important to replicate ZHH due to the fact
Herman (1969) that it has proven to be extraordinarily influential across many do-
mains. It is frequently included in several introductory psychology
While the control theory and other theories under the self-aware- textbooks, including textbooks in: organizational psychology (Haslam,
ness family appear to apply when examining social facilitation in or- 2004), research methods (Dunn, 2009), safety management (Davies,
ganisms such as humans or apes, they appear less applicable in the case Ross, Wallace, & Wright, 2003), learning, cognition, and motivation
of socially and cognitively simpler species such as cockroaches. If social (Cormier, 1986), and sports psychology (Tod, Thatcher, & Rahman,
facilitation could be demonstrated for such a species, then arousal- 2010). Furthermore, it is also included in psychology textbooks that
based theories are more likely to be playing a contributing role in social have been translated to multiple languages including Polish (Aronson,
facilitation. Wilson, & Akert, 1997), French (Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1997), German
Perhaps guided by related intuitions, Zajonc et al. (1969) (hereafter, (Krämer, 2008; Lewin, 1986), and Czech (Tod et al., 2010; Tod,
ZHH) demonstrated social facilitation in an animal as socially and Thatcher, & Rahman, 2012). ZHH also continues to be cited in text-
cognitively basic as the cockroach. In ZHH, cockroaches traversed a books which have been published within the last five years (Stangor,
simple-runway or a complex-maze, either alone or among an audience 2016; Tozman & Peifer, 2016) as well a forthcoming textbook (Garcia,
of other cockroaches. Upon commencement, they were motivated to Reese, & Tor, in press).
avoid noxious floodlight with the only available respite being a dar- In addition to its nearly ubiquitous inclusion in psychology text-
kened area at the end of the runway or the terminal end of the maze. books, the original ZHH paper has received several hundred citations
Each cockroach ran 10 consecutive trials with the median time used to including in realms well outside of psychology. This includes research
compare among conditions. We seek to replicate the key finding of in: biology (Clayton, 1978), biomedical informatics (Farzanfar,
ZHH: the cockroaches were inhibited by the presence of other cock- Frishkopf, Migneault, & Friedman, 2005), entomology (Punzo, 2007),
roaches when in the maze (i.e. the complex task), yet facilitated when sociology (Marshall, 2002), sports economics and science (Dewenter &
in the runway (i.e. the simple task). Namini, 2013; Dohmen, 2008; Dohmen & Sauermann, 2016), mar-
Through this experiment, ZHH provided support for the drive keting (Gaumer & LaFief, 2005), gambling issues (Rockloff, Greer, &
theory of social facilitation since self-awareness was unlikely to act as Evans, 2012), computer science (Jørgensen, 2004), and computational
an operating mechanism in cockroaches. More generally, ZHH sug- mathematics (Conte, Edmonds, Moss, & Sawyer, 2001). It has even been
gested that it is at least possible that the arousal-based mechanisms may featured in a New York Times bestseller (Berger, 2017).
apply broadly to nearly any species exhibiting social facilitation (in- The field of psychological research is in the midst of a replication
cluding humans). Importantly, however, arousal-based mechanisms crisis, with large scale attempts at replications often failing to replicate
need not necessarily be mutually exclusive with the self-awareness- more often than not (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). While it is
based mechanisms. It is possible, for example, that arousal drives social important for all research to be subject to replication attempts, it is
facilitation effects in cockroaches, but it is only one of several me- especially imperative for studies like ZHH, which are frequently and
chanisms underlying social facilitation effects in humans. widely discussed within scientific literature. This necessity is further
compounded due to the fact that there has never been a faithful attempt
1.3. The importance of replicating ZHH at a direct replication over the 50-year longevity of this seminal work.

As discussed above, ZHH purported to provide crucial evidence in

2. Proposed method
support of the arousal-based drive theory of social facilitation. We
propose that there are two important reasons to attempt a careful re-
2.1. Materials
plication of ZHH: first, despite its theoretical importance, prior attempts
at replications have not closely adhered to the original study's methods
The materials will be developed and used as similarly as possible to
and have yielded conflicting results. Second, ZHH has proven to be
that of ZHH with the only necessary changes being due to a lack
extraordinarily influential across multiple domains which have under-
availability of certain construction materials from the 1960s, or due to a
scored the relevance of this study and the importance of having con-
lack of clarity on a small number of procedural items from ZHH (all
fidence about its truth value.
First, prior ZHH replication efforts have been conceptual and have
yielded intriguing but mixed results. Two notable replications focused 1
Although similar to ZHH in some ways, Hamrick et al. (1971) featured key
on centipedes and rats. Centipedes were found to be significantly faster differences that could provide viable explanations for its failure to replicate. For
in a simple task while in the presence of other centipedes than when one, a more complex Lashley III maze was used instead of the cross maze from
alone (Hosey, Wood, Thompson, & Druck, 1985). This replication ZHH, most likely due to using mice instead of cockroaches. More importantly,
provided support for ZHH. However, results with rats and mice proved the researchers themselves posited that some interactions failed “due primarily
to be less clear-cut. At times these results aligned with the drive theory: to large inter-subject variability and low power due to small sample size rather
than to any similarity in learning across groups” (Hamrick et al., 1971, p. 172).
rats learned a complex task faster when alone compared to within the
This issue of inter-subject variability is further magnified by the different
presence of another rat (Levine & Zentall, 1974; Zentall & Levine,
method of subject time analysis. While ZHH used one time per subject, derived
1972). In other studies, however, the results diverged from the drive from the median of ten consecutive trials, Hamrick et al. (1971) had mice
theory. In perhaps the closest experiment to a direct replication of ZHH, perform three consecutive trials over ten days while using the median time from
Hamrick, Cogan, and Woolam (1971) failed to find a significant inter- each day for their analysis. A sample size of only six mice per group makes this
action in mice that were in pursuit of a sucrose solution. When mice issue even more apparent, affording the possibility for one mouse to have a
went through the complex-maze, their run time did not significantly large, unsystematic impact on the results.

2
D. Perez Neider, et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85 (2019) 103851

Table 1
List of procedural comparisons between ZHH and the present work.
Procedure ZHH Same? Present work

Species Oriental cockroach (Blatta orientalis) Yes

Housing (audience) Common quarters Yes
Housing (participants) Individual mason jars Yes
Apparatus schematics See article Yes
Sex Female Yes
Age Adults Yes
Number of cockroaches (audience) 10 in each audience box Yes
Familiarity of audience-audience Familiar (from same colony) Yes
Familiarity of audience-participant Unfamiliar (from different colony) Yes
Operational definition of finished trial Last leg of cockroach fully crossing the goal line Yes
Apparatus materials Bakelite and plexiglass Partly Just plexiglass
Light output 150 W Partly Similar estimated lumens output
Apparatus cleaning Alcohol No Brillianze (acryllic-specific cleaner)
Number of cockroaches (participants) 10 per group No 102 per group
Static field Unknown Unknown Below 1 kMv (or modeled 8 kMv−1)

Fig. 1. Illustration of maze used as shown in Zajonc et al. (1969).

three authors are deceased which precludes opportunities for direct boxes” which were rectangular boxes cut diagonally, thus being 9 inch
clarifications). A full list of procedural comparisons with the original wide by 9 inch long in order to go along the full length of each wall of
ZHH is listed in Table 1. The original study used a 20-inch clear plex- the maze (or the majority of the runway wall) and 1 inch tall in order to
iglass cube that housed either a straight runway going across the length fit perfectly with the height of the runway wall or maze wall. Clear
of the box (Fig. 1a), or a maze consisting of two runways that inter- plexiglass was used for all faces of these except for the flooring which
sected perpendicularly (Fig. 1b). was made of black bakelite. Each wall of the audience boxes fit directly
At 8.25 in. from the top of each vertical cube wall was an opening of along the runway or maze with corresponding air holes along both
1.75 in. by 0.75 in. which was where the inner runway or maze con- walls to allow for cockroaches to have olfactory awareness of one an-
nected exterior boxes for the cockroaches to either begin or end the other. On the exterior of the boxes by the openings were square flanges
experiment. Space between these allowed for a guillotine gate made of and sets of tracks to allow for ease of replacing cockroaches and boxes.
sheet metal in order to “open” or “close” the runway or maze from the Finally, ZHH utilized a 150-watt floodlight set 10 in. directly behind the
boxes. Each goal or starting box was made of clear plexiglass, with the start box to facilitate the movement of the cockroaches.
goal box being darkened in order to offer respite from the noxious light The runway, maze, and its encompassing box will use the descrip-
(described below). The runway and maze themselves were rectangular, tions and schematics from the original paper described above, and we
created using black bakelite flooring 2 inch wide, clear plexiglass walls will attempt to create a nearly identical copy of the original materials
1 inch high, and clear plexiglass covering 0.125 inch thick. The length with the following minor, but necessary, differences: while ZHH used
of each runway mirrored the interior length of the box (20 in.) while the clear plexiglass for the majority of the runway, maze, and audience
maze was two intersecting runways and thus each “leg” of the maze was boxes, they utilized black opaque bakelite plastic for the actual flooring
9 inch long with a 2 inch by 2 inch crossroads interior. In identical for the cockroaches and alcohol to swab it between trial sets. Due to the
positions, both the runway and the maze contained four “audience present rarity and price of this type of plastic, black opaque acrylic will

3
D. Perez Neider, et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85 (2019) 103851

be used for the floorings instead with an acrylic-specific solution to For both the runway and maze conditions, the goal box will be
swab them between trial sets. darkened thus offering the best respite from the noxious stimulus. The
The acrylic-specific solution (Brillianze) will be utilized instead due entirety of the wall containing the goal box will be covered by a black
to the tendency of pure alcohol to crack plexiglass. This solution is a poster board. For all audience condition trials 10 cockroaches will be
silicon-based product whose known ingredients have been shown to placed in each of the four audience boxes. Following ZHH, we too will
have no ill effects on the cockroach. Further, it is thought to be as ef- utilize the adult female Oriental Cockroach (Blatta orientalis) for both
fective as alcohol as a cleaning agent. the audience and participant pools. Additionally, housing and famil-
Though ZHH never clearly specified how the runway or maze was iarity of cockroaches will be done just as was done in ZHH. Though all
held above ground as to fit the center wall openings, we will utilize cockroaches will be adult female Oriental Cockroaches, the ones used to
hinge-like pieces fastened along the interior to keep them suspended. fill the audience boxes will come from a different colony and housed
Additionally, a simplified version of the tracks and flanges on the ex- differently than those participating in running the mazes. The audience
teriors of the walls, as well the corresponding sheet metal guillotine, cockroaches, which will remain consistent throughout all audience
will be used in order to facilitate the replacement of cockroaches and conditions, will be housed “in common quarters of the laboratory
boxes. Finally, while the dimensions of the runway and maze are well colony” (ZHH, p. 87). Cockroaches participating in the experimental
detailed, ZHH does not provide more detail about the noxious stimulus conditions, however, will be “housed in individual mason jars supplied
beyond it being a 150-watt floodlight. Due to the popularity of halo- with screened lids. They [will be] maintained in dark quarters with a
gen‑tungsten incandescent bulbs in floodlights in the 1960s, which relatively constant temperature of about 75 degrees Fahrenheit. The
tended to have an output of 20–26 lm/W, we estimate that the original insects [will be] fed an ad libitum diet of peeled and sliced apples”
floodlight had an output between 3000 and 3900 lm (Gendre, 2003). (ZHH, p. 86).
However, in part due to the Energy Independence and Security Act of Table 1 summarizes the process of replicating every detail of ZHH.
2007, most of these types of bulbs have been phased out due to their While most details match exactly, there was certain content that the
inefficiency and price. Thus, we will use an LED-based floodlight set to original researchers were not specific about. We addressed these via
have the same lumen output. A detailed visual schematic of our planned accessing expertise opinions on insect behavior (including an en-
recreation of the box is available upon request. tomologist who is a co-author on this paper).

2.2. Participants and procedure 2.3. Power analysis

The following proposed procedure exactly repeats the audience ef- The original experiment used 10 adult female Oriental cockroaches
fect process of ZHH's Experiment 1: the cockroaches will traverse either per group, totaling 40 cockroaches for the intended interaction.
a simple-runway (Fig. 1a) or complex-maze (Fig. 1b). Within both the However, after calculating the effect size of the original interaction
runway and maze, half of the cockroaches will perform while in the (η2 = 0.025) and conducting an a priori power analysis through the
presence of other cockroaches housed in “audience boxes”, while the program G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) at 90%
other half will perform while alone. Among all conditions, the cock- power, it was evident that the original study was underpowered. Spe-
roaches will begin their trial by being placed in the start box, the barrier cifically, it revealed that we would require 102 cockroaches per group,
that separates the start box from the runway or maze will be removed, totaling 408 cockroaches for the entire interaction, in order to appro-
and the noxious floodlight will be turned on. Running 10 consecutive priately attempt a replication.
trials with 1 min between each, cockroaches will be timed from the
opening of the barrier to the moment their last leg passes into the goal
box. We will terminate each trial just as was done in ZHH, at the end of 2.4. Analysis
5 min or ‘immediately after the roach's last leg crossed the entrance of
the goal box’ (ZHH, p. 87). The median time across the 10 trials will be In ZHH, the original study design was a 2 (audience present or
used as each cockroach's time. absent) by 2 (task complexity simple or complex) by 2 (coaction present
Between each trial the runway or maze will be cleaned and given or absent) between-subjects design. We will conduct the same analyses
time to evaporate. The same will be done for the starting and goal of variance as the original study excluding the coaction aspect of the
boxes, except they will be cleaned between each trial set. ZHH may study. This will be a 2 (audience present or absent) by 2 (task com-
have swabbed the apparatus with alcohol between trial sets as a means plexity simple or complex) between-subjects ANOVA. As aforemen-
to remove any “chemical traces” that could be picked up between tioned, the conceptual replications up until now have varied widely. In
participants. A similar explanation was provided by Gates and Allee the case of this proposed direct replication, a full replication of results
(1933), a paper that influenced ZHH, and more recently by Rivault, would be for the cockroaches to be slower to finish the simple-runway
Cloarec, and Sreng (2002). Another potential factor, brought to our than the complex-maze when among an audience, yet faster when
attention by an anonymous reviewer of this manuscript, concerns the alone. The design of this analysis allows for a variety of results to occur
tendency of cockroaches to “spit” as a stress response, which may also and be aptly interpreted.
unduly influence the behavior of future participants.
Beyond chemical traces, electric fields at 1 kV (or a modeled field of 3. Potential implications of replication outcomes
8–10 kVm−1) have been shown to elicit an avoidant response in the
cockroach (Newland et al., 2008). However, ZHH never mentioned A replication of ZHH would not be enough to definitively conclude
recording the electric field during their experiment, so we are unable to that arousal is the driver of social facilitation in cockroaches and hu-
be sure that we are exactly equal in electric field reading. We can, mans. Rather, it would demonstrate that arousal is a viable mechanism
however, ensure that the presence of an intrusive electric field will not for social facilitation and is presently the single most parsimonious
be present during our study by using an electrostatic field meter to explanation of the phenomenon. Whether arousal is subsumed as one of
show that no area exceeds the threshold of 1 kV. Additionally, our in- multiple potential drivers, or completely replaced by a distinctively
itial observations suggest that the actual electric fields in the experi- different driver, is an important issue which requires future empirical
mental area will be negligible. Nonetheless, we will also use the silicon- studies in addition to the presently proposed replication of ZHH.
based Brillianze to clean the apparatus which is often used to remove Additionally, a targeted metanalysis of the extant animal research could
electric charges from acrylic in addition to being used to remove po- further complement a replication of ZHH by providing insight as to
tential chemical traces left by participants. where these potential drivers begin to take effect.

4
D. Perez Neider, et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 85 (2019) 103851

References Huron University College Journal of Learning and Motivation, 45(1) (Retrieved from
https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/hucjlm/vol45/iss1/8).
Krämer, N. C. (2008). Soziale Wirkungen virtueller Helfer: Gestaltung und Evaluation von
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (1997). Psychologia społeczna: Serce i umysł. Mensch-Computer-Interaktion. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Poznań: Wydawnictwo Zysk i S-ka (Original work published 1994). Levine, J. M., & Zentall, T. R. (1974). Effect of a conspecific's presence on deprived rats'
Berger, J. (2017). Invisible influence: The hidden forces that shape behavior. New York: performance: Social facilitation vs distraction/imitation. Animal Learning & Behavior,
Simon & Schuster. 2(2), 119–122. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199135.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach Lewin, M. (1986). Psychologische Forschung im Umriß. F. Khan & N. W. Sepeur,
to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag. Trans.Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Clayton, D. A. (1978). Socially facilitated behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 53(4), Leyens, J. P., & Yzerbyt, V. (1997). Psychologie sociale. Brussels: Editions Mardaga.
373–392. https://doi.org/10.1086/410789. Marshall, D. A. (2002). Behavior, belonging, and belief: A theory of ritual practice.
Conte, R., Edmonds, B., Moss, S., & Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Sociology and social theory in Sociological Theory, 20(3), 360–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9558.00168.
agent based social simulation: A symposium. Computational & Mathematical Michaels, J. W., Blommel, J. M., Brocato, R. M., Linkous, R. A., & Rowe, J. S. (1982).
Organization Theory, 7(3), 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012919018402. Social facilitation and inhibition in a natural setting. Replications in Social Psychology,
Cormier, S. M. (1986). Basic processes of learning, cognition, and motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: 2, 21–24.
L. Erlbaum Associates. Mogil, J. S. (2019). Mice are people too: Increasing evidence for cognitive, emotional and
Cottrell, N. B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.). Experimental social social capabilities in laboratory rodents. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne,
psychology (pp. 185–236). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 60(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000166.
Davies, J., Ross, A., Wallace, B., & Wright, L. (2003). Safety management: A qualitative Myers, D. G. (2012). Exploring social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
systems approach. London: Taylor & Francis. Newland, P. L., Hunt, E., Sharkh, S. M., Hama, N., Takahata, M., & Jackson, C. W. (2008).
Dewenter, R., & Namini, J. E. (2013). How to make soccer more attractive? Rewards for a Static electric field detection and behavioural avoidance in cockroaches. Journal of
victory, the teams' offensiveness, and the home bias. Journal of Sports Economics, Experimental Biology, 211(23), 3682–3690. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.019901.
14(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527002511412323. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492, codified
Dohmen, T., & Sauermann, J. (2016). Referee bias. Journal of Economic Surveys, 30(4), as amended at 42 USC § 17001 et seq.
679–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12106. Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological sci-
Dohmen, T. J. (2008). Do professionals choke under pressure? Journal of Economic ence. Science, 349(6251), https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Behavior & Organization, 65(3–4), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2005.12. Punzo, F. (2007). Social facilitation and digging behavior in the beetle Odontotaenius
004. floridanus Schuster (Coleoptera: Passalidae). Journal of Entomological Science, 42(4),
Dunn, D. S. (2009). Research methods for social psychology. Chichester, United Kingdom: 525–532. https://doi.org/10.18474/0749-8004-42.4.525.
Wiley-Blackwell. Rivault, C., Cloarec, A., & Sreng, L. (2002). Are differences in hydrocarbon profiles able to
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. Oxford, England: mediate strain recognition in German cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae)?
Academic Press. European Journal of Entomology, 99(4), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2002.
Farzanfar, R., Frishkopf, S., Migneault, J., & Friedman, R. (2005). Telephone-linked care 055.
for physical activity: A qualitative evaluation of the use patterns of an information Rockloff, M. J., Greer, N., & Evans, L. G. (2012). The effect of mere presence on electronic
technology program for patients. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 38(3), 220–228. gaming machine gambling. Journal of Gambling Issues, (27), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.011. 4309/jgi.2012.27.11.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using Stangor, C. (2016). Social groups in action and interaction (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Routledgehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781315677163.
Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. Steinmetz, J., & Pfattheicher, S. (2017). Beyond social facilitation: A review of the far-
Foote, A. L., & Crystal, J. D. (2007). Metacognition in the rat. Current Biology, 17(6), reaching effects of social attention. Social Cognition, 35(5), 585–599. https://doi.org/
551–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2007.01.061. 10.1521/soco.2017.35.5.585.
Garcia, S. M., Reese, Z. A., & Tor, A. (2019). Social comparison before, during, and after Tod, D., Thatcher, J., & Rahman, R. (2010). Sport psychology. Macmillan International
the competition. In J. Suls, R. L. Collins, & L. Wheeler (Eds.). Social comparison, Higher Education.
judgment and behaviorOxford University Press (in press). Tod, D., Thatcher, J., & Rahman, R. (2012). Psychologie sportu. H. Hartlová, Trans..
Gates, M. F., & Allee, W. C. (1933). Conditioned behavior of isolated and grouped Prague: Grada (Original work published 2010).
cockroaches on a simple maze. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 15(2), 331–358. Tozman, T., & Peifer, C. (2016). Experimental paradigms to investigate flow-experience
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0073695. and its psychophysiology: Inspired from stress theory and research. In L. Harmat, F.
Gaumer, C. J., & LaFief, W. C. (2005). Social facilitation. Journal of Food Products Ørsted Andersen, F. Ullén, J. Wright, & G. Sadlo (Eds.). Flow experience (pp. 329–
Marketing, 11(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1300/J038v11n01_05. 350). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28634-1_20.
Gendre, M. F. (2003). Two centuries of electric light source innovations. Retrieved from Triplett, N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. The
http://www.einlightred.tue.nl/lightsources/history/light_history.pdf. American Journal of Psychology, 9(4), 507–533. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412188.
Hamrick, C., Cogan, D., & Woolam, D. (1971). Social facilitation effects on runway and Uziel, L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: A review and meta-
maze behavior in mice. Psychonomic Science, 25(3), 171–173. https://doi.org/10. analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 579–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/
3758/BF03332490. j.jrp.2006.06.008.
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach (2nd ed.). Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.
London: Sage. 1126/science.149.3681.269.
Hosey, G. R., Wood, M., Thompson, R. J., & Druck, P. L. (1985). Social facilitation in a Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and im-
‘non-social’ animal, the centipede Lithobius forficatus. Behavioural Processes, 10(1), pairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social
123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(85)90123-8. Psychology, 13(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028063.
Jørgensen, M. (2004). A review of studies on expert estimation of software development Zentall, T. R., & Levine, J. M. (1972). Observational learning and social facilitation in the
effort. Journal of Systems and Software, 70(1), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0164- rat. Science, 178(4066), 1220–1221. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4066.
1212(02)00156-5. 1220.
Kotzer, R. D. (2007). The social facilitation effect in basketball: Shooting free throws. The