Motivation and emotion/Book/2017/Evaluation apprehension
What is evaluation apprehension and how does it affect us?
- 1 Overview
- 2 Definitions
- 3 History of the hypothesis
- 4 Evaluation apprehension hypothesis
- 5 How it affects us
- 5.1 Evaluators
- 5.2 Physiological
- 5.3 Psychological
- 5.4 Performance
- 5.5 Social
- 6 Underlying mechanisms of the learned-drive
- 7 Conclusion
- 8 See also
- 9 References
- 10 External links
You start a new job; you practice operating the cash register and run through some practice purchases with your supervisor; you get through it without any problems. Two customers approach the counter, and ones gives a "look" that makes you wonder if she's going to resent being served by a newbie. Suddenly you are fumbling about, mashing buttons, completely lost and apologising.
You're a musician; you play at a new venue. You're a bit nervous as you take to the stage and perform. Later, you hear a recording someone took at the gig, and you believe that it sounds much better than the demo your band paid for and recorded at a studio.
Evaluation apprehension refers to an anxiety felt by a task-performer due to feelings that they are being judged or appraised by others; this increases the task-performers arousal level, which can either enhance or impede performance (Coleman, 2015).
Currently, there is a lack of literature on evaluation apprehension and emotion. This book chapter seeks to explain what evaluation apprehension is and how it affects us by examining the hypothesis itself, how it impacts performance, and its relation to emotion.
- Drive refers to the energy that motivates one to pursue and satisfy a need or goal (Coleman, 2015).
- Arousal is a physiological excitation that produces an alert and responsive state (Coleman, 2015).
History of the hypothesis
That the presence of others can impact performance is a long known fact to psychology. Early research in this field was conducted by Triplett in 1898 (as cited by Geen & Gange, 1977). Triplett found that simple motor task performance was benefited by co-performing participants when compared to those who performed alone, now known as the co-actor effect (Geen & Gange, 1977). In 1924, Allport (as cited by Platania & Moran, 2001) reported that the presence of others could enhance performance on well-practised tasks but inhibit performance on novel problem solving and intellectual tasks. Other researchers built on such findings and found similar, beneficial effects when one is performing in front of an audience (the audience effect); however, there were contradictions in the results; specifically, it seemed that experiments with social components produced poorer performance outcomes (Geen & Gange, 1977). These contradictions did not receive a developed explanation until 1965 (Strauss, 2002) when Zajonc (1965) proposed his drive theory of social facilitation.
Social facilitation theory
According to Zajonc's (1965) social facilitation theory, the mere presence of others causes a task performer's arousal to increase, which in turn, increases general drive (D). General drive animates all habits, particularly it encourages the emission of dominant responses (Weiss & Miller citing Spence, 1956), which are simple or well-practised responses, and this occurs whether the dominant responses are correct or incorrect.
Henchy and Glass (1968) proposed an evaluation apprehension hypothesis in which it is the fear of evaluation that raises arousal and releases dominant responses, and not the mere presence of others. The research of Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, and Rittle (1968) found that although the presence of an audience did enhance dominant responses at the cost of weaker response, the mere presence of others (via proximity) did not have a facilitative effect. Furthermore, Cottrell (et al.,1968) believed that it was a learned-drive of anticipating negative or positive outcomes from performing a task in front of an audience that increases arousal, and not the general drive Zajonc had proposed (Geen & Gange, 1977).
Evaluation apprehension hypothesis
Evaluation apprehension occurs when a person undertakes a task and perceives a confirmation that they will be evaluated by observers/an observer (Rosenberg, 1965). This acts on a socially learned-drive to receive positive and avoid negative evaluations (Geen, 1983), which produces arousal in the task performer. The learned-drive induced arousal has an energising effect on performance that leads to animating all responses, with the most energy going to the strongest habit (H), whether or not the selected response is correct or incorrect (Weiss & Miller, 1971). Therefore, well-learned or simple tasks often emit a correct response, but learning and performance on novel or complex tasks often emit incorrect responses, because the dominant responses for these tasks, being new or challenging, are more likely to be incorrect (Geen, & Gange 1977).
How it affects us
Evaluation apprehension influences many aspects our experiences, such as our emotions, physiology, social lives, learning, and crucially to the evaluation apprehension hypothesis, it also affects performance.
Not all evaluators have the same effect. For instance, when evaluators are perceived as a source of future help, anxiety and evaluation apprehension reduce (Green, 1991). The peer audience effect occurs when adolescent experience more inhibition under the evaluation of friends than compared to others, like researchers (Wolf, Bazargani, Kilford, Dumontheil, & Blakemore, 2015).
In sport, crowd noise can facilitate performance of home teams and have an inhibiting impact on visiting teams (Greer, 1983).
The available research does reveal that cortisol levels experience a sharp rise when one experiences an uncontrollable social threat (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). Especially when anticipating negative evaluations (Dickernson, Mycek, & Zaldivar, 2008). Furthermore, cardiovascular and cortisol data indicate that arousal increases as the number of possible evaluators increase, and that this has a diminishing impact on performance (Mills, Carter, Rudd, Claxton, & O'Brien, 2016).
The prefrontal cortex is vital for top-down behavioural regulation and goal-oriented behaviours, such as impulse control and attention (Arnsten, Raskind, Taylor, & Connor, 2015). There is evidence that prefrontal cortex activation contributes to the inhibitory effects of evaluation apprehension. Specifically, overactivation of the prefrontal cortex predicts more errors in tasks that require greater cognitive effort to undertake (Ito, et al., 2011). Moreover, this matches the types of tasks commonly seen to suffer the inhibitory aspect of evaluation apprehension, such as novel and or complex tasks (Geen & Gange 1977).
One aspect of evaluation apprehension that is in severe need of research is how evaluation apprehension is moderated by the uniqueness of the individual (Graydon & Murphy, 1994).
Appraisal theory states that the intensity of emotion derives from how one judges and explains the cause of an instance of arousal (Coleman, 2015). Research indicates that before and after undertaking a task in which one will be evaluated, people with high or low levels of anxiety experience differing appraisals regarding the difficulty of the task, the quality of their performance, and how threatened they feel. Those with high anxiety report more negatively tilted appraisals, and they also perform worse compared to those with low anxiety (Baggett, Saab, & Carver, 1996). Therefore, changing appraisals may influence performance outcomes. Jamieson, Peters, Greenwood, and Altose (2016) found just that when they induced reappraisals by educating participants about the performance benefits of stress. This led to a reduction in evaluation apprehension, and improvements in performance that were not present the control group.
By providing positive or negative feedback on practices tasks, Seta and Seta (1995) induced participants with either low or high efficacy expectations. Participants were then divided into conditions of escalating value for their "main" performance.
Participants with low-efficacy expectations performed worse in front of an audience (high-value condition) than in any other condition. Unsurprisingly, those with high-efficacy expectations performed best when in front of the audience (high-value condition). Thus, a person's efficacy history may prime them for facilitative or inhibiting effects of evaluation apprehension.
Emotional expression 
Evaluation apprehension can also impact emotional expression. The presence of a friend can facilitate emotional expression when one is viewing slides that contain emotionally loaded pictures, particularly for sexual images. However, participants' emotional expression was inhibited by the presence of a friend for unpleasant slides. The presence of a strange generally had a consistent inhibiting effect on emotional expression compared to the presence of a friend (Buck, Losow, Murphy, & Costanzo, 1992).
It may come as no surprise that those with low self-esteem are orientated toward the inhibiting aspect of evaluation apprehension (Uziel, 2016). Low self-esteem tends to develop from a person's history of rejection (Uziel, 2007), and those with low self-esteem may be especially sensitive to social threats (Schulz, Alpers, & Hofmann, 2008), including situations in which they are to be evaluated (Uziel, 2007).
Using evaluation apprehension theory, one could reason that those with low self-esteem would feel high arousal anticipating a negative evaluation, and during a performance this arousal would energise the strongest relevant habit, which, for those with low self-esteem would likely be an inhibiting response in the presence of evaluators.
However, those will high self-esteem are oriented toward the enhancing outcome of evaluation apprehension (Uziel, 2016). High self-esteem usually stems from a history of being accepted. Therefore, people with high self-esteem may approach situations in which they are being evaluated with confidence and a drive for being accepted that leads to greater effort when undertaking a task (Uziel, 2007).
Extraverts seem to perform better with an audience. If they can use the audience as a stimulus for energy, an increase in drive can occur. As expected, introverts perform worse in the presence of an audience and may need training in psychological techniques to perform their best (Graydon & Murphy, 1995). The mere presence of others can be enough to stimulate introverts towards a facilitating effect (Grant and Dajee, 2003). This could appear to support Zajonc's (1965) claim; however, as Henchy and Glass (1968) pointed out, the mere presence of others can be enough to cause a feeling of being evaluated, and one could reason that this could be especially true in the case of introverts.
The presence of an audience improves the speed of simple, well-practiced tasks, but hinders performance on more complex tasks (Yu & Wu, 2015). Evidence supports an enhancing effect for evaluation apprehension in athletic performance, however, for novices, it is more likely to be inhibiting (Strauss, 2002). A study by Shelley-Tremblay (et al., 2006) found such an effect with novice golfers who experienced decreased putting accuracy when performing in front of an audience.
Evaluation apprehension can also take the form of "choking under pressure". This can have significant cognitive effects, and those with high working memory can experience even stronger inhibitory effects (Belletier et al., 2015).
Social loafing is the phenomena in which a member of a group undertaking an activity does not participate to the extent that other members do. As predicted by evaluation apprehension, when one believes their performance cannot be isolated from the group performance (low evaluative threat), they do not work as hard. When the evaluative potential is high, however, participants work harder, especially when they are among evaluative co-participants (Gagné & Zuckerman, 1999). Indeed, increasing evaluation concerns can promote workers to put in more effort when working in groups (Lount, Park, Kerr, Messé, & Seok, 2008).
When performing among co-actors, evaluation apprehension generally aids simple and well-learned tasks but impedes novel or complex tasks (Geen & Gange, 1977). Even the presence of a virtual co-actor can benefit performance (Murray, Neumann, Moffitt, and Thomas 2016). However, for highly competitive people in athletic competition, virtual competitors do not produce the same response intensity that live competitors do (Snyder, Anderson-Hanley, Arciero, 2012).
Evaluation apprehension stems from learnt expectations of positive or negative outcomes from being evaluated; therefore, evaluation apprehension should contain a breadth of social implications supported by research.
Evaluation apprehension also has a moderating impact on collectivist cultures and corruption. (Huang, Liu, Zheng, Tan, & Zhao, 2015). In situations with high evaluation apprehension threat, people with a high-level of collectivism are less likely to offer bribes. However, they are more likely to offer bribes when evaluation apprehension threat is low, even compared to neutral people Thus, evaluation apprehension may benefit combating corrupt behaviour in collectivist societies. People in high evaluation apprehension situations are also more likely to make a pro-social judgement towards others as being likeable, so they themselves appear more likeable (Christensen, 1982). Using a prisoner's dilemma game, researchers have even found that people choose to apply more punishment to those who morally transgress against others (i.e. in third-party situations) when people are there to witness the choice to punish, and that the amount of punishment increases as witnesses to the choice to punish increases (Kurzban, DeScioli, & O'Brien, 2007).
Evaluation apprehension also impedes knowledge sharing, both in interpersonal settings and even though collective database technology (Bordia, Irmer, & Abusah, 2006). Evaluation apprehension has been posited as one reason why students do not take advantage of help facilities (Shiomi, Kanda, Howley, Hayashi, & Hagita, 2015).
Stereotype threat is another manifestation of evaluation apprehension. Stereotype threat occurs when people who hold membership in a certain demographic are reminded about the possibility of confirming a generalisation (often but not always a negative one) about that demographic. The source of the threat can be ingroups, outgroups, and even one's self. These threats can raise concern about one's self-concept and reputation, as well as the concept and reputation of one's in-group (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007). The threat increases arousal, which can benefit performance on easy tasks, but it can also hinder performance on difficult tasks (Ben-Zeev, Fein, & Inzlicht, 2005).
Studies have found that stereotype threat can diminish math test outcomes for women who have a high math self-concept (Keller, 2007); it can also have an inhibiting effect on motor task performance in females (Raphael, 2017); and boys can suffer academic deficits if they believe that adults think boys are not as smart as girls (Hartley & Sutton, 2013).
Stereotype threat has been linked with hypertension in African Americans, who may frequently be in conditions that produce a stereotype threat induced rise in blood pressure (Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001). It can produce different results based purely on how a task is framed. For instance, when an athletic task is framed as a sports intelligence test, black athletes perform worse, and when it is framed as a test of natural athleticism, white athletes perform worse (Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999).
For age, negative stereotypes about elderly drivers can actually inhibit braking performance in older people (Lambert et al., 2015).
And finally, stereotype lift, a facilitative effect, can occur when one witnesses an outgroup receive a threat (Raphael, 2017).
Here is a quiz question - choose the correct answer and click "Submit":
Underlying mechanisms of the learned-drive
Evaluation apprehension stems a learned-drive, which contains awareness of possible positive and negative social outcomes (Cottrell et al., 1968). Leary, Branes, Griebel, Mason, and McCormack (1987) Identified two types of ego threat that may ignite evaluation apprehension: a fear of receiving feedback that will hurt one's self-esteem (self-esteem threats), or concern that one will present poorly to others and harm one's social-esteem (social-esteem threats). The researchers conducted a study, and the results found that anticipating negative evaluation, even without the presence of another person, produced evaluation apprehension, as did the possibility of making a poor impression on another person.
The two-factor theory of emotion can also explain evaluation apprehension, as both approaches need arousal and environmental cues to produce their effects. In the two-factor theory, when one experiences an emotion, a physiological change is produced. To interpret their experience, the person looks to the environment to provide answers (Schachter & Singer, 1962). Using this theory, evaluation apprehension can be viewed as arousal (physiological change) in response to an environment that signals one will be evaluated, and depending on the performer's skill or familiarity with the task, a facilitative or hindering impact on performance may occur. Furthermore, cognitive factors such as appraisals (Baggett et al., 1996), and personal history (Seta & Seta, 1995) seem to influence the extent that one views the evaluation signaling environment as a threat.
Evaluation apprehension is a state that facilitates or inhibits performance depending on the task, the evaluators, the performer, and their unique history and psychology. It can produce prosocial behaviour and facilitate the performance of simple or well learned task. It can also hinder the performance of novel or difficult tasks; inhibit the performance of those who feel marginalised; and prevent people with certain psychological/emotional dispositions from succeeding in evaluative situations. The learned-drive that produces evaluation apprehension may stem from ego threats and a two-factor approach regarding arousal and evaluators.
- Social facilitation (Wikiversity)
- Public speaking anxiety (Book chapter, 2016)
- Social inhibition (Book chapter, 2010)
Baggett, H. L., Saab, P. G., & Carver, C. S. (1996). Appraisal, coping, task performance, and cardiovascular responses during the evaluated speaking task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(5), 483-494. doi:10.1177/0146167296225006
Beilock, S. L., Jellison, W. A., Rydell, R. J., McConnell, A. R., & Carr, T. H. (2006). On the causal mechanisms of stereotype threat: Can skills that don't rely heavily on working memory still be threatened? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(8), 1059-1071. doi:10.1177/0146167206288489
Belletier, C., Davranche, K., Tellier, I. S., Dumas, F., Vidal, F., Hasbroucq, T., & Huguet, P. (2015). Choking under monitoring pressure: Being watched by the experimenter reduces executive attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1410-1416. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0804-9
Ben-Zeev, T., Fein, S., & Inzlicht, M. (2005). Arousal and stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 174-181. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.11.007
Blascovich, J., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D., & Steele, C. (2001). African americans and high blood pressure: The role of stereotype threat. Psychological Science, 12(3), 225-229. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00340
Bordia, P., Irmer, B. E., & Abusah, D. (2006). Differences in sharing knowledge interpersonally and via databases: The role of evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 262-280. doi:10.1080/13594320500417784
Buck, R., Losow, J. I., Murphy, M. M., & Costanzo, P. (1992). Social facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 962-968. doi:10.1037//0022-35126.96.36.1992
Christensen, L. (1982). assessment of the existence of the anxiety component in evaluation apprehension. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 10(2), 117-123. doi:10.2224/sbp.19188.8.131.52
Coleman, A. M. (2015). A Dictionary of Psychology A. M. Coleman (Ed.)
Cottrell, N. B., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. J., & Rittle, R. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audicence and the mere presence of others.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 245.
Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355-391. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355
Dickerson, S. S., Mycek, P. J., & Zaldivar, F. (2008). Negative social evaluation, but not mere social presence, elicits cortisol responses to a laboratory stressor task. Health Psychology, 27(1), 116-121. doi:10.1037/0278-6184.108.40.206
Gagné, M., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). Performance and learning goal orientations as moderators of social loafing and social facilitation. Small Group Research, 30(5), 524-541. doi:10.1177/104649649903000502
Geen, R. G., & Gange, J. J. (1977). Drive theory of social facilitation: Twelve years of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(6), 1267-1288. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.6.1267
Geen, R.G., (1983). Evaluation apprehension and social facilitation/inhibition of learning. Motivation and Emotion, 7(2), 203-212. doi.org/10.1007/BF00992903
Grant, T., & Dajee, K. (2003). Types of task, types of audience, types of actor: Interactions between mere presence and personality type in a simple mathematical task. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(3), 633-639. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00241-6
Graydon, J., & Murphy, T. (1995). The effect of personality on social facilitation whilst performing a sports related task. Personality and Individual Differences, 19(2), 265-267. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(95)00052-8
Green, R. G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42(1), 377-399. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002113
Greer, D. L. (1983). Spectator booing and the home advantage: A study of social influence in the basketball arena. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(3), 252-261.
Hartley, B. L., & Sutton, R. M. (2013). A stereotype threat account of boys' academic underachievement. Child Development, 84(5), 1716-1733. doi:10.1111/cdev.12079
Henchy, T., & Glass, D. C. (1968). Evaluation apprehension and the social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(4), 446-454. doi:10.1037/h0026814
Herman, C. P. (2015). The social facilitation of eating. A review. Appetite, 86, 61-73. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.09.016
Huang, Z., Liu, L., Zheng, W., Tan, X., & Zhao, X. (2015). Walking the straight and narrow: The moderating effect of evaluation apprehension on the relationship between collectivism and corruption: E0123859. PLoS One, 10(3) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0123859
Ito, H., Yamauchi, H., Kaneko, H., Yoshikawa, T., Nomura, K., & Honjo, S. (2011). Prefrontal overactivation, autonomic arousal, and task performance under evaluative pressure: A near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) study: Prefrontal overactivation under pressure.Psychophysiology, 48(11), 1563-1571. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01220.x
Jamieson, J. P., Peters, B. J., Greenwood, E. J., & Altose, A. J. (2016). Reappraising stress arousal improves performance and reduces evaluation anxiety in classroom exam situations .Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), 579-587. doi:10.1177/
Keller, J. (2007). Stereotype threat in classroom settings: The interactive effect of domain identification, task difficulty and stereotype threat on female students' maths performance.The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(Pt 2), 323-338. doi:10.1348/000709906X113662
Kurzban, R., DeScioli, P., & O'Brien, E. (2007). Audience effects on moralistic punishment.Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(2), 75-84. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.06.001
Lambert, A. E., Watson, J. M., Stefanucci, J. K., Ward, N., Bakdash, J. Z., & Strayer, D. L. (2016). Stereotype threat impairs older adult driving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 22-28. doi:10.1002/acp.3162
Leary, M. R., Barnes, B. D., Griebel, C., Mason, E., & McCormack, D. (1987). The impact of conjoint threats to social- and self-esteem on evaluation apprehension. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(4), 304-311.
Lount, R. B., Park, E. S., Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., & Seok, D. (2008). Evaluation concerns and the köhler effect: The impact of physical presence on motivation gains. Small Group Research, 39(6), 795-812. doi:10.1177/1046496408323215
Mills, B., Carter, O., Rudd, C., Claxton, L., & O'Brien, R. (2016). An experimental investigation into the extent social evaluation anxiety impairs performance in simulation-based learning environments amongst final-year undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Education Today, 45, 9-15. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2016.06.006
Murray, E. G., Neumann, D. L., Moffitt, R. L., & Thomas, P. R. (2016). The effects of the presence of others during a rowing exercise in a virtual reality environment. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 328-336. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.09.007
Platania, J., & Moran, G. P. (2001). Social facilitation as a function of the mere presence of others. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(2), 190-197. doi:10.1080/00224540109600546
Raphael, L. (2017). Stereotype threat and lift effects on perceived ability and motor task performance of high school physical education students: The moderating role of stereotype endorsement and domain identification. Movement & Sport Sciences - Science & Motricité, (95), 21-30. doi:10.1051/sm/2016005
Rosenberg, M. J. (1965). When dissonance fails: On eliminating evaluation apprehension from attitude measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(1), 28-42. doi:10.1037/h0021647
Sawyer, D. T., & Noel, F. J. (2000). Effect of an audience on learning a novel motor skill.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 91(2), 539-545. doi:10.2466/pms.2000.91.2.539
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review, 69(5), 379-399. doi:10.1037/h0046234
Schulz, S. M., Alpers, G. W., & Hofmann, S. G. (2008). Negative self-focused cognitions mediate the effect of trait social anxiety on state anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(4), 438-449. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.01.008
Seta, C. E., & Seta, J. J. (1995). When audience presence is enjoyable: The influence of audience awareness of prior success on performance and task interest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16(1-2), 95-108. doi:10.1080/01973533.1995.9646103
Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 107-130. doi:10.1177/1088868306294790
Shelley-Tremblay, J. F., Shugrue, J. D., & Kline, J. P. (2006). Changes in EEG laterality index effects of social inhibition on putting in novice golfers. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29(4), 353.
Shiomi, M., Kanda, T., Howley, I., Hayashi, K., & Hagita, N. (2015). Can a social robot stimulate science curiosity in classrooms? International Journal of Social Robotics, 7(5), 641-652. doi:10.1007/s12369-015-0303-1
Snyder, A. L., Anderson-Hanley, C., & Arciero, P. J. (2012). Virtual and live social facilitation while exergaming: Competitiveness moderates exercise intensity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34(2), 252.
Stone, J., Lynch, C. I., Sjomeling, M., & Darley, J. M. (1999). Stereotype threat effects on black and white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1213-1227. doi:10.1037//0022-35220.127.116.113
Strauss, B. (2002). Social facilitation in motor tasks: A review of research and theory.Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 3(3), 237-256. doi:10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00019-X
Uziel, L. (2007). Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(3), 579-601. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008
Uziel, L. (2016). Alone, unhappy, and demotivated: The impact of an alone mind-set on neurotic individuals’ willpower. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(8), 818-827. doi:10.1177/1948550616657597
Weiss, R. F., & Miller, F. G. (1971). The drive theory of social facilitation. Psychological Review, 78(1), 44-57. doi:10.1037/h0030386
Wolf, L. K., Bazargani, N., Kilford, E. J., Dumontheil, I., & Blakemore, S. (2015). The audience effect in adolescence depends on who's looking over your shoulder. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 5-14. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.003
Yu, R., & Wu, X. (2015). Working alone or in the presence of others: Exploring social facilitation in baggage X-ray security screening tasks. Ergonomics, 58(6), 857-865. doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.993429
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269-274. doi:10.1126/science.149.3681.269
- A measure of evaluation apprehension (an example of what a measure for evaluation apprehension can look like).