Limits...
Social Facilitation of Cognition in Rhesus Monkeys: Audience Vs. Coaction.

Reynaud AJ, Guedj C, Hadj-Bouziane F, Meunier M, Monfardini E - Front Behav Neurosci (2015)

Bottom Line: Social psychology has long established that the mere presence of a conspecific, be it an active co-performer (coaction effect), or a passive spectator (audience effect) changes behavior in humans.Effect sizes were however four times larger than those typically reported in humans in similar tasks.Both findings are an encouragement to pursue brain and behavior research in the rhesus macaque to help solve the riddle of social facilitation mechanisms.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: ImpAct Team, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, U1028, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center Lyon, France ; Université de Lyon Lyon, France.

ABSTRACT
Social psychology has long established that the mere presence of a conspecific, be it an active co-performer (coaction effect), or a passive spectator (audience effect) changes behavior in humans. Yet, the process mediating this fundamental social influence has so far eluded us. Brain research and its nonhuman primate animal model, the rhesus macaque, could shed new light on this long debated issue. For this approach to be fruitful, however, we need to improve our patchy knowledge about social presence influence in rhesus macaques. Here, seven adults (two dyads and one triad) performed a simple cognitive task consisting in touching images to obtain food treats, alone vs. in presence of a co-performer or a spectator. As in humans, audience sufficed to enhance performance to the same magnitude as coaction. Effect sizes were however four times larger than those typically reported in humans in similar tasks. Both findings are an encouragement to pursue brain and behavior research in the rhesus macaque to help solve the riddle of social facilitation mechanisms.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Response rate (mean ± sem) for the group (A) and for each individual (B). In (B), scores are illustrated for the alone condition (Al, dark gray bars), the two social conditions taken together (Soc, light gray bars), and for audience (o) and coaction (•) separately. ***p ≤ 0.001, *p ≤ 0.05.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664694&req=5

Figure 2: Response rate (mean ± sem) for the group (A) and for each individual (B). In (B), scores are illustrated for the alone condition (Al, dark gray bars), the two social conditions taken together (Soc, light gray bars), and for audience (o) and coaction (•) separately. ***p ≤ 0.001, *p ≤ 0.05.

Mentions: The animals completed on average 19 sessions (range 16–20) in the alone condition, 15 sessions (10–21) in the audience condition, and 11 sessions (8–17) in the coaction condition. The monkeys touched the images on the screen to obtain a food treat twice more often under audience and coaction than under alone testing [F(2, 12) = 16.0; p = 0.001; Figure 2A]. Each social condition differed from the alone condition (audience: p = 0.009, coaction: p = 0.002), while not differing from each other (p = 0.80). Effect sizes were systematically superior to the 0.8 value reflecting a large effect (Lakens, 2013). Cohen's d amounted to 1.4 for audience and 1.8 for coaction, and Cohen's Drm to 1.3 for audience and 1.6 for coaction.


Social Facilitation of Cognition in Rhesus Monkeys: Audience Vs. Coaction.

Reynaud AJ, Guedj C, Hadj-Bouziane F, Meunier M, Monfardini E - Front Behav Neurosci (2015)

Response rate (mean ± sem) for the group (A) and for each individual (B). In (B), scores are illustrated for the alone condition (Al, dark gray bars), the two social conditions taken together (Soc, light gray bars), and for audience (o) and coaction (•) separately. ***p ≤ 0.001, *p ≤ 0.05.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4664694&req=5

Figure 2: Response rate (mean ± sem) for the group (A) and for each individual (B). In (B), scores are illustrated for the alone condition (Al, dark gray bars), the two social conditions taken together (Soc, light gray bars), and for audience (o) and coaction (•) separately. ***p ≤ 0.001, *p ≤ 0.05.
Mentions: The animals completed on average 19 sessions (range 16–20) in the alone condition, 15 sessions (10–21) in the audience condition, and 11 sessions (8–17) in the coaction condition. The monkeys touched the images on the screen to obtain a food treat twice more often under audience and coaction than under alone testing [F(2, 12) = 16.0; p = 0.001; Figure 2A]. Each social condition differed from the alone condition (audience: p = 0.009, coaction: p = 0.002), while not differing from each other (p = 0.80). Effect sizes were systematically superior to the 0.8 value reflecting a large effect (Lakens, 2013). Cohen's d amounted to 1.4 for audience and 1.8 for coaction, and Cohen's Drm to 1.3 for audience and 1.6 for coaction.

Bottom Line: Social psychology has long established that the mere presence of a conspecific, be it an active co-performer (coaction effect), or a passive spectator (audience effect) changes behavior in humans.Effect sizes were however four times larger than those typically reported in humans in similar tasks.Both findings are an encouragement to pursue brain and behavior research in the rhesus macaque to help solve the riddle of social facilitation mechanisms.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: ImpAct Team, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, U1028, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, UMR5292, Lyon Neuroscience Research Center Lyon, France ; Université de Lyon Lyon, France.

ABSTRACT
Social psychology has long established that the mere presence of a conspecific, be it an active co-performer (coaction effect), or a passive spectator (audience effect) changes behavior in humans. Yet, the process mediating this fundamental social influence has so far eluded us. Brain research and its nonhuman primate animal model, the rhesus macaque, could shed new light on this long debated issue. For this approach to be fruitful, however, we need to improve our patchy knowledge about social presence influence in rhesus macaques. Here, seven adults (two dyads and one triad) performed a simple cognitive task consisting in touching images to obtain food treats, alone vs. in presence of a co-performer or a spectator. As in humans, audience sufficed to enhance performance to the same magnitude as coaction. Effect sizes were however four times larger than those typically reported in humans in similar tasks. Both findings are an encouragement to pursue brain and behavior research in the rhesus macaque to help solve the riddle of social facilitation mechanisms.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus