Ergonomics

ISSN: 0014-0139 (Print) 1366-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20

Working alone or in the presence of others:

exploring social facilitation in baggage X-ray
security screening tasks

Rui-feng Yu & Xin Wu

To cite this article: Rui-feng Yu & Xin Wu (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

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.993429

Published online: 02 Jan 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1634

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=terg20
Ergonomics, 2015
Vol. 58, No. 6, 857–865, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.993429

Working alone or in the presence of others: exploring social facilitation in baggage X-ray
security screening tasks
Rui-feng Yu* and Xin Wu1
Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, P.R. China
(Received 30 July 2013; accepted 24 November 2014)

This study investigated whether the mere presence of a human audience would evoke a social facilitation effect in baggage
X-ray security screening tasks. A 2 (target presence: present vs. absent) £ 2 (task complexity: simple vs. complex) £ 2
(social presence: alone vs. human audience) within-subject experiment simulating a real baggage screening task was
conducted. This experiment included 20 male participants. The participants’ search performance in this task was recorded.
The results showed that the presence of a human audience speeded up responses in simple tasks and slowed down responses
in complex tasks. However, the social facilitation effect produced by the presence of a human audience had no effect on
response accuracy. These findings suggested that the complexity of screening tasks should be considered when designing
work organisation modes for security screening tasks.

Practitioner summary: This study investigated whether the presence of a human audience could evoke a social facilitation
effect in baggage X-ray security screening tasks. An experimental simulation was conducted. The results showed that the
presence of a human audience facilitated the search performance of simple tasks and inhibited the performance of complex
tasks.
Keywords: visual search; social facilitation; work organisation; threat detection

1. Introduction
To detect potentially threatening objects in passengers’ baggage, X-ray screening is extremely important for common
transportation security and is now widely used in public transportation facilities such as train stations and airports. During
such security screenings, transportation security screeners carefully observe X-ray images of passengers’ baggage that
appear on the visual display terminals of screening equipment to identify potentially hazardous items such as knives,
scissors and guns (Koller, Drury, and Schwaninger 2009). The security screeners’ baggage screening is basically composed
of scanning and recognition processes (McCarley and Carruth 2005; Wales et al. 2009). In a process of oculomotor
scanning, the security screeners scan the X-ray images and locate potential patterns in them for further processing by a
series of short fixations and quick saccadic eye movements. In a process of target recognition, they make target-present or
target-absent decisions by comparing those potential patterns in the images with what the prohibited items look like in X-
ray images stored in their memory. This procedure is a form of visual search in which screeners fulfil their monitoring
responsibilities and maintain vigilance.
The performance of a baggage-screening task is determined by two indicators: screening accuracy and the time spent on
the screening task. If a security screener misses a potentially hazardous object during the screening process, a severe threat
to passenger safety may arise and cause immeasurable damage (Hancock et al. 2013). However, precise threat detection
must be based on a highly efficient screening process. Otherwise, problems may arise, such as prohibitive costs of security
screening, passenger dissatisfaction and complaints about the long duration of screening. Hence, the performance of real-
world baggage screening tasks must be maintained at a high level, that is, maximising speed while minimising errors and
misses during the search process.
Previous studies on baggage-screening performance focused on measuring the responses of isolated individuals who sat
alone in labs and participated in experiments. In fact, in addition to performing the task alone, there are many other work
organisation modes employed in real-world baggage-screening tasks. Typically, transportation security screeners perform
the task in the presence of co-actors or evaluative audiences. In the case of co-actors, two or more security screeners perform
their individual screening tasks independently. However, as these co-actors are in close physical proximity to each other,
they can directly perceive each other’s task characteristics and performance. When working in the presence of evaluative
audiences, security screeners conduct their screening tasks while being supervised by other personnel or electronic monitors.
Do these various work organisation modes create differences in screening task performance? Which organisation mode

*Corresponding author. Email: yurf@tsinghua.edu.cn

q 2014 Taylor & Francis

858 R.-F. Yu and X. Wu

produces better results? Obviously, the answers to these questions are of great importance in the work organisation of
baggage-screening tasks as well as other similar tasks in which monitoring and vigilance are involved. However, no study
has yet investigated them. The present study represents a first step towards answering some of these questions.
The answers to these questions should be explored in the area of social psychology, which provides an in-depth
description of how people’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours are influenced by the presence of others (Allport 1985).
In social psychology, the social facilitation effect focuses on whether one’s performance differs when performing a task
alone or in the presence of others (Aiello and Douthitt 2001). Social facilitation is the tendency for people to perform their
dominant response better when in the mere presence of other people. The social facilitation effect was first described by
Triplett (1898). Subsequently, this effect was found in a large variety of research in a wide range of areas (Aiello and
Douthitt 2001; Al-Jalali and Shirreffs 2011; Bond and Titus 1983; Cole, Barrett, and Griffiths 2011; Park and Catrambone
2007). The various proposed explanations for social facilitation effects can be grouped into three categories: drive/arousal
theories, social comparison theories and cognitive process theories (Guerin 1993).
The first category of theories involves an increase in drive or arousal. Zajonc (1965, 1980) believed that the presence of
other people increased an individual’s drive to complete tasks and that this drive enhanced an individual’s dominant
response. Because individuals’ dominant responses for easy tasks are to produce correct and/or fast responses while their
dominant responses for complicated tasks are to produce incorrect and/or slow responses, the presence of others would
enhance the performance of simple tasks (i.e. social facilitation) but impair the performance of complicated tasks (i.e. social
impairment). Thus, it can be assumed that the security screeners’ drives will be increased due to the presence of others in the
work organisation mode of co-actors or evaluative audiences compared with performing the task alone and that the increased
drives will enhance the performance of simple baggage screening tasks and inhibit the performance of complex tasks.
The second category of theories for social facilitation effects concerns social comparisons. The evaluation apprehension
theory proposed by Cottrell (1972) emphasised that an individual’s concern about how others would evaluate him triggers
increased drive levels and leads to social facilitation or impairment of task performance. The self-presentation theory
proposed by Bond (1982) recognised that the efforts people make to present themselves as competent potentially influence
their performance. Duval and Wicklund (1972) proposed a self-awareness theory that attributed performance differences to
the performer’s efforts to reduce the discrepancy between their personal ideals and actual behaviour. Carver and Scheier
(1981) claimed that such efforts resulted from comparing their own performance to social norms and standards. In the
context of baggage screening tasks, those theories generally imply that the presence of co-actors or evaluative audiences
will evoke security screeners’ evaluation and comparison apprehension. Based on the social norms and standards related to
their tasks, the security screeners assess the adequacy of their performance and adjust their subsequent levels of efforts to
reduce the discrepancy between them. Therefore, for simple baggage screening tasks, people’s high expectations for their
performance lead them to devote additional effort to the task, thus enhancing their performance, and vice versa.
The third category of theories focuses on the influence of social presence on cognitive processing capacity (Baron
1986). The cognitive process theories contended that the presence of others distracts a performer’s attention from his task at
hand. The attention conflicts between attending to the presence of others and attending to the task make the performer try to
focus his attention on the task, which increases arousal and motivation to perform the task better as well as hope of
overcoming the distraction. This increased arousal enhances an individual’s dominant response. In the context of baggage-
screening tasks, cognitive process theories imply that the presence of co-actors and evaluative audiences distracts security
screeners’ attention from their tasks and elicits attentional conflicts. The attentional conflicts produce drive-like effects to
restrict the screeners’ attention focus, and thus the social facilitation effect is evoked.
It was proved that the mere presence of another person was enough to elicit a social facilitation effect, whether this person
was an evaluative audience, a co-actor or just an observer (Grant and Dajee 2003; Platania and Moran 2001). Thus, the aim of
this study was to investigate whether the mere presence of an observer can elicit social facilitation effects in a baggage-
screening task. The results will guide us in evaluating and improving current work organisational modes employed in security
screening tasks, that is, determining whether it is necessary to arrange for security screening personnel to work alone or in the
presence of others, depending on the actual complexity of screening tasks, to utilise (or avoid) a social facilitation effect and
thus enhance security screening task performance. Based on those theoretical frameworks of drive, attentional focusing and
social comparison for explaining the social facilitation effect, the key hypothesis is that the presence of a human audience can
enhance the performance of a simple X-ray baggage-screening task and impair the performance of a complex task.

2. Method
2.1 Design
The experiment was a 2 (target presence: present vs. absent) £ 2 (task complexity: simple vs. complex) £ 2 (social
presence: alone vs. human audience) within-subject design. Thus, eight different combinations of within-subject variables
 Ergonomics 859

were produced. The task was a simulated baggage-screening security task. The participants’ response times (RTs) and
accuracy rates (ARs) in this task were recorded.

2.2 Participants
The study included 20 male college students aged 18 –24 as participants. All of these participants were tested with a
standard near-visual chart to ensure that their near foveal acuity was normal. None of the participants had any previous
experience with this type of experiment or with similar visual search tasks.

2.3 Apparatus and software

The software used in this experiment was a C-based program developed on the Microsoft Windows (Microsoft Corporation,
Seattle, WA, USA) platform. It records the search performance of the participants, including the RT and the AR. This
program was run on a notebook computer with the resolution set to 1440 £ 900 pixels and a refresh frequency of 60 Hz.
Each participant sat on a chair with adjustable height at a distance of 500 mm directly in front of the liquid crystal display.
Adjustments were made when necessary to ensure that the participants’ eyes were at the same level as the centre of the
screen.
As shown in Figure 1, the experimental task interface consisted of two areas: the task area and the button selection
area. All images used in the task area had a size of 1024 £ 683 pixels, and the onscreen stimulus dimensions were
235.8 mm £ 157.3 mm. The active viewing area subtended 26.58 horizontally and 17.88 vertically at the participants’ eye
level. The button selection area had two clickable buttons, the alarm button and the safety button. If a participant felt that the
task image contained a threat target, he clicked the alarm button to announce the discovery of this item and end the search
task. If a participant felt that the task image did not contain any threat, he clicked the safety button to announce that no threat
existed and end the search task.

2.4 Stimuli
In this experiment, 500 actual security images taken at a security checkpoint in a train station were used. These X-ray
images were baggage (e.g. suitcases, trolley backpacks and briefcases) cluttered with a variety of objects (e.g. food,
clothing, consumer electronics and books) that do not include threat items. They were used as the target-absent image
library. Eight types of fixed blade knives were used as threat items. The X-ray images of the knives were used as the target
image library. One image in the target-absent image library and one image in the target image library were randomly
selected and rotated by a random angle in the picture plane, respectively. Then, the target was inserted at a random location
in the target-absent image by trimming and combining the two images with Adobe Photoshop software (Adobe Systems,
Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), and thus a target-present image was developed. This method is generally used in other related
studies to generate stimuli in X-ray images (McCarley 2009; Russ 2002). Thus, the target-present image library consisting
of 500 target-present images was generated.

Figure 1. Experimental task interface. (The target is circled.)

860 R.-F. Yu and X. Wu

By using a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ very simple, 2 ¼ simple, 3 ¼ middle, 4 ¼ complex, 5 ¼ very complex), two
experienced experimenters were asked to rank the complexities of baggage images in the target-absent and target-present
image libraries, respectively. The images with average ratings closest to 2 were used as simple images while the images
closest to 4 were complex ones. Then, 100 simple images and 100 complex images were respectively chosen from the
target-absent image library as well as from the target-present library, giving a total of 400 images (i.e. 100 simple threat-
present images, 100 simple threat-absent images, 100 complex threat-present images and 100 complex threat-absent
images). A pilot study conducted with 15 other male college students had shown that the differences in RTs between the
simple and complex images were significant for threat-present and threat-absent stimuli, respectively. A sample stimulus is
presented in the task area of the interface in Figure 1. At a viewing distance of 500 mm, the horizontal and vertical viewing
angles of the luggage ranged from 3.558 £ 3.808 to 13.348 £ 12.038, respectively, while the horizontal and vertical viewing
angles of the knives ranged from 0.248 £ 0.258 to 1.928 £ 1.858, respectively.
Based on the target presence and complexity, the 400 selected images were evenly divided into two groups, i.e. each
group included 50 simple threat-present images, 50 simple threat-absent images, 50 complex threat-present images and 50
complex threat-absent images. In each group, all the images were sorted randomly and combined for each participant to
form the final experiment material for a particular social presence (i.e. alone vs. human audience) situation. Two groups of
images were assigned with a counterbalanced design to a particular social presence situation across participants. The
remaining baggage images in the target-present and target-absent image library were used for the participants’ training
tasks.

2.5 Procedure
The experimenter first explained the experimental process and software usage to the participants. The participants were
asked to role-play security screeners performing baggage X-ray screening tasks at an airport security checkpoint. The
scenario informed the participants of the following:
Passengers are currently queuing up for a security screening. On one hand, you will have to carefully complete each search task, as
failing to identify a hazardous item would pose a huge threat to the lives of the passengers. On the other hand, you will not be able
to spend too much time on a single search task, as this will affect the efficiency of the screening process, resulting in the passengers
becoming impatient and disgruntled. Therefore, you will have to complete each search task as quickly and as accurately as
possible.
Following this introduction, each participant completed a training session in which the content of the training tasks was
exactly the same as in the actual experiment tasks.
Prior to practise trials of training sessions, the threat items (i.e. eight types of knives) and their X-ray images, as well as
the threat detection method, were illustrated and explained to the participants. For each practise trial, the participants were
asked to search for possible threats hidden in X-ray images of cluttered baggage. Before each trial began, the participants
were asked to gaze at the fixation circle at the centre of the screen. The participant pressed the start button to begin the
experiment. If the participant felt that the baggage image contained a threat target, he used the mouse to click the alarm
button to announce the discovery of a hazardous item. If the participant felt that the baggage image contained no threat
target, he used the mouse to click the safety button to announce that his search did not yield any observed threats. At this
point, the task would end regardless of which response the participant gave, and the display would present the next image to
the participant after one second. During this one-second interval, the screen would remain white, and the participants were
asked to look again at the central fixation circle to effectively remove the influence of the previous image and allow the
participant to regain concentration and focus (Sharma et al. 2010; Yamani and McCarley 2011).
Then, the participants conducted several practise trials under the instruction of the experimenter. After they thought that
they had mastered the recognition skill of threat items in X-ray images, the participants started practise trials by themselves.
Feedback regarding whether their judgment was correct or incorrect, together with highlighted threat item if it was present,
was given in each practise trial. However, there was no feedback in the actual experimental trials. The training session
comprised of 200 complete trials. Half of the trials were target-present, while the others were target-absent. The occurrence
of target-present trials and target-absent trials was random. If a participant did not think he was well practised on practise
trials, he could perform extra practise trials with the experimenter’s instruction if necessary. After completing the training
sessions, the participants took a 15-minute break.
The actual experimental task comprised of two sessions with 200 trials each. Each session corresponded to one social
presence situation, that is, alone or with a human audience. In the experimental trials in the alone condition, the
experimenter explained to the participants that the experiment needed to be completed alone. Under the condition of a
human audience, the experimenter explained to the participant that a male college student who did not know any of the
participants had asked to watch the experiment and would sit diagonally 0.9 m behind the participant. He watched but did
 Ergonomics 861

not interact in any way with the participant. This audience condition was the same as in previous research (Platania and
Moran 2001; Zajonc and Sales 1966). The order of the social presence factor was counterbalanced across participants.
Following this introduction, the experimenter left the room, and the actual experiment started. Each participant
continuously performed two trial sessions. There was a break of 15 minutes between the two sessions. The experimenter
returned to the room only after the participant completed all the required tasks of the experiment stage.

3. Results and discussion

The means and the standard deviations of the RTs and ARs for the eight experimental conditions are summarised in Table 1.
The data on the RTs for error trials were excluded. An a of p ¼ 0.05 was used for statistical tests.

3.1 Response time

The RT refers to the total time between the appearance of each search task image and the response given by the participant
(clicking the alarm or the safety button). A three-way within-subject ANOVA of the RTs from error-free trials showed
significant effects for the main factors for task complexity (F(1,19) ¼ 197.173, p , 0.001) and target presence (F
(1,19) ¼ 124.107, p , 0.001). The results showed that the participants who performed simple tasks responded faster than
the participants who performed complex ones (Msimple ¼ 3719 vs. Mcomplex ¼ 4501, t(19) ¼ 12.515, p , 0.001), similar to
previous studies (Chan and Yu 2010; Gallwey and Drury 1986; Wolfe et al. 2002), and that the participants’ RTs for target-
absent trials were longer than for target-present ones (Mabsent ¼ 5971 vs. Mpresent ¼ 2249, t(19) ¼ 21.830, p , 0.001),
which was consistent with the findings of previous studies (McCarley 2009; Townsend and Ashby 1983). However, the
main effect of social presence on RT was not significant (F(1,19) ¼ 0.011, p ¼ 0.919).
There was a significant interaction between target presence and task complexity (F(1,19) ¼ 15.180, p , 0.001).
Compared to target-absent conditions, the presence of a target decreased the time taken by participants to complete both
simple and complex screening tasks (Mpresent ¼ 1935 vs. Mabsent ¼ 5503, for simple tasks; Mpresent ¼ 2563 vs.
Mabsent ¼ 6438, for complex tasks). Moreover, the shortened time in complex tasks was larger than the time in simple tasks,
showing that the effect of target presence on reaction time for complex tasks was stronger than that for simple tasks.
As expected, a significant two-way interaction was found between the task complexity and the social presence (F
(1,19) ¼ 88.440, p , 0.001), which suggested that the influence of social presence on the participants’ RT was moderated
by the task complexity. As shown in Table 1, the presence of an observer decreased the time taken by participants to
complete simple screening tasks (Mpresent ¼ 3529 vs. Mabsent ¼ 3908, t(19) ¼ 4.164, p , 0.001), showing that the presence
of an observer produced a social facilitation effect. In contrast, the presence of an observer increased the time taken by
participants to complete complex screening tasks (Mpresent ¼ 4678 vs. Mabsent ¼ 4324, t(19) ¼ 3.108, p ¼ 0.004), showing
that the presence of an observer produced detrimental social impairment. These results show that for baggage-screening
tasks, the presence of a human audience produces a social facilitation effect, that is, it shortens the RT for completing simple
tasks and lengthens the RT for complex tasks.
As shown in Table 1, we observed a significant three-way interaction of target presence, task complexity and social
presence on RT (F(1,19) ¼ 23.575, p , 0.001). Both the shortened RT taken by participants to complete simple tasks and
the lengthened time taken by participants to complete complex tasks under the condition of a human audience (vs. alone) in
target-absent tasks were longer than those in target-present tasks, suggesting that the interaction between task complexity
and social presence (i.e. the social facilitation effect) is more pronounced in the target-absent condition than in the target-
present condition.
We further conducted post hoc 2 £ 2 ANOVAs separately for target-present conditions (hit RT) and for target-absent
conditions (correct rejection RT), and the results showed significant main factor effects for task complexity (F

Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the RT and AR.

RT AR
Alone Human audience Alone Human audience
Target presence Task complexity Average SD Average SD Average SD Average SD
Present Simple 2033 288.7 1837 265.8 0.951 0.045 0.956 0.050
Complex 2430 445.9 2697 481.8 0.826 0.111 0.816 0.146
Absent Simple 5784 1692.5 5222 1620.0 0.934 0.099 0.932 0.125
Complex 6217 1791.0 6660 1917.4 0.933 0.092 0.937 0.143
862 R.-F. Yu and X. Wu

Figure 2. RT as a function of target presence, social presence and task complexity.

(1,19) ¼ 140.801, p , 0.001, for hit time; F(1,19) ¼ 134.565, p , 0.001, for correct-rejection time) along with a
significant interaction between social presence and task complexity (F(1,19) ¼ 34.212, p , 0.001, for hit time; F
(1,19) ¼ 83.281, p , 0.001, for correct-rejection time). The results showed that the effects of social presence on the hit
time and correct-rejection time were conditional upon task complexity, as shown in Figure 2.
Post hoc analyses showed that the presence of an observer shortened the participants’ hit time and the correct-rejection
time when completing simple screening tasks (Mpresent ¼ 1837 vs. Mabsent ¼ 2033, t(19) ¼ 4.472, p , 0.001 for hit time;
Mpresent ¼ 5222 vs. Mabsent ¼ 5784, t(19) ¼ 3.324, p ¼ 0.004 for correct-rejection time), showing that the presence of an
observer produced a positive social facilitation effect (performance enhancement). Conversely, the presence of an observer
lengthened both the participants’ hit time and the correct-rejection time when completing complex screening tasks
(Mpresent ¼ 2697 vs. Mabsent ¼ 2430, t(19) ¼ 2.678, p , 0.05 for hit time; Mpresent ¼ 6660 vs. Mabsent ¼ 6217, t
(19) ¼ 2.141, p , 0.05 for correct-rejection time), showing that the presence of an observer resulted in a negative social
facilitation effect (performance impairment).

3.2 Accuracy
A three-way within-subject ANOVA on screening ARs was carried out. The results showed a main effect of task complexity
(F(1,19) ¼ 42.272, p , 0.001). The AR for participants performing simple tasks was higher than for complex tasks
(Msimple ¼ 0.943 vs. Mcomplex ¼ 0.878, t(19) ¼ 6.028, p , 0.001). The interaction between target presence and task
complexity was significant (F(1,19) ¼ 49.707, p , 0.001). The effect of target presence on accuracy was moderated by the
task complexity. The AR of participants in the target-present condition was higher than that in the target-absent condition
for the simple tasks (Mpresent ¼ 0.954 vs. Mabsent ¼ 0.933), whereas the reverse is true for the complex tasks
(Mpresent ¼ 0.821 vs. Mabsent ¼ 0.935). The other main effects and interaction effects on ARs, however, were not significant
( ps . 0.05). Importantly, there was no significant two-way interaction between the task complexity and the social presence
(F(1,19) ¼ 0.178, p ¼ 0.678), showing that the presence of an observer did not produce a positive or a negative social
facilitation effect.
We further conducted post hoc 2 £ 2 ANOVAs separately for target-present conditions (hit AR) and for target-absent
conditions (correct rejection AR). Although there was a significant difference in hit rate between simple and complex tasks
(F(1,19) ¼ 49.281, p , 0.009), no other significant effects were observed ( ps . 0.05). Regarding the correct-rejection
rate, all the effects were not significant ( ps . 0.05).
The signal detection measures of sensitivity d0 and response bias c can be calculated based on the hit and false alarm
rates, as summarised in Table 2. A within-subject ANOVA of d0 and c showed a main effect of task complexity (F
(1,19) ¼ 96.251, p , 0.001 for d0 ; F(1,19) ¼ 109.295, p , 0.001 for c). The results showed that the participants’
sensitivities were higher when performing simple tasks than when performing complex tasks (Msimple ¼ 3.552 vs.
Mcomplex ¼ 2.794, t(19) ¼ 9.988, p , 0.001), implying that participants had higher ability and efficiency to distinguish the
target from simple clutter images. Similarly, analysis of c indicated that participants adopted a more risky bias for simple
tasks than for complex tasks (Msimple ¼ – 0.025 vs. Mcomplex ¼ 0.379, t(19) ¼ 10.454, p , 0.001). That is, participants
were more likely to indicate a threat in simple images. However, the effects of social presence and its interaction with the
task complexity were not significant ( ps . 0.05).
 Ergonomics 863

Table 2. Means and standard deviations (SD) for sensitivity (d0 ) and response bias (c).
d0 c
Alone Human audience Alone Human audience
Task complexity Average SD Average SD Average SD Average SD
Simple 3.495 0.685 3.608 0.729 20.030 0.361 2 0.021 0.401
Complex 2.736 0.748 2.851 0.799 0.331 0.371 0.427 0.438

In general, the ARs of participants who performed target-absent tasks were high (. 0.93), and there was no difference
between simple tasks and complex ones (Msimple ¼ 0.933 vs. Mcomplex ¼ 0.934, t(19) ¼ 0.350, p . 0.05). As the RT in
target-absent tasks was also much longer than in target-present tasks, it seemed that the participants’ high accuracy was
obtained at the cost of long search time. The high AR in simple target-present tasks may result from the simplicity of
images; that is, it is easy for participants to identify the targets in simple images. The differences in AR among participants
performing simple target-present tasks, simple target-absent tasks and complex target-absent tasks were not significant
( ps . 0.05). Additionally, the AR of participants who performed complex target-present tasks was much lower than the
accuracy of participants who performed target-absent tasks and simple target-present tasks ( ps , 0.05). Because the
participants’ bias for a complex image was towards no-responses (i.e. c . 0) while their bias for a simple one was towards
yes-responses (i.e. c , 0), their response criteria to indicate a target in complex images were more strict than in simple
images. As a result, participants might tend to overlook the targets in complex target-present images even though they spent
more time on the images, resulting in their decreased hit rate in complex target-present tasks.

4. General discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the mere presence of a human audience would evoke a social facilitation
effect in the task of X-ray baggage screening. The experimental data for participants’ search performance in the task of X-
ray baggage screening indicates that the presence of a human audience can produce a social facilitation effect. For simple
X-ray screening tasks, the search task performance increased significantly in the presence of a human audience. For
complex X-ray screening tasks, the search task performance decreased significantly in the presence of a human audience.
Interestingly, the influence of social facilitation evoked by the mere presence of a human audience in the task of X-ray
baggage screening on search performance only existed in the participants’ RT. The effect on the accuracy of hazardous
items identification was insignificant, which was consistent with the study by Wühr and Huestegge (2010).
These results imply that for simple threat detection in X-ray screening tasks such as small bags (i.e. a small number of
items or only one or several types of items in bags), the social facilitation effect could be used to increase the performance
of the security screening personnel. For example, as far as the passengers at a subway station in a city are concerned, most of
them are working men and may not take many items in their small bags with them every day. Thus, in terms of work
organisation, the security screeners could be asked to perform their tasks in the presence of co-actors or evaluative
audiences. For complex threat-detection tasks such as large bags (i.e. a large number or a large variety of items in bags), the
social facilitation effect might need to be avoided. For example, as far as the people at an airport are concerned, most of
them are long-distance passengers and may take many items in their large bags with them. Thus, in terms of work
organisation, the security screeners could be asked to perform their screening tasks alone. In addition, when performing
security screening for a batch of transited goods at train stations and airports, security screeners may know the number and
variety of items in the transited goods based on cargo lists. Thus, the task complexity for screening the transited goods could
be evaluated. The specific work organisation modes can be used to utilise (or avoid) the social facilitation effect, thus
optimising threat detection task performance. Moreover, small and large bags can be screened separately. The screening of
large bags is under an isolated condition, whereas small bags can be screened in the presence of other screeners.
In general, the research results were compatible with all three relevant theories on social facilitation. The drive theory
states that the presence of others would increase the participants’ drive to complete their tasks (Zajonc 1965, 1980). Similarly,
the social comparison theory assumes that the participants’ evaluation and comparison apprehension resulting from the
presence of an observer elevated their drive levels (Bond 1982; Carver and Scheier 1981; Cottrell 1972; Duval and Wicklund
1972). Additionally, the cognitive process theory suggests that a human audience poses a distraction to the participants, and
the attention conflict between the distraction and attending to the tasks could act as a source of drive enhancement in that
participants hope to overcome the distraction (Baron 1986). The increased drive supposedly enhances the speed of the
participants’ dominant responses and impaired their non-dominant responses. For simple threat-detection tasks, hazardous
items are easily found and recognised. Thus, for participants who possess screening skills, their dominant responses for simple
864 R.-F. Yu and X. Wu

tasks would be to produce a quick response (i.e. shorter RT). For complex threat-detection tasks, hazardous items are difficult
to locate and recognise, resulting in a participant’s quick response becoming a non-dominant response. Thus, the presence of a
human audience would therefore result in decreasing the participants’ processing speed for complex tasks (i.e. longer RT).
One possible reason that the presence of a human audience selectively affected participants’ search speed rather than
search accuracy was that the fixation durations of participants performing visual search tasks in the situation of social
facilitation effect might be changed significantly in contrast to the situation without this effect. The obtained results
revealed that the presence of a human audience shortened the participants’ RT and had no effect on search accuracy when
they completed simple X-ray screening tasks in contrast to participants performing the tasks alone. Salas, Driskell, and
Hughes (1996) indicated that an operator could adopt filtration and acceleration strategies to quicken his response speed in a
visual search. In the filtration strategy, an operator reduces his RT by processing less information before choosing a
response. Reducing the average number of fixations and increasing saccade amplitudes are two typical methods in the
filtration strategy. In the acceleration strategy, an operator could reduce his RT by shortening fixation duration. The
application of filtration strategy could, to some extent, decrease the fixation point number. Because the detection rates for
the fixated targets were significantly higher than when the targets were not fixated (McCarley 2009; Huestegge and Radach
2012), it was very likely that the fixation point number of participants performing the screening tasks might be kept
constant, as search accuracy was unchanged in the different social presence situations.
Thus, the participants were more likely to adopt the acceleration strategy in simple X-ray screening tasks when a human
audience was present, that is, to shorten the duration per fixation. It is easy to identify the target in a simple task, so making a
correct response is a participant’s dominant response. Moreover, the simple tasks require processing a small number of
related stimuli and thus require little attention. As a result, the shorter fixation duration may not affect the detection rate.
Compared with the search performance of participants performing complex X-ray screening tasks alone, their RT increased
dramatically, and search accuracy remained unchanged in the presence of a human audience. It is difficult to identify and
judge a target in a complex task. Furthermore, complex tasks require processing a large number of related stimuli and thus
need considerable attention. The external distraction caused by the presence of a human audience likely attracts part of the
participants’ limited attention resources (Guerin and Innes 1982; Langton and Bruce 1999; Wühr and Huestegge 2010) and
may thus impair the search accuracy (Hooge and Erkelens 1999; Niebel and Freivalds 2003). As a result, a participant might
increase fixation duration to compensate for the decreased attention resource and ensure that his search accuracy does not
decrease. Because eye movement data can provide valuable information about the saccade amplitude, the number and the
duration of fixations (Huestegge and Radach 2012), an eye-tracking approach could be employed in future research on
strategies for the response of operators to the presence of others in social facilitation. The aim of this study focused on
whether the presence of a human audience could evoke a social facilitation effect in visual search tasks. In some scenarios
of real-world visual search tasks, target prevalence is high such as flight control. In some other scenarios, targets (hazards)
are rarely present such as baggage screenings. In typical visual search studies, subjects are required to search for targets
among distractors, in which targets are often presented on 50% of trials (Wolfe, Horowitz, and Naomi 2005). However, the
low prevalence effect by Wolfe et al. (2007) indicates that the reaction time is shorter and the miss error rate is higher under
low target prevalence condition than in high target prevalence condition. Moreover, a baggage-screening task (or any
monitoring task) requires a level of expertise and knowledge. Thus, real security screeners and the experimental tasks with
low target prevalence should be used in a future study to confirm the findings obtained in this study.
In short, this study extended previous empirical findings on the social facilitation effect to the task of X-ray baggage
screening. The main implication is that the complexity of screening tasks might need to be considered when designing work
organisation modes to utilise (or avoid) a social facilitation effect, thus optimising threat detection task performance.
Another implication is that the effects reported here are potentially important considerations in the design of a visual search
experiment in which monitoring and vigilance are involved, given that a participant behaves differently and creates
different task performance when he performs a screening task alone or in the presence of others.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by two grants from the Natural Science Foundation of China [project number 71071085], [project number
71471098].

Note
1. Email: 89427978@qq.com
 Ergonomics 865

References
Aiello, J. R., and E. A. Douthitt. 2001. “Social Facilitation from Triplett to Electronic Performance Monitoring.” Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research and Practice 5 (3): 163– 180.
Al-Jalali, E., and S. M. Shirreffs. 2011. “The Effect of Social Facilitation on Water Consumption in a Free-Living Adults.” British
Journal of Sports Medicine 45 (15): A9, doi:10.1136/bjsports-2011-090606.30.
Allport, G. W. 1985. The Handbook of Social Psychology. 3rd ed. New York: Random House.
Baron, R. S. 1986. “Distraction-Conflict Theory: Progress and Problems.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 19: 1 – 39.
Bond, C. F. 1982. “Social Facilitation: A Self-Presentational View.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (6): 1042– 1050.
Bond, C. F., and L. J. Titus. 1983. “Social Facilitation: A Meta-Analysis of 241 Studies.” Psychological Bulletin 94 (2): 265– 292.
Carver, C. S., and M. F. Scheier. 1981. “The Self-Attention Induced Feedback Loop and Social Facilitation.” Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology 17 (6): 545– 568.
Chan, A. H. S., and R. F. Yu. 2010. “Validating the Random Search Model for Two Targets of Different Difficulty.” Perceptual and
Motor Skills 110 (1): 167– 180.
Cole, T., D. J. K. Barrett, and M. D. Griffiths. 2011. “Social Facilitation in Online and Offline Gambling: A Pilot Study.” International
Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 9 (3): 240– 247.
Cottrell, N. B. 1972. Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Holt.
Duval, S., and R. A. Wicklund. 1972. A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness. New York: Academic Press.
Gallwey, T. J., and C. G. Drury. 1986. “Task Complexity in Visual Inspection.” Human Factors 28 (5): 595– 606.
Grant, T., and K. Dajee. 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.
Guerin, B. 1993. Social Facilitation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guerin, B., and J. M. Innes. 1982. “Social Facilitation and Social Monitoring: A New Look at Zajonc’s Mere Presence Hypothesis.”
British Journal of Social Psychology 21 (1): 7 – 18.
Hancock, P. A., J. E. Mercadob, J. Merlob, and J. B. F. Van Erp. 2013. “Improving Target Detection in Visual Search Through the
Augmenting Multi-Sensory Cues.” Ergonomics 56 (5): 729– 738.
Hooge, I. T., and C. J. Erkelens. 1999. “Peripheral Vision and Oculomotor Control During Visual Search.” Vision Research 39 (8):
1567– 1575.
Huestegge, L., and R. Radach. 2012. “Visual and Memory Search in Complex Environments: Determinants of Eye Movements and
Search Performance.” Ergonomics 55 (9): 1009– 1027.
Koller, S. M., C. G. Drury, and A. Schwaninger. 2009. “Change of Search Time and Non-Search Time in X-Ray Baggage Screening due
to Training.” Ergonomics 52 (6): 644–656.
Langton, S. R. H., and V. Bruce. 1999. “Reflexive Visual Orienting in Response to the Social Attention of Others.” Visual Cognition 6 (5):
541– 567.
McCarley, J. S. 2009. “Effects of Speed – Accuracy Instructions on Oculomotor Scanning and Target Recognition in a Simulated Baggage
X-Ray Screening Task.” Ergonomics 52 (3): 325– 333.
McCarley, J. S., and D. W. Carruth. 2005. “Oculomotor Scanning and Target Recognition in Luggage X-Ray Screening.” International
Journal of Cognitive Technology 9 (2): 26 – 29.
Niebel, B. W., and A. Freivalds. 2003. Methods, Standards, and Work Design. 11th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Park, S., and R. Catrambone. 2007. “Social Facilitation Effects of Virtual Humans.” Human Factors 49 (6): 1054– 1060.
Platania, J., and G. P. Moran. 2001. “Social Facilitation as a Function of the Mere Presence of Others.” The Journal of Social Psychology
141 (2): 190– 197.
Russ, J. C. 2002. The Image Processing Handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Salas, E., J. E. Driskell, and S. Hughes. 1996. “The Study of Stress and Human Performance.” In Stress and Human Performance, edited
by J. E. Driskell and E. Salas, 1 – 45. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sharma, D., R. Booth, R. Brown, and P. Huguet. 2010. “Exploring the Temporal Dynamics of Social Facilitation in the Stroop Task.”
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17 (1): 52 – 58.
Townsend, J. T., and F. G. Ashby. 1983. Stochastic Modelling of Elementary Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Triplett, N. 1898. “The Dynamogenic Factors in Pacemaking and Competition.” The American Journal of Psychology 9 (4): 507– 533.
Wales, A., C. Anderson, K. Jones, A. Schwaninger, and J. Horne. 2009. “Evaluating the Two Component Inspection Model in a
Simplified Luggage Search Task.” Behavior Research Methods 41 (3): 937– 943.
Wolfe, J. M., T. S. Horowitz, and M. K. Naomi. 2005. “Rare Items Often Missed in Visual Searches.” Nature 435 (7041): 439– 440.
Wolfe, J. M., T. S. Horowitz, M. J. Van Wert, N. M. Kenner, S. S. Place, and N. Kibbi. 2007. “Low Target Prevalence is a Stubborn
Source of Errors in Visual Search Tasks.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136 (4): 623– 638.
Wolfe, J. M., A. Oliva, T. S. Horowitz, S. J. Butcher, and A. Bompas. 2002. “Segmentation of Objects from Backgrounds in Visual Search
Tasks.” Vision Research 42 (28): 2985– 3004.
Wühr, P., and L. Huestegge. 2010. “The Impact of Social Presence on Voluntary and Involuntary Control of Spatial Attention.” Social
Cognition 28 (2): 145– 160.
Yamani, Y., and J. S. McCarley. 2011. “Visual Search Asymmetries in Heavy Clutter: Implications for Display Design.” Human Factors
53 (3): 299– 307.
Zajonc, R. B. 1965. “Social Facilitation.” Science 149 (3681): 269– 274.
Zajonc, R. B. 1980. Psychology of Group Influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zajonc, R. B., and S. M. Sales. 1966. “Social Facilitation of Dominant and Subordinate Responses.” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology 2 (2): 160– 168.