Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Social Facilitation of Creative Reflection: AI-agents and Humans

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Being watched or merely accompanied could produce the kind of breakdown that makes creative reflection happen, this paper argues.

desk verdict A competent, honest workshop position paper that connects social facilitation research to creative reflection and AI companions, but the load-bearing transfer assumption from lab performance tasks to reflective practice is admitted as untested and left directionally unconstrained. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06980 v1 pith:ATFJR2NP submitted 2026-08-07 cs.HC

Olga Sutskova , Corey Ford This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords socialfacilitationeffectcreativereflectionaudiencemerepresenceAIcompanionhuman-AIcollaborationmechanismscognition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Social collaboration is known to support reflection, and AI is increasingly used to simulate social partners in creative work. This paper proposes that the social facilitation effect—the well-established finding that people perform differently when observed or merely co-present with others—could be deliberately used to trigger creative reflection. It argues that the audience effect and the mere presence effect are forms of social disruption that can produce the breakdown, difficulty, or discomfort known to spark reflection, and that these mechanisms should be tested in creative practice with both human and AI companions. If the transfer holds, the presence or absence of social others becomes a design lever for creativity support tools.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Social Facilitation Effect (SFE), defined as the change in behaviour, performance, and awareness when a person acts in the presence of others versus alone. The paper splits SFE into two mechanisms: the Audience Effect, where being observed shifts attention to anticipation of others' evaluation, and the Mere Presence Effect, where co-presence alone raises alertness and arousal, dividing attention. Reflection is framed through established triggers—breakdown, difficulty, inner discomfort, comparison, and novelty—and the paper's move is to treat social presence as a way to produce those triggers, with second-person cognition as the underlying state.

What would settle it

A controlled creative-reflection experiment: participants revise a design or written idea while alone, with a silent human co-present, with a human observer, and with an AI companion, holding task difficulty fixed, and measuring reflection depth (e.g., number of changes made, quality of revisions, self-reported reflective insight). If the observed and co-present conditions show no difference from the solitary condition on any reflection measure, the claim that social facilitation triggers creative reflection loses its empirical footing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that the social facilitation effect—a person's changed behaviour, performance, and self-awareness in the presence of others—could serve as a trigger for creative reflection. The authors connect the effect's two mechanisms, the audience effect (anticipation of being evaluated) and the mere presence effect (heightened alertness from co-presence), to established reflection triggers such as breakdown, difficulty, and inner discomfort. Because social presence introduces another agent into an otherwise solitary activity, it acts as a social disruption capable of producing the cognitive challenge reflection needs; the authors speculate this may even be the driving force behind creative flow during co-creation. They propose testing these mechanisms in creative practice with human and AI companions, while acknowledging that whether AI elicits the same effects is open, citing their own findings that AI co-presence improved accuracy but only real-human observation changed performance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the social facilitation effect, measured mostly in controlled performance tasks, transfers to complex creative reflection in real or technology-mediated settings; the paper itself notes this transfer has yet to be tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the transfer holds, creativity support tools could deliberately introduce a social observer or co-present companion at a chosen moment to push a stalled reflective process forward.
  • The canonical facilitation/inhibition pattern makes timing and task difficulty design parameters: the same social intervention could help during low cognitive load and hurt during high cognitive load.
  • Prior evidence reviewed in the paper suggests AI co-presence can improve performance accuracy but only human observation changes behaviour, so AI companions should not be assumed to reproduce the full audience effect.
  • The framework implies solitude may sometimes be the correct design condition, specifically when a stage of creative work already demands full attention.
  • Separating the audience effect from the mere presence effect in experiments could reveal whether anticipated evaluation or shared alertness carries the reflective benefit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: varying the salience of an AI companion (audio only, visual, embodied, interactive) should produce graded changes in reflection depth if the mere presence effect is the active ingredient; this dose-response prediction is testable now.
  • Editorial inference: the optimal-arousal framing suggests a unified account with group-flow theory in which social presence helps up to a point and then distracts; measuring self-reported focus and reflection quality across co-presence intensities would test it.
  • Editorial inference: AI companions might be tuned to induce the audience effect without the reputation-management anxiety of a human observer, offering a safer evaluation context for reflection; the paper gestures at this but does not develop it.
  • Editorial inference: reflection measures in future studies should capture process changes (number of reflective turns, diversity of options reconsidered), because accuracy alone would probably miss the predicted effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This position paper proposes that social facilitation effects—the audience effect and the mere presence effect—may influence creative reflection, and that this association should be tested in both human and AI-companion contexts. The authors review relevant psychological theories (e.g., the canonical social facilitation effect, self-presentation, second-person cognition), discuss reflection-triggering mechanisms such as breakdown and discomfort, and outline open questions about how AI-mediated social presence might modulate creative practice. The paper explicitly states that the effect of social facilitation on reflection ability is yet to be tested and frames its proposals as speculative research directions. It concludes with a call for collaboration between cognitive science and creative HCI.

Significance. If the proposed agenda were pursued, it could meaningfully connect two established literatures—social facilitation in cognitive psychology and reflection in creative HCI—and inform the design of AI companions that scaffold rather than merely simulate social presence. The paper's strengths are its careful hedging (e.g., 'we speculate,' 'should be investigated further'), its explicit acknowledgment that the central transfer is untested, and its citation of prior work that partially supports but also complicates the AI extension, such as Sutskova et al.'s finding that AI observation did not change performance. However, because no empirical claims are made, the paper's value is in its framing; it does not yet provide a testable protocol that would substantiate the claimed link.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3] The entire research agenda rests on the premise that the social facilitation effect, measured mostly on simple/difficult performance tasks, transfers to creative reflection. The paper explicitly notes that 'Whether reflection ability could be affected in a similar pattern is yet to be tested' (Section 3), but it does not offer a mechanistic account of how arousal or attentional shifts would influence higher-order metacognitive reflection. Because the canonical SFE predicts inhibition rather than facilitation for difficult tasks, and creative reflection is likely cognitively demanding, the authors should specify hypothesized directions and boundary conditions before proposing experiments. Without this, the agenda is not yet empirically constrained.
  2. [Section 4.1] The proposed experiments lack concrete outcome measures for reflection. The cited creative-domain SFE studies measure anxiety (Song et al.), body expression (Shikanai and Hachimura), and idea count (Hwang and Won), but not reflection depth or quality. To make the agenda testable, the paper should propose how reflection will be operationalized (e.g., using the RICE questionnaire from [20] or coding reflective statements from think-aloud protocols) and how the audience effect and mere presence effect will be manipulated orthogonally. This would also allow distinguishing SFE-driven effects from generic distraction, demand characteristics, or social desirability.
  3. [Section 3.1] The authors' own finding [47] that AI observation failed to change performance while human observation did ('cut-off point') is presented as motivation, but it undercuts the AI-companion extension: if AI presence does not elicit audience effects, what mechanism could make more 'intelligent' or embodied agents do so? The paper should address this alternative reading and specify which AI capabilities (e.g., perceived agency, embodiment, evaluative cues) could overcome the observed cut-off, turning this into a falsifiable design hypothesis.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The phrase 'the trends of how agenting influence might be perceived' appears to contain a typo; 'agenting' should likely be 'agentic'.
  2. [Section 4] There is a missing apostrophe in 'a persons awareness' in the sentence about breakdown: it should be 'a person's awareness'.
  3. [Section 3] The phrase 'sets people in a certain state of social equilibrium' is awkward; consider 'puts people in a certain state of social equilibrium'.
  4. [Section 5] The sentence 'We would like to expand on these discussions further alongside the multidisciplinary attendees of the ACM Creativity and Cognition conference (2026), as part of the RiCE workshop' is informal; consider rephrasing to a more standard academic register.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly caveated research agenda whose self-citations are background evidence, not load-bearing premises.

full rationale

This is a position/workshop paper proposing research directions; it contains no derivation chain, no fitted parameters, and no prediction that reduces to an input. The central speculative claim—that social facilitation mechanisms (audience effect, mere presence effect) could trigger reflection mechanisms such as breakdown and discomfort—is explicitly framed as untested: 'Whether reflection ability could be affected in a similar pattern is yet to be tested' (Section 3). The authors cite their own prior work [47-49] for SFE effects in videoconference and VR contexts; these citations are independent empirical findings, not self-referential definitions, and the paper does not invoke them as proof of the transfer to creative reflection. The skeptical concern that the transfer is unestablished is a validity/evidence gap, not circularity. Accordingly, score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. Four domain assumptions carry the proposal; all are flagged by the authors as needing empirical testing.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Social facilitation effects documented for simple tasks will generalize to complex creative reflection tasks.
    Section 3 and 3.1 motivate applying SFE to reflection, while acknowledging it is untested. If false, the proposed research agenda loses its foundation.
  • domain assumption AI agents can serve as social others capable of eliciting mere presence or audience effects.
    Section 3.1 and the discussion of AI companions assume AI presence can be socially meaningful. The paper cites Sutskova et al. for some evidence, but treats the general question as open.
  • domain assumption Reflection can be triggered by social disruption, breakdown, or discomfort.
    Section 4 lists reflection mechanisms and asserts social mechanisms could introduce disruption. This is a theoretical premise drawn from prior reflective informatics and education literature.
  • domain assumption The SFE task-difficulty interaction, easy tasks facilitated and hard tasks inhibited, has an analogue in reflection stages.
    Section 3.1 proposes testing convergent and divergent thinking stages, assuming difficulty moderates social effects on reflection in a similar way.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Social Facilitation of Creative Reflection: AI-agents and Humans." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ATFJR2NP

@misc{pith2026260806980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Social Facilitation of Creative Reflection: AI-agents and Humans},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ATFJR2NP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06980}
}
read the original abstract

Social collaboration can support people's reflection and is a crucial component of creativity. Creative technologies have been designed to support more collaborative ways of working, including using AI to simulate social partners. As human-AI creative collaborations increase, further investigation is needed into how different social interactions influence creative reflection and at which stage a social intervention is crucial to improve creative outcomes. Considering that non-verbal communication is the bedrock of human cognition and influence, non-verbal social dynamics should be examined in detail in the age of AI-companionship. For example, during social interaction, the social facilitation effect describes how the mere presence or observation of others influences how a person behaves and feels in the context. Whether changes in technology-mediated social environments influence how people reflect on their creative work needs further exploration, as does whether social AI-companionship elicits similar effects as humans. This paper discusses how theoretical mechanisms relating to social facilitation could influence creative practice and reflection, proposing ways of further testing these effects.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [47]

    Olga Sutskova, Atsushi Senju, and Tim J. Smith. 2022. Impact of video-mediated online social presence and observance on cognitive performance.Technology, Mind, and Behavior3, 2 (2022), 271–285. doi:10.1037/tmb0000023

    work page doi:10.1037/tmb0000023 2022

  2. [20]

    Corey Ford and Nick Bryan-Kinns. 2023. Towards a Reflection in Creative Experience Questionnaire. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 763, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3544548.3581077

    arXiv 2023

  3. [1]

    Floyd H. Allport. 1920. The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology3, 3 (1920), 159–182. doi:10.1037/h0067891

    work page doi:10.1037/h0067891 1920

  4. [2]

    Sue Atkins and Kathy Murphy. 1993. Reflection: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing18, 8 (1993), 1188–1192. https://doi.org/10.1046/j. 1365-2648.1993.18081188.x

    arXiv 1993

  5. [3]

    critical

    Jeffrey Bardzell and Shaowen Bardzell. 2013. What is "critical" about critical design?. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Paris, France)(CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3297–3306. doi:10.1145/2470654.2466451

    arXiv 2013

  6. [4]

    Eric P.S. Baumer. 2015. Reflective Informatics: Conceptual Dimensions for Design- ing Technologies of Reflection. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 585–594. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702234

    arXiv 2015

  7. [5]

    Woźniak, Pia S.F

    Marit Bentvelzen, Pawe\l W. Woźniak, Pia S.F. Herbes, Evropi Stefanidi, and Jasmin Niess. 2022. Revisiting Reflection in HCI: Four Design Resources for Tech- nologies That Support Reflection.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.6, 1 (March 2022). doi:10.1145/3517233

    doi:10.1145/3517233 2022

  8. [6]

    Jim Blascovich. 2002. A theoretical model of social influence for increasing the utility of collaborative virtual environments. InProceedings of the 4th International Conference on Collaborative Virtual Environments. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 25–30. doi:10.1145/571878.571883

    work page arXiv 2002

Show all 60 references
  1. [7]

    Hunter, and Kristen Salomon

    Jim Blascovich, Wendy Berry Mendes, Sarah B. Hunter, and Kristen Salomon

  2. [8]

    Charles F. Bond. 1982. Social facilitation: A self-presentational view.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42, 6 (1982), 1042–1050. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.42.6.1042

    1982 doi

  3. [9]

    Bond and Lauri J

    Charles F. Bond and Lauri J. Titus. 1983. Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies.Psychological Bulletin94, 2 (1983), 265–292

    1983

  4. [10]

    Boothby, Margaret S

    Erica J. Boothby, Margaret S. Clark, and John A. Bargh. 2014. Shared Experiences Are Amplified.Psychological Science25, 12 (2014), 2209–2216. doi:10.1177/ 0956797614551162

    2014

  5. [11]

    David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker. 1985. Promoting Reflection in Learning: A Model. InReflection: Turning Experience into Learning, David Boud, Rosemary Keogh, and David Walker (Eds.). Nichols Publishing Company, Asbury, USA, 19–40

    1985

  6. [12]

    Evelyn M Boyd and Ann W Fales. 1983. Reflective Learning: Key to Learning from Experience.Journal of Humanistic Psychology23, 2 (1983), 99–117. https: //doi.org/10.1177/002216788323201

    1983 doi

  7. [13]

    Nick Bryan-Kinns and Fraser Hamilton. 2012. Identifying Mutual Engage- ment.Behaviour & Information Technology31, 2 (2012), 101–125. doi:10.1080/ 01449290903377103

    2012

  8. [14]

    2019.The Creative Reflective Practitioner: Research Through Making and Practice(1st ed.)

    Linda Candy. 2019.The Creative Reflective Practitioner: Research Through Making and Practice(1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315208060

    2019 doi

  9. [15]

    Cottrell, Donald L

    Nicholas B. Cottrell, Donald L. Wack, Gregory J. Sekerak, and Richard H. Rittle

  10. [16]

    De Felice, U

    S. De Felice, U. Hakim, N. Gunasekara, P. Pinti, I. Tachtsidis, and A. Hamilton

  11. [17]

    Design Council. 2005. The Double Diamond. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/ resources/the-double-diamond/. Accessed: 2026-05-13

    2005

  12. [18]

    1933.How We Think

    John Dewey. 1933.How We Think. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York

    1933

  13. [19]

    Eysenck, Nazanin Derakshan, Rita Santos, and Manuel G

    Michael W. Eysenck, Nazanin Derakshan, Rita Santos, and Manuel G. Calvo

  14. [21]

    Corey Ford, Ashley Noel-Hirst, Sara Cardinale, Jackson Loth, Pedro Sarmento, Elizabeth Wilson, Lewis Wolstanholme, Kyle Worrall, and Nick Bryan-Kinns

  15. [22]

    Frith and Uta Frith

    Chris D. Frith and Uta Frith. 2012. Mechanisms of Social Cognition.Annual Review of Psychology63 (01 2012), 287–313. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710- 100449

    2012 doi

  16. [23]

    Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford

    William W. Gaver, Jacob Beaver, and Steve Benford. 2003. Ambiguity as a Resource for Design. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’03). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 233–240. doi:10.1145/642611.642653

    2003

  17. [24]

    Russell G. Geen. 1991. Social Motivation.Annual Review of Psychology42, 1 (1991), 377–399. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.42.020191.002113

    1991

  18. [25]

    Bernard Guerin. 1983. Social facilitation and social monitoring: A test of three models.British Journal of Social Psychology22, 3 (1983), 203–214. doi:10.1111/j. 2044-8309.1983.tb00585.x

    1983

  19. [26]

    InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition(Chicago, IL, USA)(C&C ’24)

    Reflection Across AI-based Music Composition. InProceedings of the 16th Conference on Creativity & Cognition(Chicago, IL, USA)(C&C ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 398–412. doi:10.1145/3635636. 3656185

    doi

  20. [27]

    Bernard Guerin and John M. Innes. 1982. Social facilitation and social monitoring: A new look at Zajonc’s mere presence hypothesis.British Journal of Social Psychology21, 1 (1982), 7–18. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1982.tb00506.x

    1982

  21. [28]

    Antonia F. de C. Hamilton and Frida Lind. 2016. Audience effects: what can they tell us about social neuroscience, theory of mind and autism?Culture and Brain 4, 2 (2016), 159–177. doi:10.1007/s40167-016-0044-5

    2016 doi

  22. [29]

    Patrick G. T. Healey. 2021.Human-Like Communication. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England

    2021

  23. [30]

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang and Andrea Stevenson Won. 2021. IdeaBot: Investigat- ing Social Facilitation in Human-Machine Team Creativity. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, ...

    2021

  24. [31]

    Bernard Guerin. 1986. Mere presence effects in humans: A review.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology22, 1 (1986), 38–77. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86) 90040-5

    1986 doi

  25. [32]

    1984.Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development

    David A Kolb. 1984.Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

    1984

  26. [33]

    Kwan Min Lee. 2004. Presence, Explicated.Communication Theory14, 1 (2004), 27–50. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00302.x

    2004

  27. [34]

    Zejian Li, Jiaman Pan, Qi Liu, Yuning Xi, Yixiang Zhou, Yike Jin, Rongjie Mao, and Pei Chen. 2026. Does Sycophancy Change Decisions? Effect of LLM Sycophancy on AI-Assisted Decision-Making. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26...

    2026 doi

  28. [35]

    Yuwen Lu, Chengzhi Zhang, Iris Zhang, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2022. Bridging the Gap Between UX Practitioners’ Work Practices and AI-Enabled Design Support Tools. InExtended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI EA ’2...

    2022

  29. [36]

    Bernstein

    Joy Kim, Maneesh Agrawala, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2017. Mosaic: Designing Online Creative Communities for Sharing Works-in-Progress. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Ma...

    2017

  30. [37]

    Scott Sanders

    G. Scott Sanders. 1981. Driven by distraction: An integrative review of social facilitation theory and research.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology17, 3 (1981), 227–251. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(81)90024-X

    1981 doi

  31. [38]

    2014.Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration

    R Keith Sawyer. 2014.Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Psychology Press

    2014

  32. [39]

    Leonhard Schilbach, Bert Timmermans, Vasudevi Reddy, Alan Costall, Gary Bente, Tobias Schlicht, and Kai Vogeley. 2013. Toward a second-person neu- roscience.Behavioral and Brain Sciences36, 4 (2013), 393–414. doi:10.1017/ S0140525X12000660

    2013

  33. [40]

    Donald A. Schön. 1983.The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books Inc., London

    1983

  34. [41]

    1993.Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human At- tributes in the Age of the Machine

    Donald A Norman. 1993.Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human At- tributes in the Age of the Machine. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts

    1993

  35. [42]

    Nao Shikanai and Kozaburo Hachimura. 2014. The Effects of the Presence of an Audience on the Emotions and Movements of Dancers.Procedia Technology 18 (2014), 32–36. doi:10.1016/j.protcy.2014.11.008 International workshop on Innovations in Information and Communication Science ...

    2014 doi

  36. [43]

    2022.Human-Centered AI

    Ben Shneiderman. 2022.Human-Centered AI. Oxford University Press

    2022

  37. [44]

    Barakova, Jaap Ham, and Panos Markopou- los

    Heqiu Song, Zhiping Zhang, Emilia I. Barakova, Jaap Ham, and Panos Markopou- los. 2020. Robot Role Design for Implementing Social Facilitation Theory in Musical Instruments Practicing. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Human-Robot Interaction(Cam...

    2020

  38. [45]

    Janina Steinmetz. 2025. Social facilitation and social inhibition. InResearch Handbook on Social Influence, Radmila Prislin (Ed.). Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, Chapter 16. Advance online chapter information

    2025

  39. [46]

    Seta and John J

    Catherine E. Seta and John J. Seta. 1995. When audience presence is enjoyable: The influence of audience awareness of prior success on performance and task interest.Basic and Applied Social Psychology16, 1-2 (1995), 95–108. doi:10.1080/ 01973533.1995.9646103

    1995

  40. [48]

    Olga Sutskova, Atsushi Senju, and Tim J. Smith. 2023. Cognitive Impact of Social Virtual Reality: Audience and Mere Presence Effect of Virtual Companions.Hu- man behavior and emerging technologies(2023), 1–19. doi:10.1155/2023/6677789

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Olga Sutskova, Atsushi Senju, and Tim J. Smith. 2026. Deconstructing Mere Presence and Audience Effect During Videoconferencing: Video Versus Screen- Sharing Mediated Performance Changes.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology79, 5 (2026), 1266–1282. doi:10.1177/17470218261420803

    2026 doi

  42. [50]

    Nai Ming Tsang. 2007. Reflection as Dialogue.The British Journal of Social Work 37, 4 (2007), 681–694. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23722589

    2007

  43. [51]

    Janina Steinmetz, Qian Xu, Ayelet Fishbach, and Ying Zhang. 2016. Being ob- served magnifies action.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology111, 6 (2016), 852–865. doi:10.1037/pspi0000065 Social Facilitation of Creative Reflection: AI-agents and Humans

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    Liad Uziel. 2007. Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: A review and meta-analysis.Journal of Research in Personality41, 3 (2007), 579–601. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2006.06.008

    2007 doi

  45. [53]

    Wolf, Neda Bazargani, Eleanor J

    Lisa K. Wolf, Neda Bazargani, Eleanor J. Kilford, Iroise Dumontheil, and Sarah- Jayne Blakemore. 2015. The audience effect in adolescence depends on who’s looking over your shoulder.Journal of Adolescence43 (2015), 5–14. doi:10.1016/j. adolescence.2015.05.003

    2015 doi

  46. [54]

    Wei Xu. 2019. Toward Human-Centered AI: A Perspective from Human- Computer Interaction.Interactions26, 4 (June 2019), 42–46. doi:10.1145/3328485

    2019 doi

  47. [55]

    Yiwen Yin, Mingze Wu, Ruijie Huang, Xin Tong, Junyu Zhou, Chun Yu, and Yuanchun Shi. 2026. Proactive AI as a Catalyst for Creativity? Balancing Human Agency and AI Contribution in Collaborative Story Writing. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computi...

    2026

  48. [56]

    Chat, Should I Leave Him?

    Emily Tseng and Calvin A Liang. 2026. "Chat, Should I Leave Him?" Risks, Rewards, and Roles for AI in Relationship Advice. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article ...

    2026

  49. [1968]

    doi:10.1037/h0025902

    Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology9, 3 (1968), 245–250. doi:10.1037/h0025902

    1968 doi

  50. [1999]

    facilitation

    Social “facilitation” as challenge and threat.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77, 1 (1999), 68–77. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.68

    1999 doi

  51. [2007]

    doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336

    Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory.Emotion 7, 2 (2007), 336–353. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336

    2007 doi

  52. [2024]

    doi:10.1093/oons/kvae006

    Having a chat and then watching a movie: how social interaction syn- chronises our brains during co-watching.Oxford Open Neuroscience4, 1 (2024), kvae006. doi:10.1093/oons/kvae006

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.