Take your eyes off me : the effect of the presence of witnesses on conduct of rescue operations

HUMANITIESANDSOCIALSCIENCESINTHECONTEXTOFSAFETY

SAFETY&FIRETECHNIQUE

1

BITPVOL.49ISSUE1,2018,pp.14–

22,doi:10.12845/bitp.49.1.2018.1

PawełStrojny,Ph.D.

*,AgnieszkaStrojny,Ph.D.

,WeronikaKałwak,Ph.D.

,AnnaBańbura,M.A.

a)Nano

Gamessp.z o.o.

b)F

acultyofManagementandSocialCommunication,JagiellonianUniversity

c)Ins

tituteofPsychology,JagiellonianUniversity

*Correspondingauthor:p.strojny@uj.edu.pl

TakeYourEyesofMe.TheEfectofthePresenceofWitnessesontheCond uctofRescueOperations

Niepatrzmi naręce.Wpływobecnościświadkównarealizacjęzadańratowniczych Несмотримнеподруки.Влияниеприсутствиясвидетелейво

времяспасательныхдействий

ABSTRACT

Aim:Duringrescueoperations,firefightersfunctioninasocialsetting,andthereforetheyremainundersocialinfuenceandexertitthemselves.On eoft hesubtlemanifestationsofsocialinfuenceisthesocialfacilitationefectinchangingthespeedandqualityofoperationsasaresultofbeing watchedb y otherpeople.Thisphenomenonseemstobeexplainedbytheattentionalmodel,whichpredictsthatinthepresenceofthirdpart iesattentionisnarrowed,whichmayleadtodeteriorationof,orimprovementin,taskperformance(dependingonconditions).Theauthorsad dressedtheresearchquestionwhetherfirefightersareafectedbytothe phenomenonofsocialfacilitation duringrescue operations–the presenceofbystanders afectingt heperformanceoftheir tasks.

Designandmethods:Toanswerthequestionofwhether,duringrescueoperations,firefightersmaybesubjecttothephenomenonoffacilitationinduce db y thepresenceofbystanders,weconductedanexploratoryqualitativestudybasedon18partially-

structuredinterviewsinspiredbythephenomeno-

logicalmethod,withrescuersfromtheStateFireService.Theinterviewees’responsesweresubjectedtocontentanalysisintermsofthebehaviour ofbystanderswitnessingtheiractivities.InterviewswereanalysedaccordingtoIPAwiththeuseofqualitativedataanalysissoftwareAtlas.ti.

Results:Ouranalysisoftheinterviewssuggeststhatsocialcircumstancesduringrescueoperationsareconducivetotheoccurrenceofthepheno menonofsocialfacilitation.Thecollecteddataindicatingthewitnesses’impactonfirefightersallowedtwodiferenttypesofbystanderbehaviour,

whichimpairt heworkoffirefightersduring operations:documenting

actionsoffirefightersbywitnesses(e.g.byrecording)andconscioushinderingoffire-

fightingoperations.Thecollectedmaterialalsoallowsustodrawtheconclusionthat,fortherescuersinthesesituations,thepresenceofwitnessesise motionallyc harged–thewitnessesevokeemotions(suchasfearofconsequences).

Conclusions:Theresultssuggestthatthecourseofrescuers’operationsisinfuencedbybystanders.Inaddition,weidentifiedsomefactorsthates pe-

c i allyhindertheseactivities.Fromapracticalpointofview,thefilmingofrescueoperationsbybystandersseemstobethemostproblematic.Itis likelyt h a t t h i s practice,whichhasanegativeimpactonthecourseofrescueactivities,willintensifyin thenearfuture.Thusthesystemshouldbe

preparedf o r theincreasingpressurefromwitnesses,andinparticularshouldprovidetrainingtoequiprescuerswiththeskillsnecessarytominimi sethenegativec onsequencesoftheaudienceefect.

Keywords:audienceefect,socialinfuence,rescueoperations,socialfacilitation Typeofarticle:shortscientificreport

Received:30.11.2017;Reviewed:12.01.2018;Accepted:10.04.2018;

Percentagecontribution:P.Strojny–50%;A.Strojny–20%;W.Kałwak–20%;A.Bańbura–

10%;P l e a s e citeas:BiTPVol.49Issue1,2018,pp.14–22,doi:10.12845/bitp.49.1.2018.1;

ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-SA4.0(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).

ABSTRAKT

Cel:Strażacypodczasdziałańratowniczychfunkcjonująwotoczeniuspołecznym,wzwiązkuztympozostająpodwpływemspołecznymisa migowywołują.Jednymzsubtelnychprzejawówwpływuspołecznegojestefektfacylitacjispołecznejpolegającynazmianiewszybkościijakościw

NAUKIHUMANISTYCZNEISPOŁECZNENARZECZBEZPIECZEŃSTWA

2

8443 ykonaniazadańwwynikubyciaobserwowanymprzezinneosoby.Zjawiskotozdajesięwyjaśniaćmodeluwagowy,któryprzewiduje,żepodwpływe mobecnościosóbtrzecichzawężeniuulegauwaga,comożeprowadzićdopogorszenialubpoprawy(wzależnościodwarunków)wykonaniazadania .Autorzyposta-w i l i hipotezę,żestrażacypodczasdziałańratowniczychpodlegajązjawiskufacylitacjispołecznej–obecnośćosób postronnychwpływanaprzebiegw ykonywanychprzeznichzadań.

Projektimetody:Abyodpowiedziećnapytanie,czystrażacypodczasdziałańratowniczychmogąpodlegaćzjawiskufacylitacjiwywoływanemupr zezobecnośćosóbpostronnych,przeprowadzonoeksploracyjnebadaniejakościoweopartenaosiemnastuinspirowanychmetodąfenomenologi cznąiczę-ściowo-

ustrukturyzowanychwywiadachzratownikamiPaństwowejStrażyPożarnej.Wypowiedzibadanychanalizowanopodkątemzachowańosób postronnychbędącychświadkamiprowadzonychdziałań.TreśćwywiadówbyłarozpatrywanazgodniezwytycznymiIPA,przyużyciuoprogram owaniaw spomagającegoanalizęjakościową(Atlas.ti).

Wyniki:Analizawywiadówpozwalaprzypuszczać,żeokolicznościspołecznepodczasdziałańratowniczychsprzyjająwystępowaniuzjawiskafacylit acjispołecznej.Zgromadzonedane,wskazującenaoddziaływanieświadkówzdarzenianastrażaków,pozwoliłynawyodrębnieniedwóchgrupza chowańosóbpostronnych,którewszczególnysposóbpogarszająfunkcjonowaniestrażakówpodczasdziałań:dokumentowaniedziałańprzez świadków(np.poprzeznagrywanie)orazświadomeutrudnieniedziałań.Zebranymateriałpozwalarównieżnawyciągnięciewniosku,żedlarato wnikówwtychsytu-acjachobecnośćświadkówjestnacechowanaemocjonalnie–

świadkowiewzbudzająemocje(np.lękprzedkonsekwencjami).

Wnioski:Uzyskanewynikiwspierająhipotezęowpływieosóbpostronnychnaprzebiegwykonywanychprzezratownikówdziałań.Dodatkowowskaz anoc zynniki,którewszczególnysposóbtedziałaniautrudniają.Zpraktycznegopunktuwidzeniaszczególnąuwagęprzyciągaproblemfilmowaniaakcjira tow-

niczych.Możnaprzewidywać,żetonegatywniewpływającenaprzebiegdziałańzjawisko,będziewnajbliższymczasiesięnasilać.Rodzitokonieczn ośćprzygotowaniasystemunacorazwiększąpresjęzestronyświadkówzdarzeń,zwłaszczapoprzezszkolenieratownikówwzakresieminimal izowania

negatywnychkonsekwencjiefektuaudytorium.

Słowakluczowe:efektaudytorium,wpływspołeczny,działaniaratownicze,facylitacjaspołeczna Typartykułu:doniesieniewstępne

Przyjęty:30.11.2017;Zrecenzowany:12.01.2018;Zatwierdzony:10.04.2018;

Procentowywkładmerytoryczny:P.Strojny–50%;A.Strojny–20%;W.Kałwak–20%;A.Bańbura–

10%;Proszęcytować:BiTPVol.49Issue1,2018,pp.14–22,doi:10.12845/bitp.49.1.2018.1;

ArtykułudostępnianynalicencjiCCBY-SA4.0(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).

АННОТАЦИЯ

Цель:Пожарныевовремяспасательныхдействийработаютвсоциальнойсреде.Всвязисэтимониподвергаютсясоциальномувл иянию,а такжесамиегосоздают.Однимстонкихпроявленийсоциальноговлиянияявляетсяэффектсоциальнойфасилитации,з аключающийсявизменениискоростиикачествавыполнениязадачврезультатенахожденияподнаблюдениемдругихлиц.Этоя влениеобъясняетмодельвнимания,согласнокоторойподвлияниемприсутствиятретьихлицограничиваетсявнимание,чтомо жетпривлечьк ухудшениюилиулучшению(взависимостиотусловий)выполнениязадачи.Авторыпредставилигипотезу,чтопо жарныевовремяпроведенияимиспаса-

тельныхдействийподвергаютсяэффектусоциальнойфасилитациии присутствиетретьихлицвлияетнаходвыполняемыхимид ействий.Проектиметоды:Чтобыответитьнавопросотом,могутлипожарныевовремяспасательныхдействийнаходитьсяподвли яниемфаси-

литации,вызваннойприсутствиемпостороннихлиц,былопроведеноисследованиенаосновевосемнадцатичастичноструктир ованныхинтервьюспожарнымиГосударственнойПожарнойСлужбы,подготовленныхсучетомфеноменологическогометода.О тветыреспондентовбылиподвергнутыанализусогласноповедениюпостороннихлиц,которыебылисвидетелямипроводимых действий.Содержаниеинтервьюбылопроанализировановсоответствиисрекомендациямиинтерпретативногофеноменолог ическогоанализа(IPA),сиспользованиемпрограммногообеспечения,поддерживающегокачественныйанализ(atlas.ti).

Результаты:Анализинтервьюпредполагает,чтосоциальныеобстоятельствавовремяспасательныхдействийспособствуютвоз ник-

новениюсоциальнойфасилитации.Собранныеданные,свидетельствующиео влияниисвидетелейсобытиянапожарных,позвол илиидентифицироватьдвегруппыповедениятретьихлиц,которыеособенноухудшаютработупожарных:документированиед ействийсви-детелями(например,путемвидео-записи)исознательное усложнениедействий.

Собранныйматериалтакжепозволяетсделать

вывод,чтоуспасателейвэтихситуацияхприсутствиесвидетелейвызываетэмоциональноенапряжение(например:страхперед последствиями).Выводы:Полученныерезультатыподтверждаютгипотезовлияниипостороннихлицнаходдействийвыполняе мыхспасателями.Крометого,указаныфакторы,которыеособенномешаютвэтихдействиях.Спрактическойточкизренияособо евниманиеуделяетсяпроблемесъемокспасательныхработ.Можнопредсказать,чтоэтоявление,негативновлияющеенаходде йствий,будетвближайшембудущемусиливаться.Этоприводитк необходимостиподготовкисистемынаувеличивающеесядав лениесосторонысвидетелейинцидентов,в частности,путемобученияспасателейтого,каконимогутсвестикминимумунегати вныепоследствияэффектааудитории.

Ключевыеслова:эффектаудитории,социальноевлияние,спасательныедействия,социальнаяфасилитация Видстатьи:предварительныйотчет

Принята:30.11.2017;Рецензирована:12.01.2018;Одобрена:10.04.2018;

Процентноесоотношениеучастиявподготовкестатьи:P.Strojny–50%;A.Strojny–20%;W.Kałwak–20%;A.Bańbura–

10%;П р о с и м ссылатьсянастатьюследующимобразом:BiTPVol.49Issue1,2018,pp.14–

22,doi:10.12845/bitp.49.1.2018.1;

НастоящаястатьянаходитсявоткрытомдоступеираспространяетсявсоответствиислицензиейCCBY- SA4.0(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).

Introduction

Participationinrescueoperationsisassociatedwithp hysi-

calandpsychologicalrisksanddifculties,thereforeimpr ovingt rainingforfirefightersalsoincludespsychological factors.Thequalitativeresearchontheexperiencesoffire fighterspartici-

patinginrescueoperationsshowsthatoneofthemostdifc ult

challengestheymeetisthepresenceandinappropriateb e-

haviourofwitnessesandbystanders.Thesemustberegar d-

edprimarilyashindrancesofapsychologicalnature,altho ughstudyparticipantsalsostressedthe

resultingphysicalthreattothehealthandlifeofboththewit nessesandthemselves,aswellasathreattothesuccessoft herescueoperation.Anim-

portantskillforfirefightersisthereforetheabilitytodealwi th

ГУМАНИСТИЧЕСКИЕИОБЩЕСТВЕННЫЕНАУКИНАБЛАГОБЕЗОПАСНОСТИ bystandersduringtheiroperations.Themainareaofinter

esti s thepsychologicalaspectsofthepresenceofwitness es;oneo f thesemaybethesocialfacilitationefect,whic histhetop-i cofthispaper.

Inthispaperwepresentaselectedpartofresultsfromth eb r o aderresearchprojectdesignedtodescribeandunders tandt h eexperienceofactiveparticipationinrescueoperati ons.Es-

peciallyt h ep s ychologicals t atesandt h eirp o s s i b l einfu enceo n theconductofrescueoperationswereofourintere stintheproject.Thispartconcernsfir efighters’experienceo fwitness-

es’presenceduringrescueop erations.Althoughtheaiman dm ethodofourresearchwerebasicallyexploratory,theinte rpre-tative-

phenomenologicalapproachthatweadoptedallowedustod rawfromexistingconceptsandtheoriesinthelaterstepso f o u r q u alitatived ataanalysis,w h eneveri t f acilitatedbet terunderstandingo ft h ephenomenoni n q u estion[1].Ther efore,w e decidedtop ro p o s eani n t erpretationo f t h eexpe rienceo f w i t n esses’presenceduringrescueoperationin termsofsocialf acilitationth eory.Theresultsbasedonrepo rtsonsubjectiveexperiencesinterpretedinthecourseofr esearchdonotshowwhethert h eefecto f s o c i alf acilitatio noccursi n t h i s context.H o w e v e r , th eymaybeanint er estingstartingpoint forfurtherqualitativeandquantitativ eanalysesandexperiments,focusedprecisely

onsocialfacilitation,identifyingoutcomespotentiallyimpor tantf o r p r actice.

Inthispaperourfocusisnotonthegeneralcharacterist icso f thefirefighters’experienceofrescueoperations,butw eratherexploreitsrelativelynarrowsegment,whichisund erstoodherei ntermsofthesocialinfuencetowhichfirefig htersareexposedduringtheiroperations.Wefocusonthe facilitationefectsandsocialinhibition,which,assuggest edbythetheoryofsocialin- fuence,canafectfirefighters’efciency.Thefollowingsecti onspresenttheanalysisofthepsychologicalsituationfi r efight- ersfindthemselvesin,asviewedfromasocietalperspecti ve,a briefreviewoftheliteratureonthebeneficialandhar mfulef- f ectsofthepresenceofwitnesses,andselectedresultsofo urownresearchconcerningwitnessbehaviourexperienc edbyfi refightersthat,accordingtoourinterpretation,co uldresultinsocialfacilitationorinhibition.Thelastsection presentssomepracticalconclusionsandoutlinesfuturer esearchdirections.Becauseoftheexplorativenatureofthi sstudy,specialem- phasiswasplacedongatheringdatafromparticipantsrep re- sentingvariousspecializationsandlevelsofexperience.

Arefirefightersaffectedbysociali nfluence?

Socialinfuenceisdefinedasaprocesswhichinduce schangesinindividualbehaviour,opinionsorfeelings,a

sare-

sultofwhatotherpeopledo,thinkorfeel[2].Accordin gtothisdefinition,peopleinteractwitheachotherin acontin-

uousandmutualfashion,andtheonlyconditionfors ocialinfuenceistheexistenceofasocialrelationshi pbetweena minimumoftwopeople.Thewilltoinfue nceanypartyisnotnecessary,noristheawarenessof thefactofbeingsubjecttoinfuence.

NAUKIHUMANISTYCZNEISPOŁECZNENARZECZBEZPIECZEŃSTWA However,thewidespreadphenomenonofsocialinfuence

s h o u l d not

beequatedwithmorespecificconceptssuchasso-

c i alinfuencetechniques[3]andconformity[4].Theefectsofs o c i alinfuencem a y no t a l w a y s b epr esenteda s spectacula rpronenesstomakingobviousmistakesundergrouppressure, a s in theclassicexperimentsbyAsch[5],or increasedsuscep- t i b i l i t ytograntingrequestsasaresultoftheapplicationofth et echniquesofsocialinfuence(e.g.“Fear-Then-Relief”[6], [7])in-

vestigatedinrecentyears.Ineverydaylifewesuccumbfarmoreo f t entoth emuchmo res ub tl ei nt eractionswi th ot h erpeople, whichmayhavespecificconsequences.

Giventhefactthatfirefightersremainsincontactwithmany peopleduringrescueoperations,itisexpectedthattheywillb esubjecttosocialinfuence.Thishasalsobeennotedbyotherr esearchers–forexampleKassin,FeinandMarkus[8],whopos- t u l a t e participationinexercisesaimedatpreventingthe adverseeffectsofthepresenceofobserversduringrealrescu eopera-

t i ons.Theseexercisesmaybecarriedoutbothbyconventiona lmethodsandthroughvirtualrealitysimulators.

Oneofthephenomenastudiedextensivelyinthefieldofso- c i alinfuenceisthetwinefectofsocialfacilitationandinhibi- t i on.Theseefectsinvolvetheunconscioustendencytochange one’sbehaviourduetothepresenceofobservers.Askingques- t i o n s aboutt h ecircumstances,c ausesandconsequenceso f t h es o c i alf acilitationefecti n t h econtexto f r efighters,w h o almostneverworkinisolation,seemstobejustifi ed.

Theeffectofsocialfacilitation

Thephenomenonofsocialfacilitation/inhibition(some -

t i mesalsocalled“theaudienceefect”or“thefacilitation ef-

fect”)isdefinedasthetendencytochangeone’sbehaviour duetotheinfuenceofobservers[9].Thefirstresearchertode- scribetheefectofsocialfacilitationwasNormanTriplett[10 ],whocomparedthetimesachievedbycyclistsdepending onwhethertheytookpartinaracealoneorinagroup.Hedis cov-

eredthatpeopleridinginagroupachievedbetterresultsth ant hoseracingindividually.Thisphenomenonexplainedthe ex-

i stenceof“hidden”capabilities,whichareactivatedinthepr es-enceofotherpeople.

Thisefectwasfirstdescribedinthe19thcentury,butper- hapsthemostgroundbreakingresultswerepublishedbyZajonc, HeingartnerandHermanintheir1969paper[11].Theresultsthey o b t ainedgaverisetotheidentificationofthe“otherside”ofthee fect:socialinhibition–theyprovidedevidencefordetrimen- t alconsequencesofanaudiencepresenceinsomeconditions.T hisphenomenonisalsowell-

establishedinstudiesfarbeyondt h etypicalp s ychologicallabo ratory[11].

Growinginterest inthedualityofthenatureof theaudienceefect,whichcouldleadtobothimprovementin,an ddeteriora-

t i o n of,efciency,hasresultedinnumerousempiricalpap ers.Accordingtoth er esultso fa meta-

analysisof 241s tu di eson t hisefect[12],thepresenceofth irdpartiesincreasesthespeedandaccuracyofexecutionofsi mple,well-learnedtasks,butde-

c r easesthesewhenthetasksarecomplexandpoorlytraine d/r ehearsed.

Aninterestingtrendinrecentyearshasbeenthestudyint ot h ef acilitationefecti n i n t eractionw i t h virtualr eality.R esultso f Murrayetal.[13]andpreviousresearch(e.g.[14], [15], [16])provideevidencenotonlyontheshiftintheefectivenes sofac- t i o n s duetotheinfuenceofthirdparties,butalsoontheabil itytosummont h i s efectu s i n g computer- generated“o b s ervers”.Psychologicalliteratureaboundsi nresearchreportsdocu- m entingtheoccurrenceofthefacilitationefectusingdifer entoperationalisationsofvariables,butfromtheperspecti veofthiss t udy,theauthorsdecidedtolimitthemselvestopr esentingtheabovefewexamples.Theyareconnectedbyth efactthatthedependentvariableisnotintheircasepsych ologicalinnature( e . g . s o l vingarithmeticalp ro b l ems) butr emainsi n c l o s econ- nectionw i t h t h eactivitieso f r efighters;i n eacho f t h et h r ees t udiestheefectivenessoftheoperationswasdeter minednotonlyby mentalacuity,butalsoby theabilitytomotivateoneself toperformph ysicalexercise.

Themechanismofsocialfacilitationa ndinhibition

Asmentionedpreviously,theaudienceefectmaycau seeitherdeteriorationof,orimprovementin,agivenactio n.At-

t emptstoexplainthisdualityhavebeenbasedondiferen tap-

proaches;oneofthetwomostimportantonesisthatputfor -

wardbyZajonc[17],whoseesthemechanismoftheobserv edi nteractioninthegrowthofexcitationduetotheinfuen ceoftheobserver.Incontrast,thesecondapproach(Baron [18])postu-

l a t e s thatthepresenceofobserversafectsthefunctio ningofattention,forcinggreaterconcentration,whichca nleadtobet-

t e r orworseperformanceofthetasksundercertaincondi tions.Despiteitstheoreticalcharacter,thisdisputemaybe crucialforf ormulatingahypothesisconcerningtherelati onshipbetweent hepresenceofwitnessesandtheoccurr enceoffacilitationori nhibitioninfirefighters.

ProponentsofZajonc’sconceptarguethatthepresen ceofobserverscausingdeteriorationintaskperformanceis mediatedb y physiologicalarousal.Inotherwords,itcanb eexpectedthata thirdpartyobservingtheactionsofthes ubjectsraisesthefire-

fi ghters’levelofstimulation.Itisknownthatincreasedsti mula-

t i onleadstoanincreaseinthelikelihoodofadominantrea ctioni ngivencircumstances.Forexample,ifexperience dfirefightersundertakemedicalrescueoperations,theirpr evailingresponse(asaresultofmultipleexercisesandacqu iredexperience)isfirstt heassessmentoftheairway,breath ingandcirculation,andonlyt henfurthermedicalassessm

ent(basedonthedocumentTheprinciplesoforganisationofmedicalresc ueinthenationalfireandrescueservice,July,2013,procedureno.2).Follo wingZajonc’sl i neofreasoning,thegreatertheiragitation,themo relikelytheyaretousefrequentlypractisedproceduresinthecorre ctorder.I n contrasttoprofessionals,untrainedwitnessestryingto helpm a y proceedinadiferentway,givingventtonaturalcurio sity,f orexamplelookingatharmlessinjuriesattractingtheiratte ntionpriortotheassessmentoftheairway,breathingandcirculatio n.AccordingtothepredictionsofZajonc’smodel,thegreatertheir stimulation,thegreaterthelikelihoodofadominantresponse–in

thiscaseanincorrectone.Difculttasks,accordingt oZajonc’sapproach,arethosethathavenotbeenre hearsed.

Baronproposesadiferentmechanismforind ucingtheef- f ectofsocialfacilitation.Accordingtohisdefinitio n,ataskde- fi nedasdifcultisonethatiscomplexandrequire sanatten-t i onalselectionofstimuli–

forexample,ignoringunnecessaryi nformation.

Thismodelpredictsthatathirdpartymayactasa distractorandforcetheindividualtosavetheiratt entionre- sources.Distractingattentionfromthetaskmaya fectperfor- manceintwoways.Ifthetaskissimple,allthatisnece ssaryfori t s implementationisreadilyavailablei nformation,thetaskwillbeperformedfasterand moreefciently–thankstothefilter- i ngofunnecessaryclues.However,ifthetaskiscomp lexanditsi mplementationrequiresconsideratio nofmanyfactors,fiteringoutsomeimportantclues meansitwilllosequalityandpace.Usingtheprevi ousexample,itcanbeexpectedthatfirefightersca nperformbetterinthepresenceofathirdpartywit hanun- complicatedcase;theywillperformtheprocedur efasterpartlybecausetheirlimitedattentionwill notallowthemtosearchforraresymptoms,which inthiscasearenotpresent.However,ift heinjuredp ersonexhibitsunexpectedsymptoms(i.e.,injuri esareseeminglyharmlessbutinfactrequireincre asedattention),t hislimitedfocuscanleadtoadet eriorationintaskperformance.Thediferencebe tweenthesetwoapproachesliesintheunderstan dingofthedifcultyofthetaskandtheobservedc entralpointofdiferentsituations.Zajonc’sappro achfocus- esonthediferencesinthelearnedtasks,whileac cordingtoBaron,thesediferencesafectthepropo sedmechanismforex- plainingthephenomenon.Inthecontextofrescue operationst hisisnotatrivialdispute.Itiseasytos eethatifZajoncwereright,thenforthefacilitation efecttooccuritwouldbeneces- sarytoincreasethestimulationofrefightersperf orminginthepresenceofthirdparties.Duringres cueoperations,firefightersm a y besubjecttoex tremestimulation,whichmanifestsitselfa s asig nificantlyincreasedheartrate.AccordingtoBarn ardandDuncan’sresearch[19],thismaybeanave rageincreaseby47beatsperminuteinresponset othealarmsignalitself.Tak- i ngthisintoaccount,it isdifculttoexpectfurthersignificantgrowthinst imulationduetotheinfuenceofthirdparties,thus i t wouldbedifculttoexpectthesocialfacilitatio nefect.IfBaron’smodelwas,inturn,correct,asi milarrestrictionshouldnottakeplacebecausethe

focusisnotonthegrowthinstim- ulation,butratheronavoidingdistraction.Firefighters’m entalsituationinthiscaseallowsustoexpectopportunitie sforac- t i v e allocationofattentionresourcesbecause,accordin gtotheresultsofotherauthors,theattentionoffirefighters ismoreex- t ensivethanintensive(specificdistinctionoftypesofatte ntion:

[20]).Thismeansthattheydonotfocusexclusivelyonone task,butrathercovertheentireareaofactivity,sothereisa reserveo f attentionintheeventoftheneedforfurthercon centration.

Behaviourofwitnesseswhichmaycausetheso cialfacilitationeffect

Otherresearchont hef acilitationefectprovidesaddi - t i onalinformationonthelikelihoodofitoccurringinspe cific

HUMANITIESANDSOCIALSCIENCESINTHECONTEXTOFSAFETY situations.Manypapersonthistopichaveshownthatthe

de-

t erminingf actori s n o t s o mucht h em erepresenceo f othe rs,butt h eextenttowhicht h eyf o c u s t h eirattentiono n t h ei ndi-

vidual.Inotherwords,sometimestheveryfactthatsomeone isp r esentduringtheexecutionofataskisnotenough,bec ausei t is necessaryth atth eyfocusth eirattentionon th e activitieso f t h eindividual.Thisphenomenonoccurredi n t h er esearchb y Huguetetal.

[21]:theaudience,whichitselfwasevidentlyoccupiedw i t h i t s task,d i d n o t afectt h eefectivenesso f t h es u b j ect si n a s t atisticallysignificantway.Circumstancest h atclea rlyi m p r ovedt h eperformanceo f t h et askoccurredwhent h ethirdpartieswatchedtheactionsofthesubject;inthispa r-

t i c ularsituationastrongsocialfacilitationefectwasreveal ed.Thisfactmayalsoberelevanttothespecificsituationofres cueo p erations.Itcanbeexpectedthatthepresenceofoth erpeo-

pleinvolvedintheirtasks(e.g.otherrescueoperatives)willon lys l i g h t l yafecttheoccurrenceofth efacilitationefect.

Howev-e r , bystanders–

whoby d efinitionareno ti nvolveddi rectlyi n t h eoperati on–

cancausethisefect.Thequestionarises:cant h esewitnes ses,providedthattheirpresenceisnoticedbyfire-

fi g h t ers,cons tituteasourceofthesocialfacilitation efectfort h erescuers?

Theanswerforthisquestionwasthecentralob-

j ectiveofthequalitativedataanalysisdescribedbelow.

Method

Weconducted18semi-

structuredinterviews,i n s p i r edb y aninterpretative- phenomenologicalapproach(IPA)

[1],basedo n aninterviewguideservingasareferenceforc ollectingde-t ailedd escriptiveq u alitatived atao n fire- fightersexperienceo f participationinrescueoperations.T hesampleincludedop-

erativesf r o m t h eNationalFireBrigadew i t h a w i d erange o f l engthofservice,rankandtypeoftasksperformedinthe ser-

vice(rescueoperatives,fir efighters,drivers,commanders, in-

s t r u c t o r s ),andmemberso f t h eVoluntaryFireBrigade(

threeo u t of18people).Becausetheprocessofrecruitinge xpertsormemberso f publictrustp r o f essionstoq u alitati veinterviewsm a y bechallenging[22],weoptedforrelative lyrelaxedcriteriaandacompoundschemeofrecruitingparti cipants.Weinvitedfi r efighterstoparticipatei n t h er esea rchm ainlyb y s n o w b allsampling,althougheveryroundo fsamplingwaspurposefullystartedseparatelyinthefirebri gadeunitwemanagedtoinvolvei ncooperationwithourrese archteamfollowingpermissionformt h eu n i t ’sc o m m and er.

Theonlycriteriaadoptedinsnowballsamplingwas ,first,activeparticipationinrescueoperationsofallfire fightersinthegroupand,second,thevarietyoffunctio nsandtypesofdutyrelatedtotheseniorityofparticipa nts(wedirectlyaskedthemtocontactuswithcolleagu eshavingvariousworkexperience).Thereasonforthi swasnotapresuppositionofanyspecificrelationship betweenseniorityorfunctioninthefirebrigadeandsu bjectiveexperienceofparticipationinrescueoperatio n,sincewehadnobasisforanysuchhypotheses.Inste ad,wewantedtoobtaindatagivingaccesstoaswidear angeoffire-

fi ghters’experiencesaspossible.Becauseoftheexpl oratorycharacterofourresearch,wehadnoreasonsto initiallyrestrict

ГУМАНИСТИЧЕСКИЕИОБЩЕСТВЕННЫЕНАУКИНАБЛАГОБЕЗОПАСНОСТИ thegrouptoparticipantswithanyspecificworkexperienceort

ypeofduty.Weintendedtogetdetaileddescriptionsoftheirsu bjectiveexperienceofparticipationinrescueoperations,asd iverseaspossible,inordertogainsomeinitialunderstanding o f thephenomenoninquestion.Tomeettherequirementsoft headoptedapproach,thenumberofparticipantswasinitially determinedas15-

30.IPAmethodologyconsistsofidiographica s wellasnomoth eticphasesanddemandsverydetailedanal-

ysis.Therefore,thenumberofparticipantsmustberestricted andatthesametimelargeenoughtoprovidesufcientmateri -alforidentificationofatleastinitialtendenciesinthedata.Fi- n a l l y , weinterviewed18participantsbecauseatthisstage weseemedtohaveachieveddatasaturation.

Followingtheconfidentialityprinciplesandresearchethi cs,allsubjectsagreedinwritingtoparticipateintheinterview s,whichwereaudio-

recordedwiththeirconsent.Alloftheinter-

viewswereconductedinsimilar,comfortableconditions,byone researcherwithnootherwitnesses.Duringinterviews,lastin gf rom30to90minutes,participantswereaskedtorecallone ormoreeventsinwhichtheyhadparticipatedinthepastandt odescribehowtheyhadexperiencedit.Thefullytranscribedqual -

i t ativeinterviews,whichservedtoreconstructthepractices andexperienceofparticipationinrescueoperations,werean alysedaccordingtoIPA[1]withtheuseofqualitativedataanaly sissoft-

w a r e Atlas.ti.Oneofthethemesemergingfromtheexploratory analysiswastheroleofbystanders,witnesses,victimsandoth eri ndividualsinthecourseofoperations.Herewefocusentire lyonthisthemebypresentingfivemajorcategoriesofrefight -

ers’experiencerelatedtosocialinfuence,interpretedinlight o f thefacilitation/inhibitiontheory.Ourstudywasconducte donthebasisofapositiveopinionfromtheEthicsCommitteeof t heAppliedPsychologyInstituteattheJagiellonianUniversi- t y , andwasconductedincompliancewiththerulesofethics.

Results

Presentationoftheresultsisstructuredaroundfivecate- goriesofrefighters’experienceinterpretedinlightofsocialin- fuencetheorythatweexpressedasquestionsreferringtothe theoryofsocialfacilitation.

Dofirefightersnoticethepresenceofbystanders?

Thisseeminglytrivialquestionconcernsthebasicconditiono fthef acilitationefect:the

awarenessofthepresenceofwitness-

es.Thiscategoryisbuiltaroundacontrast foundinfirefight- ers’reportsofroutineeventswithrelativelylowriskvs.thosei nwhichtherisktothelivesoftheparticipantsincreasestheirm otivation.Ontheonehand,awarenessofthepresenceofby- standersandtheproblemsthisentailedwasoneofthemostf r equentlydiscussedtopics.Commonstatementsconcernedt heirbeingfullyawareofthepresenceofwitnesses,especial- l ywhentheirbehaviourattractedattention(e.g.Participant3 :“ Y o u don’tseethosepeople,exceptit’salsoaquestionofth eirbehaviour.Becauseifweknowthatwehavetoact,wehaveor-

ders,andthensomeonesuddenlyentersthatzoneorbeh avesb a d l y , theyalsoattractourattention”;Participant 16:“Becausegenerallyonceyou’verunoutofwater,thenall thoseonlookers

alsostartcreatingstress.Everyoneisshouting,everyonekn owsbest,eventhoughtheyaren’tdoinganythingandarej ustcaus-

i ngextrastress”).Ontheotherhand,whenfirefightersare high-

l ymotivatedduringaparticularlydangerousevent,they donotevennoticethebystanders.Insuchsituations,thea warenesso f thepresenceofwitnessesisverylow,especi allyinhighlyexperiencedpersonnel.Inthosecases,thelik elihoodofthefa-

cilitationefectinfuencedbybystandersappearstobelo wer.Itisnotablethatfirefightersactivelyseekandexchang einfor-

mationonwhethertheyexpecttoseebystanders,which maybeevidenceofthefactthattheyexperienceitasaprobl em,in-

cludingthefacilitationefect/socialinhibition(e.g.Partici pant1:“Ofcoursethereisawholecommunicationnetwor ktellingusthatmediaarearrivingatthescene,thatpeople arecallingi ntoaskwhat’sgoingon,tellingustogetready.S oitservesa s usefulinformationforus,helpingusprepare forthearrivalo f thepressatanymoment”).Itisalsonotab lethatbystand-

ersaresometimesactuallyaskedforhelpwithminorands afet asks,inawayengagingthemwiththerestoftherescue teamandshiftingtheirrolefrom“observers”to“participa nts”;thismeansweshouldaskabouthowthelikelihoodofth esocialfa-cilitationchangesinsuchasituation.

Dofirefightersthinkthatthebystandersfocusontheres- cueoperatives?

Accordingtotheevaluationapprehensionmod-

eldevisedbyCottrell[23],thepresenceofbystandersmay bei nsufcienttobringaboutthesocialfacilitationefect;i tonlyoccurswhentheactorsanticipatethattheywillbeas sessedbywitnesses.Empiricalstudiesconfirmthatthem erepresenceofpeoplewhoarenotshowinganyinterestint heactorsmaybei nsufcienttocausethefacilitationefec t,andthekeyelementi s thebystanders’attention,e.g.

[24].Inthislight,ifrefightersbelievedthatthebystandersf ocustheirattentiononthem,thiswouldincreasethelikeli hoodofthefacilitationefectinthiscontext.Thisisnotaso bviousasitsounds,sincemanyrescueoperationsincludee ventsofparticularinteresttobystanders.I n thesubjectiv eviewoffirefighters,rescueoperationscouldbemoreattr activethantheirparticipants;onthefipside,fire-

fi ghtersmaybelievethattheyarethemainsourceofinter est.Rescueoperativesreportthattheycanfeelitwhenbys tand-

ersfocustheirattentiononthem.Thisisdescribedverball y( e . g . witnessestryingtointeractwithfirefighters,Part icipant1:“ Sometimestheywanttoasksomething,youkno w.Andsome-

t i mestheywanttosaythey’veseensomething.Sometim estheyarepeoplewhotookpart,maybeaswitnesses:‘You wouldn’tbelievewhatI’veseen,Iknowbetter,that’snoth owitwas’”).Sometimes,statementsofwitnessesdescrib ingtheirinteresti nrescueoperativesarenotaimedatthe mdirectly(e.g.Partic-

i pant1:“Thecrowdhadalreadyassembled,andyoucouldheari nt hedistance,‘Hey!

Guys,grabsomebuckets,thefirefighterscan’tputthefireout!’”).

Additionally,reportsofnon-verbalre-

sponsesrevealastrongsenseofbeingthecentreofwitness- es’attention(e.g.documentationofrescueoperations;Partic- i pant6:“Therearecrowdsofonlookersfilmingeverything.Int heb eginningit’slike…howcanIdescribeit…

Itmeansasenseo f uncertainty,becausewhensomeonefilmsyou reverymovet henitdoesn’tmatterwhatyou’redoing,youknowyou’re being

recorded”).Therecanbenodoubtthattheattentiono fbystand-

ersisperceivedasbeingfocusedonfirefighters.

Arethereanyinteractionsbetweenfirefightersandby stand-e r s ?

Ifinteractionsdooccurbetweenfirefightersandb ystand-

ers,itmakessocialfacilitationinrescueoperations allthemorel i k e l y . Interviewswithfirefighter

s reveal manystatements

onvariousdegreesofinteraction(verbal,physica l;e.g.attemptstostrikeupaconversationasquote dabove,orbystandersen-

t eringtheareaoftherescueoperation).Inmanyr eports,theparticipantsalsoreportedactivelyav oidinginteraction,mostf requentlycitingmarkin gandisolatingtheincident,screeningofthearea wherehelpisbeinggivenoraskingpeopletryingt oengagetotalktootheroperatives(e.g.Participan t1:“Sothen,i f thosepeoplereallyhavesomethin gconstructivetosay,weaskthemtotalktothepoli ce”;Participant4:“Itmakesusex-

t r a sensitivetokeepaneyeonbystanders,whoof tengetinthew a y ofrescueoperations.Theyco meover,askquestions,youk n o w . We’resuppose dtobedoingourjob,makingdecisions,andthese peoplesometimeswanderaround,sowehavetow orkwiththepolicewhoarealsocalledtothesesitu ations,specif-

icallytoworktogetherandgetthemtoremovesuc hpeoplef romthesite”).Isolatingandscreeningo ftheareawherehelpi s beinggivenhasbecomeo ratleastisbecomingapermanentelementofproc eduresformingpartofrescueoperations;itcanb eregardedaspracticalandexpectedevidencefor theex-

i stenceofsocialinhibition.Manyyearsofexperie nceindicatet hatthepresenceofbystandersmak esitdifcultforfirefight-

erstofocustheirattentiononcarryingouttheiract ionsquick-

l yandefciently;thismeansthatevenwithoutna mingtheef-

fect,solutionshavebeenintroducedtominimiset heintensityo f socialinhibition.

Whatkindsofbehaviourhaveaparticularlystronge ffectontheactionsofrescueoperatives?

Theinterviewsweana-

lysedfeaturetwotypeso f behaviourwhichclearlyst andoutf o r t h eparticipants:documentationo f th eiractions,andde-

liberate,frequentlymalicious,hinderingoftheiract ions.Thisdoesnotmeansituationswhentheindivid ualscannotbeheldfullyresponsibleforhampering rescueoperations(forexam-pleoutofgriefor despair,or outofearfortheirownlives), butratherthosewhenthesourceofdifcultiesareth ebystandersthemselves.Althought h esocialfacil itationefectdoesn o t d evotemuchattentiontos

pecificactionstakenbywitnesses,t h estrongfocusonthos eissuesmeanst h etopiccannotbeignored.Reportsonh o w r escueoperationsaredocumentedareconsistent;oneofthe commonmotivesisthatofbystand-

erstakingouttheirphonesandrecordingthescene,eventot h epointo f interruptingtheirpreviousactivities(Participan t1:“It’sreallycommonforpassers-

bywhohavenopartintheeventtostoptolook,peerin,takep hotos,usefash.Forthemit’sreallyimportanttofind outwha thappened”).Participantsalsoreportedotherwaysinwhic hbystandershindertheirac-

tions,frequentlymentioningmaliciousverbalcomments(e.

g.Participant4:“Peoplewhohaven’tthefirstideaofputting outfi r esor…

ofcorrectactionsorprocedures,whostandaroundandmak ecomments orlaugh”;Participant16:“[…]thesepeo- pleshout[…],‘Goputthefireoutthere,that’swhereit’sburnin g,don’tjuststandthere!’”)orviolatingbasicsafetyprinciples

NAUKIHUMANISTYCZNEISPOŁECZNENARZECZBEZPIECZEŃSTWA

(Participant5:“Theypushandshovebecausetheydespe r-

atelywanttogettheirheadinthewindowtoseeeverythin g”;Participant16:“Andjustbeingrecordedonsiteoftheop era-

tionswhenwe’reworking,therearealotofpeoplewanderi ngaround,filming,gawpingatus.Theycanjustbrazenly walkuptousandkeepfilmingeventhoughwe’reinasepar atedzonewhichtheyshouldn’tenter”)whichfrequentlyr esultsi ndivertingtheavailableresourceswhenoneofth erescueoperativeshastoleavetheirposttoprotectandh erdawaywitnesses(Participant8:“Italsomakesthingsm oredifcult,becauseonememberofourteamhastostop whattheyweredoing”;Participant4 : “Theroleo ft h i s pe rsoni s t o gatherthoseindividuals,andtellthem‘Please movealong,pleasel eavebecausethisisthezoneofoper ations,’right”).Inbothtypesofsituations,theparticipant sexpressedtheirconcernaboutthenegativeintentionso fwitnesses(e.g.Participant7:“Andnowthispersonwhow asdrivingadiferentcarcanstandtherefilmingandsayin g,‘Look,they’renothelpingthatonethereunderthatcar’.

AndhowamIsupposedtoknowt here’sapedestriantrap pedunderneath?”;Participant9:“Andi ngeneralbystand ersdon’tknowanyofthesortofdetailsfirefighterssimply needtothinkabout.Andwhenwehavetothink,thattakes asecondorwhatever,soit’sjustawasteofourtime.Andso meonegoes,‘Whataretheydoing?!

Standingandlooking!

Theycouldhavedonesomethingbynow!’Sure,maybeth eycould,buttheycouldhavedied,orputsomeoneelseatr iskofinjury”).Aswellasnaturalsourcesofconcernrootedi nthecontextoftheirworkandworryaboutmalice(especi allynotablewhenitcomestofilming,whenfirefightersex presseddirectconcernfortheirpersonalsafetyiftheau- thoroftherecordingchosetouseitagainstthem,e.g.Parti c-

ipant6:“Andanyonecanpostitonlineandlater,Idon’tkno w,a supervisor,commander,colleaguecanseeitandthe rewillbeconsequenceslater”;Participant16:“LuckilyIh aveneverfoundavideoofmyselfonline.ButIthinkthatit’

spersonalf oreveryone,youknow.We’realreadyusedto thefactthatt here’s

alwayssomeonewithamobilephone.Wegetphotorepor ters.Theycangetinanywhere,evenwhenyouexplicitlyt ellthemnotto,theycansqueezethroughanyway.Evenw henyoumovethemalongtheykeeptakingphotos.Youthi nkaftert heendoftheoperation”),theemotionalcharger esultingfromt hepresenceofwitnessescanalsoberegar dedasevidencesupportingtheexistenceofsocialinhibiti

onin thisinstance,perceivedpre-

refexivelyasageneralproblemresultingfromt heprese nceofotherpeople;theexperienceisdescribedbyfirefig htersashavingthesignificancedescribedabove.Ifwet a kealookatthemostpowerfulaudienceefect,wereveala commoncharacteristicwhichmaybedecisiveintermsof t hestrengthofthefacilitationandinhibitionefects.Intho sesituations,thepresenceofbystandershasanemotiona lefectonfirefighters:forexample,theyperceivetheirac

tionsbeingdocumentedasapotentialriskofrevealin grealorperceivederrorsandfeartheconsequenceso ftheirbeingmadepublic.Witnessesthemselvesfreq uentlyexperiencepowerfulemo-

tionswhichcanmakethemrespondoractincertainwa ys,forexamplemembersofavictim’sfamilymaynotc ometotermswiththeirinjuryordeathandarehighlydi stressed.Itshould

HUMANITIESANDSOCIALSCIENCESINTHECONTEXTOFSAFETY benotedthatinitsclassicalsetting,socialfacilitationoccurs“

whentheintensityofoneanimal’sbehaviourincreasesorde creasesinthepresenceofanotheranimalwhichdoesnotothe rwiseinteract

withit”[25,p.1].Thisraisesthequestionwhetherinsituations ofsuchapowerfulefectofwitnessesonrescueoperativeswe arenot,infact,dealingwithaninter-

actionwhichisastepbeyondobservation,andwhetherwear estilldealingwiththeaudienceefect.Thereisnosimpleansw ertothis;ontheonehandrecordingtheactionsoffire-

fightersbybystandersisnotaninteractionperse,butontheot her,itdoesinvolvesteppingbeyondnormalbehaviour.Assuc h,itmaybe perceivedas interferingin their work,whichi sclearlymorethansimpleobservation.Anothe rimportantelementistheaspectofrecordingtheactivities.I nlightofCottrell’sevaluationapprehensionmodel[23],thev eryfacto f recordingvideoortakingphotosoffirefightersiscl earlygoingtobeperceivedasdirectevidenceofbeingthreate nedb y evaluationofwitnesses,whichshouldenhancethes ocialfacilitationefect.

Dofirefightersrecognisethepsychologicalconsequenc- esofthepresenceofwitnesses?

Thesocialfacilitationefectdoesnotassumethatitwillbecon sciouslyperceived;howev-

e r , itseemedpertinenttoaskwhetherthisdoeshappenwit hrescueoperatives.Suchapowerfulperceptionofbystander sb y firefightersunpreparedfortheinteractioncannotonlyc on-

tributetoasubtlesocialinhibitionefect,butincertaincasesi t cancauseirreparableharmtotherescueoperation.Studyp articipantscanbedividedintotwogroups:thosedeclaringth atsuchsituationsdonotafectthem(e.g.Participant5:“Ifwe’

retalkingaboutgettingstressedaboutotherpeople’sbe- haviourthensure,weoftengetitwhensomeoneundertheinf uenceofalcoholstartsgoingonaboutsomething,raisestheir voiceandsoon.ButIamnotafraidofthissortofthing,i t doesn

’tstressmeout”)vs.thosewhoseeitasaproblem(e.g.Partici pant1:“Itcanbestressfultoknowthatyoucanmakeamistake andthensomeonewhohasrecordeditusesi t againstyou”).

However,thisshouldnotbeusedtoconcludethatresistancet othebehaviourofwitnessesisaconstant;ont hecontrary,itd ependsonarangeoffactorsvaryingbetweenindividualsand situations(e.g.thefirefighter’sexperience,thesignificance andseriousnessofagivenrescueoperation),es-

peciallygiventhattheparticipantstalkedabouttakingpartin manyincidents.Themotifofexperience,inparticularofseri- ousrescueoperationsposingathreatwhichinturnincreasest heresistancetotheinhibitionefect,cansupportthetheorya boutthebenefitsoftrainingfirefightersinactingwhileex- posedtobeing

witnessedbybystanders(forexampleusingsimulations).

Summary

Thepaperpresentsthephenomenonofsocialfacilitation andinhibitionasonethatpotentiallyconcernsfirefightersdur -i ngrescueoperations.

Takingintoconsiderationthespecifictasksperformedby firefighters(suchascontrollingthesiteof theoperation),we

canpositthattheymaybemoreatriskofthephenomenonth anotherindividualswhoperformt askswhichareequallyph ys-

icallydemandingbutwhichd o n o t attractt h eattentionfro mbystanders.Resultso f analysesconfirmthatfirefightersa ndwitnessesnoticeoneanotherandoccasionallyenterintoi nter-

actions.Themainfactorsidentifiedbyfirefightersashinderi ngtheirworkarethefactofbeingfilmedandwitnesses’enga gingi n maliciousinterference.Theformeri n particulari s li kelyt o becomeincreasinglysignificanti n t h enearfutured uet o t h egrowingaccesstodeviceswhichcanbeusedforau dio-

visualrecording.Therefore,socialinhibitionshouldbeconsi dereda possiblenegativeconsequenceofvideosurveillan cealong-

sideotherconsequencessuchasdecreasedjobsatisfaction andafectivecommitment[26].Iti s importantt o distinguis ht h epurposeofrecording,accordingtoWelles,Moorman andWelner[27],monitoringperceivedasaimedatdevelop mentisassociatedwithhigherlevelsofjobsatisfaction,orga nizationalcommitment,andperceivedobligationincomp arisontomon-

itoringintendedtoassesstheperson;inthecaseofvideo-re- cordingperformedbycasualonlookerstheperceivedgoalwil lbeprobablyharmfulinthemajorityofcases.Qualitativean al-

ysesdidnotsuggestthatfirefighterswereawareofthesocia lfacilitationefectperse.Int h econtexto f previousresearch ,t h i s comes asnosurprise;forexample,Murrayetal.

[13]iden-

tifiedt h efacilitationefecti n r o w erswhow ereu n awareo f i t themselves.However,thisdoesnotchangethefactthat fire-

fighters’reportsregularlymentionwitnesseswhoafectthei ractionsb y makingthemmoredifcult;t h i s m aysuggestt hatfirefightersintuitivelyperceivet h efacilitationefect.

Qualitativestudieshaveadefinedaim;theycanbeuse dtoexploretheentireissueathand,butinandofthemselve stheydonotprovideabasisfordrawingconclusionsonthe existenceo f thephenomenoninalargerpopulation.Insp iteofthefactt hatqualitativeanalyseshaveidentifiedfacto rswhichsupportt hesocialfacilitationefect,thereisane edtoconductfuturestandardisedexperimentswiththep articipationoffirefighterstoallowustolearnwhetherthee fectispresentandwhatdrivesi t .Thenextstepshouldfoc usoncounteractingthesocialinhibi-

t i onefectandonpromotingsocialfacilitationwherepos sible.Bothaimscanbeachievedthroughexperimentsco nducteddur-

ingtrainingcoursesthroughtraditionalexercises,simula tionsandusinginnovativetoolssuchassimulatorsofrescu eoper-

ations.Thisstudyformspartofaprojectdesignedtodevel opa prototypeofsuchatool.

Followingthestudy,wecandrawtwopracticalrecom men-

dations.Thefirstconcernstheneedtopreparesystemsf

ortheincreasingpressurefromwitnesses.Ourresultshighlightp otentialproblemsresultingfromthegrowingaccesstonewtechn ologies;whenfirefightersareawareoftheiractionsandanymista kes’beingpotentiallymadepublic,theymaytendtofocusmoreon concealingsucherrorsthanontheirwork.Thesituationmayget moredifcultinthecomingyearsgiventheincreasingpopularity ofremotedevicessuchasdrones.Thesecondconclusionconcer nstoolsusedintraining;theymustbedevisedinsuchawaythatth eparticipantscanexperiencevirtualpressurefromwitnessesino rdertobecomeaccus-

tomedtoit.Toolswhicharelikelytobecomeespeciallyuseful

arevirtualrealitysimulations,someofwhicharealr eadyusedinthetrainingonactingundersocialpres sure(suchaspublicperformances[28]).

Acknowledgements

TheprojectisimplementedbyNanoGamesandc o-

financedundertheSmartGrowthOperationalProgr amme,Sub-measure

1.1.1.Industrialr esearchandd evelopmentw o r k i m p l ementedb y enterprises.Thetotalproject valueisPLN5,154,457.56;theg r antvalueisPLN3,5 65,775.11.

Literature

[1]SmithJ.A.,FlowerP.,LarkinM.,InterpretativePhenomenol ogicalAnalysis:Theory,MethodandResearch,Sage,Lond on2009.

[2]WojciszkeB.,P s y c h o l o g i aSpołeczna,Wydawnictw oNaukoweSCHOLAR,Warszawa2011.

[3]CialdiniR.,Influence:Scienceandpractice(4thed.),Allyn&

Bacon,Boston2001.

[4]DeuschM.,GerardH.B.,Astudyofnormativeandinformatio nalso-

cialinfluencesuponindividualjudgment,“TheJournalofAb normalandSocialPsychology”1955,51(3),629–636.

[5]AschS.E.,Opinionsandsocialpressure,“ScientificAmeri can”1955,193,35–35.

[6]DolińskiD.,Nawrat,R.,“Fear-Then-

Relief”ProcedureforProducingCompliance:BewareWhenth eDangerIsOver,“JournalofExperimen-

t alSocialPsychology”1998,34,27–50.

[7]GruszyłaK.,Czygrozinampotop?

Wpływhuśtawkiemocjinauległośćwobeckomunikatówpers wazyjnych,

„PsychologiaSpołeczna”2007,2 01(03),42–51.

[8]KassinS.,FeinS.,MarkusH.L.,SocialPsychology.Wadswort h,Bel-mont2010.

[9]StraussB.,Socialfacilitationinmotortasks:areviewofresearchand theory,“PsychologyofSportandExercise”2002,3(3), 237–256.

[10]TriplettN.,Thedynamogenicfactorsinpacemakingandcomp etition,

“TheAmericanJournalofPsychology,18989(4),507–533.

[11]ZajoncR.B.,HeingartnerA.,HermanE.M.,Socialenhanc ementandimpairmentofperformanceinthecockroach,“Journ alofPersonalityandSocialPsychology”1969,13,83–

92.

[12]BondC.F.,TitusL.J.,Socialfacilitation:Ameta- analysisof241stud-

ies,“PsychologicalBulletin”1983,94,265–292.

[13]MurrayE.,NeumannD.,MofttR.,ThomasP.,Theeff ectsofthepresenceofothersduringarowingexerciseinavirtu alrealityenvi-

ronment,“PsychologyofSportandExercise”2016,2 2,328–336.

[14]EmmerichK.,MasuchM.,Theinfluenceofvirtualagentsonplay erexpe-

rienceandperformance,“MaterialsoftheAnnualSympos iumonCom-puter-

HumanInteractioninPlay”(CHIPLAY),Austin2016,10 –21.

[15]HallB.,HenningsenD.D.,Socialfacilitationandhuman-computerin- t eraction,“ComputersinHumanBehavior”,2008,24(6),2965–

2971.

[16]HoytC.L.,BlascovichJ.,SwinthK.R.,Socialinhibitioninvirtualen- vironments,“PRESENCE:Teleoperators&VirtualEnvironments”

2003,12,183–195.

[17]ZajoncR.B.,Socialfacilitation,“Science”1965,149,269–274.

[18]BaronR.S.,Distraction-conflicttheory:Progressandproblems, [in:]A d v ancesinexperimentalsocialpsychology,L.Berkowitz(ed.), Aca-demicPress,NewYork1989,1–40.

[19]BarnardR.J.,DuncanH.W.,HeartrateandECGresponsesoffirefight- ers,“JournalofOccupationalMedicine”1975,17(4),247–250.

PAWEŁ STROJNY, PH.D. – is an associate professor at the Institute of Applied Psychology at the Jagiellonian University, and head of R&D at Nano Games sp. z o.o.. He is interested mainly in social relationships mediated by electronic media and factors determining engagement in computer games.

AGNIESZKA STROJNY, PH.D. – an experimental social psychologist. She works at the R&D department at Nano Games sp. z o.o. and as associate professor at the Institute of Applied Psychology at the Ja- giellonian University. She is a member of the Polish Society of Social Psychology and Centre for Social Cognitive Studies Krakow. She is in- terested mainly in attribution processes and methodology of research into electronic media.

WERONIKA KAŁWAK, PH.D. – holder of Ph.D. in psychology and M.A. in philosophy from Jagiellonian University. She specialises in qualita- tive methodologies in psychology, and in particular in the context of studying the body, actions and perceptions, as well as experimental psychology.

ANNA BAŃBURA, M.A. – a Ph.D. student at the Health Psychology Unit at the Institute of Psychology at the Jagiellonian University She works in qualitative methodology, existential psychology and evolu- tionary psychology and psychiatry. Her Ph.D. focuses on the stigma faced by people with mental disorders.

ГУМАНИСТИЧЕСКИЕИОБЩЕСТВЕННЫЕНАУКИНАБЛАГОБЕЗОПАСНОСТИ

[20]KolańczykA.,Uwagaekstensywna.ModelEkstensywnościvs.inten- s y wnościu wagi,„StudiaPsychologiczne”2011,4 9 ,7–27.

[21]HuguetP.,GalvaingM.P.,MonteilJ.M.,DumasF.,SocialPresenc eE f ectsintheStroopTask:FurtherEvidenceforanAttentionalViewofSo cialFacilitation,“JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology”1 9 9 9 , 77,1011–1025.

[22]BognerA.,ExpertInterviews—AnIntroductiontoaNewMethodolog- icalDebate,

[in:]InterviewingExperts,A.Bogner,B.Littig,W.Menz( e d s . ) , Palg raveMacmillan,NewYork2009.

[23]CottrellN.B.,SocialFacilitation,

[in:]ExperimentalSocialPsychology,McClintockC.G.

(ed.),Holt,RinehartandWinston,NewYork1972.

[24]CottrellN.B.,WackD.N.,SekerakG.J.,RittleR.H.,Socialfacilitationo f dominantresponsesbypresenceofothers,“JournalofPersonali- tyandSocialPsychology”1968,9(3),245–250.

[25]GuerinB.,Socialfacilitation.Cambridge,UniversityPress,Cam- bridge2009.

[26]JeskeD.,SantuzziA.M.,Monitoringwhatandhow:psychologicalim- plicationsofelectronicperformancemonitoring,“NewTechnology,W orkandEmployment”,2015,30(1),62–78.

[27]WellsD.L.,MoormanR.H.,WernerJ.M.,TheImpactofthePerceivedP urposeofElectronicPerformanceMonitoringonanArrayofAttitu- dinalV ariables,“HumanResourceDevelopmentQuarterly”2007, 18(1),121–138.

[28]PoeschlS.,DoeringN.,EfectsofSimulationFidelityonUserExperi- enceinVirtualFearofPublicSpeakingTraining–

AnExperimentalStudy,“ A n n u a l ReviewofCyberTherapyandTelemedicine”,2 014,12,66–70.