What is social loafing?Social loafing is the phenomenon of people exerting less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when they work alone. This is one of the main reasons groups are sometimes less productive then individuals. This is different from the accidental coordination problems that sometimes arise. Social loafing can sometimes be explained by the "free-rider" theory and the resulting "sucker effect". This is an individual's reduction in effort in order to avoid pulling the weight of another member. Experiments such as the rope pulling experiment by Ringelmann found that members of a group tend to exert less effort in pulling a rope than did individuals alone. In more recent research, studies involving modern technology, such as online groups also show clear evidence of social loafing. Many of the causes stem from an individual feeling that his or her effort will not matter to the group.
|
Experiments
ROPE-PULLING EXPERIMENT
The first known research on the social loafing effect began in 1913 with Max Ringelmann's study. He found that when asked to pull a rope a group of men would not collectively pull as hard as when they were pulling alone. This did not indicate however whether the problem was the result of the individuals in a group exerting less effort or poor coordination within the group. In 1974, Alan Ingham replicated the experiment using two types of groups: 1) Groups with real participants in groups of various sizes and 2) Pseudo-groups, with only one real participant. In the pseudo-groups, the researchers' assistants only pretended to pull the rope. An overall decrease in the participants' performance, with groups of participants who all exerted effort, suffered the largest declines. Since the pseudo-groups were isolated from coordination effects, Ingham proved that communication alone did not account for the effort decrease, and that motivational losses was the most likely cause of the performance decline. |
CLAPPING AND SHOUTING EXPERIMENTS
Bibb Latané et al. replicated previous social loafing findings while demonstrating that the decreased performance of groups was attributable to reduced individual effort as distinct from deterioration due to communication. This was proven by blindfolding male college students while making them wear headphones that masked all noise. They then asked them to shout both in actual groups and pseudo groups in which the shouted alone but believed they were shouting with others. When subjects believed one other person was shouting they shouted at 82% intensity, and with five others their effort declined to 74%. Latané concluded that increasing the number of people in a group diminished the social pressure on each person. "If the individual inputs are not identifiable the person may exert less effort. Thus if the person is dividing up the work to be performed or the amount of reward he expects to receive is low or inconsequential, he will work less hard in groups." |
Effects of Culture
In 1989 Christopher P. Earley hypothesized that social loafing would be mitigated in collectivist cultures that focused more on achievement of the group than the individual. His study was conducted in the US and China, two polar opposites in terms of culture, in order to determine if a difference in social loafing was present. Earley formed the groups from both countries similar in demographics and in time spent with each other (each group had known each other for about two weeks). Each group had the task of completing various forms of paperwork similar to the work they would be required to do in their profession. The paperwork was designed to take two to five minutes for each item, and the items were turned in to an assistant when completed so no one could judge their work compared to others. Each participant was given 60 minutes to complete as many items as possible and was separated into either a high-accountability group, where they were told they needed to achieve a group goal, or a low-accountability group, where they were told they were to achieve a goal alone. They were also separated into high or low shared responsibility groups. Highly individualistic people, it was found, performed more poorly on the task when there was high shared responsibility and low accountability than when there was high accountability. The collectivists, however, performed somewhat better on the task when high shared responsibility was present, regardless of how accountable they were suppose to be as compared to when they were working alone. This evidence suggests that collectivist thinking reduces the social loafing effect. Further evidence from a similar study showed the effect was related to the collectivist thinking rather than nationality, as individualistic Chinese workers did indeed show a social loafing affect.
Causes
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY/EVALUATION POTENTIAL
The greater the number of people in a group or team, the more people tend to feel deindividuation. This defines both the dissociation from individual achievement and the decrease of personal accountability, resulting in lower exerted effort for individuals in collaborative environments. Overall group effectiveness can decrease because its contagious and hard to correct. People could also simply feel "lost in the crowd", so they feel that their effort would not be rewarded even if they tried. This idea can also cause people to feel as though they can "hide in the crowd" and avoid the effect of not applying themselves. When enthusiasm for the overall goal or task is diminished, overall contribution will drop. When someone feels as though their efforts are reduced or unimportant, they will likely become social loafers.
MOTIVATION
The level of motivation one has to engage in an activity influences one's behavior in a group setting. This was deemed the collective effort model and states that individuals who are more motivated are more likely to engage in social loafing. Researchers have determined that two of the main contributing factors that determine an individual's motivation, and subsequently whether or not the individual will resort to social loafing versus social facilitation (the tendency for people to do better on simple tasks when in the presence of other people), include the person's expectations about attaining the goal and the perceived value of the goal. A person's attitude toward these two factors will influence their motivation level and subsequent group behavior. Karau and Williams found that motivation was the highest when the individual believed that the goal was easily attainable and very valuable. Unfortunately, the presence of a group can influence one's perception of these two factors. Working in a group may reduce or increase one's expectancy of attaining a goal. Depending on the qualities of the group members, an individual may find themselves in a group of high achievers who work hard and are guaranteed success, whereas another may equally find themselves in a group of lazy or distracted people, making success seem unattainable. The link between one's personal efforts and success is not direct, as our success is influenced by the work of others. Similarly, the value of the goal may be contingent on the group members. If we must share the reaping of success with all other group members, then the value of the goal is reduced compared to the value of the goal from an individualistic perspective. The dynamic of the group is an important key in determining a person's motivation and the likelihood of social loafing.
"SUCKER" EFFECT
People feel that others in a group will leave them to do all the work while they take the credit. Because people do not want to feel like the "sucker", they wait to see how much effort others will put into a group before they put any in. If all members try to avoid being a the sucker, then everyone's effort will be significantly less than it would be if all of them were working as hard as they could.
ATTRIBUTION AND EQUITY/MATCHING OF EFFORT
Jackson and Williams proposed that if someone feels that others in the group are slacking or that others will slack, he will lower his effort to march that of others. This can occur whether it is apparent that others are slacking or if someone simply believes that the group is slacking.
The greater the number of people in a group or team, the more people tend to feel deindividuation. This defines both the dissociation from individual achievement and the decrease of personal accountability, resulting in lower exerted effort for individuals in collaborative environments. Overall group effectiveness can decrease because its contagious and hard to correct. People could also simply feel "lost in the crowd", so they feel that their effort would not be rewarded even if they tried. This idea can also cause people to feel as though they can "hide in the crowd" and avoid the effect of not applying themselves. When enthusiasm for the overall goal or task is diminished, overall contribution will drop. When someone feels as though their efforts are reduced or unimportant, they will likely become social loafers.
MOTIVATION
The level of motivation one has to engage in an activity influences one's behavior in a group setting. This was deemed the collective effort model and states that individuals who are more motivated are more likely to engage in social loafing. Researchers have determined that two of the main contributing factors that determine an individual's motivation, and subsequently whether or not the individual will resort to social loafing versus social facilitation (the tendency for people to do better on simple tasks when in the presence of other people), include the person's expectations about attaining the goal and the perceived value of the goal. A person's attitude toward these two factors will influence their motivation level and subsequent group behavior. Karau and Williams found that motivation was the highest when the individual believed that the goal was easily attainable and very valuable. Unfortunately, the presence of a group can influence one's perception of these two factors. Working in a group may reduce or increase one's expectancy of attaining a goal. Depending on the qualities of the group members, an individual may find themselves in a group of high achievers who work hard and are guaranteed success, whereas another may equally find themselves in a group of lazy or distracted people, making success seem unattainable. The link between one's personal efforts and success is not direct, as our success is influenced by the work of others. Similarly, the value of the goal may be contingent on the group members. If we must share the reaping of success with all other group members, then the value of the goal is reduced compared to the value of the goal from an individualistic perspective. The dynamic of the group is an important key in determining a person's motivation and the likelihood of social loafing.
"SUCKER" EFFECT
People feel that others in a group will leave them to do all the work while they take the credit. Because people do not want to feel like the "sucker", they wait to see how much effort others will put into a group before they put any in. If all members try to avoid being a the sucker, then everyone's effort will be significantly less than it would be if all of them were working as hard as they could.
ATTRIBUTION AND EQUITY/MATCHING OF EFFORT
Jackson and Williams proposed that if someone feels that others in the group are slacking or that others will slack, he will lower his effort to march that of others. This can occur whether it is apparent that others are slacking or if someone simply believes that the group is slacking.
69 Years of Max RingelmannMaximilien Ringelmann was born on December 10, 1861 in Paris. He started out as an agronomic engineer, similar to an agricultural engineer. Ringelmann became a professor, developed the Ringelmann scale, created a way to measure smokes density, and discovered the "Ringelmann effect". Some consider him the founder of Social Psychology. He died on May 2, 1931 in Paris. He was 69 years old.
|
The Life of Bibb Latané et alBibb Latané was born on July 19, 1937 in New York City. He is known mostly for his theory of social impact and bystander intervention in emergencies. He worked with John Darley on both of these.
|
Videos
|
|