💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 5390.gmi captured on 2023-09-08 at 17:43:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
2015-04-30 12:01:54
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the social psychology of groups, 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.[1][2] This is seen as one of the main reasons groups are sometimes
less productive than the combined performance of their members working as
individuals, but should be distinguished from the accidental coordination
problems that groups sometimes experience.[citation needed]
Social loafing can be explained by the "free-rider" theory and the resulting
"sucker effect", which is an individual s reduction in effort in order to avoid
pulling the weight of a fellow group member.[3][4] Research on social loafing
began with rope pulling experiments by Ringelmann, who found that members of a
group tended to exert less effort in pulling a rope than did individuals alone.
In more recent research, studies involving modern technology, such as online
and distributed groups, have also shown clear evidence of social loafing. Many
of the causes of social loafing stem from an individual feeling that his or her
effort will not matter to the group.
History
Rope-pulling experiments
Results from Ringelmann's experiment
The first known research on the social loafing effect began in 1913 with Max
Ringelmann's study. He found that when he asked a group of men to pull on a
rope, that they did not pull as hard collectively as they did when each was
pulling alone. This research did not distinguish whether this was the result of
the individuals in a group putting in less effort or of poor coordination
within the group.[5][6] In 1974, Alan Ingham and colleagues replicated
Ringelmann's experiment using two types of group: 1) Groups with real
participants in groups of various sizes (consistent with Ringelmann's setup) or
2) Pseudo-groups with only one real participant. In the pseudo-groups, the
researchers' assistants only pretended to pull on the rope. The results showed
a decrease in the participants' performance, with groups of participants who
all exerted effort suffering the largest declines. Because the pseudo-groups
were isolated from coordination effects (since the participant's confederates
did not physically pull the rope), Ingham proved that communication alone did
not account for the effort decrease, and that motivational losses were the more
likely cause of the performance decline.[7]
Clapping and shouting experiments
In contrast with Ringelmann's first findings, Bibb Latan et al. replicated
previous social loafing findings while demonstrating that the decreased
performance of groups was attributable to reduced individual effort, as
distinct from a deterioration due to coordination. They showed this 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
pseudogroups in which they shouted alone but believed they were shouting with
others. When subjects believed one other person was shouting, they shouted 82%
as intensely as they did alone, but with five others, their effort decreased to
74%.
Latan et al. concluded that increasing the number of people in a group
diminished the relative social pressure on each person: "If the individual
inputs are not identifiable the person may work less hard. Thus if the person
is dividing up the work to be performed or the amount of reward he expects to
receive, he will work less hard in groups."[8][9]
Meta-analysis study and the Collective Effort Model (CEM)
In a 1993 meta-analysis by Karau and Williams, they propose the Collective
Effort Model (CEM), which is used to generate predictions.[1] The CEM
integrates expectancy theories with theories of group-level social comparison
and social identity to account for studies that examine individual effort in
collective settings. From a psychological state, it proposes that Expectancy
multiplied by Instrumentality multiplied by Valence of Outcome produces the
resulting Motivational Force.
Karau et al.'s concluded that social loafing occurred because there was usually
a stronger perceived contingency between individual effort and valued outcomes
when working individually. When working collectively, other factors frequently
determine performance, and valued outcomes are also divided among all group
members. All individuals are assumed to try to maximize the expected utility of
their actions. The CEM also acknowledges that some valued outcomes do not
depend on performance. For example, exerting strong effort when working on
intrinsically meaningful tasks or with highly respected team members may result
in self-satisfaction or approval from the group, even if the high effort had
little to no impact on tangible performance outcomes.[1]
Notable or novel findings by Karau and Williams following their implementation
of the CEM include:
The magnitude of social loafing is reduced for women and individuals
originating from Eastern cultures.
Individuals are more likely to loaf when their co-workers are expected to
perform well.
Individuals reduce social loafing when working with acquaintances and do not
loaf at all when they work in highly valued groups.[1]
Dispersed versus collocated groups
A 2005 study by Laku Chidambaram and Lai Lai Tung based their research model on
Latan s social impact theory, and hypothesized that as group size and
dispersion grew, the group s work would be affected in the following areas:
Members would contribute less in both quantity and quality, final group output
would be of lower quality, and a group s output would be affected both by
individual factors and contextual factors.
A sample of 240 undergraduate business students was randomly split into forty
teams (half of the teams were 4-person and half 8-person) which were randomly
assigned to either a collocated or distributed setting. The participants were
to complete a task that asked them to act as a board of directors of a winery
with an image problem. They were to find and discuss alternatives, and at the
end submit their alternative with rationale. Collocated groups worked at a
table together, while distributed groups did the same task at separate
computers that allowed for electronic, networked communication. The same
technology was used by both collocated and distributed groups.
Chidambaram and Tung found that group size mattered immensely in a group s
performance. The smaller the group, the more likely each member was to
participate, regardless of range (dispersed or collocated). The main difference
stated between distributed and collocated groups was the social pressure at
least to appear busy that is present in collocated groups. When others are
present, people feel the need to look as if they are working hard, while those
who are not in the presence of others do not.[10]
Effect 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. He conducted a study in the United States and China,
two polar opposites in terms of culture (with the U.S. being individualistic
and China being collectivist), in order to determine if a difference in social
loafing was present between the two types of cultures. Earley formed groups
from both countries similar in demographics and in time spent with each other
(participants in each of the groups had known each other for three to five
weeks). Each group was tasked with completing various forms of paperwork
similar to 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 that 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 the 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 and low shared responsibility groups.
It was found that, consistent with other studies, highly individualistic people
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 supposed 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 effect.[11]
Causes
Diffusion of responsibility/Evaluation potential
As the number of people in the group or team increase, people tend to feel
deindividuation. This term defines both the dissociation from individual
achievement and the decrease of personal accountability, resulting in lower
exerted effort for individuals in collaborative environments. This phenomenon
can thus decrease overall group effectiveness because it is contagious and hard
to correct. Once identified by the group or team leader, it is their
responsibility to reassess and put into motion new rules and expectations for
everyone.
People could simply feel "lost in the crowd", so they feel that their effort
would not be rewarded even if they put it forth. This idea can also cause
people to feel as though they can simply "hide in the crowd" and avoid the
averse effects of not applying themselves.[8]
When enthusiasm for the overall goal or task is diminished, overall
contribution will drop. When one feels that their overall efforts are reduced
or unimportant, they will likely become social loafers.
Motivation
Social psychological literature has found that the level of motivation one has
to engage in an activity influences one s behavior in a group setting. This
finding, deemed the collective effort model by Karau and Williams (1993, 2001)
details that individuals who are more motivated are more likely to engage in
social facilitation (that is, to increase one s efforts when in the presence of
others) whereas those who are less motivated are more likely to engage in
social loafing.[12] Researchers have determined that two factors which
determine an individual s motivation, and subsequently whether or not the
individual will resort to social loafing versus social facilitation, include
the individual s expectations about attaining the goal and the perceived value
of the goal.
Thus, a person s attitude toward these two factors will influence his or her
motivation level and subsequent group behavior. Karau and Williams (1993, 2001)
found that motivation was highest when the individual believed that the goal
was easily attainable and very valuable. On the other hand, motivation was
lowest when the goal seemed impossible and not at all valuable.[12]
Unfortunately, the presence of a group can influence one s perception of these
two factors in a number of ways. For instance, working in a group may reduce or
increase one s expectancy of attaining a goal. That is, 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. Therefore, 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. For
instance, 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
individual perspective. Hence, the dynamic of the group is an important key in
determining a person s motivation and the likelihood of social loafing.[12]
Additional factors which have been found to influence the likelihood of social
loafing include one s gender, one s cultural background and the complexity of
the task.
Dispensability of effort
When a group member does not feel that his/her effort is justified in the
context of the overall group, the individual will be less willing to assert the
effort. If the group size is large, members can feel that their contribution
will not be worth much to the overall cause because so many other contributions
can or should occur. This leads people to not contribute as much or at all in
large groups as they might have in smaller groups.
One example is voting in the United States. Even though most people say that
voting is important, and a good practice for them to do, every year a
sub-optimal percentage of Americans turn up to vote, especially in presidential
elections (only 51% in the 2000 election).[13] One vote may feel very small in
a group of millions, so people may not think a vote is worth the time and
effort. If too many people think this way, there is a small percentage of voter
turnout. Some countries enforce compulsory voting to reduce this effect.
"Sucker" effect/Aversion
People feel that others in the 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 the members try to avoid being 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.[14]
For example, in a workplace environment, the establishment of an absence
culture creates an attitude that all employees deserve to have a certain number
of days of absence, regardless of whether or not they are actually sick.
Therefore, if an employee has not used the maximum number of absence days, "he
may feel that he is carrying an unfair share of the workload". [4]
Attribution and equity/Matching of effort
Jackson and Harkins (1985) proposed that if someone feels that others in the
group are slacking or that others will slack, he will lower his effort to match
that of the others. This can occur whether it is apparent that the others are
slacking or if someone simply believes that the group is slacking.[1][15] For
example, in the Latane et al. study above, if a participant heard the others
making less noise than anticipated, he could have lowered his effort in an
attempt to equal that of the others, rather than aiming for the optimum.[8]
Submaximal goal setting
By setting a goal that is based on maximization, people may feel that there is
a set level that the group needs to be achieved. Because of this, they feel
that they can work less hard for the overall desired effect.
For example, in the Latane et al. clapping and shouting study, people who were
alone but told that they were part of a group screaming or clapping could have
thought that there was a set level of noise that experimenters were looking
for, and so assumed they could work less hard to achieve this level depending
on the size of the group.[8]
Real-life instances
1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident
Main article: 1994 Black Hawk shootdown incident
On April 14, 1994, two U.S. Air Force F-15 fighters accidentally shot down two
U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters over Northern Iraq, killing all 26 soldiers on
board. The details of the incident have been analyzed by West Point Professor
Scott Snook in his book Friendly Fire.[16] In his summary of the fallacy of
social redundancy, Snook points to social loafing as a contributor to the
failure of the AWACS aircraft team to track the helicopters and prevent the
shootdown. Snook asserts that responsibility was "spread so thin by the laws of
social impact and confused authority relationships that no one felt compelled
to act".[16]
Social loafing and the workplace
According to Hwee Hoon Tan and Min-Li Tan, social loafing is an important area
of interest in order to understand group work.[17] While the opposite of social
loafing, "organizational citizenship behavior", can create significant
productivity increases, both of these behaviors can significantly impact the
performance of organizations. Social loafing is a behavior that organizations
want to eliminate. Understanding how and why people become social loafers is
critical to the effective functioning, competitiveness and effectiveness of an
organization.
There are certain examples of social loafing in the workplace that are
discussed by James larsen in his essay "Loafing on The Job." For example,
Construction men working vigorously on a construction site while some of their
working partners are lounging on rock walls or leaning on their shovels doing
nothing. another example is when you walk into a restaurant such as Mcdonalds
and find that some employees are lounging about while others are eagerly
awaiting your order. these scenarios all express the problems that social
loafing creates in a workplace and businesses would like to find a way to
counteract these trends.
Larsen mentions ways that a business could change its operations in order to
fight the negative effects of social loafing. For one, research has shown that
if each employee has their performance individually measured, they will put in
more effort than if it was not measured. Another person interested in the idea
of social loafing is Kenneth Price, from The University of Texas. Price
conducted a social loafing experiment in order to examine whether two key
factors that he suspected played a role in the way social loafing arose in work
groups. These two factors were dispensability and fairness. The experiment that
he conducted involved 514 people that were divided into 144 teams that were set
to meet for fourteen weeks. The projects assigned to these people were very
complex and called for diverse skills from many different individuals in order
to be fully completed. The experiments findings did in fact corroborate Price's
suspicions in the two factors of dispensability and fairness.
dispensability in a group is describes by Price as employees who join a work
group and quickly begin to measure up their skills with the people that they
are assigned to work with. If they feel that their skills are inferior to those
around them, people tend to sit back and let the other more skilled workers
carry the workload. Fairness in a group is when some group members feel that
their voice is not heard in decision making because of their ethnicity, gender
or other discriminatory factors. Instead of fighting for their voice to be
heard many group members will decide to loaf in these circumstances.
Online communities and groups
Research regarding social loafing online is currently relatively sparse, but is
growing.[3]
A 2008 study of 227 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in web-enabled
courses at the Naval War College (NWC) and a public university found that
social loafing not only exists, but may also be prevalent in the online
learning classroom. Although only 2% of NWC and 8% of public university
students self-reported social loafing, 8% of NWC and 77% of public university
students indicated the perception of others engaging in social loafing.
Additional findings generally verify face-to-face social loafing findings from
previous studies. The researchers conclude that injustice in the distribution
of rewards increases social loafing, and suggest that self-perceived dominance
negatively affects individual participation in group activities.[3]
Social loafing, also known as "lurking", greatly affect the development and
growth of online communities. The term social loafing refers to the tendency
for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when
working individually.[1] This phenomenon is much like people s tendency to be
part of a group project, but rely heavily on just a few individuals to complete
the work. Generally, social loafers regularly follow the discussions and
content of online communities, but choose not to expand on posts or add to the
knowledge of the community.[18] Additionally, participation in online
communities is usually voluntary; therefore there is no guarantee that
community members will contribute to the knowledge of the website, discussion
forum, bulletin board, or other form of online engagement.
Lurkers are reported to constitute over 90% of several online groups.[1]
The main reason people choose not to contribute to online communities
surprisingly does not have to do with societal laziness, but in fact the
potential contributors belief that their entries will not be taken seriously or
given the credit that they deserve. When people assess the risks involved in
contributing to online communities, they generally avoid participation because
of the uncertainty of who the other contributors and readers are and the fear
of their work being undervalued.[18]
Age-related effects on participation
Although studies justify the notion that people often do not contribute to
online communities, some research shows that older adults are actually more
likely to participate in online communities than younger people because
different generations tend to use the internet differently. For example, "older
adults are more likely to seek health information, make purchases, and obtain
religious information, but less likely to watch videos, download music, play
games, and read blogs online".[19] This is perhaps due in part to the fact that
some online communities cater to older generations. The content of the website
often determines what age group will use or visit the site, and because many
forms of online communities appear on sites that focus their attention on older
adults, participation is generally higher. Additionally, the ease and
availability of operating the websites that host the online community may play
a role in the age group that is most likely to participate. For example, some
online communities geared toward older adults have simplified the design of
their sites in order to enhance their look and usability for older adults.[19]
Reducing social loafing
According to Dan J. Rothwell, it takes "the three Cs of motivation" to get a
group moving: collaboration, content, and choice.[20] Thus, the answer to
social loafing may be motivation. A competitive environment may not necessarily
get group members motivated.
Collaboration is a way to get everyone involved in the group by assigning each
member special, meaningful tasks.[21] It is a way for the group members to
share the knowledge and the tasks to be fulfilled unfailingly. For example, if
Sally and Paul were loafing because they were not given specific tasks, then
giving Paul the note taker duty and Sally the brainstorming duty will make them
feel essential to the group. Sally and Paul will be less likely to want to let
the group down, because they have specific obligations to complete.
Content identifies the importance of the individual's specific tasks within the
group. If group members see their role as that involved in completing a worthy
task, then they are more likely to fulfill it. For example, Sally may enjoy
brainstorming, as she knows that she will bring a lot to the group if she
fulfills this obligation. She feels that her obligation will be valued by the
group.
Choice gives the group members the opportunity to choose the task they want to
fulfill. Assigning roles in a group causes complaints and frustration. Allowing
group members the freedom to choose their role makes social loafing less
significant, and encourages the members to work together as a team.
Thompson stresses that ability and motivation are essential, but insufficient
for effective team functioning. A team must also coordinate the skills,
efforts, and actions of its members in order to effectively achieve its goal.
Thompson's recommendations can be separated into motivation strategies and
coordination strategies:[22]
Motivation strategies Coordination strategies
Increase identifiability
Promote involvement
Reward team members for performance
Strengthen team cohesion
Increase personal responsibility
Use team contracts
Provide team performance reviews and feedback
Using single-digit teams
Having an agenda
Training team members together
Spending more time practicing
Minimizing links in communication
Setting clear performance standards
Motivational strategies
Increase identifiability: Studies of social loafing suggest that people are
less productive when they are working with others, but social facilitation
studies have shown that people are more productive when others are present (at
least with an easy task). If individuals within a group know one another, feel
that their productivity or inputs are not identifiable, then social loafing is
likely to occur. Alternatively, if individuals are anonymous and therefore
unidentifiable, then social loafing may also be likely to occur.[23]
Minimize free riding: Free riding occurs when members do less than their share
of the work because others will make up for their slack. As others contribute
ideas, individuals may feel less motivated to work hard themselves. They see
their own contributions as less necessary or less likely to have much impact.
[24]To eliminate these effects, it is important to make group members feel that
their contributions are essential for the group s success. Additionally, it is
less likely for someone to free-ride if they are in a small group.[23]
Promote involvement: loafing is also less likely to occur when people are
involved with their work, and when they enjoy working with others in groups.
These are people who value both the experience of being part of a group, as
well as achieving results. Also, challenging and difficult tasks reduce social
loafing. Social loafing is also reduced when individuals are involved in group
work and their rewards are received as a team, rather than individually.[23]
Strengthen team cohesion: the extent to which group members identify with their
group also determines the amount of social loafing. This concept links with
social identity theory in that that difference between a hard-working group and
one that is loafing is the match between the group s tasks and its members
self definitions. When individuals derive their sense of self and identity from
their membership, social loafing is replaced by social laboring (members will
expand extra effort for their group).[23]
Set goals: groups that set clear, challenging goals outperform groups whose
members have lost sight of their objectives. The group's goals should be
relatively challenging, instead of being too easily accomplished. The
advantages of working in a group are often lost when a task is so easy that it
can be accomplished even when members of the group socially loaf. Thus, groups
should ensure to set their standards high, but not so high that the goals are
unattainable. Latham and Baldes (1975) assessed the practical significance of
Locke's theory of goal setting by conducting an experiment with truck drivers
who hauled logs from the woods to the mill. When the men were initially told to
do their best when loading the logs, they carried only about 60% of the weight
that they could legally haul. When the same drivers were later encouraged to
reach a goal of hauling 94% of the legal limit, they increased their efficiency
and met this specific goal. Thus, the results of this study show that
performance improved immediately upon the assignment of a specific, challenging
goal. Company cost accounting procedures indicated that this same increase in
performance without goal setting would have required an expenditure of a
quarter of a million dollars on the purchase of additional trucks alone. So
this method of goal setting is extremely effective.[25] Other research has
found that clear goals can stimulate a number of other performance-enhancing
processes, including increases in effort, better planning, more accurate
monitoring of the quality of the groups work, and even an increased commitment
to the group.[26]
Individual Assessment In order to reduce social loafing, a company can always
focus on assessing each members contribution rather than only examining the
teams accomplishments as a whole. It is statistically proven that social
loafers will tend to put in less effort because of the lack of no external or
internal assessment of their contributions. This leads to less self-awareness
in the group because the team together is the only body evaluated. (Curt. 2007)
Encouraging contributions in online communities
Piezon & Donaldson argue in a 2005 analysis that special attention should be
paid to the physical separation, social isolation, and temporal distance
associated with distance education courses, which may induce social loafing. In
terms of group size, they assert that there is no significant gain in small
groups larger than six unless the group is brainstorming, and that the optimal
group size may be five members. Suggestions that they have for online groups
include clarifying roles and responsibilities, providing performance data for
comparison with other groups, and mandating high levels of participation
consisting of attending group meetings, using the discussion board, and
participating in chats.[27]
In a 2010 analysis of online communities, Kraut and Resnick suggest several
ways to elicit contributions from users:[28]
Simply asking users, either implicitly through selective presentation of tasks
or explicitly through requests that play on the principles of persuasion
Changing the composition or activity of the group
Using a record-keeping system to reflect member contributions, in addition to
awarding privileges or more tangible awards
An example that the authors study is Wikipedia, which runs fundraising
campaigns that involve tens of thousands of people and raise millions of
dollars by employing large banner ads at the top of the page with deadlines,
specific amounts of money set as the goal, and lists of contributors.
Reduction in group projects
In 2008, Praveen Aggarwal and Connie O'Brien studied several hundred college
students assessing what factors can reduce social loafing during group
projects. From the results, they concluded that there were three factors that
reduce social loafing.[29]
Limiting the scope of the project: Instructors can reduce social loafing by
either dividing a big project into two or more smaller components or replacing
semester-long projects with a smaller project and some other graded work. Also,
breaking up a big project into smaller components can be beneficial.[29]
Smaller group size: Limiting the group size can make it harder for social
loafers to hide behind the shield of anonymity provided by a large group. In
smaller groups, each member will feel that their contribution will add greater
value.[29]
Peer evaluations: Peer evaluations send a signal to group members that there
will be consequences for non-participation. It has been found that as the
number of peer evaluations during a project go up, the incidence of social
loafing goes down.