Social loafing

Revision as of 21:37, 22 February 2022

developed by Julian Schmidt

Abstract

The concept of social loafing describes the phenomenon which leads to the reduction of the individual contribution to a collective effort, compared to the effort an individual would make when working alone.^[1] Resulting from this effect a group can often times not fulfil its full potential, and the overall performance is reduced. While the phenomenon was initially described by French researcher Max Ringelmann in the early twentieth century, the term social loafing was introduced by Bibb Latané, et al., in 1979.^[2] In the following decades the topic has been covered in research with a broad spectrum of perspectives, which have produced a multitude of theories for causes and mitigation techniques.

A popular theory that attempts to explain the phenomenon of social loafing is the concept of evaluation-potential.^[3] It proposes that the degree to which an individual contribution of a group member is identifiable will determine the likelihood of that individual to either be involved or to socially loaf. Another angle towards explaining social loafing in group situations is the social impact theory which describes the linkage between social forces and the behaviour of a person. ^[4] The theory postulates that when a member of a group is exposed to external social forces, the group has a shielding function and thereby reduces the need of the person to act according to the pressure. Other theories in the evolving field of research address aspects such as an individual’s perception of his or her own contribution in a group setting or the sense of fairness with regards to the equity of effort of different team members. Strategies that aim to mitigate the occurrence of social loafing address specific structural changes that can be implemented in the set-up and functioning of groups, but also include special incentives targeted at individual members.

Overview of social loafing

Research

Historical considerations, experiments

Observations

Gender and cultural aspects

Examples

Theoretical discussion

Evaluation-potential

A very fundamental and straight-forward theory that attempts to explain the phenomenon of social loafing is the concept of evaluation-potential, which refers to the ability to attribute a specific performance or result of a group project to a single individual. When working individually on a task or assignment, there is a direct correlation between the quality of the outcome and the exerted effort of the individual. However, as a group becomes larger and the extent or duration of a project grows, it becomes harder to make this direct allocation from an outside perspective. In that situation the personal accountability and sense of responsibility of the individual members of the group is reduced, which in return leads to an increased potential for social loafing.

Social impact theory

The social impact theory draws a connection between the social environment that an individual is exposed to, and the resulting actions of the depending on the setting within which it is exposed to that environment.^[2] When having to accomplish a task or a project, a person is affected by a certain degree of social pressure, which depends on multiple factors such as the immediacy or the number of people that exert the pressure. While the social pressure someone is experiencing is significant when working alone and independently, a group may act as a sort of shield or buffer that diffuses and therefore reduces the social pressure perceived by the individual. As perceived social pressure is a major external force that is driving an individual to exert effort, a reduction of this pressure will increase the potential of a person to socially loaf in a group setting. Research has shown that the effect of diminishing social pressure when experienced by an individual in a group setting is proportional to the size of the group as well as factors such as the cohesiveness among its members.^[5] A further approach that takes the focus from the group as a collective towards the viewpoint of the group as a cluster of individual actors argues that co-workers serve the function of co-targets that share the social pressure with each other..^[6] According to this viewpoint, an individual is not prone to social loafing because it is part of a group, but rather due to the existence of other individual co-workers that experience the same level of social pressure.

Dispensability and equity of effort

The perception of effort in a group setting is an important determinant for the effort an individual member will contribute towards the accomplishment of a project. In that context the concept of the dispensability of effort describes the phenomenon in which an individual member of a team may reduce his or her effort and socially loaf when perceiving that the own contribution does not have a significant impact.^[7] The perception of dispensability can either be attributed to the feeling that other team members might be more capable or competent when working on a specific task, or that other team members are able to accomplish the task with an equal outcome.

A further theory that deals with the perception of effort in a group setting is the concept of the equity of effort, which is founded in the assumption that people have a strong sense for equity and fairness when it comes to the distribution of work and effort in a group setting.^[6] Individuals that are part of a group may become suspicious of the effort and performance of their peers, when there is a low degree of trust among each other or there is a poor level of communication. This in return can lead these people to socially loaf and reduce the effort they exert in a group by matching their performance with the one they believe that their peers exert, thereby re-establishing a perceived level of equity among the different group members.

Expectancy-value theory

The expectancy-value theory attempts to provide a hypothesis on how the combination of the three factors expectancy, instrumentality and value affects the tendency an individual has towards social loafing when participating in a group project.^[1] The first factor expectancy relates to the perception of an individual that there is a correlation between making an effort and therefore achieving a better resulting performance. The second term instrumentality refers to the assumption that there is a correlation between the performance and the eventual outcome, and can therefore be seen as an extension or continuation of the expectancy. Value as a third factor defines the significance that an individual assigns towards an outcome, and can be expressed as the difference between the rewards and costs attributed to achieving it.^[8] Each of these factors can be quantified on a scale from 0 to 1, whereas 0 corresponds to the minimum and 1 corresponds to the maximum possible prominence of the factor. When multiplying the three factors expectancy, instrumentality and value, the resulting product is the effort motivation which in return also varies between 0 at the minimum and 1 at the maximum. The effort motivation is a measure that allows quantifying the effort an individual is willing to exert in order to perform a certain task, and can predict the likelihood for the occurrence of social loafing when that individual is part of a group project. It should be noted that all three factors and therefore the resulting effort motivation are subject to a person’s individual judgement and perception, and it is therefore not possible to apply an objective measure to them from the outside.^[5]

Mitigation strategies

Group composition

When discussing the composition or structure of a group working on a project, the group size is the most significant metric that has an impact on the performance. Research suggests that the social identity which a group member is sharing with a group has a large impact on the motivation that the individual member has to contribute, and is inversely proportional to the size of the group.^[9] The tendency towards social loafing is therefore greater the larger the group is, which is why the size of the group should be limited. While it is evident that the size of the group has a distinctive influence on its performance, there is an ongoing debate about the exact size which can be regarded as ideal. Different researchers have proposed sizes ranging from two to four at the lower limit and five to six at the upper limit, that have proven to be effective when attempting to achieve the objective of improving performance and mitigating the risk for social loafing.^[10][11]

Next to the group size the group formation plays an important role. The degree to which someone is self-categorizing or identifying himself or herself as a member of a group is predicting the level to which that person is willing to contribute towards the accomplishment of a shared goal. The identification of individuals with a group has shown to be higher when the composition of the group is chosen voluntarily by its members, which in return leads to a higher cohesiveness and solidarity among them.^[12] Specifically it has been found that groups of friends are performing better that groups composed of individuals that have no specific relation to each other.^[13] Whenever possible it is therefore beneficial for the prevention of social loafing during group projects, to allow individuals to select for themselves which group composition they prefer instead of assigning them to a group without taking personal preferences into account.

Project scope

While the group constellation in itself has a significant impact on the performance and tendency towards social loafing, the scope and extent of a project plays a crucial role. The observation can be made, that an increasing scope and complexity of a group project leads to a direct increase in its proneness for social loafing.^[2] This is attributed to the observation that individuals who participate in a group project perceive that their contributions as less impactful when a project surmounts a certain extent in scope or exceeds a specific timeframe. An effective measure that can therefore be applied to counteract social loafing is to control the scope of a project, both in terms of the complexity and the timewise extent.

External incentives

According to research, the occurrence of social loafing can be mitigated by introducing specific incentives which lead to an increase of performance that an individual displays in a group setting.^[1] These incentives can be external or internal in their nature, and attempt to attach a sense of value on the one hand, or urgency on the other hand to contributing towards a task. As research is suggesting, a setting in which individual contributions cannot be identified promotes social loafing not only in the individual case but on a collective level. This can be attributed to the fact, that individuals are subjected to less pressure to make a sufficient effort because they can neither be sanctioned for a poor performance nor rewarded for their achievements. ^[7] While the ability to identify an individual contribution is an important step towards the avoidance of social loafing, this measure alone is not sufficient. Through a study performed by Stephen Harkins and Jeffrey Jackson it was concluded, that the performance of an individual does not only have to be identifiable but also quantifiable through evaluation.^[6] Experimentally they found that test subjects who were led to believe that their contribution to a task were not quantifiable despite being identified, did not show any more effort than test subjects that were making contributions which could not be identified. The conclusion is therefore that only the combination of making the contribution of an individual to a group task both identifiable and quantifiable works as a sufficiently potent external incentive.

Internal incentives

Similar to external incentives that can be achieved by structuring the work in a group accordingly, internal incentives can be introduced to mitigate the occurrence of the social loafing phenomenon. While the presented external incentive includes quantifying individual performance through evaluation from the outside, research suggests that the ability of group members to judge their own performance tends to increase their desire to improve their effort.^[14] The cause for this behaviour can be found in the intrinsic desire of individuals to have a favourable perception of themselves. This finding can therefore be used as an internal incentive, by introducing the practice of self-evaluation of the individual members throughout the course of a project. A further aspect that leads individuals to improve their performance in a group context is when they find the task intrinsically interesting. This can either be the case when they perceive task as meaningful or the result of the task has an important relevance. This effect was experimentally proven by researchers John Cacioppo and Richard Petty, by establishing a link between the need for cognition and the affinity towards cognitively challenging tasks.^[15] One measure against social loafing that can therefore be derived from this finding is to attempt assigning individuals to tasks that they find personally interesting and relevant.

Limitations

missing link to other theories, Überschneidunen, Vermischungen

Annotated Bibliography

• Frash , R., Kline, S.F., Stahura, J.M., (2004). Mitigating Social Loafing in Team-Based Learning. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, Vol. 3, No. 4, 57-77

Bla Bla Blub

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2} Shepperd, J.A. (2001) Social loafing and expectancy-value theory in Multiple Perspectives on the Effects of Evaluation of Performance: Toward an Integratiom. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1 2.2} Latané, B., Williams, K., Harkins, S., (1979) Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 6, 822-832.
3. ↑ Harkins, S.G., Szymanski, K., (1989) Social Loafing and Group Evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 6,934-941.
4. ↑ Frash, R.E., Kline, S., Stahura, J.M., (2004) Mitigating Social Loafing in Team-Based Learning. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 3:4, 57-77.
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1} Karau, S., Williams, K. (1993). Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 4, 681-706.
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1 6.2} Jackson, J. M., Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 49, No. 4, 937–942.
7. ↑ ^{7.0 7.1} Kerr, N.L., Bruun, S.E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 1, 78–94.
8. ↑ Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 113, No. 1, 67–81.
9. ↑ Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior in Jost, J. T., Sidanius, J. Political psychology: Key readings Chicago: Hall Publishers.
10. ↑ Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Smith, K. A. (1991) Active learning: cooperation in the college classroom. Edina: Interaction Book Company.
11. ↑ Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage Publication.
12. ↑ Cioffi, D., & Garner, R. (1996). On doing the decision: Effects of active versus passive choice on commitment and self-perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 2, 133–147.
13. ↑ Mahenthiran, S. and Rouse, P.J. (2000). The impact of group selection on student performance and satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 255-265.
14. ↑ Szymanski, K., Harkins, S.G. (1987) Social Loafing and Self-Evaluation With a Social Standard. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 5, 891-897.
15. ↑ Cacioppo, J.T., Richard, E.P. (1982) The Need for Cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 42, No. 5, 116-131.