Revision as of 10:54, 14 February 2022

// User:Caorongjin/wordcount importScriptURI('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ACaorongjin%2Fwordcount.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

Abstract

Social loafing is a psychology term that describes the phenomenon of individuals performing worse in group constellations than they are otherwise capable of, if they were working alone ^[1] It was first studied in the early 1900s by Max Ringelmann ^[2] and has since been the focal point of several empirical and theoretical studies ^{[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}

The theories of what causes social loafing are plentiful, and includes: diffusion of responsibility, dispensability of effort, the “sucker” effect / aversion, attribution, and equity; matching of effort and submaximal goal setting ^[8].

Social loafing has ramifications on group dynamic and can lead to a negative experience and in worst cases to a hostile group dynamic, in which each individual distrusts the other members of the group and refuses to put in the effort, they are otherwise capable of in a nourishing/inspirational environment. Apart from the group dynamic, social loafing also has a negative impact on the output and performance of the group work and can lead to a situation where the whole is less than the sum of all parts. This notion is from critical complexity theory, denoting how some properties found in the individual parts vanish when those parts are in a system ^[9].

As so much important work happens in group settings in today’s world, it is crucial for managers / other leaders to recognize the conditions that can lead to social loafing and to have strategies to prevent it from happening. Such strategies include the ability to individually measure each person’s contributions, making sure that the work is meaningful, and that each person feels like their contribution makes a difference. Furthermore, the group should feel cohesive, maximizing the incentives for each member to put in a good effort ^[10] .

Universal or local effect

Gender

Culture

Historical overview

The rope pulling study

In 1913, Max Ringelmann conducted a study in which he wanted to determine, if there was a correlation between the effort individuals put forth and the size of the group, that individual was working with. He had people pull a rope, both individually and in groups and found that the combined force used to pull the rope was less than what it should theoretically have been, given the forces that each individual was capable of asserting. This effect got the name social loafing, and similar studies were later conducted....

Theoretical causes of social loafing

Social impact theory

Social impact theory looks at the forces that play a role in an interaction between a "source" and a "target" ^[11]. In the situation where a manager is giving an order to an employee, the manager is the source and the employee is the target. If person A asks a favour of person B, person A is the source and person B is the target of that interaction. Social impact theory states that there are three driving forces that impact how the target (person B) will behave. Those three forces are:

• Strength - how important the source is to the target or how much authority the source has over the target. (police officer/king/boss/loved one)
• Immediacy - the distance in between the source and the target both in physical and temporal measures. In general, the larger the distance, the lower the impact. The more time that passes after an order has been given or a corrective action has been taken, the lower the impact will be.
• Number - the number of sources impacting the target

The importance of social impact theory as an explanation for social loafing is seen, when the three forces are looked at from the other way around. A single source will have more of an impact if there is only one target compared to when there are multiple targets. A boss telling one employee to do something, will have a higher succes rate than if a boss asks a room full of employees for the same thing. This is called the divisional effect and stated with the terms/? of the theory, the strength of the source is divided by the targets, which is also used to explain the Bystander Effect.

Arousal reduction

Diffusion of responsibility

Dispensability of effort

Identification and evaluation potential

Submaximal goal setting

Self-efficacy

Examples

Implications of social loafing

Prevention and reduction of social loafing

Task-related factors

Group-related factors

Organization-related factors

References

Citation

1. ↑ Karau, S.J. (2012). Social loafing (and facilitation). Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. Second edition. pp 486
2. ↑ Ringelmann, M. (1913) “Recherches sur les moteurs animés: Travail de l’homme” [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man], Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique, 2nd series, vol 12, pages 1-40
3. ↑ Latané, Bibb; Williams, Kipling; Harkins, Stephen (1979). “Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (6): 822–832
4. ↑ Gabrenya, Jr., Latane, Wang (1983). "Social loafing in cross-cultural Perspective". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 14 (3): 368–384.
5. ↑ Kugihara (1999). "Gender and Social Loafing in Japan". The Journal of Social Psychology. 139 (4): 516–526
6. ↑ Christopher Earley, P. (1989). "Social Loafing and Collectivism: A Comparison of the United States and the People's Republic of China". Administrative Science Quarterly. 34 (4): 565–581
7. ↑ Aggarwal, P., & O'Brien, C. (2008). Social antecedents and effect on student satisfaction, Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 25-264
8. ↑ Gil, F (2004). “Social Loafing”, Encyclopedia of applied psychology, vol 3: 411-419
9. ↑ Morin, E. (1977). “La Methode: La Nature de la Nature” [The Method: The Nature of Nature], 112-114
10. ↑ Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (4), 681–706
11. ↑ Social Impact Theory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRxQ-mZ6uFA. Accessed: 14.10.2020