Social Loafing
AstridRordam (Talk | contribs) (→Universal or local effect) |
AstridRordam (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
= Historical overview = | = Historical overview = | ||
== The rope pulling study == | == 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 = | = Theoretical causes of social loafing = | ||
== Social impact theory == | == Social impact theory == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Social impact theory states that there are three driving forces that impact a humans behaviour in group settings. Those three forces are | ||
| + | * Strength * *Immidiacy* *Number* | ||
| + | |||
== Arousal reduction == | == Arousal reduction == | ||
== Diffusion of responsibility == | == Diffusion of responsibility == | ||
Revision as of 10:11, 14 February 2022
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
blablabla [2]
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
