Revision as of 16:26, 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] .

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 ^[2]. 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....

Universal or local effect

Several studies have looked at social loafing across different groups of people to try and characterise social loafing as either an innate human characteristic or dependent on gender, culture or surroundings.

Gender

Karau and Williams (1993) ^[10] hypothesised that women in general are more orientated to maintenance of human relations and group coordination, where men are in general more orientated at achieving tasks. This would mean that women would engage less with social loafing, as they would see the group work as more important, than men. In 1999, Naoki Kugihara replicated Max Ringelmanns rope pulling study put separated the participant into males and females. Both groups consisted of 18 participants, who was split into groups of 9. The participants had to pull the rope as hard as they could and the study consisted of 12 tasks for each participant, where 2 were individual tasks and 10 were group tasks. In the group tasks, the participants were told that only the collective power was gauged and not the individual contributions. The study found, that the women tended to loaf less than the men and that the mens effort suddenly declined, when the situation changed from an individual performance to a group setting ^[5].

The study points to the fact that certain industries in Japan - at the time of the study - are heavily gendered, with 94% of kindergarden teachers and 97% of nurses being female as an example. If social loafing is more prominent in one gender over the others, that could have implications in the forms of a skewered distribution of social loafers in specific fields.

Culture

Theoretical causes of social loafing

Since social loafing was first studied, several theories have been applied to try and explain the effect. Some of these include: Social impact theory, Identification and evaluation potential (diffusion of responsibility), Sub optimal goal setting and self efficacy.

And in reality, what contributes to social loafing on a case by case basis is likely a combination of multiple of the following theories and (situations)

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.

Social impact theory have been critiqued for being situational, that is to not take into account the differences in human beings. Some people may be more or less inclined to follow the rules and respect the authority of the source in the interaction and some may be less inclined to take on responsibility as a product of who they are or how they were raised. (link to culture section? conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience)

Klehe and Anderson (2007) ^[12] found that none of the three personality variables conscientiousness, agreeableness and openness to experience had a significant impact on the degree to which the participants of the study were inclined to loaf. They did find, however, that people that were more conscientious were more motivated

Dispensability of effort

Diffusion of responsibility

Identification and evaluation potential

A common aspect used to explain social loafing, is how demotivating it can be, when there is no way of measuring and evaluating each individuals performance. When the number of people in a group increases, it becomes more difficult to distinguish the work done by each individual and thus, anonymity increases as the group size increases ^[8]. It is therefore less motivating for each person to perform well, as the consequences of doing a lesser job is a lot less severe, than if the evaluation could be linked directly to that person.

In a situation where many individuals each contribute to a common goal and there is no way to identify and evaluate the work done by each person, the personal accountability for each individual is low and they are less motivated to perform well. This theory builds upon the human need to feel seen and appreciated, and has been explained in that people feel deindividuation, causing them to loose their self-awareness in groups.

Link to social facilitation?

Sub optimal goal setting

The link between optimal goal setting and motivation/performance was first researched by Locke, who came up with Locke's Goal Setting Theory of Motivation ^[13] . According to the theory, motivating goals have to have five characteristics: clarity, challenge, commitment, feedback and task complexity. Using SMART goals can help with the first characteristic, clarity. To make sure the goals are an appropriate amount of challenging, scenario planning can help foresee potential scenarios that can be used as a starting point for determining the range of the goal setting.

When commitment or enthusiasm for the goals are diminished, members of the group will feel less motivated to assert effort into reaching the goals and thus, the performance will decrease.

Self-efficacy

Examples

Implications of social loafing

Prevention and reduction of social loafing

It is crucial for managers or group responsibles to recognise the conditions under which social loafing is likely to occur and take preventive action. However, preventive action is not sufficient if the manager has a one-sided approach and they only focus on conditions related to feedback, group size or goal settings. Gil (2004) ^[8] divides the factors that can aid in reducing social loafing into task, group and organisation related factors. An extract of Gil's recommendations are

Task-related factors

• Task evaluation allows the reinforcement of actual behaviors
• Different and unique tasks ensure that group members perceive their inputs to be necessary and complementary
• Tasks involve incentives to contribute
• Tasks are interesting or attractive
• Tasks are meaningful and the collective results achieved is considered valid and important for the individuals

Group-related factors

• The group should be small
• The individuals in the group should have respect and trust in each other
• Group members should have awareness of each others' skills as well as difficulties
• The group should set clear performance goals in addition to individual goals
• The group should receive feedback and reinforcement
• Team training and team development programs should be applied

Organization-related factors

• Select group members in accordance with their skills and the tasks required
• Set goals that are both challenging and realistic
• Define standards or comparative criteria
• Establish conditions to use skills and perform tasks
• Provide the necessary resources and support actions
• Create a setting that leads to the development and strengthening of self-efficacy and self-esteem

Although relatively exhaustive, ...., In addition to Gils recommendations, ? adds that in order to reduce or prevent social loafing...

Include the members of the group in the goal setting, making them more committed - agree targets are realistic and sensible, ensure rewards are wanted and the process of deciding who gets what is transparent, use visualisations to paint a picture of what the "to be" state would look like, if the goals are achieved Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no content must have a name

Ensure that feedback processes are in place and planned regularly, to allow members of the group to raise concerns about the conditions that might cause them to perform suboptimal.

Break down complex tasks into sub targets, so as to keep the members of the group motivated and not overwhelmed.

References

Citation

1. ↑ Karau, S.J. (2012). Social loafing (and facilitation). Encyclopedia of Human Behavior. Second edition. pp 486
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} 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. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1} 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. ↑ ^{8.0 8.1 8.2} 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. ↑ ^{10.0 10.1} 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: 14.02.2020
12. ↑ Klehe, U-C & Anderson, N (2007). The moderating influence of personality and culture on social loafing in typical versus maximal performance situations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment 15:2 pp. 250-262
13. ↑ Locke's Goal Setting Theory of Motivation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtX_Ueh0j-E. Accessed on 14.02.2020