Social loafing and expectancy-value theory

Revision as of 09:10, 9 May 2023

Abstract

The term social loafing refers to phenomenon of individuals not working or contributing to their full ability when working in a group ^[1]. This phenomenon can lead to a discrepancy between expected and actuals results of group work, since a team’s productivity does not match what would have been the combined individual effort. The phenomenon was first described in a summary by W. Moede in 1927 detailing rope-pulling experiments by French professor Max Ringelmann done in the late 1890s ^[2]. The term social loafing was later introduced to the phenomenon in 1979 by Bibb Latané et al.^[3]. The term has since been widely used and subject to extensive research with over 100 studies examining the phenomenon, covering both laboratory experiments and field research^[4]. This has led to many more advanced theories of social loafing.

Looking at the phenomenon from a project management angle, team effectiveness is a major part of any project involving multiple people of actors working together and social loafing is a robust phenomenon with the potential of lowering effectiveness. Thus, social loafing should be accounted for, when managing projects.

A theory that can help account for social loafing is called Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-value theory provides a framework for assessing an individual’s effort motivation, based on three main factors: Expectancy, Instrumentality and Outcome value^[1]. These models suggest that individuals are most likely to contribute to their full ability when their work is necessary for the project and when their efforts results in something they value highly. Put in relation to social loafing this suggests that work in groups or teams may have less obvious links between effort and outcome and/or a less obvious link between effort and rewards.

Big Idea

While not defined as such, doing projects almost always requires some degree of teamwork. Therefore, a project manager should be aware of the mechanisms and dynamics which takes place when multiple people work together. A well-documented mechanism that negatively affects the efficiency of group work is social loafing. Social loafing describes a phenomenon where the sum of individual efforts in a team task does not match the sum of individual potential. The phenomenon was first described by French professor Max Ringelmann, who wanted to study the correlation between individual efforts and sizes of groups which said individual was put in. Ringelmann tested this correlation by having test subjects pull a rope both individually and in groups. This experiment showed that the force exerted by the group did not match the summed force of each individual of the group, had they pulled the rope without being in a group ^[2]. Since Ringelmann, the effect has been demonstrated across numerous studies, most famously by Latané, Williams & Harkins who created similar experiments to the rope-pulling experiment except for subject having to clap or shout instead of pulling a rope. Not only did these experiments validate Ringelmann’s findings they also helped put the significance of the effect into perspective. The clapping and shouting experiments demonstrated how severely individual performances declined when put in a group. Latané, Williams & Harkins’ experiments showed that individual performances was reduced to 71% when in two-person groups, 51% when in groups of four and just 40% when in groups of eight^[3].

Expectancy-value theory offers a way of quantifying a person’s motivation towards a given task – thereby also indicating a likelihood of social loafing. Following expectancy-value theory this measure of motivation is named effort motivation (EM) and given by the multiplication of three factors: Expectancy (E), Instrumentality (I) and Outcome value (OV), as given in the formula below ^{[5] [6]}:

Expectancy, E refers to a perception of performance relying on effort, i.e., that a greater display of effort will lead to better performance and thereby results. This component ranges from 0 to 1 i.e., from no relation between effort and performance to full correlation between effort and performance.^[1]

Instrumentality, I is defined as the perception of contingency between the outcome and performance. This means that instrumentality is based on an expectation of to what extent the quality of a performance will be reflected in the outcome of the performance. The instrumentality component also ranges from. 0 to 1 i.e., from performance having no effect on the outcome to performance and outcome being fully correlated. Outcome Value, OV is simply how an individual values achieving the outcome of a performance, including the subtraction of potential costs. Essentially outcome value is perceived reward mines perceived cost. This component ranges from -1 to 1 i.e., from not rewarding and very costly to highly rewarding and not costly.^[1]

Effort Motivation, EM is, in essence, the degree of effort which an individual is willing to exert in order to complete a specific task or goal. Based on the three intrinsic components, the effort motivation can range between -1 and 1. If the value is near 1, this means that an individual’s motivations for putting in effort is high, while a value near 0 or a negative value indicates low motivation.^[1]

Application

outline

-Given that the theory framework suggests that effort motivation is given by multiplying expectancy, instrumentality, and outcome value, naturally, effort motivation will be low if any of the three factors are low.

-Mitigation strategy: personal contingency between effort and performance. Study by Shepperd

Maximizing expectancy and mitigating risks

-

Maximizing Instrumentality and mitigating risks

Maximizing Outcome Value and mitigating risks

- Individual performance: value, both external and internal - Collective performance: value, both external and internal

Minimizing cost of contributions

- Value = reward - cost. Therefore value can both be obtained by an increase in reward, but also by a reduction in cost.

Limitations

outline

The expectancy-value theory is a well-documented theory, but it does not supply a rigid enough framework for project managers to use it as a tool on its own.^[7] Weiner has found that certain personality traits also greatly affect individual predispositions. Weiner states that an individual’s “need for achievement” has the potential bias the weighting of factors affecting motivations. Individuals high in achievement needs has a tendency to value both effort and ability highly in success, while mainly attributing failure to low effort. Individuals low in achievement effort, on the other hand, does not attribute success to either effort or ability, but instead to external factors such as luck. In failure, individuals low in achievement needs tends to view low ability as the factor with the biggest influence.

From a more theoretical standpoint, some researchers argue that the definition of instrumentality as a probability, based on the factor ranging from -1 to 0, is faulty, and that is should be considered as a correlative value, thus ranging from -1 to 1. ^[5]

Annotated Bibliography

• "Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing", Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. , 1979, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.

The article introduces the term social loafing, and has been used as a key article and starting point for countless studies examining the effect since its release. The article both presents the phenomenon thoroughly, but also seeks to describe several underlying factors, which could explain the phenomenon.

• "Social loafing and expectancy-value theory" Shepperd, J.A. , 2001, Multiple Perspectives on the Effects of Evaluation of Performance: Toward an Integration, 1-24.

Shepperd briefly introduces the terms social loafing and expectancy-value theory, explaining how expectancy-value theory can be used as a theoretical basis to understand social loafing and its causes. Shepperd then proceeds to explain the three factors expectancy, instrumentality and outcome value in depth, also addressing how potential problems affecting each factor can be mitigated.

References

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4} [Social loafing and expectancy-value theory] Shepperd, J.A. , 2001, Multiple Perspectives on the Effects of Evaluation of Performance: Toward an Integration
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} [“Recherches sur les moteurs animés: Travail de l’homme” [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]] Ringelmann, M., 1913, Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique, 2nd series, vol 12, pages 1-40
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} [Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832] Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. , 1979,
4. ↑ [Social Loafing (and Facilitation)] Karau, S. J. , 2012,
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1} [Work and Motivation] Vroom, V.H. , 1964, New York: Wiley
6. ↑ [Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65, No. 4, 681-706] Karau, S., Williams, K. , 1993.'
7. ↑ [An Attributional Interpretation of Expectancy-Value Theory.] Karau, B. , 1974.'