Social Loafing PDF

BS Psychology/Soc Psy Psyc 8 2nd Sem– Finals – Mr. Reynaldo Mariano social loafing, which set a groundwork for the further development of the theory. In...

BS Psychology/Soc Psy Psyc 8 2nd Sem– Finals – Mr. Reynaldo Mariano social loafing, which set a groundwork for the further development of the theory. In Topic 10: Social Loafing perspective, the theory is relatively the same presently, but is used to describe individuals within a workplace most commonly. What is Social Loafing "Social loafing" refers to a situation in which Ringelmann’s Rope Pulling Effect people put in less effort when working as part of a group compared to when they are working alone. Social loafing refers to an individual reducing effort in collective tasks. It began with a French agricultural engineer, MAX RINGLEMANN (1861-1931). It is because they assume that the overall performance of the group will make up for their He was interested in how agricultural workers lack of participation in the final outcome. could maximize their productivity. Societally speaking, this can cause problems because the accountability of individual workers Found that though groups outperform cannot be identified as easily. In turn, a group individuals, they usually do not perform to the may not be able to get as much work done or extend they could if each individual worked at a the quality of the work suffers. maximum capacity. -​ Teamwork is essential in any workplace, In his study, he had people pull on a rope but it can often lead to social loafing. attached to a pressure gauge and found that as -​ This is when individuals give the bare more people pulled on a rope together, their minimum when working as part of a combined effort decreased, with groups falling group compared to when working alone. significantly short of their full potential. -​ There is a sense of reduced accountability and shared responsibility. Ringelmann Rope Pulling Experiment -​ When individual efforts are combined ​ He made people pull on ropes both into a group result, it is hard to identify separately and in groups of 7 and 14 each person's contribution. and measured and compared how hard they pulled ​ The maximum pulling effort was History of Social Loafing recorded using a dynamometer ​ Force exerted: ​ 85.3 kg per person when pulled alone The study of social loafing began with ​ 65.0 kg per person when pulled Maximilien Ringelmann, a French agricultural in 7-person group engineer who discovered that work animals in a ​ 61.4kg per person when pulled group did not collectively make the same effort in 14-person group to complete their roles as individual animals did. This resulted in less farming productivity and a loss of profits for farmers. Although he did not publish the findings of his initial experiments until 1913, Ringelmann began the process of The results indicated that individuals applied experimentation and created the hypothesis of more force to the rope when working alone. PAGE 1 De La Cruz C. – BS Psych 4B – [email protected]  BS Psychology/Soc Psy Psyc 8 2nd Sem– Finals – Mr. Reynaldo Mariano However, as the group size grew, the force Sucker Effect exerted by each person decreased. -​ When the best members of a group start Ringelmann’s experiment also found that larger to do less work because of free-riders, it’s groups are more prone to social loafing than because they feel the free-riders are smaller ones. benefiting from their efforts without contributing. -​ when individuals perceive their group members are not putting in the erfort, so ATTRIBUTED THIS PHENOMENON TO TWO they themselves reduce their efforts. SOURCES (1913): ​ COORDINATION LOSS- “the lack of Examples of Social Setting simultaneity of their efforts”- main cause of social loafing ​ MOTIVATION LOSSES- “trusting his In Social Settings neighbor to furnish the desired effort” -​ Not joining group activities: Avoiding CAUSES​ participation in group fitness or work EXPECTATIONS OF CO-WORKERS projects, assuming others will take part. PERFORMANCE​ -​ Not voting: Choosing not to vote because ​Social compensation hypothesis- you expect others to vote for you. When people expect their coworkers to perform -​ Pretending to engage: Acting like you're poorly on an activity, they work harder clapping or singing in a large crowd collectively than individually. without genuinely participating. -​ Avoiding clean-up: Not helping clean Jackson and Harkins (1985) - studied how shared spaces, assuming someone else participants expects how hard their co-workers will do it. would work and found that individuals who had -​ The "slacker": A person who knows their low expectations of c0-workers, lessens their responsibilities but avoids completing own effort for equity. them. -​ The "sucker": Someone who does more work than the other group members. Two Types of Social Loafing In the Work Place Free Rider Effect -​ Not engaging in virtual work meetings -​ when some group members do less like muting yourself during virtual because they think others will do the meeting calls work, it creates a productivity gap that -​ Failing to contribute to team projects the rest of the group has to cover. such as not assisting with writing a -​ when individuals reduce their effort report or creating a presentation. because the effort of the other group members will carry the individual through. PAGE De La Cruz C. – BS Psych 4B – [email protected] 2  BS Psychology/Soc Psy Psyc 8 2nd Sem– Finals – Mr. Reynaldo Mariano In Sports concept of the bystander effect -​ No motivation: Occurs when players are following the uncertain about their role in the overall infamous murder of team effort. This uncertainty can lead to Kitty Genovese in reduced motivation and an increased New York City in 1964. likelihood of social loafing. “The 28-year-old -​ Has General Objective but with No woman was stabbed Individual Goals some team members to death outside her may exert less effort, believing they won’t apartment; at the be held accountable for a poor result. time, it was reported that dozens of neighbors failed to step in to assist or call the police.” Social Loafing vs Bystander Effect Social Loafing Social loafing is when team members reduce their effort, TWO FACTORS: assuming others will handle the work. The ​ DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY bystander effect “more onlookers there are, the less occurs when personal responsibility individuals will individuals fail to act feel to take action” in a situation ​ SOCIAL INFLUENCE requiring “individuals monitor the behavior of intervention, those around them to determine how to expecting someone act” else to take responsibility. Signs of Social Loafing Bystanbder Effect Occurs when individuals fail to act A Decrease in a Team Member’s Motivation in a situation During a Group Activity: requiring intervention, -​ When team members feel that their epxecting someone contributions are less visible or less else will take the significant in a group setting, their responsibility. motivation to participate actively may decline. Bibb Latané and John Darley (social psychologists ) popularized the PAGE De La Cruz C. – BS Psych 4B – [email protected] 3  BS Psychology/Soc Psy Psyc 8 2nd Sem– Finals – Mr. Reynaldo Mariano Reduced Individual Accountability: Causes of Social Loafing -​ If team members believe that others will pick up the slack or that their individual contributions are not critical, they may Equitable Contribution not hold themselves accountable for their performance, leading to decreased - a cause of social loafing that occurs when effort. group members believe others are not putting forth as much effort, so they lessen their efforts Lack of Initiative and Increased Dependency in the group so their contribution is more on a Few Individuals: equitable; they believe that others in the group are slacking. -​ Social loafing often results in some team members taking on more responsibility Submaximal Goal Setting than others, while others may become passive participants. - a cause of social loafing that occurs when team members perceive that a well-defined An Uptick in Complaints About Workload goal with several people working toward it Distribution: doesn’t require them to work as hard -​ When social loafing occurs, some team Lessened Contingency between input and members may feel that they are outcome shouldering an unfair share of the workload. - a cause of social loafing that occurs when group members feel they can hide in the crowd A Decline in Teamwork Productivity Leading and avoid the consequences of not contributing. to Stagnant Team Growth and Development: Lack of Evaluation -​ As social loafing takes hold, overall productivity can suffer. Teams may - a cause of social loafing that occurs in the struggle to meet goals or deadlines, absence of an individual evaluation structure resulting in stagnation in both imposed by the environment performance and development. Unequal distribution of Compensation Suppressed Creativity and Innovation: - a cause of social loafing that occurs when -​ When individuals feel uninspired or individuals believe compensation has not been unmotivated due to social loafing, their allotted equally among group members, so they willingness to share ideas and contribute will withdraw individual efforts creatively diminishes. Non-cohesive group - a cause of social loafing that occurs when a group does not develop social cohesion and members do not feel a sense of obligation to each other PAGE De La Cruz C. – BS Psych 4B – [email protected] 4  BS Psychology/Soc Psy Psyc 8 2nd Sem– Finals – Mr. Reynaldo Mariano expectations and group size influence social COLLECTIVE EFFORT MODEL loafing.​ (2) Loafing was greater among men than women, in Western countries compared to Karau and Williams (1993)​ Eastern ones, and for simple tasks rather than -published meta-analytic review of 78 studies complex ones (Forsyth, 2009). to integrate the findings of different scientists from across the field.​ -Their meta-analysis presented their own integrated model to explain social loafing: THE COLLECTIVE EFFORT MODEL (CEM) Social Impact Theory In meta-analysis, it was found that social loafing is”moderate in magnitude and generalizable - Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979) explained across tasks and subject populations”.​ social loafing through the Social Impact Theory. - Social impact theory suggests that when They developed a comprehensive model by individuals work collectively, social influence is combining various partial explanations, diffused across group members, and each including evaluation potential and effort additional group member has less influence as matching, while also accounting for factors like group size increases. task meaningfulness and cultural influences. - People can be viewed as either sources or targets of social impact. TWO ELEMENTS OF CEM TO DETERMINE - The division of impact is predicted to follow an inverse power function, with a negative INDIVIDUALS’ LEVEL OF MOTIVATION WHEN exponent having an absolute value less than 1, WORKING IN A GROUP thereby resulting in marginally decreasing impact as group size increases. 1.​ Their expectations to their ability to reach the goal. 2.​ The value they assign to the goal. Self Attention According to CEM, motivation is strongest when - Mullen (1983) proposed that self-attention individuals have both high expectations and value for a goal, but it decreases when either is underlies social loafing. lacking. In groups, individuals often have low expectations due to uncertainty about the - According to self-attention perspective, group's outcome and may place less value on working on a collective task leads to a decrease the goal, leading to reduced motivation. in self-awareness, leading individuals to disregard salient performance standards and to Karau and Williams's meta-analysis supports the engage in less self-regulation. Collective Effort Model (CEM),​ (1) identifying factors like evaluation potential - Collective performance is lower than coactive and task valence (intrinsic “good” -ness or “bad” performance, because participants are more -ness of the task), co-worker performance PAGE De La Cruz C. – BS Psych 4B – [email protected] 5  BS Psychology/Soc Psy Psyc 8 2nd Sem– Finals – Mr. Reynaldo Mariano attentive to task demands and performance ​ Specifically define the task standards when working alone. Clarify the importance of the task to the team and assign members to do particular - Mullen has found evidence consistent with the assignments. Establish expectations through notion that self-attention may influence aspects of social behavior in various meta-analyses specific measurable and observable outcomes, such as due dates. ​ Create personal relationships Arousal Reduction Provide opportunities for members to socialize and establish trusting relationships. Dedicated - Jackson and Williams (1985) proposed a drive relationships cause people to fulfill their duties explanation to accompany a social impact theory explanation of social loafing. more efficiently. - Arousal reduction theory asserts that the low ​ Manage discussions effort of individuals during collective tasks can Ensure that all team members have the be attributed to the reduction in a drive that individuals feel when working collectively. opportunity to speak. Make every individual feel they have a valuable role on the team and their input is important to group success. How to Prevent Social Loafing ​ Engage individuals When intrinsic involvement in the task is high, workers may feel that their efforts are very ​ Write a team contract important for the success of the group and thus Establishing ground rules can help to prevent may be unlikely to engage in social loafing even social loafing and free-riding behaviors by if the task visibility is low. providing assurances that free-riding attempts will be dealt with (Cox &​ ​ Highlight achievement Brobrowski, 2000). Open or close meetings by summarizing members’ and the group’s successes. Create a ​ Create appropriate group sizes culture that recognizes and celebrates “wins” The fewer people available to diffuse and task accomplishments. responsibility to, the less likely social​ loafing will occur. ​ Evaluate progress Meet individually with team members to assess ​ Establish individual accountability their successes and areas of improvement. Tasks that require pre-work and input from all Discuss ways in which the team may provide group members produce a set of dynamics that additional support so the task may be largely prevent social loafing from happening in completed. the first place. PAGE De La Cruz C. – BS Psych 4B – [email protected] 6