Kate Szymanski

Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, United States

Are you Kate Szymanski?

Claim your profile

Publications (6)12.37 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous research on social facilitation (e.g. Harkins, 1987) has made it clear that the potential for evaluation plays a role in producing coaction effects, but has left unclear the source of these effects. Subsequent research (e.g. Szymanski & Harkins, 1987, 1993) has shown that the potential for self-evaluation and experimenter evaluation each produce performance greater than that found in a `no evaluation' control group. However, the combination of these sources produces performance no better than either taken alone. In Experiment 1, we show that the potential for evaluation by a coactor also produces performance better than that found in a `no evaluation' control group, and that the combination of these sources (coactor plus self) also produces performance no better than either taken alone. Experiment 2 shows that the combination of the potential for evaluation by the experimenter and a coactor does produce better performance than either source taken alone. These findings suggest that, although adding external sources of evaluation contributes to the potency of the coaction effect, adding the potential for self-evaluation to the potential for evaluation by external sources does not.
    Group Processes & Intergroup Relations - GROUP PROCESS INTERGROUP RELA. 01/2000; 3(3):269-283.
  • Kate Szymanski, Stephen G. Harkins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Examined the motivational potency and limits of K. Szymanski and S. Harkins's (see record 1988-07410-001) self-evaluation (SE) effect by allowing 112 undergraduates to choose the conditions under which they would work. Ss were attracted by the possibility of SE, but they rejected the possibility of evaluation by the experimenter. When the potential for experimenter and self were combined, Ss also rejected it, even though it meant passing up the opportunity for SE. These results suggest that the potential for SE was a potent, but fragile, source of motivation. Ss' concern over the potential for experimenter evaluation captured their attention to the extent that they passed up the possibility of SE. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 04/1993; · 2.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Stephen G. Harkins, Kate Szymanski
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent work (e.g., S. Harkins; see PA, Vol 75:20027; K. Szymanski and Harkins; see PA, Vol 75:7410) has suggested that social loafing occurs because participants' outputs cannot be evaluated by the experimenter, by the coactors, or by the participants themselves. This analysis had focused on the output of the individual, but in loafing research, participants work together to produce a group product. However, in this prior work participants have been unable to make anything of this group product, because no standard of comparison has been made available. Several recent formulations (e.g., G. Goethals and J. Darley, 1987) have suggested that the potential for group evaluation could motivate performance. Testing this hypothesis in 2 experiments, 1 using an optimizing task and the other a maximizing task, we found that providing a standard that allowed the "group" to evaluate its performance eliminated the loafing effect. The implications of these findings for current theories of group evaluation are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 05/1989; 56(6):934-941. · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • Stephen G Harkins, Kate Szymanski
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It has been found that social loafing, the finding that participants working together put out less effort than participants working alone, can be eliminated by the prospect of evaluation of individual outputs. In this work, the role of the experimenter as evaluator has been emphasized. However, when the experimenter cannot evaluate individual outputs, the participants are also unable to do so. In the present experiment, it was demonstrated that the potential for self-evaluation was sufficient to eliminate the loafing effect. In this study, the participants could evaluate themselves by comparing their performances to an objective standard, the number of signals presented in a vigilance task. Previous research has demonstrated similar effects using a social standard. Taken together, these experiments suggest that the possibility of evaluation by an external source is not required to eliminate the loafing effect; the potential for self-evaluation alone is sufficient to do so. These findings are discussed in relation to current theories of self-evaluation.
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 07/1988;
  • Source
    Kate Szymanski, Stephen G. Harkins
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Social loafing has been described as the phenomenon in which participants who work together generate less effort than do participants who work alone (e.g., Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Subsequent research (Harkins & Jackson, 1985; Williams, Harkins, & Latané, 1981) has shown that a particular aspect of this paradigm leads to the loafing effect. When participants "work together," their outputs are pooled (combined) so that evaluation of individual output is not possible. In those studies, the evaluation potential of the experimenter has been emphasized. However, when the experimenter could not evaluate individual outputs, neither could the participants evaluate themselves. In this study we tested the possibility that the opportunity for the participants to evaluate themselves would be sufficient to eliminate the loafing effect. In two experiments, the evaluation potential of the experimenter (experimenter evaluation vs. no experimenter evaluation) was crossed with the potential for self-evaluation (self-evaluation vs. no self-evaluation). In both experiments, consistent with previous loafing research, the potential for evaluation by the experimenter was sufficient to increase motivation, whether participants could self-evaluate or not. However, when the experimenter could not evaluate the participants' outputs, the potential for self-evaluation reliably improved participant performance. In fact, self-evaluation was the only motivation needed for participants to exert as much effort as that exhibited by participants who could be evaluated by the experimenter.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 01/1987; 53(5):891-897. · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • Stephen G. Harkins, Kate Szymanski
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: role that evaluation plays in producing facilitation and loafing effects (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Publication Stats

108 Citations
12.37 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 1993
    • Adelphi University
      Garden City, New York, United States
  • 1988
    • Northeastern University
      Boston, Massachusetts, United States