ArticlePublisher preview available

Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. A meta-analysis of 78 studies demonstrates that social loafing is robust and generalizes across tasks and S populations. A large number of variables were found to moderate social loafing. Evaluation potential, expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness, and culture had espeically strong influence. These findings are interpreted in the light of a Collective Effort Model that integrates elements of expectancy-value, social identity, and self-validation theories.
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS
AND
GROUP
PROCESSES
Social Loafing:
A
Meta-Analytic Review
and
Theoretical Integration
Steven
1
Karau
and
Kipling
D.
Williams
Social loafing is
the
tendency
for
individuals
to
expend less effort when working collectively than
when working individually.
A
meta-analysis of
78
studies demonstrates that social loafing
is
robust
and generalizes across tasks and
S
populations.
A large
number of variables
were
found
to
moderate
social loafing. Evaluation potential, expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness,
and culture had especially strong influence. These findings are interpreted
in
the light of a Collec-
tive Effort Model that integrates elements
of
expectancy-value, social identity,
and
self-validation
theories.
Many
of
life's most important tasks
can
only
be
accom-
plished
in
groups,
and
many group tasks
are
collective tasks
that require
the
pooling of individual
members'
inputs.
Govern-
ment task forces, sports teams, organizational committees,
symphony
orchestras,
juries, and quality control teams provide
but a few examples of groups that combine individual efforts to
form
a
single product. Because collective work settings
are so
pervasive and indispensable, it
is
important
to
determine which
factors motivate
and
demotivate individuals within these
col-
lective contexts. Intuition might lead
to the
conclusion that
working with others should inspire individuals
to
maximize
their potential
and
work especially hard. Research
on
social
loafing, however, has revealed that individuals frequently exert
less effort
on
collective tasks than
on
individual tasks.
Formally, social
loafing
is the
reduction
in
motivation
and
effort when individuals work collectively compared with when
they work individually or
coactively.
When working collectively,
individuals work in the real or imagined presence of
others
with
whom they combine their inputs
to
form
a
single group prod-
uct. When working coactively, individuals work
in the
real
or
imagined presence of others, but their inputs are not combined
with
the
inputs
of
others.
Determining
the
conditions under
which individuals
do or do not
engage
in
social loafing
is a
problem
of
both theoretical
and
practical importance.
At a
practical level,
the
identification
of
moderating variables
may
Parts of this article were presented
at
the 1992 Midwestern Psycho-
logical Association convention
in
Chicago.
We thank Martin Bourgeois, Donal Carlston, Alice Eagly, Rebecca
Henry,
Janice
Kelly,
Norbert Kerr, Brian Mullen, Kristin Sommer, and
several anonymous reviewers
for
their valuable comments
on
drafts of
this article.
We
also thank Jeffrey Jackson
and
William Gabrenya
for
providing unpublished data.
Correspondence should
be
addressed
to
Steven
J.
Karau, Depart-
ment
of
Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
29634-1511
or to
Kipling
D.
Williams, Department
of
Psychology,
University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606-3390. Electronic mail
may
be sent
to
skarau@clemson.edu
or
kipling@uoft02.utoledo.edu.
suggest means
for
devising interventions by which social
loaf-
ing may
be reduced or overcome in everyday groups and organi-
zations. Latane, Williams,
&
Harkins (1979) even suggested
that social loafing
is a
type
of
social disease, having "negative
consequences
for
individuals, social institutions, and societies"
(p.
831). Perhaps
as
a result of this characterization, social
loaf-
ing research has been focused
on
identifying conditions under
which the effect can
be
reduced or eliminated. No studies have
been designed
to
determine what factors increase social
loaf-
ing. This emphasis on eliminating the effect is understandable,
given
the
potential applicability
of
social loafing research
to
real-world
contexts.
However, this emphasis on studying condi-
tions
in
which the effect is not likely to occur may
also
result
in
an underestimation
of
the
magnitude of social loafing across
a
wider range of situations.
At
a
theoretical level, specifying which variables moderate
social loafing is central
to
developing a fuller understanding of
the dynamics underlying
the
performance
and
motivation
of
both individuals and groups. The social loafing literature offers
a host
of
findings
relevant
to
theorists interested
in
evaluation
processes,
the self, and
group dynamics. Indeed,
in a
recent
review of social motivation, Geen
(1991)
regarded social loafing
as one
of only three dominant phenomena addressing
this
issue
in
the
1980s. Despite
the
theoretical importance
of
this
topic,
surprisingly little attention has been devoted
to
systematically
reviewing or integrating the social loafing research. Although
a
number
of
researchers have discussed social loafing
or
have
presented theories
of
particular causes
of
social loafing (e.g.,
Harkins,
1987;
Harkins
&
Szymanski, 1987; Jackson
& Wil-
liams,
1985; Latane, 1981; Mullen, 1983; Paulus, 1983; Shep-
perd,
1993;
Stroebe
&
Frey,
1982),
they
have
drawn their conclu-
sions from only small portions of the available empirical stud-
ies,
which were selected
by
unspecified criteria. Presently,
the
magnitude
and
consistency of social loafing across studies
has
never been estimated,
and
the extent
to
which particular vari-
ables moderate social loafing has remained unclear. Given
the
large empirical literature that
is
now available, a thorough inte-
gration
and
analysis
of
this research
is
long overdue.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social Psychology, 1993. Vol.
65.
No.
4,
681-706
Copyright 1993
by the
American Psychological Association,
Inc.
0022-3514/93/$3.00
681
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
... A well-studied phenomenon in human teams is social loafing (Latané et al., 1979;Harkins and Szymanski, 1989;Comer, 1995). It is defined as a lower individual effort on a task performed in a team than on a task performed alone (Karau and Williams, 1993). It has been found that this lower effort is not only a consequence of insufficient team coordination, but also of a change in motivation in shared task settings (Steiner, 1972;Ingham et al., 1974). ...
... It has been found that this lower effort is not only a consequence of insufficient team coordination, but also of a change in motivation in shared task settings (Steiner, 1972;Ingham et al., 1974). Social loafing is strongly associated with a lower identifiability of individual contributions and reduced evaluation potential in teamwork, leading to a reduction in motivation (Karau and Williams, 1993). This effect is further moderated by factors such as task valence, coworker performance expectations, and uniqueness of individual task contributions (Karau and Williams, 1993). ...
... Social loafing is strongly associated with a lower identifiability of individual contributions and reduced evaluation potential in teamwork, leading to a reduction in motivation (Karau and Williams, 1993). This effect is further moderated by factors such as task valence, coworker performance expectations, and uniqueness of individual task contributions (Karau and Williams, 1993). Specifically, social loafing is higher when the evaluation potential is low, when the task has low perceived value, when a coworker performs well on the task, and when task inputs of the group members are redundant. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: Thanks to technological advances, robots are now being used for a wide range of tasks in the workplace. They are often introduced as team partners to assist workers. This teaming is typically associated with positive effects on work performance and outcomes. However, little is known about whether typical performance-reducing effects that occur in human teams also occur in human–robot teams. For example, it is not clear whether social loafing, defined as reduced individual effort on a task performed in a team compared to a task performed alone, can also occur in human–robot teams. Methods: We investigated this question in an experimental study in which participants worked on an industrial defect inspection task that required them to search for manufacturing defects on circuit boards. One group of participants worked on the task alone, while the other group worked with a robot team partner, receiving boards that had already been inspected by the robot. The robot was quite reliable and marked defects on the boards before handing them over to the human. However, it missed 5 defects. The dependent behavioural measures of interest were effort, operationalised as inspection time and area inspected on the board, and defect detection performance. In addition, subjects rated their subjective effort, performance, and perceived responsibility for the task. Results: Participants in both groups inspected almost the entire board surface, took their time searching, and rated their subjective effort as high. However, participants working in a team with the robot found on average 3.3 defects. People working alone found significantly more defects on these 5 occasions–an average of 4.2. Discussion: This suggests that participants may have searched the boards less attentively when working with a robot team partner. The participants in our study seemed to have maintained the motor effort to search the boards, but it appears that the search was carried out with less mental effort and less attention to the information being sampled. Changes in mental effort are much harder to measure, but need to be minimised to ensure good performance.
... Formally, social loafing refers to the tendency for individuals to exert less effort when working collectively (such that individual inputs are combined into a single group product) rather than individually or coactively (such that individuals work in the actual or implied presence of others, but inputs are not combined). The results of more than 80 studies indicate that social loafing is a robust phenomenon that generalizes across a wide variety of tasks as well as most populations (for a review, see Karau & Williams, 1993). Although social loafing has been repeatedly demonstrated, several factors have been found to moderate the effect. ...
... We framed our hypotheses in terms of the Collective Effort Model (CEM; Karau & Williams, 1993). The CEM expands the basic assumptions of expectancy-value models of work motivation (e.g., Vroom, 1964) to the more complex realm of collective tasks and uses elements of social identity and self-evaluation theories to identify outcomes that people are likely to value in collective settings. ...
... Although the results of individual studies are somewhat inconsistent, most studies have found that participants in countries such as Japan, Taiwan, and China either tend to loaf less than participants in the United States and Canada or do not loaf at all. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis of social loafing (Karau & Williams, 1993) confirmed that there is a significant tendency across studies for individuals from Eastern cultures to loaf less than those from Western cultures. Group cohesiveness could operate in a fashion similar to culture, contributing to member motivation by enhancing concern with group outcomes. ...
Article
Full-text available
Individuals often engage in social loafing, exerting less effort on collective rather than individual tasks. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that social loafing can be reduced or eliminated when individuals work in cohesive rather than noncohesive groups. In Experiment 1, secretarial students typed both individually and collectively in simulated word-processing pools composed of either friends or strangers. In Experiment 2, dyads composed of either friends or strangers worked either coactively or collectively on an idea-generation task. Both studies supported the group cohesiveness hypothesis. Experiment 2 also suggested that individuals tend to engage in social compensation when working with coworkers who are low in ability. These findings are discussed in relation to S. J. Karau and K. D. Williams's (1993) Collective Effort Model.
... In addition, two potential countermeasures against social loafing were tested, based on Karau and Williams's (1993) collective effort model (CEM). This model provides insight into the implications of any key attribute of a given collective setting (e.g., group size and nature of task) for the motivation of individuals in that setting. ...
... Second, complex tasks often are more stimulating than simple tasks, which makes it easier to keep exerting effort in the task, even when one works in a group. Therefore, in our experiments, we expected that the performance-deteriorating effects of working collectively in a group would be stronger on the simple reaction time and memory search tasks than on the more complex process control task (see also Karau & Williams, 1993). ...
... In two separate experiments, two potential countermeasures against social loafing were tested. The two countermeasures were selected on the basis of the CEM (Karau & Williams, 1993). In this model, two theoretical explanations for social loafing are integrated: expectancy theory and social comparison theory. ...
Article
Full-text available
In 2 experiments, 64 male students worked almost continuously for 20 hr without sleep under varying social conditions. In Experiment 1, participants worked either individually or as a group. As hypothesized, performance deteriorated over time, especially in the group condition, which allowed participants to loaf. In Experiment 2, all participants worked in groups. They were instructed that public feedback would be provided either on the group result only or on the individual results of all group members. As expected, when individual results were made public, performance deteriorated less. Overall, the data suggest that fatigue increases social loafing. However, both individualizing the task and providing public individual feedback seem to counteract these effects.
... In addition to the social impact theory, according to Karau and Williams (1993), if a person finds an activity meaningful and essential to them, they will put in much effort. Fostering a high level of task interdependence among group members is critical for the success of any online group. ...
... However, these individuals perform well when allowed to highlight their work. This study backs up previous research from Karau and Williams (1993), which found that individuals perform well when their work significantly impacts what the group produces. In other words, such people are eager to work and contribute significantly to the group when given the opportunity. ...
Article
This study was conducted to explore the Influences of Online Learning on Social Loafing. Since the pandemic, online learning has become more popular, and students have been exposed to various cooperative and collaborative learning exercises. These group activities are not usually well-liked by students. Students who work in groups face various challenges, such as personal conflicts, unequal effort, scheduling, and others. This study utilized the qualitative research method. This study's sixteen (16) participants were selected through purposive sampling. The researcher's semi-structured interview guide was used in data gathering through interviews. The thematic analysis of Braun and Clarke was used to analyze the qualitative data. Ten (10) emergent themes were established from the participants' responses, classified under three (3) overarching themes that provided answers to sub-problems. The emergent themes were extracted from the significant statements of the key participants. For the description of the participants on their experiences during online learning, the overarching theme, Experience of the Participants of Social Loafing in an Online Learning, has three (3) emergent themes that were classified as Relying on the group leaders; Absence of collaboration; Poor Prioritization. The Factors of Online Learning that Contribute to Social Loafing has four (4) emergent themes that were classified: Group size, Internet Connectivity issue, Digital distractions, and Types of Leaders, while the Implications of the Participants' Contribution to Social Loafing in Online Learning has three (3) emergent themes that were classified as Affecting Group's Quality of Performance and Grades; Affecting Mental Health; Affecting groups relationship. The study's findings and recommendations were used to improve the issues encountered during online learning on social loafing.
... In contrast, in the consensual AIA, the action was implemented only when the human operator confirmed it, so their confirmation had visible and immediate consequences. This post-hoc explanation finds support in research on social loafing, which is also most likely to occur when an individual effort is not visible in the overall outcome (Cymek, 2018;Karau & Williams, 1993). In this line of thinking, participants in the monitored AIA condition may have started loafing because they may have perceived their contribution as useless and not visible. ...
Article
When automation takes over many functions and is highly reliable, humans often insufficiently monitor the correct system functioning. We investigated this phenomenon by introducing automation at the action implementation stage in two conditions: Participants working with monitored automation could veto the automation, whereas participants working with consensual automation had to agree with the automation. Based on neuropsychological research on cognitive dissonance, we expected that participants would devote more resources to checking the monitored automation compared to participants working with consensual automation, because the justification of a potential disagreement (veto) should be based on sufficient information. Additionally, we examined effects of risk on trust attitude and behavior when participants worked in virtual reality at either 0.5- or 70-meters altitude. We found a decrease in dissonance discomfort and an increase in self-reported trust across experimental blocks. At high risk, participants monitored automation significantly more. However, no main effects of automation were found.
... This occurs with all kinds of activities, including physical tasks like rope pulling, clapping, and shouting (e.g., Harkins, Latane, & Williams, 1980;Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974;Latane" et al., 1979;Williams, Harkins, & Latane\ 1981), cognitive tasks like brainstorming and recall (Taylor, Berry, & Block, 1958;Weldon & Bellinger, 1997), perceptual and perceptual-motor tasks like vigilance and maze learning (e.g., Griffith, Fichman, & Moreland, 1989;Harkins & Petty, 1982), evaluative tasks like quality ratings (Petty, Harkins, & Williams, 1980), and bystander intervention in emergency situations (Latane & Nida, 1981). One proposed explanation is free riding or social loafing, the finding that people exert less effort when working on collective tasks than when working alone (Karau & Williams, 1993). A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for social loafing effects, including the possibilities that in group work (a) personal accountability is diminished, that is, because it is difficult to identify individual contributions, it is easier for people to exert less effort without being noticed; (b) there is perceived dispensability of effort, that is, people may believe that their own contribution is not important because it will not make much difference in the final group outcome; (c) individuals may attempt to achieve an equity of effort, so that their performance level matches that of the others in the group, but this will be low because each person's output per unit time is initially limited by having to allow others to take their turns; and (d) there is a diffusion of responsibility, or feeling that one is less accountable for the group's behavior than for one's own individual behavior (Latane" & Nida, 1981). ...
Article
Full-text available
When people collaborate to recall information, they experience collaborative inhibition, a deficit in recall relative to nominal groups (the pooled, nonredundant recall of individuals working alone). That is, people recalling in groups do not perform up to their potential. Collaborative inhibition may be due to retrieval interference (e.g., B. H. Basden, D. R. Basden, S. Bryner, & R. L. Thomas, 1997) or to motivational factors such as social loafing in the group situation. Five experiments examined the role of motivational factors by varying monetary incentives, recall criterion, personal accountability, group cohesion, and group gender. Increasing motivation sometimes increased the overall level of recall but failed to eliminate the collaborative inhibition effect. The results suggest that collaboration interferes with an individual’s ability to reconstruct his or her knowledge.
Article
Although leader anger expression targeted at employees' unethical behavior is pervasive in the workplace, we still know little about its theoretical meaning and consequences. To address this theoretical blind spot, we drew on fairness heuristic theory to investigate whether, how, and when unethical‐behavior‐targeted (UB‐targeted) leader anger expression affects team outcomes. Our findings from two time‐lagged field studies suggest that a punishment‐based distributive justice climate mediates the positive effects of UB‐targeted leader anger expression on team organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and team viability. Moreover, leader moral decoupling weakens these indirect relationships. Specifically, the indirect relationships are weaker when the leader separated judgments of performance from those of ethics. These findings highlight the importance of a fairness perspective in understanding the consequences of leader anger expression targeted at unethical behaviors.
Article
Full-text available
The authors first describe individual differences in the structure of the self. In the independent self-construal, representations of others are separate from the self. In the interdependent self-construal, others are considered part of the self (H. Markus & S. Kitayama, 1991). In general, men in the United States are thought to construct and maintain an independent self-construal, whereas women are thought to construct and maintain an interdependent self-construal. The authors review the psychological literature to demonstrate that many gender differences in cognition, motivation, emotion, and social behavior may be explained in terms of men’s and women’s different self-construals. Recognition of the interdependent self-construal as a possible alternative conception of the self may stimulate new investigations into the ways the self influences a person’s thinking, feeling, and behaving.
Article
In previous research, the 2nd author and colleagues (see record 1980-30335-001) observed that individuals working together put out less effort than when they work alone; this phenomenon was termed social loafing (SL). Subsequent research by these authors (see record 1981-32831-001) suggested that SL arises, at least in part, because when participants work with others on tasks their individual outputs are lost in the crowd, and, thus, they can receive neither credit nor blame for their performance. The possibility that personal involvement in a task could moderate the SL effect was tested in the present experiment, which used a 2 (high/low involvement) × 2 (high/low identifiability) factorial design across 3 replications with 224 undergraduates. The task involved thoughts generated in response to a counterattitudinal proposal. Replicating previous SL research, present results show that under conditions of low involvement, Ss whose outputs were identifiable worked harder than those whose outputs were pooled. However, when the task was personally involving, the SL effect was eliminated: Ss whose outputs were pooled worked as hard as those whose individual outputs could be identified. (23 ref)