A Recipe for Beating Social Loafing

Social loafing refers to the reduction in the individual’s motivation, effort, and performance when they are present in a group compared to when they are present as independent individuals. Consider this example. You are living in a flat where you share your kitchen space with three other flatmates. One day, you see that there is a complaint with one of the kitchen taps. In this case, if you are likely to ignore the issue and think that someone else will take care of it, then you might be engaging in social loafing.

Read More: The Psychology of Social Loafing In Group Settings?

Background research on social loafing

In 1913, Ringelmann conducted an experiment, where he asked participants to pull on a rope, individually and in groups. The findings of this study showed that people made less of an effort to pull the rope while they were a part of the group, rather than when they were pulling on the rope individually. In 1974, Ingham and colleagues replicated Ringelmann’s study with some changes. In their study, the first experiment was the same as the original experiment.

However, in the second experiment, there was only one real participant in the group, while the others were confederates pretending to pull the rope. This study found that the groups with real participants experienced lower performance, compared to the pseudo-groups with the confederates. This replication study showed that social loafing happens not due to group coordination factors but due to motivational problems.

But why does social loafing happen?

It is not an uncommon phenomenon. Psychologists have attempted to explain this phenomenon using various concepts and theories from social psychology.

1. Motivation

Motivation (or lack thereof) is another factor that predicts social loafing. Those individuals with no or little motivation to help anyone in any situation, are more likely to engage in social loafing. On the contrary, individuals with intrinsic motivation and the tendency to be of help are more likely to offer help in the previous example.

2. Group size

Consider the previous example again. Now, imagine the crowd to be a smaller one – maybe, five to six people. In this case, there are higher chances of someone taking responsibility instead of assuming that the other people in the group would. This is because, in smaller groups, people are more likely to feel that their efforts would be significant, and their contribution would be appreciated. Therefore, group size is observed to be positively correlated with the likelihood of social loafing behaviour.

3. Expectations

The expectancy-valence theory considers the interplay of expectations, recognition and rewards in explaining social loafing. The component of ‘expectancy’ indicates the expectations related to performance and the efforts required. The ‘instrumentality’ component suggests that recognition, appreciation, and/or rewards are more likely to be granted for performance and efforts. The component of ‘valence’ indicates that such behaviours would also be valued and desired or rewarded in some way.

4. Diffusion of responsibility

Social loafing is often associated with another phenomenon called diffusion of responsibility, where an individual present in a group believes that other members are putting in more effort to achieve the task thereby showing a considerable decrease in the individual’s efforts. For example, accidents are reported late despite garnering attention from a crowd of bystanders. This is because all the bystanders assume that someone else in the crowd (someone other than them) would report the incident. As a result of this, the accident victims do not receive immediate help and treatment, which in turn, leads to further complications and even death. Social psychologists have dubbed this phenomenon the “Bystander effect”.

Individuals would first evaluate the efforts required in the situation. In this case, extensive physical and emotional energy is required to help the accident victim. This might be one reason people escape such situations, instead of taking responsibility and engaging in required behaviours. Further, help offered in such situations is not typically recognized, although they are valued. This might also influence the bystanders and their tendency to help or engage in social loafing.

How to reduce social loafing?

It can have serious consequences on the group as well as others involved in the context. Therefore, it is important to consider strategies to reduce social loafing. Here are some strategies:

• Evaluate individuals collectively and individually.
• Recognize individuals for their achievements and reward them, if possible.
• Instil desirable values such as prosocial behaviour, compassion, empathy, etc.
• Let someone be the leader and steer the group towards collectively decided goals.
• Clearly state individual tasks and responsibilities as well as collective standards and rules.
• Establish smaller groups wherein each member is accountable for their actions and the group’s performance.
• Empower the members of the group to take action and responsibility in cases where they think that there is an issue.

In conclusion, a society or organization that has strong positive and desirable values and consists of empowered individuals is less likely to see social loafing. As a result, better performance is seen and desirable outcomes are achieved.