How Social Loafing Is Studied in Psychology

Table of ContentsView AllTable of ContentsExampleFirst ExperimentOther ExperimentsCausesHow to Reduce

Table of ContentsView All

View All

Table of Contents

Example

First Experiment

Other Experiments

Causes

How to Reduce

Close

Social loafing describes the tendency of individuals to put forth less effort when they are part of a group. Because all group members are pooling their efforts to achieve a common goal, each member contributes less than they would if they were individually responsible.

Here we discuss how researchers have studied social loafing and what we’ve learned from thesepsychology experiments. We also talk about the reasons why people may reduce their effort when in a group, as well as how to reduce this effect.

Example of Social Loafing

Before discussing the research, it’s helpful to fully understand what social loafing is. Here’s an example to consider.

Imagine that you’re a student. If your teacher assigns you a project, you may break it down into workable steps and start it right away. You’re responsible for the entire assignment, so you begin taking the actions necessary to complete it.

Now imagine that, instead of it being a solo project, your teacher has assigned you to work with 10 other students. Since you are part of a group, the social loafing tendency suggests that you would put less effort into the project.

Instead of taking responsibility for certain tasks, for instance, you might assume that another group member will take care of them. In some cases, the other members of the group may assume the same, and you end up getting stuck doing the entire assignment yourself.

Ringelmann’s Rope-Pulling Experiments

In 1974, a group of researchers replicated Ringlemann’s experiment, with a few small changes.One panel of participants was consistent with Ringelmann’s original study and contained small groups of subjects. A second panel consisted of only one real participant; the rest were confederates who merely pretended to pull the rope.

Researchers found that groups containing all real participants experienced the largest declines in performance. This suggested that the losses were linked tomotivational factorsrather than group coordination problems.

Group dynamics cause all sorts of interesting outcomes and behaviors that you might not see outside of a large group. For example,deindividuationis the idea that you are much more likely to exhibit behaviors outside the norm if you are part of a large group exhibiting those behaviors.

Additional Social Loafing Experiments

Researchers continue to study social loafing to learn more about it, including whether certain factors can influence a person’s level of effort when in a group. In a 2005 study, for example, it was discovered thatgroup sizecan have a powerful impact on group performance.

In this study, half of the groups consisted of four people while the other half consisted of eight. Researchers found that people extended greater individual effort when they were in smaller groups.

This study also found that when group participants worked on a problem while seated at the same table together versus communicating through computers, they felt greater pressure to look busy even when they were not.

Research published in 2016 further suggests that social loafing is also present in online communities.It proposes that one of the reasons people may not participate much in online groups, being “lurkers” instead of active participants, is because of this effect.

Causes of Social Loafing

Those of us who’ve ever worked as part of a group have undoubtedly experienced this psychological phenomenon firsthand. And those of us who’ve ever led groups have also likely felt frustrated at the lack of effort that group members sometimes put forth.

Why does social loafing occur? Psychologists have come up with a few possible explanations:

How to Reduce Social Loafing

Social loafing can have a serious impact on group performance and efficiency. However, some actions can be taken to help minimize its effects, such as:

How Social Facilitation Can Improve Your Performance

5 SourcesVerywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.Simms A, Nichols T.Social loafing: A review of the literature.J Manage Policy Pract. 2014;15(1):58-67.Ingham AG, Levinger G, Graves J, Peckham V.The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance.J Experiment Soc Psychol.1974;10(4):371-384. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-XChidambaram L, Tung L.Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups.Informat Syst Res. 2005;16(2):149-168. doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0051Schippers MC.Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness.Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2013;13(1):62-81. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0191Amichai-Hamburger Y, Gazit T, Bar-Ilan, et al.Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions.Comput Human Behav. 2016;55(A):268-277. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009

5 Sources

Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.Simms A, Nichols T.Social loafing: A review of the literature.J Manage Policy Pract. 2014;15(1):58-67.Ingham AG, Levinger G, Graves J, Peckham V.The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance.J Experiment Soc Psychol.1974;10(4):371-384. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-XChidambaram L, Tung L.Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups.Informat Syst Res. 2005;16(2):149-168. doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0051Schippers MC.Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness.Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2013;13(1):62-81. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0191Amichai-Hamburger Y, Gazit T, Bar-Ilan, et al.Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions.Comput Human Behav. 2016;55(A):268-277. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009

Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.

Simms A, Nichols T.Social loafing: A review of the literature.J Manage Policy Pract. 2014;15(1):58-67.Ingham AG, Levinger G, Graves J, Peckham V.The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance.J Experiment Soc Psychol.1974;10(4):371-384. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-XChidambaram L, Tung L.Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups.Informat Syst Res. 2005;16(2):149-168. doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0051Schippers MC.Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness.Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2013;13(1):62-81. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0191Amichai-Hamburger Y, Gazit T, Bar-Ilan, et al.Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions.Comput Human Behav. 2016;55(A):268-277. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009

Simms A, Nichols T.Social loafing: A review of the literature.J Manage Policy Pract. 2014;15(1):58-67.

Ingham AG, Levinger G, Graves J, Peckham V.The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance.J Experiment Soc Psychol.1974;10(4):371-384. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-X

Chidambaram L, Tung L.Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups.Informat Syst Res. 2005;16(2):149-168. doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0051

Schippers MC.Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness.Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2013;13(1):62-81. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0191

Amichai-Hamburger Y, Gazit T, Bar-Ilan, et al.Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions.Comput Human Behav. 2016;55(A):268-277. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009

Meet Our Review Board

Share Feedback

Was this page helpful?Thanks for your feedback!What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit

Was this page helpful?

Thanks for your feedback!

What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit

What is your feedback?