SOCIAL LOAFING
Steiner (1972) proposed a model to clarify the individual/group relationship in sport, which can be expressed as:
actual productivity = potential productivity – losses due to faulty group processes
Potential productivity is the group’s best possible performance given its resources and the task demands. Faulty
processes can be split into two main areas: co-ordination losses and motivational losses. Co-ordination losses
are due to problems of co-ordination and timing, and to prevent these losses coaches should allow more time for
practising timing and the pattern of players’ movements. Motivational losses occur when the level of motivation
differs for individuals within a group.
Group size and performance
Ringelmann, at the turn of the twentieth century, looked at individuals’ and groups’ performances on a ropepulling exercise. He found that the groups did not pull with the amount of force you would expect by adding up
the
individual performances. This is referred to as the Ringelmann effect. He found that when two people were
pulling the rope, their effort equalled 93 per cent of the average of the individuals’ performance, this dropped to
85 per cent of the individuals’ performance when three people were pulling and the performance slipped to only
49 per cent when eight people were pulling.
Ingham et al. (1974) replicated Ringelmann’s study and found similar results up to a point. However, they found
that for groups larger than three there was no notable further decrease in performance. They also took the study
a step further to look at whether the decrease was due to co-ordination or motivational losses, as Steiner had
proposed. They concluded that decreases were due to motivational losses. This reduction in individual effort that
occurs when people are working collectively is known as ‘social loafing’.
Latane also looked at group performance and concluded that it decreased when the group is larger. In their first
study, Latane et al. (1979) asked groups of differing numbers to clap and shout. They confirmed the Ringelmann
effect, finding that by the time six people were involved the effort was only 40 per cent of the average individual
effort, clearly showing the effects of social loafing.
Key Study
Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many Hands Make Light The Work: The Causes and
Consequences of Social Loafing.
Experiment 1
Method – Latane et al, wanted to replicate Ringleman’s work conceptually. On eight occasions, 6
undergraduate males studying introductory psychology from Ohio State University were invited
to help the experimenter’s judge how much noise people make in the social settings. The
participants were asked to judge cheering and applause, and also to judge how loud these seem
to those who hear them.
The participants were asked to:
(1)
Clap or cheer as loudly as possible for 5 seconds
(2)
Judge noises. Both performers and observers were asked to guess how much noise had
been produced.
After some practice there 36 trials of yelling and 36 trials of clapping alone, in pairs and in groups
of 4 and 6. The order of these trials was counterbalanced. Measures were taken by a General
Radio Sound Level Meter at 4m form each performer.
Results

The noise produced did not grow in proportion to the number of people. The average
sound pressure generated per person decreased with increasing group size (p<0.001).

Two-person groups performed at only 71% of the sum of their individual capacity

Four persons groups at 51%

Six person groups at 40%
Conclusion
As in pulling ropes in the Ringleman’s study, it appears that when it comes to clapping and
shouting many hands do, in fact make light work!
Latane et al. carried out a second study that attempted to identify the type of losses that were occurring in the
group performance as either co-ordination or motivational losses. First they used actual groups, who could see
other members of the group. Second they used pseudo-groups who were supposedly connected up to other group
members via earphones but, despite the instructions and background noise in the earphones, the individuals were
actually alone. They found that for the actual groups the performance was lower than for the pseudo-groups. As
co-ordination losses had been eliminated by using the pseudo-groups it is possible to conclude that the reduction
in performance was due to a loss of motivation.
Latane et al (1980) conducted a study in a natural environment to demonstrate that social loafing occurs when
individual efforts go unrecognized because they cannot be detected. They set up a fake swim meet with
spectators, trophies and competitors and asked the participants to swim both individual and team relay races. All
of the events were timed.
The experimenters found that when they told the pps before the race that their times were going to be announced
the speed that they swam in the relay race was faster than their individual race time, but if they knew that their
times were not going to be announced the opposite effect occurred and individual races were swam faster than
the relay races. Presumably this is because the swimmers do not want to be identified as not pulling their weight
in the team race. So one way to reduce social loafing is to ensure that all team members receive individual
feedback and that their efforts never become unrecognizable.
Further investigations looked at the causes of social loafing and below are some of the possible reasons:
• thinking others are not committed and not wanting to be ‘used’ by the others
• thinking others will cover up for lack of effort
• thinking individual effort will make little difference
• thinking individual efforts cannot be identified.
Interestingly, if performance is being directly monitored, effort increases. Therefore, this seems to suggest that
in order to prevent social loafing it is essential to be able to try and easily identify each individual’s effort.
Cross-cultural research
Research suggests that social loafing is not a universal phenomenon. Some studies have actually shown that not
only does social loafing not occur, but an opposite effect can be seen (individual performance is enhanced by
being in a group) which has been termed ‘social striving’. While studies that have been carried out in the West
have shown a clear pattern that an individual’s productivity in a group is not as great as their productivity when
alone, this is not found in all cultures.
For example, Earley (1989) demonstrated that when management trainees from the USA and China were
compared on group performances, social loafing only occurred in the American participants. One explanation
for the occurrence of social striving is the fact that certain cultures, such as the Chinese and Japanese cultures,
foster interpersonal interdependence and thus value group collective functioning very highly. As a result, groups
in these cultures tend to be more productive than individuals would be if performing alone.
In a sport setting, social striving would lead to a team being highly motivated and efficient and their productivity
would be greater than the sum of their individual efforts. Although this phenomenon has been found to occur
more in cultures that greatly value group performances, there are occasions when it has been seen in western
cultures.