The group performance literature suggests that when individuals work together on a task, they tend to exert less effort than when they perform the same task individually (Jackson & Williams, 1985). This reduction of individual effort when individuals are collectively held responsible for a task has been termed social loafing (LatanC, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Social loafing has been demonstrated to occur in a variety of physically effortful tasks such as rope pulling (Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974), noise production (Latank et al., 1979), and force production (Kerr & Brunn, 1981). This effect has also been demonstrated for tasks requiring cognitive effort such as evaluation of essays (Petty, Harkins, Williams, & Latan6, 1977), brainstorming, and vigilance (Harkins & Petty, 1982). Moreover, social loafing has been found to characterize the behavior of both males and females of all ages (Harkins, Latant?, & Williams, 1980; LatanC, 1986), in betweenas well as within-subjects designs (Harkins et al., 1980; Kerr & B r u ~ , 1981), and in both individualistic and collective cultures (LatanC, 1986). Thus, social loafing appears to be a rather robust phenomenon, threatening effective collective endeavor. However, several factors have been identified that appear to moderate the magnitude of this effect. Specifically, loafing was eliminated when individual efforts were identifiable (Williams, Harkins, & Latank, 1981), when individuals perceived that they made a unique contribution to the group effort or performed difficult tasks (Harkins & Petty, 1982), when individuals performed with friends versus strangers (Williams, 1981), when conjunctive and disjunctive tasks were employed (Kerr, 1983), and when the task was personally involving (Brickner, Harkins, & Ostrom, 1986). However, the research conditions of many of these investigations created motivational properties that appear to be in opposition to those associated with established teams performing a team-related task under competitive conditions. That is, social loafing may be restricted to tasks that are seen as unimportant, meaningless, or lacking in intrinsic motivation, performed by relative strangers in noncompetitive contexts. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate social loafing among established teams performing an intrinsically motivating team-related task under competitive conditions.
[1]
A. Ingham,et al.
The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance
,
1974
.
[2]
Richard E. Petty,et al.
The Effects of Group Size on Cognitive Effort and Evaluation
,
1977
.
[3]
K. Williams,et al.
Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing
,
1979
.
[4]
K. Williams,et al.
Social loafing: Allocating effort or taking it easy?
,
1980
.
[5]
K. Williams,et al.
Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments.
,
1981
.
[6]
N. Kerr,et al.
Ringelmann Revisited
,
1981
.
[7]
J. Jackson,et al.
With a Little Help from My Friend
,
1982
.
[8]
S. Harkins,et al.
Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing.
,
1982
.
[9]
N. Kerr.
Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis
,
1983
.
[10]
N. Kerr,et al.
Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects
,
1983
.
[11]
S. Harkins,et al.
Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect.
,
1985
.
[12]
Kipling D. Williams,et al.
Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance.
,
1985
.
[13]
S. Harkins,et al.
Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing.
,
1986
.