Social Loafing and Expectancy-Value Theory

Expectancy value theory holds that goal-directed behavior is a function of (a) expectations—the belief that performance depends on effort, (b) instrumentality—the belief that outcome depends on performance, and (c) outcome value—the value attached to achieving the outcome. The present research provides a direct test of two factors involved in the instrumentality component: the contingency between individual performance and group performance and the contingency between group performance and group outcome. Experiment 1 revealed that collective participants worked hard when they perceived a contingency between individual performance and group performance. Experiment 2 revealed that collective participants worked hard when they perceived a contingency between group performance and the group outcome. Taken together, the results confirm the importance of high instrumentality in eliminating social loafing.

[1]  S. Harkins,et al.  Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social standard. , 1987 .

[2]  S. Harkins,et al.  The Role of Evaluation in Eliminating Social Loafing , 1985 .

[3]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. , 1985 .

[4]  J. Traupmann,et al.  Equity: Theory and Research , 1978 .

[5]  Edwin A. Locke,et al.  Personnel Attitudes and Motivation , 1975 .

[6]  D. Messick,et al.  Alternative structural solutions to resource dilemmas , 1986 .

[7]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  The Effects of Group Size on Cognitive Effort and Evaluation , 1977 .

[8]  J. Edney,et al.  The commons problem: Alternative perspectives. , 1980 .

[9]  N. Kerr,et al.  Ringelmann Revisited , 1981 .

[10]  S. Harkins,et al.  Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect. , 1985 .

[11]  Lawrence H. Peters,et al.  Cognitive models of motivation, expectancy theory and effort: An analysis and empirical test , 1977 .

[12]  R. Benedict.  The chrysanthemum and the sword : patterns of Japanese culture , 1978 .

[13]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[14]  J. Shepperd.  Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. , 1993 .

[15]  S. Harkins,et al.  Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. , 1986 .

[16]  L. Sanna,et al.  Self-Efficacy, Valence of Self-Evaluation, and Performance , 1994 .

[17]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. , 1974 .

[18]  S. Harkins,et al.  Social loafing and group evaluation. , 1989 .

[19]  H. Wilke,et al.  Experimental social dilemmas , 1986 .

[20]  Elizabeth Weldon,et al.  Cognitive Loafing , 1988, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[21]  James A. Shepperd.  Remedying Motivation and Productivity Loss in Collective Settings , 1995 .

[22]  S. Harkins,et al.  Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. , 1982 .

[23]  Lawrence J. Sanna,et al.  Self-efficacy theory : implications for social facilitation and social loafing , 1992 .

[24]  Robert D. Pritchard,et al.  Expectancy theory measures: An empirical comparison in an experimental simulation. , 1981 .

[25]  J. Shepperd,et al.  Individual Contributions to a Collective Effort , 1989 .

[26]  Stephen J. Zaccaro.  Social Loafing , 1984 .

[27]  K. Williams,et al.  Social loafing: Allocating effort or taking it easy? , 1980 .

[28]  V. Vroom.  Work and motivation , 1964 .

[29]  E. Weldon,et al.  Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort , 1988 .

[30]  Bruno S. Frey,et al.  Self‐interest and collective action: The economics and psychology of public goods , 1982 .

[31]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

[32]  N. Feather.  Expectations and Actions , 2021 .

[33]  N. Kerr.  Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis , 1983 .

[34]  Martin G. Evans,et al.  The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. , 1991 .

[35]  Motivational choices in task groups: A paradigm for social dilemma research , 1986 .

[36]  M. Lynn,et al.  Egoistic and Nonegoistic Motives in Social Dilemmas , 1986 .

[37]  S. Karau,et al.  Social loafing and social compensation: the effects of expectations of co-worker performance. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[38]  R. Lance Shotland,et al.  Valence of anticipated evaluation and social facilitation , 1990 .

[39]  S. Harkins.  Social loafing and self-evaluation with an objective standard*1 , 1988 .

[40]  K. Williams,et al.  Social Loafing and Swimming: Effects of Identifiability on Individual and Relay Performance of Intercollegiate Swimmers , 1989 .

[41]  Michael Taylor,et al.  Anarchy and cooperation , 1976 .

[42]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  The need for cognition. , 1982 .

[43]  Steven J. Karau,et al.  The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. , 1997 .

[44]  Robyn M. Dawes,et al.  Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people's behavior in a commons dilemma situation. , 1977 .

[45]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Group effects on self-attention and performance: Social loafing, social facilitation, and social impairment. , 1987 .

[46]  A. Ingham,et al.  The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance , 1974 .

[47]  K. Williams,et al.  Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. , 1981 .

[48]  J. H. Davis,et al.  Progress in applied social psychology , 1981 .

[49]  R. Pritchard,et al.  Experimental test of the valence-instrumentality relationship in job performance. , 1973 .

[50]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes Social Loafing: a Meta-analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

[51]  Lyman W. Porter,et al.  Managerial attitudes and performance , 1968 .

[52]  T. Yamagishi.  Exit from the group as an individualistic solution to the free rider problem in the United States and Japan , 1988 .