Social Loafing is an important concept that can be identifiable in our day to day lives such as through school work, household chores, employment and even sporting activities. The current research investigated the effect of social loafing on collective and coactive conditions through an experiment which asked participants to complete a brainstorming task asking them to list as many ways to use a pencil as they could. The results indicated that social loafing was non-significant in both collective and coactive conditions. However, group work improved the amount of answers the participants had. The results have important effects for reducing or eliminating social loafing to ensure that the participants are accountable for their own activities regardless if in an individual setting or group. Karau & Williams (1993) formed the conceptual idea that participants performing a group task would identify aspects of social loafing and thus having group cohesiveness would eliminate participant loafing. Shepperd, Stephen, Wright and Rex (1989) also established the social loafing concept to be related to impression management. Impression management being a goal directed conscious or unconscious process in which participants attempt to influence the perception of others (Stephen, Wright and Rex, 1989). In another theoretical concept of social loafing, Kerr (1983) demonstrated the free rider effect by addressing the role of the “sucker” in experiment groups. In stating this, it is evident that the many concepts surrounding social loafing derive from the same fundamentals. Though there are conflicting views within social loafing, results from this experiment do not show a significant difference of social loafing between collective groups and coact...
... middle of paper ...
...s strength in the experiment rather than a limitation which future studies should also monitor.
The present study identified social loafing is less likely in collective conditions than coactive conditions although results were non-significant. This study supports the research of Worchel, Rothgerber & Day (2011) as participants who worked in newly formed groups worked harder in the group setting than alone. This was shown to occur due to a number of reasons including group goal setting and group level comparison between participants. Future studies should consider the influences of group tasks for group development. In conclusion, social loafing in collective groups are not significantly less than the coactive condition however results may vary in future experiments due to having new variables, different participants and a change methodology in future experiments.
...e been beneficial to the experiment. An error may have occurred due to the fact that measurements were taken by different individuals, so the calculations could have been inconsistent.
In this level, we are switching from individual behavior to group behavior. A group is define as two or more individual, interacting and interdependent who are initially coming together to achieve particular objectives (Stephen P.Robbins, Timothy A.Judge, 2014). There are two types of group which are formal group and informal group (Stephen P.Robbins, Timothy A.Judge, 2014). Group can bring a lot of advantages to all the group members. For instance, work as a group is able to generate positive synergy through coordinated effort that allows organization to increase performance.
... more experienced or give some training in a bid to avoid careless mistakes during the experiment.
Going into details of the article, I realized that the necessary information needed to evaluate the experimental procedures were not included. However, when conducting an experiment, the independent and dependent variable are to be studied before giving a final conclusion.
In conclusion, the title and context of the article are clear, and appropriately match the hypothesis of the authors. There is consistency between the objective of the experiment and its relationship to science. This writer found some issues in the overall presentation of information, in that the text lacks smooth transition, and was difficult to read and follow.
“To be opposed to what is going on now it is not necessary to insist that all animal experiments stop immediately. All we need to say is that experiments serving no direct and urgent purpose should stop immediately, and in the remaining fields of research, we should, whenever possible, seek to replace experiments that involve animals with alternative methods that do not.”
Social Influences On Behavior It is not surprising that philosophers and scientists study what effects the social environment has on the thoughts, emotions, and behavior of the people because the world is very converse. Social psychology is the study of what effects groups have on individuals and how experiencing part of a group affects a person’s thinking, feelings, and behavior. People like to reflect themselves as independent, however, a person’s actions are influenced by the perspectives and engagements of the people around him or her. Conformity, obedience, and group process are the different types of influence. “Conformity” means changing attitudes or behavior to accommodate the standards of peers or groups.
Stewart, G., Manz, C., & Sims, H., (1999). Teamwork and Group Dynamics. New York: Wiley. pp. 70- 125.
A group can be define as ‘any number of people who (1) interact with one another; (2) are psychologically aware of one another and (3) perceive themselves to be a group’ (Mullins, L, 2007, p.299). Certain task can only be performed by combined effort of a group. Organisation can use groups to carry out projects, which will help to achieve its overall aim. However, for the group to be successful they must understand what is expected of them and have the right skill to complete the task. . (Mullins, L, 2006)
Many people throughout history have been put into situations where they must survive, and have used different tactics to save their life. Sources listing some of those tactics include www.survivalcache.com and The Social Basis of Human Behavior by Richard F. Taflinger. A good example of people being put into survival situations include those in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which are referenced in the book 102 Minutes by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. While some may think surviving as an individual would work best in a situation like this, in this book, the workers trapped in the towers used the strategy of group survival to make it out alive. When people are forced into survival situations the instinct to form groups together shows
Social Loafing and Recommendations on How to Reduce Its Occurrence within Groups Working on University Poster Presentations
Social psychology essentially became the focus on the individual rather than the group as a whole. Many thoughtful ideas are collected in response to the studies of social psychology. Human cognition is understood to arise from interacting socially, highlighting the importance of socialization. We use social cognition to develop our explanations and our ideas on why a person’s behavior is/does what it is/does. As explained in class, we may have a student who never completes assignments and from that viewpoint, we determine that the student is a lazy person and more than likely does not care about the class.
The purpose of the first study was to do two things. To demonstrate a tech...
... tested in the same manner for a specified purpose in order to maintain consistency and validity within results.
Social Loafing is something everyone has experienced. Most likely if you do not like group work this is one of the main reasons why. Cherry explains social loafing as an event when members of a group have less input per person in a group than they would if they were working by themselves. (Cherry). This challenges the widespread belief that the net output of a group is more than that of an individual and therefore a group will be more productive. In 1913 a researcher named Ringelmann designed an experiment involving rope pulling to test the effect of social loafing. His experiment found that when an individual was placed in a group his or her effort was less than their individual effort. This effect continued to increase as the group size increased. Originally, there was a debate over whether the loss resulted from social loafing or loss of coordination as the group size increased. Latan, William, and Harkins (1979) conducted research that deceived participants into thinking they were working with a group and proved the decrease in effort was from social loafing not coordination loss (Latan, William, & Harkins, 1979).