Higher education institutions have been increasingly utilising group work in response to the critiques of recent graduates not possessing the communication skills needed in the workplace (Hall & Buzwell, 2012). Despite this increased popularity, several studies have reported students’ dissatisfaction with group work, mainly due to what some individuals see as an imbalance in the effort exerted by fellow group members (Chapman & van Auken, 2001; Hall & Buzwell, 2012). In the group project for the unit, Social and Community Psychology, that I was a part of, my team and I were challenged by social loafing. In this essay, I will define and describe social loafing, reflect on how it relates to my group experience and present ways that it could be addressed in the future.
The phenomenon of social loafing describes the tendency for individuals to have decreased motivation and expend less effort when working collectively as opposed to individually (Karau & Williams, 1993; Latané et al., 1979). This phenomenon was first observed in a study where researchers found that participants’ effort in a game of tug-of-war depended on whether they were pulling the rope alone or collectively. Findings showed that as group size increased, individual effort decreased, with triads performing at 85% of the sum of their individual effort and groups of eight at only 49% (Ringelmann, 1913, as cited in Latané et al., 1979). Several studies have replicated Ringelmann’s findings, with meta-analyses showing that social loafing is evident in diverse contexts, from physical activities to brainstorming exercises (Karau & Williams, 1993). In addition, some researchers have proposed that the decrease in effort and thus performance while working collectively is mediated by the reduced identifiability (i.e., the ability to be recognised by fellow group members) as group size increases (Williams et al., 1981). While further studies have shown that social loafing remains despite participants being identifiable (Kerr & Bruun, 1983), some researchers propose that online communication may reduce identifiability and facilitate greater social loafing (Hall & Buzwell, 2012). An alternative explanation is the dispensability of effort that results as group size increases (Kerr & Bruun, 1983). Hall and Buzwell (2012) suggested that dispensability of effort can occur when the group contains driven and conscientious member/s. These members become relied on by fellow members who have experienced an external challenge that has limited their ability to contribute to the task. While many factors contribute to social loafing, several studies have demonstrated the weight of group size, identifiability, and dispensability of effort on social loafing (Hall & Buzwell, 2012).
Within my group, the phenomenon of social loafing was present throughout all stages of the task and became more pronounced as the deadline neared. The sections assigned to me and a fellow member were completed with two weeks remaining. However, with only days left, the other two members had not completed their assigned sections, and there was little communication from them. Despite all members being identifiable and having assigned jobs, social loafing occurred – this is in opposition to Williams et al.’s (1981) notion that with greater identifiability, social loafing decreases. However, given that my group only communicated through WhatsApp, it is possible that this led to reduced identifiability within the group, consistent with Hall and Buzwell’s (2012) suggestion. In response to the social loafing in my group, I informed the team that I would begin working on the remaining sections, which I then completed. Consistent with Kerr and Bruun’s (1983) explanation of dispensability of effort, social loafing in my group likely did not occur because of a deliberate reduction in effort. Instead, it is more plausible that it was the consequence of some members experiencing personal stressors and awareness that fellow group members would be driven enough to complete the task. Reflecting on this explanation, it is likely that my behaviour of assuming that other members would not complete their sections may have contributed to the occurrence of their dispensability of effort and, consequently, social loafing. My behaviour is like that described by Börjesson et al. (2006), who proposed that dispensability of effort can be exacerbated by group members motivated to achieve high marks by exerting greater effort to mitigate the risk of relying on fellow group members. As discussed below, this behaviour has occurred in my past experiences with group projects.
Reflecting on my experience, it is likely that my dissatisfaction and frustration from previous group experiences, in which social loafing was present, biased my attitudes toward the current group activity. These attitudes potentially exacerbated the social loafing in my group in that I may not have provided enough support or opportunity to my fellow group members before completing the tasks myself (Börjesson et al., 2006). In the future, to address my potential contribution to the occurrence of social loafing in other group members, I would aim to collaboratively establish smaller goals for all members with specific deadlines, which has been shown to lessen the likelihood of social loafing (Hall & Buzwell, 2012; Piezon & Donaldson, 2005). Also, while it is difficult to say if two of my fellow group members intentionally reduced their effort, peer assessment may be beneficial to create a sense of accountability and encourage participation (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008). This could be achieved in a non-confrontational and informal way through periodic check-ins, where all group members are asked how they are progressing with their tasks and how they think the group is progressing. Lastly, it may be beneficial in future groups to meet in person or use online video chat instead of text-based communication to increase identifiability and potentially reduce social loafing (Hall & Buzwell, 2012).
Despite my frustration in this group project, I have become mindful of how my behaviour may contribute to social loafing. Moreover, through analysis of this group dynamic, I have become aware of strategies supported by the literature that could be implemented in future group projects to minimise social loafing.