Social loafing and group evaluation.

Abstract

Recent work (e.g., Harkins, 1987; Szymanski & Harkins, 1987) has suggested that social loafing occurs because participants' outputs cannot be evaluated by the experimenter, by the coactors, or by the participants themselves. This analysis has focused on the output of the individual, but in loafing research, participants work together to produce a group product. However, in this prior work participants have been unable to make anything of this group product, because no standard of comparison has been made available. Several recent formulations (e.g., Goethals & Darley, 1987) have suggested that the potential for group evaluation could motivate performance. Testing this hypothesis in 2 experiments, 1 using an optimizing task and the other a maximizing task, we found that providing a standard that allowed the "group" to evaluate its performance eliminated the loafing effect. The implications of these findings for current theories of group evaluation are discussed. Kerr (1983) has identified several types of group motivation loss effects (e.g., free-riding, the sucker effect, and social loafing), and has suggested that different processes account for

Identifiability, Performance Feedback and the Köhler Effect

“…the experimenter), much as Harkins and Szymanski did in their productive program of research on the role of evaluation for social loafing (e.g. Harkins & Szymanski, 1989;Szymanski & Harkins, 1993). This would also include asymmetric feedback conditions in which different evaluators had access to different information; for example, a condition in which only P has full performance feedback of dyad members, but his/her partner and the experimenter do not.…”

My Job is My Castle: Identification in Organizational Contexts

“…Stroebe, Diehl, and Abakoumkin (1996) have shown that the elimination of motivational losses results in motivational gains and increased group productivity. In addition, different researchers (e.g., Harkins & Szymanski, 1989) have argued that social loafing and free riding in groups mainly occur because the 'groups' used in most of the empirical paradigms are of no or very limited meaning for subjects. These reviewers expect increased performance (i.e., social facilitation-greater effort in the presence of others; cf.…”

What makes a ‘good group’? Exploring the characteristics and performance of undergraduate student groups

“…Clearly stating the problem, and establishing clear goals leads to increased motivation and improved performance (Harkins and Szymanski, 1989;Sockalingham and Schmidt, 2010). Medical students suggest that tasks should be clinically relevant and integrative and that the cases should promote thinking and problem solving (Steinert, 2004).…”