Social loafing effect in psychology

Looking at Work 2023
Geoffrey W Sutton & Bing AI

The social loafing effect is a psychological concept based on the finding that a person expends less effort on a group task than when they work on a project alone.

The history of the social loafing effect attributed to Bibb Latané, dates to the work of max Ringelmann.

A quote from a meta-analytic review follows.

Social loafing is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually. A meta-analysis of 78 studies demonstrates that social loafing is robust and generalizes across tasks and S populations. A large number of variables were found to moderate social loafing. (Karau & Williams, 1993)

Reference

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

assembly bonus effect in psychology

 

Working  as a group

The assembly bonus effect is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when individuals work together in a group to complete a task, leading to an increase in motivation and effort among group members. This effect is often seen in settings where individuals are rewarded based on their contribution to a group task.

A commonly cited source is Collins and Guetzkow (1964). They noted: "An assembly effect occurs when the group is able to achieve collectively something which could not have been achieved by any member working alone or by a combination of individual efforts." (p. 58)

Karau and Williams (1993) reviewed the literature on social loafing, which has identified a reduction in effort and motivation when people work in a group, which would contradict a bonus effect.

Kathleen Propp (2006) noted the lack of evidence for the assembly bonus effect and suggested the importance of how communication is understood.

The assembly bonus effect has been attributed to several factors, including social facilitation (where the presence of others enhances performance), social comparison (where individuals compare themselves to others in the group), and the need for social approval and recognition.

Researchers need to explore under what conditions a bonus effect occurs in contrast to a social loafing effect.

Reference:

Collins, E. B., & Guetzkow, H. A social psychology of group processes for decision-making. New York: Wiley, 1964

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681

Kathleen M. Propp, (2003) In Search of the Assembly Bonus Effect: Continued Exploration of Communication's Role in Group Memory, Human Communication Research, 29, 600–606, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00858.x

Geoffrey W. Sutton, PhD is Emeritus Professor of Psychology. He retired from a clinical practice and was credentialed in clinical neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. His website is  www.suttong.com

 

See Geoffrey Sutton’s books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Follow on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

Dr. Sutton’s posts are for educational purposes only. See a licensed mental health provider for diagnoses, treatment, and consultation.

 

group polarization effect

 During group discussions, people with different opinions may strengthen their opinions and assume a more extreme position.

HIPPO HIghest Paid Person's Opinion

In group studies, it is common for people of low power or status to suppress their opinion and shift to supporting the opinion of the Highest Paid Person. This can be seen as a survival strategy.

HIPPO or HiPPO is an acronym for the

Hi Highest

P paid

P person's

O opinion

HiPPO is also known as the HiPPO effect, Hippo syndrome, HiPPO culture, HiPPO management style, and the concept has been called HiPPO theory.

HiPPO effects can be seen in business closures when decisions by the top executive resulted in disaster. To avoid HiPPO disasters, decision makers in organizations need to create a psychological safe environment that permits the sharing of different opinions about products, services, and other decisions within an organization.

In the Psychology of Religion, HiPPO effects can be seen when religious leaders make decisions based on perceived divine revelation and refuse to take direction from church, school, and other organizational boards.

Reference

Kohavi, R. et al. (2007). Practical guide to controlled experiments on the Web" Listen to your customers not to the HiPPO. KDD'07. https://ai.stanford.edu/~ronnyk/2007GuideControlledExperiments.pdf 

**************************

Please check out my website   www.suttong.com

   and see my books on   AMAZON       or  GOOGLE STORE

Also, consider connecting with me on    FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton    

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton    

You can read many published articles at no charge:

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton     ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

***************************

Resource

A book that mentions the HiPPO problem is Think Again by Adam Grant

Book Review Link

Photo credit: I took the picture of the Hippo at the St Louis Zoo

Interpersonal Conflicts

 

Interpersonal conflicts may be relationship or task conflicts.

Relationship conflicts are marked by emotional clashes and even animosity.

Task conflicts are clashes of ideas and opinions.

In organizational studies, the worst performing teams began working on tasks with a high level of relationship conflict. High performing teams had task conflicts but low relationship conflicts.

Some task conflict is linked to higher creativity and better choices.

"The absence of conflict is not harmony, it's apathy."

Reference

Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don't know.   New York: Penguin Publishing Group, Viking.    

AMAZON

GOOGLE

Psychology of Faultlines

Faultlines is a construct described by Dora Lau and J. Keith Murnighan of Northwestern University (1998). They applied the term to understanding divisions within subgroups of organizations, which may be differentiated on the basis of attributes. The concept of faultlines is derived from geology.

Following is their definition.

"Group faultlines are hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes. (Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328)."

 In their seminal article, the authors provide examples of faultlines.  Demographic faultlines may include age, race, sex, and values. Occupational roles and conservative vs. liberal values may also divide group members into subgroups.

Group faultlines may have different degrees of strength. Strength develops from three factors:

  1. The number of attributes a group recognizes
  2. The alignment of the group's attributes
  3. The number of homogeneous subgroups

The authors explain that group faultlines can be stronger when the number of attributes are highly correlated.

Different subgroups can develop based on issues that activate different characteristics.

The geological analogy
1. The various characteristics of people in groups are like various layers in the earth's crust.
2. Faultlines become evident when external forces exert pressure
3. Strong faultlines can crack, which reveals the strength of the attributes

Group diversity can lead to increased or decreased creativity and innovation depending on the type of diversity present in a group. Diversity can lead to conflict

My Comments

The concept of faultlines as a metaphor may be useful in the analysis of factors that divide people in many spheres of life like politics and religion in addition to work and educational settings.

Leaders do well to recognize the external forces that can trigger those attributes leading to splitting subgroups from each other or from the main group. Some politicians and religious leaders are adept at exerting pressure that creates splits in which key characteristics of a population align in favor of their candidacy or ideology.

Reference

Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998) Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dy-namics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–40.