Social Loafing and Freeriding
in
Online Learning Groups
Who we are…
Sherry L. Piezon
Robin Donaldson
Learning Groups
What are some reasons for including group work
in online learning environments?
Definitions
 Social loafing
Tendency to reduce individual effort when working in
groups compared to the individual effort expended
when working alone (Williams and Karau, 1991).
 Freeriding
An individual does not bear a proportional amount of
the work and yet shares the benefits awarded to the
group (Albanese and Van Fleet, 1985; Jones, 1984).
Review of Literature
 Ringelmann Effect
 Inverse relationship between the size of the team
and the effort expended
 Clapping and Shouting
 Latane, Williams and Harkins, 1979
 Social Loafing Antecedents






Task Visibility
Task Interdependence (individual contribution)
Procedural/Distributive Justice
Work Group Size
Group Cohesiveness
Perceived Coworker Loafing
Review of Literature
 Perceived Social Loafing
 ”Regardless of actual behavior, it is the perception
of coworker loafing that is salient” (Mulvey and
Klein, 1998).
 Self-reporting Social Loafing
 Sucker Role
 Kerr, 1983
 Sucker Effect
Social Loafing
Antecedents
Task Interdependence
 Definition:
 Individual’s work becomes more interdependent with
other individuals work
 Problems:
 More difficult to sense personal achievement
 Recommendations:
 Clarify roles/responsibilities
 Make tasks meaningful for individuals
 Teamwork is prerequisite to accomplish goal
 Individual feels they are contributing to “end” goal
Task Visibility
 Definition:
 An individual’s belief that their effort is being observed by their
supervisor
 Problems:
 Individuals disregard performance standards
 Less likely to engage in self-regulation
 Recommendations:








Assign team roles (i.e., leader, recorder, editor)
Define team member milestones (instructor/team)
Members establish individual performance targets
Group establishes communication procedures
Develop methods for solving problems
Establish individual and team logs
Utilize Microsoft Project (experienced learner/project oriented)
BB, discussion board, and team sites
Team Log
Distributive Justice
 Definition
 Perception of a fair distribution of rewards and
compensation among group members
 Problems:
 Negatively related to social loafing
 Rewards limited to participation/grades
 If unfair distribution perceived; individuals adjust
contributions accordingly
 Withhold efforts due to benefits vs cost
 Recommendations:
 Reinforcement vs Punishment
 Explain/distribute reward/grading system
 Grading/reward systems (individual and group)
Procedural Justice
 Definition:
 Perceived fairness of the procedures or policies that
surround distributive justice
 Problems:
 Increases freeriding
 Perceived lack of fairness positively correlated to social
loafing
 Recommendations:
 Open door policy (no punishment)
 Combination grade
 Group project
 Individual contribution to final project
 Participation
– Attending group meetings
– Discussion boards
 Meeting group and individual schedules/deadlines
Group Size
 Definition:
 Individuals feel their contributions are more
crucial to success in smaller groups
 Problems:
 Contributions not important
 Others will pick up slack in performance
 More likely to “hide in the crowd”
 Difficult to assess individual contributions in
large group size
 Recommendations:
 2 (novice learners)
 3-5 (experienced in online environment)
 Consider group member schedules and time
zones when establishing groups
Group Cohesiveness
 Definition:
 Ability of the group to bond together as a whole
 Problems:





Individuals exert less effort since inputs are not perceived as essential
Less likely to accomplish group goals
Positive correlation to social loafing
No reciprocal behavior
Contributions of individuals are not valued
 Recommendations:








Require high levels of accountability
Alternate group roles (i.e., leader, recorder, editor)
Balance group member skills and knowledge
Encourage group discussions
Ensure individuals/groups receive meaningful and immediate feedback
Provide rewards for group performance
Provide performance data for comparison with other groups
Make provisions for social validation
Perceived Coworker Loafing
 Definition:
 Extent that group members believe that other group members are
engaging in social loafing
 Problems:
 Actions are based on perceived actions of fellow group members
 Negative influence on other group members
 Mere perception (accurate or not) may reduce individual
motivation
 Increases likelihood of freeriding
 Increases likelihood of sucker effect
 Increases likelihood of sucker role
 Recommendations:
 Publicize individual contributions
 Submit weekly journals
 Individual contribution
 Team contribution
 Team leader assessment of team members
 Instructor evaluates and provides feedback on both individual and
group analysis of contributions
Group Domination
 Definition:
 One or more members more vocal and assertive than other
group members
 Problems:
 Contributions are not welcome
 Knowledge is insufficient
 Intimidates other group members
 Recommendations:
 Alternate group roles:
 Leader
 Recorder
 Researcher
 Editor
 Required reading on group cohesion, cooperation techniques,
and effective collaboration techniques
 Provide opportunities to increase collaborative efforts and
publicize results
Social Loafing
Future Research
Questions?