A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing
A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing in Online Learning Communities
Ebony N. Lamoureux
February 12, 2012
Datta Khalsa
California State University, East Bay

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing
Social loafers don’t carry their weight during group projects.
Many of us have worked on a group project in an online classroom setting where an individual in the group did not work as efficiently as the rest of the team. This was not due to that person struggling with the group assignment. Rather, it was a conscious attempt to avoid an equitable shouldering of the responsibilities to complete a group assignment. Most people have encountered this type of person at some point in life through work projects, team sports or in a face-to-face classroom. In fact, surveys of college students have shown that one the greatest complaints about group projects is having to work with social loafers (Dommeyer, 2007). Online learning communities are no exception. While group work is a very effective teaching technique in the online classroom, students may encounter a challenge not bargained for: the social loafer.
What is Social Loafing?
Social loafing has been formally defined as the tendency for people to expend less effort on a given task when working in groups than when working alone (Latané et al., 1 979). Aggarwal and O’Brien (2008) define social loafing as “a behavior pattern wherein an individual working in a group setting fails to contribute his or her fair share to a group effort as perceived by group members”.
Essentially, a social loafer or social loafing is the contemporary jargon for team members who don’t carry their weight. These slackers or free riders, as they are also

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing known, are the ones that hard-working group members hate and the ones that make an instructor’s blood pressure rise because these free riders want the benefits of the group without putting in the work. The lack of effort a team member exerts often compels other team members to pick up the slack. That absence of work by the loafer in an online classroom group may lead to frustration and anxiety by other team members concerned about the group grade and reputation.
As the demand for online learning increases, technology and course design advances have allowed educators to incorporate many of the best face-to-face course practices into the online environment (Piezon & Ferree, 2008). Some of these practices include team-based learning projects such as threaded discussion groups and small group activities. This type of team-based learning is a teaching technique whereby students work in teams and achieve a noticeably higher quality of learning than if they were working individually (Michaelsen, et. al., 2002). If this technique is improperly administered by an instructor, productivity may be comprised when other team members have to complete additional work that was assigned to the social loafer to avoid missing deadlines and to successfully conclude a project.
What can you do if you are in a group with a social loafer or, if you are an instructor, a group notifies you of a possible loafer? Well, before we delve into remedies for recognizing and preventing social loafing, let’s start with a little history as to how we arrived here.
A Quick History on Social Loafing
The Ringelmann Effect
Max Ringelmann (1861-1931) was a
French agriculture engineer interested in determining the efficiency of animals, men, and machines in various agricultural applications. During experiments he conducted with his students and a group of prisoners, Ringelmann observed an inverse relationship between the size of the team and the effort expended (Kravitz
& Martin, 1986). He noticed that whenever more people are added to a task, even though the total effort was higher, less effort was being exerted by individuals. In an experiment, Ringelmann took a rope and attached a strain gauge to it, placing two persons to each side. He found that

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing individual effort dropped to 93%, when three persons were added to each side, individual effort dropped to 85%, and when eight persons were assigned to each side, the individual effort dropped almost in half.
He concluded that people tend to exert less effort when they work in a group.
Recent similar experiments conducted by scientists found similar findings using hand c lapping, yelling and singing “Happy Birthday” in large groups. Scientists discovered that people clapped, yelled or sung less efficiently when they were doing these actions within a large crowd of people. Although extensive research is available on the phenomenon of social loafing in the laboratory, face-to-face classroom, and the workplace, research regarding social loafing in the online environment, however, is relatively sparse (Piezon & Ferree, 2008).
Why Does This Occur?
While more research on social loafing in online learning communities is needed, there is no mistaking that social loafing exists in online learning communities (Piezon, 2011).
Social loafing is most detrimental to the productivity of a group when it is carrying out
“additive tasks”, that is, ones where the effort of each group member is summed according to Davis and Chapman (2003). However, many reasons exist for why social loafing occurs:


Meaningless Project: Team members will not work efficiently if they do not see the importance of the project, especially if they view the project as trivial and busywork.
Large Group Sizes: The incidence of social loafing increases with the scope of the project and the size of the student group assigned to the project (Aggarwal &
O’Brien, 2008). A large group allows individuals to hide in the crowd so they exert less effort because they can remain anonymous. Also, big groups may make some members feel “lost in the crowd”.
 “Sucker Effect”: The feeling of being duped when one member thinks that other people in the group are slacking off while he or she contributes the most. This behavior results in the member that plays the “sucker role” to contribute less to

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing the group endeavor when he expects that others will think negatively of him for working too hard (Piezon & Ferree, 2008).
 Lurking:
“Lurking” is the term used to describe someone who does not participate; he observes what is going on but remains silent” (Preece, 2000).
Lurkers do not contribute to the group, but they may receive the benefits of belonging to the group and “steal” the group knowledge.
 Unjust Reward System: If members are not rewarded fairly or do not get recognition for individual efforts, they will reduce their participation. Free riding applies here where a social loafer receives the same grade as the other members that worked hard to complete a project.
 Lack of Group Cohesion: Some teams do not get along because of different cultures, education, background, conflicting needs, politics, etc.
 Laziness: Self-explanatory.
Unfortunately, most social loafers feel no responsibility to the team and know that his or her team members will pick up his or her work load. If left unchecked, social loafing can become contagious and infect the entire morale and performance of a group. However, the above-mentioned explanations for why social loafing occurs beg the question of how people would behave if those factors were avoided.
How to Prevent Social Loafing
In order to prevent or minimize the ramifications of social loafing, a number of guidelines exist that an instructor or group leader might utilize to manage group members’ efforts toward shared goals.
Many of these guidelines can be adapted to suit the needs of the instructors, students and the particular online class setting. Michaelsen (2002), Piezon (2011),
Aggarwal & O’Brien (2008) and Chapman
(2006, 2010) list a set of standards to adhere to when trying to minimize, if not completely eliminate, social loafing. Here is a compilation of the various approaches:

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing

Clear Objectives: Create group buy-in by having observable, measurable outcomes. Objectives have to be set and communicated to all team members.
They have to understand the importance of the project and how it fits into the goals of the class. When the group is important to its members they work harder.
 Establish Ground Rules/Group Contract: A group contract or ground rules have to be created and communicated by the entire team for the entire team to ensure that each member knows what’s expected.
 Peer Evaluations: Multiple peer evaluations during the course of a project reduce social loafing. The number of times peer evaluation of each other went up, the amount of social loafing went down. If peer evaluations happen early on, when group members first start delivering work, the social loafers get the message that there’s a problem and have the opportunity to change their ways.
 Ideal Group Size: Group formation needs to be manageable. The larger a group, the easier it is for one or two members to hide in the crowd. A group of four to six members is ideal.
 Come Out of Lurkdom: Full participation in the group will eliminate animosity among members who feel that lurkers take
 Group Characteristics: Consider the characteristics of the team to foster group cohesiveness. For example, group members who have established relationships
 with one another are likely to form subgroups which hinder the overall unity within the group.
Eliminate the “Sucker Effect” and “Lurker” Status:
Reducing or eliminating this perception is another key to a productive group.
 Reporting System: The ease with which each member's contribution can be evaluated, how unique each individual's contribution is and how individually identifiable they are.

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing
Social Loafer Detected, What Next?
Even with all the proper considerations listed above put into action to prevent a social loafer from materializing, it is very likely that one or more team members will transform into one. Piezon & Ferree (2008) advocate the use of the following corrective actions:
 Team Contract: Remind all members of the contract that they helped to create.
 Reinforce Individual Importance: Speak to the offending members about their positive traits and try to re-establish their image as key players on the team.
 One-On-One Resolution: If the team contract reminder and positive reinforcements do not work, privately and respectfully confront the social loafer and make it clear where he or she is not meeting the group expectations. Allow enough time for the loafer to make adjustments before reporting him or her to the instructor.
Conclusion
Understanding the phenomenon of social loafing and ways to mitigate this behavior is the first step to providing a positive learning experience in the online classroom. Team members that participate in social loafing are more likely to repeat these transgressions when faced with similar situations. Ultimately, the participants will be the final determinants of whether or not the event was a successful learning experience or a frustrating experience that they will attempt to avoid in the future (Piezon & Donaldson,
2005). Since the distance learning environment already must deal with other potential distracters for group activities (e.g., geographical distance, time zones, work schedules), the presence of social loafing can be an additional impediment to the effectiveness of group work in the online classroom (Piezon & Ferree, 2008). Therefore,

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing it is imperative that instructors and students learn to eliminate these unsound practices before they become self-sustaining behaviors for all group work.

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing
REFERENCES
Aggarwal, P., & O'Brien, C. (2008). Social Loafing on Group Projects. Journal of
Marketing Education, 30 (3), 255-264. Retrieved from http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/33/1/73.abstract
Chapman, D., & Davis, D. (2003). Social Loafing In Academia: A Cross-Cultural
Analysis of Instructors' Behaviors in the Classroom. Bulletin of Hijiyama University, 9 ,
95-123 . Retrieved from http://harp.lib.hiroshimau.ac.jp/bitstream/harp/6237/1/hjg0906.pdf
Chapman, K., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t We Pick our Own Groups?
The Influence of Group Selection Method on Group Dynamics and Outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30 (4), 557-569. Retrieved from http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/32/1/39.abstract
Chapman, K., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2010). Are Student Groups
Dysfunctional? Perspectives from Both Sides of the Classroom. Journal of Marketing
Education . 32 (1), 39-49.
Dommeyer, C. (2007). Using the Diary Method to Deal With Social Loafers on the
Group Project: Its Effects on Peer Evaluations, Group Behavior, and Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education, 29 (2), 175-188. Retrieved from http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/29/2/175.abstract
Latané, B.; Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology , Vol 37 (6), Jun 1979, 822-832. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822
.
Michaelsen, L., Knight, A., & Fink, L. (Ed.). (2002). Team-Based Learning: A
Transformative Use of Small Groups . Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Retrieved from http://www.iub.edu/~tchsotl/part3/Michaelsen%20Team%20Based%20Learning.pdf
Piezon, S., & Donaldson, R. (2005). Online Groups and Social Loafing: Understanding
Student-Group Interactions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 8 (4.).
Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/piezon84.htm
Piezon, S., & Ferree, W. (2008). Perceptions of social loafing in online learning groups:
A study of Public University and U.S. Naval War College students. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning , 9 (2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/484/1034

A Deficit of Motivation: Social Loafing
Piezon, S. (2011). Social loafing and free riding in online learning, ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses . Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations (3477200).
Retrieved from http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04092011-
134453/unrestricted/Piezon_S_Dissertation_2011.pdf
Preece, J., & Krichmar, D. (2003). Online Communities. In J. Jacko and A. Sears, A.
(Eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Publishers. Mahwah: NJ. 596-620. Retrieved from http://hci.uma.pt/courses/socialweb/reading_material/1/Preece03-OnlineCommunities-
HandbookChapt.pdf