Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PROCESSES
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. Evaluation potential, expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and culture had especially strong influence. These findings are interpreted in the light of a Collec-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tive Effort Model that integrates elements of expectancy-value, social identity, and self-validation
theories.
Many of life's most important tasks can only be accom- suggest means for devising interventions by which social loaf-
plished in groups, and many group tasks are collective tasks ing may be reduced or overcome in everyday groups and organi-
that require the pooling of individual members' inputs. Govern- zations. Latane, Williams, & Harkins (1979) even suggested
ment task forces, sports teams, organizational committees, that social loafing is a type of social disease, having "negative
symphony orchestras, juries, and quality control teams provide consequences for individuals, social institutions, and societies"
but a few examples of groups that combine individual efforts to (p. 831). Perhaps as a result of this characterization, social loaf-
form a single product. Because collective work settings are so ing research has been focused on identifying conditions under
pervasive and indispensable, it is important to determine which which the effect can be reduced or eliminated. No studies have
factors motivate and demotivate individuals within these col- been designed to determine what factors increase social loaf-
lective contexts. Intuition might lead to the conclusion that ing. This emphasis on eliminating the effect is understandable,
working with others should inspire individuals to maximize given the potential applicability of social loafing research to
their potential and work especially hard. Research on social real-world contexts. However, this emphasis on studying condi-
loafing, however, has revealed that individuals frequently exert tions in which the effect is not likely to occur may also result in
less effort on collective tasks than on individual tasks. an underestimation of the magnitude of social loafing across a
Formally, social loafing is the reduction in motivation and wider range of situations.
effort when individuals work collectively compared with when At a theoretical level, specifying which variables moderate
they work individually or coactively. When working collectively, social loafing is central to developing a fuller understanding of
individuals work in the real or imagined presence of others with the dynamics underlying the performance and motivation of
whom they combine their inputs to form a single group prod- both individuals and groups. The social loafing literature offers
uct. When working coactively, individuals work in the real or a host offindingsrelevant to theorists interested in evaluation
imagined presence of others, but their inputs are not combined processes, the self, and group dynamics. Indeed, in a recent
with the inputs of others. Determining the conditions under review of social motivation, Geen (1991) regarded social loafing
which individuals do or do not engage in social loafing is a as one of only three dominant phenomena addressing this issue
problem of both theoretical and practical importance. At a in the 1980s. Despite the theoretical importance of this topic,
practical level, the identification of moderating variables may surprisingly little attention has been devoted to systematically
reviewing or integrating the social loafing research. Although a
number of researchers have discussed social loafing or have
Parts of this article were presented at the 1992 Midwestern Psycho- presented theories of particular causes of social loafing (e.g.,
logical Association convention in Chicago. Harkins, 1987; Harkins & Szymanski, 1987; Jackson & Wil-
We thank Martin Bourgeois, Donal Carlston, Alice Eagly, Rebecca liams, 1985; Latane, 1981; Mullen, 1983; Paulus, 1983; Shep-
Henry, Janice Kelly, Norbert Kerr, Brian Mullen, Kristin Sommer, and perd, 1993; Stroebe & Frey, 1982), they have drawn their conclu-
several anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on drafts of sions from only small portions of the available empirical stud-
this article. We also thank Jeffrey Jackson and William Gabrenya for ies, which were selected by unspecified criteria. Presently, the
providing unpublished data.
magnitude and consistency of social loafing across studies has
Correspondence should be addressed to Steven J. Karau, Depart-
never been estimated, and the extent to which particular vari-
ment of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
29634-1511 or to Kipling D. Williams, Department of Psychology, ables moderate social loafing has remained unclear. Given the
University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606-3390. Electronic mail may large empirical literature that is now available, a thorough inte-
be sent to skarau@clemson.edu or kipling@uoft02.utoledo.edu. gration and analysis of this research is long overdue.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1993. Vol. 65. No. 4, 681-706
Copyright 1993 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/93/$3.00
681
682 STEVEN J. KARAU AND KIPLING D. WILLIAMS
The current review has three major purposes. First, we pres- shouting with others. Latane et al. demonstrated that a substan-
ent a model that integrates expectancy theories with theories of tial portion of the decreased performance of groups was attrib-
group-level social comparison and social identity to account for utable to reduced individual effort, distinct from coordination
thefindingsof studies examining individual effort in collective loss, and that audience size did not account for these results.
settings. This model, the Collective Effort Model (CEM), is They also coined the term social loafing for the demotivating
then used to generate predictions for the meta-analysis. Sec- effects of working in groups.
ond, we systematically review the available empirical findings. Since 1974, nearly 80 studies on social loafing have been
Meta-analytic methods (Cooper, 1989; Glass, McGaw, & Smith, conducted in which individuals' coactive efforts were com-
1981; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Rosenthal, 1991) are used to esti- pared with individuals' collective efforts. These studies have
mate the overall magnitude of social loafing and to compare it used a wide variety of tasks, including physical tasks (e.g., shout-
with the magnitude of the effects of other variables on social ing, rope-pulling, and swimming), cognitive tasks (e.g., generat-
behavior. This quantitative method also allows for an examina- ing ideas), evaluative tasks (e.g., quality ratings of poems, edito-
tion of the consistency of social loafing across studies and ac- rials, and clinical therapists), and perceptual tasks (e.g., maze
counts for inconsistencies by identifying moderating variables
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
by researchers, and the theory itself has been criticized for not tions. This research has also demonstrated that two
addressing the underlying psychological processes that it de- requirements must be met for evaluation by any source (the
scribes (e.g., Mullen, 1985). experimenter, one's co-workers, or oneself) to be possible: (a)
the participant's output must be known or identifiable, and (b)
there must be a standard (personal, social, or objective) with
Arousal Reduction which this output can be compared.
Jackson and Williams (1985) proposed a drive explanation to
accompany a social impact theory explanation of social loaf- Dispensability of Effort
ing. They argued that the presence of other co-workers is drive
reducing because these others serve as cotargets of an outside Kerr and his colleagues (e.g., Kerr, 1983; Kerr & Bruun, 1983)
source of social impact. Citing studies in which people faced have suggested another possible cause of social loafing: Individ-
with a fearful situation tended to prefer being in the company of uals may exert less effort when working collectively because
others (e.g., Schachter, 1959; Wrightsman, 1960), they reasoned they feel that their inputs are not essential to a high-quality
group product (i.e., are dispensable). In their "free rider" para-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
results. Moreover, recent research by Williams and Karau We propose that expectancy-value models of effort (e.g.,
(1991) has demonstrated that individuals may actually increase Heckhausen, 1977; Porter & Lawler, 1968; Vroom, 1964) can be
their collective effort when they expect their co-workers to per- extended to collective contexts by specifying how working in a
form poorly on a meaningful task, an effect referred to as social group influences individuals' perceptions of the relationship
compensation. between their effort and their expected outcomes. We believe
that social loafing occurs because there is usually a stronger
Self-Attention perceived contingency between individual effort and valued
outcomes when working individually. When working collec-
Mullen (1983) proposed that self-attention underlies social tively, factors other than the individual's effort frequently deter-
loafing. According to this self-attention perspective, working mine performance, and valued outcomes are often divided
on a collective task leads to a decrease in self-awareness, lead- among all of the group members. The notion that expectancy-
ing individuals to disregard salient performance standards and value models can be applied to motivation in group contexts is
to engage in less self-regulation. Thus, collective performance is not entirely new. For example, several researchers have implic-
lower than coactive performance, because participants are itly used expectancy-value logic to cast light on thefindingsof
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
social dilemma and social loafing studies (e.g., Kerr, 1983; Ol-
when working alone. Mullen has found evidence consistent son, 1965; Shepperd, 1993; Williams & Karau, 1991). Naylor,
with the notion that self-attention may influence aspects of Pritchard, and Ilgen (1980) have also suggested that expec-
social behavior in various meta-analyses (see Mullen, 1991, for tancy-value logic can be extended into a model that can account
a summary), but there is currently no evidence that reduced for organization-level motivational phenomena. Similarly, sev-
self-attention causes social loafing (see Jackson, 1986). Only eral researchers have discussed the potential implications of
one study (Stevenson, 1990) has manipulated self-attention self-evaluation for individual motivation (e.g., Goethals & Dar-
across coactive and collective conditions, and the results did not ley, 1987; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Tesser, 1988). The CEM, how-
support the self-attention interpretation. Therefore, although ever, is unique in specifying additional contingencies between
the self-attention hypothesis is provocative, it is in need of em- effort and outcomes that are distinctive to collective contexts,
pirical support. and in using group-level social comparison and self-evaluation
theories to specify which factors should influence individual
motivation in collective contexts. This combination allows for
Conclusions
the clear specification of potential threats to collective motiva-
Prior theories advanced to explain social loafing all appear to tion in a way that is not restricted to mere task-performance
have some limitations. The most significant limitation com- outcomes.
mon to all of these viewpoints is that they tend to offer explana- The key features of the CEM are shown in Figure 1. The
tions and make predictions about conditions under which so- model suggests that individuals will be willing to exert effort
cial loafing will occur within a limited domain. For example, on a collective task only to the degree that they expect their
Harkins (1987) offered an excellent analysis of the impact of efforts to be instrumental in obtaining valued outcomes. Thus,
evaluation on social loafing, and Kerr (1983) contributed an a number of factors must be perceived as existing before individ-
equally effective analysis of the role that dispensability plays. uals will be willing to exert high levels of effort. Individual
However, although current theories of social loafing provide effort must relate to individual performance, which must in
insights as to why the effect occurs at all, they do not provide a turn have some impact on the group's performance. The group's
framework that can clearly specify which particular factors performance must then lead to a favorable group outcome,
should moderate social loafing under different conditions. which must be related to a favorable individual outcome. If the
When possible in the current review, we quantitatively examine task performance setting disrupts any of these relationships in a
the adequacy of some of these viewpoints for explaining social way that is salient to individuals, then they will not be likely to
loafing. More important, we present a unified theory that pro- view their efforts as useful and will not work as hard on the
poses to envelop most if not all of the findings in the existing task. Similarly, individuals will not work as hard when the avail-
social loafing literature and that offers specific predictions for able outcomes are not valued, even if these outcomes are di-
future research. rectly related to individual effort. Relevant individual out-
comes include things such as objective outcomes (such as pay),
Integrative Model of Individual Effort self-evaluation information, and feelings of purpose or belong-
ing in one's group. The relative value of these outcomes depends
on Collective Tasks
on a number of factors, including the meaningfulness and in-
The integrated model of individual effort on collective tasks, trinsic value of the task, the task's importance to the individual
the CEM, adapts individual-level expectancy-value models of and group, the degree to which the individual is dispositionally
effort to collective contexts to highlight the most likely threats predisposed to view collective outcomes as important, and the
to motivation and uses recent theories of self-evaluation in degree to which the outcome provides information relevant to
group contexts to clarify which outcomes are likely to be valued the individual's self-evaluation.
by individuals when working collectively. The resulting model Like traditional expectancy-value models of effort, the CEM
provides a framework for clearly specifying the implications of assumes that individuals behave hedonistically and try to max-
any key attribute of a given collective setting (e.g., group size and imize the expected utility of their actions. In Vroom's (1964)
nature of task) for the motivation of individuals in that setting. original model, individuals' motivational force is dependent on
SOCIAL LOAFING 685
• Task Importance
• Task & Reward
Meaningfulness
• Individual Differences
(e.g., collectivism,
Individual Effort [»[individual Performance | | Individual Outcomes
culture, gender)
» §
3> o • Self-evaluation • Evaluation Apprehension
• Feelings of Belonging
a* •
•
Intrinsic Rewards
Extrinsic Rewards
T
| Group Performance |-»j Group Outcomes
• Group Evaluation
• Group Cohesiveness
• Extrinsic Rewards
three factors: (a) expectancy, or the degree to which high levels of The CEM can be described as "cognitive" both because per-
effort are expected to lead to high levels of performance, (b) ceived rather than actual contingencies are hypothesized to in-
instrumentality, or the degree to which high-quality perfor- fluence behavior and because individuals are hypothesized to
mance is perceived as instrumental in obtaining an outcome, either consciously or subconsciously select a level of effort to
and (c) valence of the outcome, or the degree to which the out- exert on the task. However, the model is not necessarily deliber-
come is viewed as desirable. The CEM expands on this logic by ative because individuals are unlikely to systematically process
specifying that instrumentality on collective tasks is deter- all of the available information about the task performance
mined by three factors: (a) the perceived relationship between situation, unless they are particularly motivated to process it
individual performance and group performance, (b) the per- because of situational constraints or individual differences.
ceived relationship between group performance and group out- Therefore, some situations may lead individuals to respond au-
comes, and (c) the perceived relationship between group out- tomatically to a preexisting effort script, whereas other situa-
comes and individual outcomes. Thus, the model suggests that tions may lead individuals to strategically increase or decrease
working on a collective task introduces additional contingen- their collective effort. The CEM suggests that individuals gener-
cies between individuals' efforts and their outcomes. For this ally consider salient features of the task setting when attempt-
reason, an analysis of individual effort is by necessity more ing to maximize the expected utility of their actions.
complex for collective tasks than for coactive tasks. The CEM also expands on prior expectancy-value frame-
The CEM also acknowledges that, although individual and works by specifying which outcomes are likely to be valued in
group performance are strongly related to many of the valued collective settings. Valued outcomes can consist of either objec-
outcomes in performance settings, there are some valued out- tive outcomes such as pay or subjective outcomes such as enjoy-
comes that do not depend on performance. For example, when ment, satisfaction, feelings of group spirit and belonging, and
working on intrinsically meaningful tasks or when working feelings of self-worth. In the case of objective outcomes, how-
with highly respected co-workers, exerting high levels of effort ever, it is the individual's evaluation of the outcome rather than
may lead to self-satisfaction, approval from the group, or other the outcome itself that determines its valence (e.g., Deci, 1975;
important outcomes, even if such high effort has little or no Lepper & Greene, 1978). Because the CEM is oriented to ex-
impact on tangible performance outcomes. However, the plaining collective phenomena, the model places particular em-
model emphasizes performance-related outcomes because phasis on group-level outcomes that have implications for the
many of the most important outcomes available in a perfor- individual's self-evaluation. Research has repeatedly demon-
mance context are contingent on actual performance. strated that individuals are quite concerned with maintaining a
686 STEVEN J. KARAU AND KIPLING D. WILLIAMS
favorable self-evaluation (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Schmidt, 1988; vely, we predicted that individuals would generally tend to en-
Greenwald, 1982; Greenwald & Pratkanis, 1984; Suls & Miller, gage in social loafing and that this effect would be reliable
1977; Tesser, 1988). Group performance situations produce the across studies. Second, the CEM suggests that individuals will
potential for self-evaluation from a variety of relevant sources work harder on a collective task when they expect their efforts
(Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Leary & Forsyth, 1987). Breckler to be instrumental in obtaining valued outcomes. Therefore,
and Greenwald (1986) proposed that the self has distinct moti- we predicted that, holding other factors constant, social loafing
vational facets that are influenced most strongly by three corre- should be reduced when individuals: (a) believe that their col-
sponding audiences. They distinguished between (a) a private lective performances can be evaluated by the experimenter,
self that responds primarily to internal values, (b) a public self their co-workers, themselves, or others; (b) work in smaller
that responds mainly to others' evaluations, and (c) a collective rather than larger groups; (c) perceive that their contributions to
self that is sensitive primarily toward fulfilling one's role within the collective product are unique, rather than redundant with
the context of the goals of important reference groups. Al- the inputs of others; (d) are provided with a standard with which
though most social loafing research has been focused on the to compare their group's performance; (e) work on tasks that are
motivation produced by the experimenter's evaluation of perfor-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
proposed that the presence of others is drive reducing when be combined with those of other subjects (e.g., Price, 1987, Experi-
other group members serve as cotargets of an outside source of ment 1).
social influence. According to drive models of anxiety, working Second, studies were excluded if the number of task performers (i.e.,
collectively should lead to reduced drive, resulting in decreased coactors or co-workers) present was confounded across coactive and
collective conditions (e.g., Huddleston, Doody, & Ruder, 1985; Kerr &
performance on simple tasks and increased performance on
Bruun, 1981, Experiment 1, between-subjects comparisons). In such
novel, difficult, tasks. In our meta-analysis, we addressed the studies, effort cannot be separated from distraction and mere presence
adequacy of this viewpoint by classifying studies according to effects. Of course, this criterion excluded most social facilitation stud-
whether they used simple or complex tasks. ies, because they intentionally varied the number of individuals pres-
Some of our predictions mirror well-established effects in ent in the alone and group conditions.2
the social-loafing literature, whereas other predictions have ei- Studies were also omitted if individual effort could not be separated
ther been examined only sporadically, if at all, or have produced from coordination loss (e.g., Ingham et al., 1974, Experiment 1; see
conflicting evidence. For example, researchers generally accept introduction). This criterion excluded studies that merely compared
the conclusion that individuals tend to engage in social loafing the average individual performance with the average group perfor-
mance without measuring individual performances under collective
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
object or vigilance tasks in which each subject watches for randomly cern to this meta-analysis, effect sizes based on self-report measures of
occurring blips in different quadrants of a video terminal; potentially effort were also calculated so that supplementary analyses could be
redundant, e.g., brainstorming tasks in which all subjects generate uses conducted. Several studies provided data for more than one relevant
for the same object, evaluative tasks that use a compensatory method dependent variable. When this occurred, separate effect sizes were
of combining inputs; completely redundant, e.g., pulling on a rope, computed for each dependent variable, and these separate effect sizes
shouting and clapping, or pumping air); (g) group size (i.e., number of were then combined using Rosenthal and Rubin's (1986) suggested
individual inputs combined into the group product); (h) number of formula.3
task performers present at session; (i) sex of subjects (men, women, or Multiple effect sizes from single studies. Under some circum-
both); and (j) culture of subjects (Eastern, i.e., China, Japan, or Taiwan stances, studies were partitioned and separate effect sizes were com-
or Western, i.e., United States or Canada). puted within levels of an independent variable. This partitioning was
Participants' efforts were only coded as evaluable if (a) their output undertaken when (a) subjects of different status or from different cul-
was identifiable either to the experimenter, their co-workers, or them- tures were used (7 studies); (b) group size varied (11 studies); (c) differ-
selves, and (b) a personal, social, or objective standard was available ent tasks were used that varied either in their complexity, the unique-
with which their outputs could be compared. This treatment is consis- ness of individual inputs to the collective product, or the method used
tent with widely accepted interpretations of evaluation potential (e.g., to combine individual inputs (10 studies); (d) evaluation potential var-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Harkins, 1987; Harkins & Szymanski, 1988,1989). ied (17 studies); (e) task valence varied (6 studies); (f) group valence
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Task valence was coded as high (or low) if researchers manipulated differed (5 studies); or(g) expectations of co-worker performance were
task importance, task meaningfulness, or personal involvement in manipulated (7 studies). Although this partitioning of studies created
such a way that subjects were provided with a clear rationale for view- some nonindependence in the data, the strategy was necessary to al-
ing the task as especially important or trivial (e.g., Brickner, Harkins, & low theory-relevant interactions in the studies to be represented and to
Ostrom, 1986; Williams & Karau, 1991). Task valence was also coded test the CEM's predictions about moderating variables. A study that
as high (or low) if subjects were selected on a personality variable that manipulated one of these variables was partitioned only if its reported
would make them likely to view the task used as especially involving findings were sufficient to allow the computation of effect sizes within
(or aversive), or were selected on the basis of their probable intrinsic the levels of the variable or to determine the direction or significance
interest (or disinterest) in the task (e.g., subjects high and low in need for offindingswithin the levels. By this strategy, the original sample of 78
cognition performing an idea-generation task—Petty, Cacioppo, & studies obtained from 59 documents produced 166 units, 26 of which
Kasmer, 1985; collegiate swimmers at a competitive meet—Williams, were intact studies and 140 of which were subdivided parts of studies.
Nida, Baca, & Latane, 1989). In all other cases, task valence was scored For simplicity of exposition, these units are referred to as studies in the
as unclear or unspecified. For practical purposes, tasks that were remainder of this manuscript. For some analyses, the 166 units were
scored as unclear or unspecified are likely to fall somewhere between further partitioned by sex of subject when data were separately re-
high- and low-valence tasks, and therefore can reasonably be regarded ported for male and female subjects. When this latter partitioning was
as somewhat moderate in valence. undertaken, 178 units were available for analysis.
Expectations of co-worker performance were coded as high (or low) Analysis of effect sizes. The analysis was based on the methods
on the basis of researchers' manipulations of co-worker ability or co- detailed by Hedges and Olkin (1985). The gs were converted to ds by
worker effort, as well as on the basis of subjects' selection on interper- correcting them for bias. To obtain an overall estimate of the differ-
sonal trust scores (low trusters may expect others to engage in social ence in individuals' coactive and collective effort reported in the avail-
loafing, cf. Williams& Karau, 1991). Expectations of co-worker perfor- able research, the relevant study outcomes were then combined by
mance were also coded as high if subjects were experts at the task (e.g., averaging the ds. All such means were computed with each effect size
collegiate swimmers). In all other cases, expectations were coded as weighted by the reciprocal of its variance, a procedure that gives more
unclear or unspecified. weight to effect sizes that are more reliably estimated.4 A homogeneity
The categories listed for some of these variables were simplified statistic, Q, was also calculated to determine whether each set of ds
from an initially more detailed set of categories either because (a) some shared a common effect size (i.e., was consistent across the studies). To
categories had few or no entries or (b) prediction of the effect sizes was test the CEM's predictions about moderating variables, we accounted
not improved by the more detailed categories. The variables for which for variability in the effect sizes by relating them to attributes of the
the initial coding was more detailed are the following: status of sub- studies using both categorical and continuous models. The categorical
jects, culture of subjects, type of effort measured, method of combin- models, which are analogous to analyses of variance (ANOVAs), pro-
ing individual inputs, and evaluation potential. vide a between-classes effect, QB (analogous to a main effect in an
All variables were coded by Steven j . Karau. To estimate reliability, {text continues on page 694)
Kipling D. Williams independently coded a subsample of 19 studies
(24%). The median agreement was 100% (Magreement = 98%, kappa = 3
.95). "Complexity of task" yielded the lowest agreement, 83% (kappa = The between-measures correlations that were used when imple-
.71). Disagreements were resolved by discussion. A complete list of the menting this formula were estimated from correlations (a) given in
studies included in the meta-analysis, along with their characteristics several studies in the sample and (b) estimated from data provided by
and effect sizes, is presented in Table 1. Williams (from Williams & Williams, 1981, Experiment 1) and Ga-
brenya (from Gabrenya, Latane, & Wang, 1983). The resulting correla-
tions were .82 for subjective effort, .71 for objective measures based on
Computation and Analysis of Effect Sizes shouting and clapping tasks, and .49 for objective measures based on
The effect size calculated is g, the difference between individual evaluative tasks.
4
effort in the coactive and collective conditions, divided by the pooled Because some studies used the group as the unit of analysis,
standard deviation (see Hedges & Olkin, 1985). A positive sign indi- whereas others used individuals or individuals across repeated factors
cates that subjects exerted more effort coactively than collectively (i.e., as the unit of analysis, the number of subjects in the coactive and col-
engaged in social loafing), and a negative sign indicates that subjects lective conditions were used in all cases to represent sample size in
exerted more effort collectively than coactively. The effect sizes were these calculations in an attempt to avoid arbitrarily weighting some
calculated by Steven J. Karau with the aid of a computer program effect sizes dramatically higher than others despite comparable num-
(Johnson, 1989). Although objective effort measures are of central con- bers of subjects.
SOCIAL LOAFING 689
fN CN
CN f N co"co" f N CN
m r
© © . .
m
gn 8888^8 88 TTTT 888 8888 oogo 88
pp © p
llslsi
^•"^••^•Tt— (N t/">v~i ^ - ^ ^^p^- f N CN CN f N CN CN CN
~ ™ CN r4
.©pop© pp ooo© 999 8888 II
-L-L ^.ci J^-L
f N CN fN fN CN CN
•^Tj-'^-rJ-'Tt-fN v-iV) — —. - ^ —i (NfNCN
fN fN fN fN —< ~^ —. - ^— . —, ^ ^ (NfNfN
— fN Cl —
O ^ O O c O O P oo O OPOOO QO
o — o O < 188 qpp^p poppp ^P
' • » — Tt<NO O O O O O O O
fo OOfNOO \O^O^D^O —
OnOOa\N OCNCT\vi
O OO O (
O O O o rn rs r- ^ o o fNrn — o\
I OOO—"OO I I OfNf^fN
00 SO
u '5. c c
'B. a '8.
Q,
S,
c 2 a
Cl!
"u
•a •a
c ccd o
I 15
C4
OO 00
1 f c II c c
o
•5
c
si C/5
3
o
3
O
in 5 I "So
s
c
"2'S.
o g.
| I'll
*E & *-* *—
gsl-s
••2 3 - 5
•a';-11
s
3 R
s s 11
5s§ § " -
II CO
PDOCJ o
UCJ
690 STEVEN J. KARAU AND KIPLING D. WILLIAMS
(N <N
fN rN rN rN rN rN rN rN fN rN rN
ci ci
ci rN rN c"i c^ ci ci CI CI CI C I
> O O O _ . . .
>p p p — — co co
rN fN <N fN fN TJ- Tf
i ci ci ci
co co
ci ci ci m
88 888
O O , _ ci ci rn ci ci
8 88 88 88 O O
" "
— —
oo oo
ci ci 88 888 r-j f N r~-i rsi
fN rN rN rN* rN ^fr -^-
ci ci ci rN —• rN —' ci ci — m c^ m m ci
fN fN fN CN fN fN fN fN
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
fN fN fN fN ci m m m c i r*i m m
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
fN fN fN
I —.
—•
-^ -^
fN —«
fN fN
— fN
fN fN
— fN
— fN fN rN fN rN fN fN fN <N fN
CI rN ootN [ o o
oo fN rjq CICI ^O — oo rN ci
— — •
D. Q.
oo 0i
T3 -O c c
C C
E E
OO 00
B C 2 1
o 'o1 o
a
3 3 in a. C
o. c
i o o
rai
O O C
2 •a "2
V3 C/5
C/3 C/2 "2 U aa oa oa o
a:
I I"
P.
O
u •g,CTv
8 = ts.
I . 1^^P s
oo a a
if ? «_.
135
II
u -^ -t* w. «
u
E=a
ass
ill§ OT3333^-CS"-CS
c J < 3 3 3 3 3 5 x :
|w£2222j.2P
•§, OOOOOo
; U
5 ( 0 >•
(2
SOCIAL LOAFING 691
CN CN fN CN CN CN CN CN CN CN
•3 88 88 888888 888
mm
88
mm
88
CN CN CN CN
8888 888^8.0
m rn m m
mm
I!
S CN CN tTf CN CN CN CN CN CN* CN CN CN
8888 888
a,
| | | | I l l l l l HI II II
CNCN C N ^ f CN CN CN* CN CN CN CN CN CN*
CNm CN cn
m mmm m m CN rn m CN
— , f — odo
— — —.
I com
CNCN
mm
M M
-^ — -^mmm
^^ — - ^ — —. —.
mmc^
CNfNCN
mm
CNCN
mm
CNCN
mmmm
(NCNCNCN CN CN CN CN CN CN
mi*i
—' m
m
CN
m
CN
r^ en
CN <N
fir^m mm
CN (N CN CN CN <N
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
C N r j J OO -^ O
CN —• ^O O &) O oo
do do o — oo — — — O O CN p ^q r-#
—— d O O do
odd
c 00 3
form atio
XI
•c
[uno:
00 OO
c c c •a a 1
a E c
o « u E E
o •5. a. oo
E c 3 O o o
C
3 D.
a C
5
D. c c •3 •I .s
o W BJ W
E
I I 2&
c W
D, EP
c 00
o
Latan
1980)
1985
(986
UJ O
1
s
692 STEVEN J. KARAU AND KIPLING D. WILLIAMS
M M M (N (N N r i f N
— —• mr m m m O ^
88 88 S88
— —- — CO O 'O ^O^O
i M M
00"
p p 888 3 88 SI
88 M —
d 6 M M (N M
CNMtN (NfNM
^C^ C1CL CiCl
Tf^i" mm mm mm — m m m m m
M<N — —< N ( N (N Ol (N
(N (N m rO —«
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
^ — —> mm
o —M ^f T
oo P9P 8 o
8888 00000c
^ O O O O o 88 ^2 88 O O O O O <•
Q^ _ ' M M M
—' rsl ^ ^ ^O
MM M M M
. - \O O o
O tN f~i O
— ^- o
— o —'•
p
o —'• OOO O— —O O — OO(N(N _- — c
o o o
1 1
a
a
00
g
OD S 00
Bra sto
3
O
E
E c o
x:
11
C/3 00
00
-- c^7T^'
o •^'5-S--^
ss'§§ ffiii
- ., o ON
E^
OO o u • ^
MIL s
•BE.I
,2 " "
01! i n —
||
S !5 § ^
'•S " ^ *?2 **3 ^
1 K K C
^5^£SW
^ M 1> U
M n! • " * ' " "
C
^
•a
•p > . c
•S'3i o
M U U
M O O
iiiiiifSIIfl
~,m
(2 00 on
SOCIAL LOAFING 693
m 3
eci
m o - - —< <N c <LT 1!
o OO Q O o o 0 0 op op o
iS8 88 OOOO oo VI
u •o
"O '2 II
ntats
co: lining
ria bleis
%
Si § 8 88 8888 8 8 8S 888 88 O rt f1
f^4 (N (N
I f^i o rn
"I
II
fN
C U
OS)
> "5
ividu
third
V O ^- rt
a i
erf on
I ci ci
tt
fj
E s
o •g
>
V)
•V^^ ca i
o JD d c
J2S rt
c3 rt
ot J j ^5
va:
I
L*
o
O
1 u
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Q
r4 (N (N fN (N c ^
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
H •a ,o '3 u U &
ict
u o 5 c
c a>
leair);
"O Xi
0> c
a
•o D.
O In o
rt
> 1
o g cII &) 4>
BI.
a c o
o"
c .52
I-
> *-
>
irtt
set
II
<N ia "2 -a
<A _ ca c n !5
••* ~** ^ ^ . ^^» ^ ^ » ~»»». ^ ^ » ^^fc ^ * *
O OO
8 88 OOOO
OOO
8888 81 O O vi
o o
1 (N « •
XI
r*1 — (N OOOO 2 .5
C/3
'00 ~'• o
5 o
fg
2§
g x>
oo
c
oo
c ifiHii
ppi
aa OD
rcl
*O
C c Xi
£
ing
ed t/5
'o 3
00 oo cx
E c c c c
•£3
£ I o
O
Sho
Dra
x: 3
en
H u i> rt
mum'.
illlllilll
T3 O
C
t3
II = = 5 S rt-
:S"
III «-<>
9 ^ g S'E.S «<g
I : E i-s g
3 cc c
-•3 E E !'•
c c
E E
; .« . „ ^_i >
HI, 1^= OJ LU BJ g UJ W
(5
694 STEVEN J. KARAU AND KIPLING D. WILLIAMS
ANOVA) and a test of the homogeneity of the effect sizes within each tendencies of the characteristics presented in Table 2, studies
class, Qm. The continuous models, which are least squares linear re- generally (a) were published recently, (b) were published as jour-
gressions calculated with each effect size weighted by the reciprocal of
nal articles, (c) used a moderate number of subjects, (d) used
its variance, provide a test of the significance of the predictor as well as
a test of model specification (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Finally, as a
college-age samples, and (e) only occasionally included organiza-
supplementary procedure, we conducted outlier analyses to determine tional or nonadult samples. In addition, studies (a) were gener-
whether the effect sizes were relatively homogeneous aside from the ally laboratory experiments with some field studies, (b) used
presence of a limited number of aberrant values (see Hedges, 1987; both within- and between-subjects comparisons of individuals'
Hedges & Olkin, 1985). effort across coactive and collective conditions, and (c) typically
informed subjects that the purpose of the experiment was to
examine effort or task performance. Regarding task character-
Results and Discussion istics, studies (a) typically used simple tasks, (b) tended to mea-
Characteristics of Studies sure either physical or cognitive effort with some studies of
perceptual or evaluative effort, and (c) generally used maximiz-
Before considering the findings of the social loafing litera-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ture, we first present the characteristics of the studies from Finally, regarding key theory-relevant predictors, the last 10
which our conclusions will be drawn. As shown by the central variables in Table 1 show that studies generally (a) varied evalua-
Table 2
Summary of Study Characteristics
Variable and class Value Variable and class Value
Note. For categorical variables, numbers in table represent frequency of effort comparisons in each class. Summaries of continuous variables are
based on reports for which information was available on each variable.
* When studies were subdivided on sex of subjects, the frequencies were 40 for men, 24 for women, and 114 for both.
SOCIAL LOAFING 695
tion potential across the coactive and collective conditions, (b) Hers revealed that among the 64 effect sizes removed, 49 were
did not manipulate task valence, (c) studied low-valence groups above and only 15 were below the median d computed for the
of strangers, (d) did not provide an opportunity for group evalua- original sample. The confidence interval for the weighted mean
tion, (e) did not manipulate expectations of co-worker perfor- after outlier removal showed that the overall tendency toward
mance, (f) used tasks in which individuals' inputs to the collec- decreased collective effort was still significant after outliers
tive product were either potentially redundant or completely were removed.
redundant with the inputs of other group members, (g) had a The implication of the finding that people tend to engage in
relatively small median group size, (h) tended to have all task social loafing when working collectively depends in part on its
performers physically present at the experimental session, (i) magnitude. The several measures of central tendency reported
typically included both male and female subjects, and (j) gener- in Table 3 are relevant to this issue. Taken together, these fig-
ally examined subjects from Western cultures. ures indicate approximately a four-tenths standard deviation in
the direction of reduced collective effort. One means for inter-
Overall Magnitude of Social Loafing preting the magnitude of the mean social loafing effect size is to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
examination of the consistency of findings across studies is when group valence was either moderate (p < .001) or un-
worthwhile. The direction of the effect was very consistent, known (p < .005, post-hoc contrast) than when it was low. Fi-
evidenced by 79% of the comparisons being in the direction of nally, individuals loafed less when group valence was high than
reduced collective effort. However, outlier analyses showed that when it was low (p < .001). Similarly, the tendency to engage in
the effect sizes were highly inconsistent in magnitude: 39% of social loafing was reduced when participants were provided
these effect sizes had to be removed to attain homogeneity. This with a group-level comparison standard. Taken together, these
figure is substantially larger than that reported in other meta- findings suggest that enhancing group cohesiveness or group
analyses of social behavior. It is possible that the focus of social identity might reduce or eliminate social loafing and that
loafing research on limiting conditions, combined with the group-level outcomes are indeed valued by individuals in cer-
wide range of tasks and subject populations used, contributed tain situations.
to this relative inconsistency. It is also possible that this incon- Expectations ofco-worker performance. Consistent with the
sistency reflects the complex nature of the phenomenon and predictions of the CEM, individuals loafed when they expected
suggests that social loafing may represent a class of effects with their co-workers to perform well or when no expectations were
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
psychologically distinct causal mechanisms. provided, but did not loaf when they expected their co-workers
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
to perform poorly (low vs. high contrast, p < .005; low vs.
unspecified contrast, p < .001, post hoc). Thesefindings,how-
Theory-Relevant Predictors of Social Loafing ever, do not completely resolve the controversy between the
matching of effort (Jackson & Harkins, 1985) and social com-
The study attributes were examined as predictors of differ- pensation (Williams & Karau, 1991) views. The basic pattern
ences in individuals' coactive versus collective effort. Categori- of findings is consistent with both the CEM and the social
cal models that yielded significant between-classes effects are compensation research, which both suggest that individuals'
presented in Table 4, and significant continuous models are outcomes are more contingent on their efforts when working
presented in Table 5. with others who are expected to perform poorly. However, ef-
Evaluation potential. Consistent with the CEM and with fort levels were not significantly higher collectively than coacti-
evaluation accounts, the tendency for individuals to engage in vely when participants expected their co-workers to perform
social loafing decreased when evaluation potential was held poorly, as has been found in the prior social compensation
constant across the coactive and collective conditions. Thus, work.
individuals were more likely to loaf when their outputs could Nevertheless, a resolution is possible when the role of task
only be evaluated in the coactive condition than when their meaningfulness is considered. Because social compensation
outputs could not be evaluated at all (p < .001) or when their represents a motivation gain, individuals must not only in-
outputs could be evaluated in both the coactive and collective crease their usual collective effort, they must actually work
conditions (p < .001). In fact, social loafing was eliminated harder than they would ordinarily work alone. The logic of the
when evaluation potential was not varied across coactive and CEM suggests that individuals would be unlikely to exert such
collective conditions, as evidenced by the confidence intervals extraordinary effort unless they viewed the task as meaningful
presented in Table 4. These findings are consistent with the and therefore highly valued a favorable outcome. In support of
claim made by Harkins (1987) and others that evaluation po- this notion, when the interaction between expectations of co-
tential is a mediator of social loafing. worker performance and task meaningfulness was considered,
Task valence. As hypothesized, the tendency to engage in a significant motivation gain was found only for the four com-
social loafing decreased as task valence increased. Contrasts parisons in which individuals worked on a meaningful task
showed that the tendency to loaf was greater when task valence with co-workers who were expected to perform poorly (di+ =
was low than when task valence was either high (p < .001) or -0.69, 95% CI = -1.11 to -0.27). These results highlight the
unspecified (p < .06, post-hoc contrast). Also, the tendency to potential of the CEM for predicting situations in which motiva-
loaf was greater when task valence was unspecified than when tion gains might emerge on collective tasks.
task valence was high (p < .001, post-hoc contrast). An examina- Uniqueness of individual inputs. Individuals worked just as
tion of confidence intervals shows that individuals loafed when hard collectively as coactively when their individual inputs to
task valence was low or unspecified, but not when it was high. the collective product were unique, but loafed when their inputs
This suggests that high levels of task meaningfulness or per- were either potentially redundant or completely redundant
sonal involvement might eliminate loafing. Also, given that the (ps < .001). Consistent with the CEM and with the results of
unspecified tasks were likely relatively moderate in valence, Kerr(1983; Kerr& Bruun, 1983) and Harkins and Petty (1982),
these results suggest a direct relationship between task valence individuals may perceive that their efforts are less instrumental
and individual effort on collective tasks. in obtaining valued outcomes when their inputs to the collec-
Group valence and group-level comparison standards. tive product are either dispensable or largely overlapping with
Individuals did not loaf when group valence was high, but those of others.6
loafed in all other conditions. Thus, as predicted by the CEM
and prior theories of self-validation processes in groups, the 6
Although uniqueness and dispensability are often closely related,
tendency to loaf was lower when group valence was high than they are conceptually distinct. A group member's inputs can be indis-
when it was moderate (p < .01), unknown or unclear (p < .05, tinguishable from the inputs of others, yet essential to group perfor-
post-hoc contrast), or low (p < .001). Individuals also loafed less mance. For example, on an additive rope-pulling task, group members'
SOCIAL LOAFING 697
Group size. Simple linear regressions showed that both magnitude of social loafing was also larger in laboratory experi-
group size and the number of task performers present were ments than in field studies. Interestingly, the magnitude of the
positively related to social loafing: Effect sizes were larger for effect did not vary depending on whether (a) the coactive-col-
studies that combined more individual inputs into the collec- lective comparison was made within-subjects or between-sub-
tive product and for studies that had more individuals perform jects. This finding suggests that social loafing does not occur
the task at each session. Most of the theories discussed in the simply because subjects allocate greater effort to coactive trials
introduction would predict group size effects, albeit for differ- than to collective trials (see Harkins, Latane, & Williams, 1980;
ent reasons. Social impact theory and self-attention theory de- Kerr & Bruun, 1981). Finally, the magnitude of social loafing
vote particular attention to group size effects relative to other was not dependent on whether (a) maximizing or optimizing
aspects of social loafing. tasks were used, (b) tasks were additive or compensatory, and (c)
Gender and culture. Consistent with the CEM, the magni- physical, cognitive, evaluative, or perceptual effort was mea-
tude of social loafing was larger in studies that used samples of sured, suggesting that social loafing is robust across tasks.
only male subjects than for studies that used either mixed sam-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ples (p < .05, post-hoc contrast) or samples of only female sub- Impact of Other Variables on Social Loafing
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Table 4
Categorical Models for Objective Effort Effect Sizes
Note. Positive effect sizes indicate that subjects exerted more effort coactively than collectively (i.e., engaged in social loafing). CI = confidence
interval.
" Significance indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity. b Evaluation potential refers to the conditions under which individual outputs
can be evaluated. c Calculated on effect sizes that were, whenever possible, partitioned by sex of subject.
*p<.05. * * p < . 0 1 . ***/?<.001.
SOCIAL LOAFING 699
Table 5
Continuous Models for Objective Effort Effect Sizes
Simple linear regressions Multiple regression
Predictor or outcome b b* b b*
Continuous variables
Date of publication -0.02** -.15 -0.01* -.07
Group size* 0.01* .07 0.01* .07
Number of task
performers presentb 0.02** .12
Categorical variables
Publication formc -0.37** -.28
Culture of subjects11 0.33** .15
Setting of study* -0.21** -.12
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Expectations of co-worker
performance8 0.54** .12
Evaluation potential11 0.67** .46
Additive constant 22.19
Multiple R .59
SE of estimate 2.09
GE1 607.41**
Note. Models are weighted least squares simple linear and multiple regressions calculated with weights
equal to the reciprocal of the variance for each effect size. In the multiple regression model, the predictors
were entered simultaneously. Positive effect sizes indicate higher effort coactively than collectively, b =
unstandardized regression coefficient; b* = standardized regression coefficient; n = 163.
a
Number of individual inputs combined into collective outcome; n = 156. " n = 156. c 0 = journal
article; 1 = unpublished document. d 0 = Eastern; 1 = Western. "0 = laboratory; 1 = field. f 0=low,
moderate, or no basis for determining; 1 = high. % 0 = low; 1 = moderate, no basis for determining, or
high. h Refers to the conditions under which individual inputs can be evaluated; 0 = none, or coactive
and collective conditions (evaluation potential constant across conditions); 1 = coactive only (evaluation
potential confounded across conditions) or unclear. ' Significance indicates model not correctly speci-
fied.
*p<.0\. **p<.001.
simultaneous impact of several of the continuous and categori- ported effort were also included so that supplementary analyses
cal variables. For these analyses, categorical variables were could be conducted. As shown by the measures of central ten-
dummy coded. The relatively large number of categorical and dency in Table 6, subjects' self-reports were in the direction of
continuous variables that produced significant one-way models social loafing, although the magnitude of this effect was very
(and the presence of three or more classes for several of the small and was only significantly different from 0.00 when ef-
categorical variables) restricted the viability of the multiple re- fect sizes were weighted by the reciprocal of the variance and
gression models because the number of potential predictors when outliers were excluded. Moreover, when nonsignificant
was large in relation to the number of effect sizes. Although reports were considered, the effect became even smaller and
none of these models was correctly specified, one particularly was not significantly different from 0.00. Only slightly more
informative model is presented in Table 5. This model entered a than half of the reported differences were in the direction of
number of the most central predictors—namely, date of publi- reduced collective effort. This finding suggests that partici-
cation, group size, publication form, culture of subjects, setting pants are either unaware of the fact that they engage in social
of study, task valence, expectations of co-worker performance, loafing or are unwilling to report that they engage in social
and evaluation potential. All of the predictors in this model loafing.9
were significant, with task valence, expectations of co-worker
performance, and evaluation potential producing especially
large effects. As reflected in the R of .59, this model was moder-
9
ately successful in accounting for variability in the objective A number of factors had a significant impact on the magnitude of
effort effect sizes. the self-reported effort effect sizes. Further information on these analy-
ses can be obtained from Steven J. Karau. In general, however, individ-
uals were less likely to report that they had engaged in social loafing
when (a) the cover story informed subjects that the study was interested
Self-Reported Effort in effort or performance, (b) a within-subjects rather than a between-
subjects design was used, (c) maximizing rather than additive tasks
Although our meta-analysis was primarily concerned with were used, (d) group size was smaller, and (e) studies were conducted
objective effort measures, effect sizes based on subjects' self-re- more recently.
700 STEVEN J. KARAU AND KIPLING D. WILLIAMS
Table 6 social loafing is not a very serious problem in the real world,
Summary of Self-Reported Effort Effect Sizes but instead is restricted to artificially constrained laboratory
Criterion
studies that use trivial tasks. However, a closer examination
Value
reveals that social loafing could indeed have serious conse-
ds with outliers quences for a variety of everyday collective settings. First, the
effect was robust across both maximizing and optimizing tasks
Sample size («) 28
Mean weighted d (d+f 0.11 and across tasks demanding different types of effort (e.g., cogni-
95% CI for d+ 0.00-0.22 tive, physical, or perceptual). Thus, social loafing is not re-
Homogeneity (Q) of ds making up d+b 55.01" stricted to additive, maximizing tasks. Second, although the
Mean unweighted d 0.10 magnitude of the effect was reduced for field studies, for
95% CI for mean unweighted d -0.09-0.29 women, and for subjects in Eastern cultures, social loafing was
Median d 0.00
still significant under all of these conditions. Thus, the effect is
ds excluding outliers not restricted to laboratory studies of American men. Third,
although social loafing was eliminated when participants'
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
n removed outliers0 3
scores could be evaluated collectively and when highly mean-
Mean weighted d (d+) 0.16 ingful tasks were used, it is important to recognize that, in
95% CI for d+ 0.04-0.27 many real-world contexts, individual inputs cannot be reliably
Homogeneity (Q) aids making up d+ 33.10 identified or evaluated and people are frequently asked to work
on mundane or uninspiring tasks. Even within occupations
All reports
that appear to have a great deal of intrinsic value, at least some
Sample size («) 42 important aspects of the work are likely to be repetitive or dull
Mean unweighted d 0.07 (e.g., writing memos or performing accounting and other main-
Differences indicating reduced collective effort 13/24 (.54)
tenance activities). Finally, although social loafing was elimi-
Note. Positive effect sizes indicate that subjects worked harder coac- nated when participants worked with close friends or team-
tively than collectively (i.e., engaged in social loafing). CI = confidence mates, mere acquaintance with one's co-workers was not suffi-
interval; d= effect size; d+= mean weighted effect size; Q= homogene- cient to eliminate the effect. In many (but not all) work
ity of ds. contexts, individuals do not necessarily know their co-workers
* Effect sizes were weighted by the reciprocal of the variance. b Sig-
nificance indicates rejection of the hypothesis of homogeneity. c The or do not interact with them frequently enough to develop high
proportion appears in parentheses. levels of cohesiveness. Thus, social loafing appears to be a prob-
*p<.Q\. lem that is likely to manifest itself in a variety of settings.
The tendency of social loafing research (but not theory) to
focus on limiting conditions for the effect, rather than on un-
Conclusions derlying process, may have led inevitably to the erroneous view
that social loafing is inconsequential. Nevertheless, this ten-
Overview of findings and implications. Our meta-analysis dency to focus on moderating variables does have the positive
shows that individuals tend to engage in social loafing when consequence of suggesting a number of ways in which social
working in groups. Social loafing appears to be moderate in loafing might be reduced or overcome in natural settings: Pro-
magnitude and generalizable across tasks and subject popula- viding individuals with feedback about their own performance
tions. The CEM suggests that social loafing occurs because or the performance of their work group, monitoring individual
individuals expect their effort to be less likely to lead to valued performance or making such performance identifiable, assign-
outcomes when working collectively than when working coacti- ing meaningful tasks, making tasks unique such that individ-
vely. The tendency to engage in social loafing was moderated by uals feel more responsibility for their work, enhancing the cohe-
a large number of variables, and the CEM was quite successful siveness of work groups, and making individuals feel that their
in accounting for the empirical status of these moderators. The contributions to the task are necessary and not irrelevant might
findings of this review have a number of implications for future all serve, under some conditions, to reduce or eliminate social
research and practice. In particular, the review highlights a loafing. Moreover, the specification of these moderating vari-
number of conditions under which social loafing should be ables has theoretical as well as practical importance. Although
more or less likely to occur. For example, individuals are more each moderating variable may be associated with a distinct set
likely to engage in social loafing when their individual outputs of psychological processes, the CEM suggests that all of these
cannot be evaluated collectively, when working on tasks that are variables have one thing in common, that is, they influence
perceived as low in meaningfulness or personal involvement, individuals' perceptions of either the instrumentality of their
when a group-level comparison standard is not available, when efforts for obtaining valued outcomes or the degree to which
working with strangers, when they expect their co-workers to outcomes in a particular setting are likely to be valued.
perform well, and when their inputs to the collective outcome Summary of novel findings. Because this meta-analysis in-
are redundant with those of other group members. In addition, tegrates a rich research literature in which several hypotheses
social loafing is robust across gender, culture, and tasks, al- are well-established, some of our findings confirm long-stand-
though the effect is smaller for women and for subjects from ing predictions. However, our meta-analysis also uncovered a
Eastern cultures. number of novelfindings,some of which are directly relevant to
A superficial evaluation of these findings might imply that areas of controversy among prior researchers. In particular,
SOCIAL LOAFING 701
only a handful of prior studies have directly examined gender, their social loafing in different settings? Does knowledge that
culture, expectation of co-worker performance, and group va- one loafs in collectives affect the likelihood of loafing?
lence, and those studies have produced contradictory results. The CEM generates a number of additional predictions
However, our meta-analysis revealed that (a) the relative magni- about how various factors might interact to determine effort.
tude of social loafing was reduced for women and for subjects Unfortunately, these predictions could not be examined in the
from Eastern cultures, (b) individuals were more likely to loaf current data set because of an insufficient number of compari-
when they expected their co-workers to perform well, and (c) sons (or none at all) in crucial comparison cells. For example,
social loafing was reduced when individuals worked with ac- the CEM suggests that making individual inputs identifiable or
quaintances and was eliminated when individuals worked in providing a comparison standard or performance feedback
highly valued groups. Similarly, although group-level compari- should have a stronger impact when this information has direct
son standards, task meaningfulness, and task uniqueness have implications for the individual's self-evaluation. Thus, the ef-
only been directly examined in a small handful of studies, mak- fects of identifiability of inputs, availability of comparison
ing previous conclusions about these factors tentative, we found standards, and presence of feedback may interact with factors
such as personal relevance of the task, task meaningfulness,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3. Even if outcomes are highly valued, high levels of effort allocation, coalition formation, and cooperation in the prisoners di-
are unlikely when individual behaviors are not instrumental in lemma game. Unpublished manuscript.
obtaining those outcomes. For example, when individual ef- Cates, K. H. (1986). The effects of evaluation, identifiability, and task
forts are dispensable, gender, culture, and individual differ- uniqueness on task performance. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
ences in collectivism and need for belonging should have less tional, 47,1326B. (University Microfilms No. 86-11258).
impact. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., &
Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field
4. Communication among group members should enhance
studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.
collective effort when it enhances perceptions of task impor- Cohen, C. J. (1988). Social loafing and personality: The effects of indi-
tance or social responsibility, but should hinder collective effort vidual differences on collective performance (Doctoral disserta-
when it relays negative task attitudes or contributes to feelings tion, Fordham University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49,
of dispensability. 1430B.
5. Group structural factors and member roles may pro- Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
foundly influence collective effort in ongoing groups by affect- (rev. ed). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
ing perceptions of the instrumentality of one's inputs and the Cooley, R. J. (1991). Adult children ofalcoholics: Interpersonal trust and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
value of various outcomes. For example, leaders and high-sta- social compensation. Unpublished master's thesis, University of To-
tus group members may view their inputs as more instrumental ledo.
to group outcomes, and norms encouraging social responsibil- Cooper, H. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature re-
ity and hard work within groups should have a positive effect on views (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
collective effort, especially in cohesive or highly valued groups. Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup
bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 60-67.
These are just a few of the questions that future research can
Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
attempt to answer. The research reviewed in this article sup-
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
plies a consistent and robust foundation from which to con- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role
tinue this investigation. interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the
distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal ofPersonal-
ity and Social Psychology, 46, 735-754.
References Early, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the
United States and the People's Republic of China. Administrative
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581.
critical advances. New York: Springer-Verlag. Gabrenya, W K., Jr., Latane, B., & Wang, Y. E. (1981, August). Social
Anderson, L. R., & Blanchard, P. N. (1982). Sex differences in task and loafing among Chinese overseas and U.S. students. Paper presented at
social-emotional behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3, the Asian Conference of the International Association for Cross-
109-139. Cultural Psychology, Taipei, Taiwan.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality ofhuman existence: An essay on psychol- Gabrenya, W K., Jr., Latane, B., & Wang, Y. E. (1983). Social loafing in
ogy and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally. cross-cultural perspective: Chinese in Taiwan. Journal of Cross-Cul-
Bartis, S., Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1988). Evaluation and per- tural Psychology, 14, 368-384.
formance: A two-edged knife. Personality and Social Psychology Geen, R. G. (1991). Social motivation. Annual Review of Psychology,
Bulletin, 14, 242-251. 42, 377-399.
Bond, C. E, & Titus, L. J. (1983). Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of Glass, G. V, McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social
241 studies. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 265-292. research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Breckler, S. J., & Greenwald, A. G. (1986). Motivational facets of the Goethals, G, & Darley, J. (1987). Social comparison theory: Self-eva-
self. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook ofmotiva- luation and group life. In B. Mullen & G. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of
tion and cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 145-164). New York: Guilford Press. group behavior (pp. 21-47). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different Greenwald, A. G. (1982). Ego task analysis: An integration of research
at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, on ego-involvement and self-awareness. In A. H. Hastorf & A. M.
475-482. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 109-147). New York:
Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G, & Ostrom, T. M. (1986). Effects of Elsevier North-Holland.
personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social Greenwald, A. G, & Pratkanis, A. R. (1984). The self. In R. S. Wyer &
loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763-769. T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook ofsocial cognition (pp. 129-178). Hills-
Brickner, M. A., & Wingard, K. (1988). Social identity and self-motiva- dale, NJ: Erlbaum.
tion: Improvements in productivity. Unpublished manuscript. Akron, Griffith, T L., Fichman, M., & Moreland, R. L. (1989). Social loafing
OH: University of Akron. and social facilitation: An empirical test of the cognitive-motiva-
Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & tional model of performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. 70.253-271.
Journal of Social Issues, 25(2), 59-78. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1971). Employee reactions to job
Brown, J. D., Collins, R. L., & Schmidt, G. W. (1988). Self-esteem and characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 259-285.
direct versus indirect formsof self-enhancement. Journal of Personal- Hallmark, J. R., & Downs, T. M. (1987, November). Group participation
ity and Social Psychology, 55, 445-453. in the organization: Social loafing as a limitation of group effective-
Caporael, L., Dawes, R., Orbell, J., & van de Kragt, A. (1989). Selfish- ness. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the Speech Communi-
ness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. cation Association, Boston.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 683-699. Harcum, E. R., & Badura, L. L. (1990). Social loafing as a response to
Carli, L. L. (1982). Are women more social and men more task oriented? an appraisal of appropriate effort. Journal of Psychology, 124, 629-
A meta-analytic review of sex differences in group interaction, reward 637.
SOCIAL LOAFING 703
Hardy, C, & Latane, B. (1986). Social loafing on a cheering task. Social Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social di-
Science, 77,165-172. lemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
Hardy, C. J., & Latane, B. (1988). Social loafing in cheerleaders: Effects 819-828.
of team membership and competition. Journal ofSport and Exercise Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative
Psychology, 10,109-114. explanations for the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and
Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Social Psychology Bulletin. 7, 224-231.
Experimental Social Psychology, 23,1-18. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1983). The dispensability of member effort
Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in elimi- and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personal-
nating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology, 11, 575- ity and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94.
584. Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The
Harkins, S. G., Latane, B., & Williams, K. D. (1980). Social loafing: original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
Allocating effort or taking it easy? Journal of Experimental Social 936-941.
Psychology, 16, 457-465. Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psycholo-
Harkins, S. G, & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task gist, 36, 343-356.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
chology, 45,1214-1229. the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of
Harkins, S. G, & Szymanski, K. (1987). Social loafing and social facili- Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
tation: New wine in old bottles. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of Leary, M. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Attributions of responsibility for
personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 167-188). Newbury collective endeavors. InC. Hendrick (Ed.), Review ofpersonality and
Park, CA: Sage. social psychology: Group processes (Vol. 8, pp. 167-188). Newbury
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social loafing and self-evalua- Park, CA: Sage.
tion with an objective standard. Journal ofExperimental Social Psy- Lepper, M., & Greene, D. (Eds.). (1978). The hidden costs of reward.
chology, 24, 354-365. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evalu- Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1987). Social comparison and out-
ation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934-941. come evaluation in group contexts. In J. C. Masters & W P. Smith
Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its constructs: A (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relativedeprivation: The-
cognitive model. Motivation and Emotion, 1, 283-329. oretical, empirical, and policy perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hedges, L. V (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science? Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and con-
The empirical cumulativeness of research. American Psychologist, trast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort
42, 443-455. in forming an impression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Hedges, L. V, & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. ogy, 59, 27-37.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Matsui, T, Kakuyama, X, & Onglatco, M. U. (1987). Effects of goals
Hsu, F. L. K. (1970). Americans and Chinese: Purposes and fulfillment and feedback on performance in groups. Journal ofApplied Psychol-
in great civilization (2nd ed.). Garden City, NY: Natural History ogy, 72,407-415.
Press. McGovern, J. M. (1986). The role of insight in the reduction of social
Huddleston, S., Doody, S. G, & Ruder, M. K. (1985). The effect of prior loafing. Unpublished master's thesis, Florida Institute of Technol-
knowledge of the social loafing phenomenon on performance in a ogy.
group. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 16, 176-182. Mullen, B. (1983). Operationalizing the effect of the group on the indi-
Ingham, A. G, Levinger, G, Graves, J., & Peckham, V (1974). The vidual: A self-attention perspective. Journal of Experimental Social
Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Psychology, 19, 295-322.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 371-384. Mullen, B. (1985). Strength and immediacy of sources: A meta-analytic
Jackson, J. M. (1986). In defense of social impact theory: Comment on evaluation of the forgotten elements of social impact theory. Journal
Mullen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 511 -513. of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1458-1466.
Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation
Mullen, B. (1991). The phenomenology of being in a group: Integra-
of the social loafing effect. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychol-
tionsof social cognition and group processes. Journal ofExperimen-
ogy, 49,1199-1206.
tal Social Psychology, 27, 297-323.
Jackson, J. M., & Latane, B. (1982a, May). Obedience: Strength and
Naylor, J. C, Pritchard, R. D., & Ilgen, D. R. (1980). A theory ofbehavior
immediacy of authority and social loafing. Paper presented at the
in organizations. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Min-
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the
neapolis.
theory ofgroups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jackson, 1 M., & Latane, B. (1982b, May). Experimenter immediacy
and social loafing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Paulus, P. B. (1983). Group influences on individual task performance.
Midwestern Psychological Association, Minneapolis. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 97-120). New York:
Jackson, J. M, & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult Springer-Verlag.
tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal ofPer- Peterson, C, Zaccaro, S. J., & Daly, D. C. (1986). Learned helplessness
sonality and Social Psychology, 49, 937-942. and the generality of social loafing. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
Jackson, J. M., Williams, K. D., & Latane, B. (1978, May). The effects of 10, 563-569.
sexual composition and group size on individual effort. Paper pre- Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T, & Kasmer, J. A. (1985, May). Individual
sented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Asso- differences in social loafing on cognitive tasks. Paper presented at the
ciation, Chicago. annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chi-
Johnson, B. T. (1989). DSTAT: Software for the meta-analytic review of cago.
research literatures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G, & Williams, K. D. (1980). The effects of
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). The effects ofgroup cohesiveness diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing
on social loafing and social compensation. Manuscript submitted for view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81-92.
publication. Petty, R., Harkins, S., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of
704 STEVEN J. KARAU AND KIPLING D. WILLIAMS
group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural
Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579-582. contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.
Porter, L. W, & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and perfor- Vroom, V H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
mance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Waller, J. E. (1989). Developmental aspects of self-evaluation and so-
Price, K. H. (1987). Decision responsibility, task responsibility, identi- cial loafing in children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ken-
fiability, and social loafing. Organizational Behavior and Human tucky). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 5574B.
Decision Processes, 40, 330-345. Weldon, E., & Gargano, G. M. (1985). Cognitive effort in additive task
Quintanar, L. R., & Pryor, J. B. (1982, August). Group diffusion of cogni- groups: The effects of shared responsibility on the quality of multiat-
tive effort as a determinant of attribution. Paper presented at the an- tribute judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
nual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washing- Processes, 36, 348-361.
ton, DC. Weldon, E., & Gargano, G. M. (1988). Cognitive loafing: The effects of
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analylic procedures for social research (2nd accountability and shared responsibility on cognitive effort. Person-
ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 159-171.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1986). Meta-analytic procedures for Weldon, E., & Mustari, E. L. (1988). Felt dispensability in groups of
combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental stud- Processes, 41, 330-351.
ies of the sources ofgregariousness. Stan ford, CA: Stanford University
Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T, & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individual-
Press.
ism in everyday social life: The middle kingdom and the melting
Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 79-86.
motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67-81.
Williams, K. D. (1981, May). The effects ofgroup cohesiveness on social
Shepperd, J. A., & Wright, R. A. (1989). Individual contributions to a
loafing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern
collective effort: An incentive analysis. Personality and Social Psy-
Psychological Association, Detroit.
chology Bulletin, 15, 141-149.
Williams, K. D., & Burmont, S. C. (1981, June). A look at social loafing
Shirakashi, S. (1985). Social loafing of Japanese students. Hiroshima
Forum for Psychology, 10, 35-40. in a cognitive task: Individual effort in advertising evaluations. Paper
presented at the First Annual Nags Head Conference, Kill Devil
Sorrentino, R. M., & Sheppard, B. H. (1978). Effects of affiliation-re-
lated motives on swimmers in individual versus group competition: Hills, NC.
Afieldexperiment. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 36, Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a de-
704-714. terrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Per-
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. San Diego, CA: sonality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.
Academic Press. Williams, K. D, & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social com-
Stevenson, C. (1990). Motivating effort under social loafing condi- pensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance.
tions: The effects of private self-awareness on task effort. Disserta- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570-581.
tion Abstracts International, 50, 482IB. (University Microfilms No. Williams, K. D, Nida, S. A., Baca, L. D, & Latane, B. (1989). Social
90-06796) loafing and swimming: Effects of identifiability on individual and
Stroebe, W, & Frey, B. S. (1982). Self-interest and collective action: The relay performance of intercollegiate swimmers. Basic and Applied
economics and psychology of public goods. British Journal ofSocial Social Psychology, 10, 73-81.
Psychology, 21,121-137. Williams, K. D, & Williams, K. B. (1981, August). The development of
Suls, J. M., & Miller, R. L. (Eds.). (1977). Social comparison processes: social loafing in America. Paper presented at the Asian Conference
Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemi- of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Tai-
sphere. pei, Taiwan.
Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evalua- Williams, K. D, & Williams, K. B., Kawana, Y, & Latane, B. (1984,
tion with a social standard. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychol- May). Collective effort in small groups in the United Stales and Japan.
ogy, 53,891-897. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psycholog-
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup ical Association, Chicago.
behavior. In S. Worchel & W Austin (Eds.), Psychology ofintergroup Wrightsman, L. S. (1960). Effects of waiting with others on changes in
relations (pp. 33-48). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. level of felt anxiety. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61,
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: Some social 216-222.
psychological contributions to a theory of mental health. Psychologi- Yamaguchi, S., Okamoto, K., & Oka, T. (1985). Effects of coactor's
cal Bulletin, 103,193-210. presence: Social loafing and social facilitation. Japanese Psychologi-
Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of so- cal Research, 27, 215-222.
cial behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social Zaccaro, S. J. (1984). Social loafing: The role of task attractiveness.
psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181-227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 99-106.
Thompson, J., Jackson, J., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1980). The ef- Zalesny, M. D, & Ford, J. K. (1990). Extending the social information
fects ofcoactor ability on social loafing. Paper presented at the annual processing perspective: New links to attitudes, behaviors, and per-
Graduate Student Conference in Personality and Social Psychology, ceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Columbus, OH. 47, 205-246.
SOCIAL LOAFING 705
Appendix
Studies Used in the Meta-Analysis
Bartis, S., Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1988). Evaluation and per- tion with an objective standard. Journal ofExperimental Social Psy-
formance: A two-edged knife. Personality and Social Psychology chology, 24, 354-365.
Bulletin, 14, 242-251. Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evalu-
Brickner, M. A., Harkins, S. G., & Ostrom, T, M. (1986). Effects of ation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 934-941.
personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social Ingham, A. G, Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V (1974). The
loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763-769. Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance.
Brickner, M. A., & Wingard, K. (1988). Social identity and self-motiva- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 371-384.
tion: Improvements in productivity. Unpublished manuscript. Akron, Jackson, J. M, & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation
OH: University of Akron. of the social loafing effect. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychol-
Cates, K. H. (1986). The effects of evaluation, identifiability, and task ogy, 49,1199-1206.
uniqueness on task performance. Dissertation Abstracts Interna- Jackson, J. M., & Latane, B. (1982a, May). Obedience: Strength and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
tional, 47, 1326B. (University Microfilms No. 86-11258) immediacy of authority and social loafing. Paper presented at the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Cohen, C. J. (1988). Social loafing and personality: The effects of indi- annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Min-
vidual differences on collective performance (Doctoral disserta- neapolis.
tion, Fordham University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, Jackson, J. M., & Latane, B. (1982b, May). Experimenter immediacy
1430B. and social loafing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Cooley, R. 1 (1991). Adult children ofalcoholics: Interpersonal trust and Midwestern Psychological Association, Minneapolis.
social compensation. Unpublished master's thesis, University of To- Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult
ledo. tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal ofPer-
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of sonality and Social Psychology, 49, 937-942.
the United States and the People's Republic of China. Administrative Jackson, J. M., Williams, K. D, & Latane, B. (1978, May). The effects of
Science Quarterly, 34, 565-581. sexual composition and group size on individual effort. Paper pre-
Gabrenya, W K., Jr., Latane, B., & Wang, Y. E. (1981, August). Social sented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Asso-
loafing among Chinese overseas and U.S. students. Paper presented at ciation, Chicago.
the Asian Conference of the International Association for Cross- Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). The effects ofgroup cohesiveness
Cultural Psychology, Taipei, Taiwan. on social loafing and social compensation. Manuscript submitted for
Gabrenya, W K., Jr., Latane, B., & Wang, Y. E. (1983). Social loafing in publication.
cross-cultural perspective: Chinese in Taiwan. Journal o] Cross-Cul- Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social di-
tural Psychology, 14, 368-384. lemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
Gabrenya, W K., Wang, T. E., & Latane, B. (1985). Social loafing on an 819-828.
optimizing task: Cross-cultural differences among Chinese and Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative
Americans. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16, 223-242. explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psy-
Griffith, T. L., Fichman, M., & Moreland, R. L. (1989). Social loafing chology Bulletin, 7, 224-231.
and social facilitation: An empirical test of the cognitive-motiva- Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1983). The dispensability of member effort
tional model of performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personal-
10, 253-271. ity and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94.
Hallmark, J. R., & Downs, T. M. (1987, November). Group participation Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light
in the organization: Social loafing as a limitation of group effective- the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of
ness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communi- Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
cation Association, Boston. Martin, L. L., Seta, J. J., & Crelia, R. A. (1990). Assimilation and con-
Harcum, E. R., & Badura, L. L. (1990). Social loafing as a response to trast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort
an appraisal of appropriate effort. Journal of Psychology, 124, 629- in forming an impression. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychol-
637. ogy, 59, 27-37.
Hardy, C, & Latane, B. (1986). Social loafing on a cheering task. Social Matsui, X, Kakuyama, T., & Onglatco, M. U. (1987). Effects of goals
Science, 77,165-172. and feedback on performance in groups. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Hardy, C. J., & Latane, B. (1988). Social loafing in cheerleaders: Effects ogy, 72, 407-415.
of team membership and competition. Journal ofSport and Exercise McGovern, J. M. (1986). The role of insight in the reduction of social
Psychology, 10, 109-114. loafing. Unpublished master's thesis, Florida Institute of Technol-
Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of ogy.
Experimental Social Psychology, 23,1-18. Peterson, C, Zaccaro, S. I, & Daly, D. C. (1986). Learned helplessness
Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in elimi- and the generality of social loafing. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
nating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 10, 563-569.
575-584. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T, & Kasmer, J. A. (1985, May). Individual
Harkins, S. G., Latane, B., Williams, K. D. (1980). Social loafing: Allo- differences in social loafing on cognitive tasks. Paper presented at the
cating effort or taking it easy? Journal of Experimental Social Psy- annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chi-
chology, 16, 457-465. cago.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task Petty, R. E., Harkins, S. G., & Williams, K. D. (1980). The effects of
uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing
chology, 43, 1214-1229. view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81-92.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social loafing and self-evalua- Petty, R., Harkins, S., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of
706 STEVEN J. KARAU AND KIPLING D. WILLIAMS
group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Weldon, E., & Mustari, E. L. (1988). Felt dispensability in groups of
Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579-582. coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity
Price, K. H. (1987). Decision responsibility, task responsibility, identi- on cognitive effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
fiability, and social loafing. Organizational Behavior and Human Processes, 41, 330-351.
Decision Processes, 40, 330-345. Williams, K. D. (1981, May). The effects ofgroup cohesiveness on social
Quintanar, L. R., & Pryor, J. B. (1982, August). Group diffusion ofcogni- loafing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern
tive effort as a determinant ofattribution. Paper presented at the an- Psychological Association, Detroit.
nual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washing- Williams, K. D, & Burmont, S. C. (1981, June). A look at social loafing
ton, DC. in a cognitive task: Individual effort in advertising evaluations. Paper
Shepperd, J. A., & Wright, R. A. (1989). Individual contributions to a presented at the 1st Annual Nags Head Conference, Kill Devil Hills,
collective effort: An incentive analysis. Personality and Social Psy- NC.
chology Bulletin, 15, 141-149. Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a de-
Shirakashi, S. (1985). Social loafing of Japanese students. Hiroshima terrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Per-
Forum for Psychology, 10, 35-40. sonality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.
Sorrentino, R. M, & Sheppard, B. H. (1978). Effects of affiliation-re- Williams, K. D, & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social com-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
lated motives on swimmers in individual versus group competition: pensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Afieldexperiment. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 36, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570-581.
704-714. Williams, K. D, Nida, S. A., Baca, L. D, & Latane, B. (1989). Social
Stevenson, C. (1990). Motivating effort under social loafing condi- loafing and swimming: Effects of identifiability on individual and
tions: The effects of private self-awareness on task effort. Disserta- relay performance of intercollegiate swimmers. Basic and Applied
tion Abstracts International, 50, 482 IB. (University Microfilms No. Social Psychology, 10, 73-81.
90-06796) Williams, K. D., & Williams, K. B. (1981, August). The development of
Szymanski, K., & Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evalua- social loafing in America. Paper presented at the Asian Conference
tion with a social standard. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychol- of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, Tai-
ogy, 53, S91-897. pei, Taiwan.
Thompson, J., Jackson, J., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1980). The ef- Williams, K. D, & Williams, K. B., Kawana, Y, & Latane, B. (1984,
fects of coactor ability on social loafing. Paper presented at the annual May). Collective effort in small groups in the United States and Japan.
Graduate Student Conference in Personality and Social Psychology, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psycholog-
Columbus, OH. ical Association, Chicago.
Waller, J. E. (1989). Developmental aspects of self-evaluation and so- Yamaguchi, S., Okamoto, K., & Oka, T. (1985). Effects of coactor's
cial loafing in children (Doctoral dissertation, University of Ken- presence: Social loafing and social facilitation. Japanese Psychologi-
tucky). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 5574B. cal Research, 27, 215-222.
Weldon, E., & Gargano, G. M. (1985). Cognitive effort in additive task
groups: The effects of shared responsibility on the quality of multiat-
tribute judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 56,348-361.
Weldon, E., & Gargano, G. M. (1988). Cognitive loafing: The effects of Received February 18,1992
accountability and shared responsibility on cognitive effort. Person- Revision received May 3,1993
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14,159-171. Accepted May 11,1993