Social Loafing

I
Report of tests
Submitted for the fulfillment of Requirement of M. A. Psychology
First Semester
Submitted to :
Department of Psychology
Tribhuwan University,
Kirtipur, Kathmandu
Submitted by
Khima Rijal
Roll No. 23
M.A.1st Semester
Department of Psychology
Tirbhuwan University,
Kirtipur, Kathmandu
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
I: Frustration Tolerance………………………Page 1-5
1. Introduction…………………………….……page 1
2. Method………………………………….……page 2-3
I. Participants
II. Material required
III. Procedure
3. Result…………………………………….……page 4
4. Discussion and conclusion………………….…page 4
5. Reference…………………………..…………..page 5
II: Family climate scale……………………………….…..Page 6-10

1. Introduction…………………………………….page 6
2. Method…………………………………………page 6-9
i. Participants
ii. Material required
iii. Procedure
3. Result……………………………………….……page 9
4. Discussion and conclusion………………………page 9
5. Reference…………………………………...……page 10
III: Sentence completion test…………………………………page 11-15
1. Introduction…………………………...…page 11
2. Method…………………………………...page 11-13
i. Material required
ii. Procedure
3. Result……………………………………..page 13
4. Discussion and conclusion………………..page 13-14
5. Reference………………………………….page 15
Chapter IV: Sexual Attitude scale…………………page 16-21
1. Introduction………………………………..page 16
2. Method……………………………………..page 17-19
ii. Procedure
3. Result……………………………………..…page 19
4. Discussion and conclusion……..……………page 20
5. Reference…………………………………….page 21
V: Social Phobia Scale ……………………………..page 22-
1. Introduction……………………………..……page 22-23
2. Method……………………………………..…page 24-25
ii. Procedure
3. Discussion and conclusion…….………………page25
4. Reference………………………………………page 26
Appendix 1…………………………… questionnaire of Frustration Tolerance
2
Appendix 2……………………………. questionnaire of Family climate scale
Appendix 3……………………………. questionnaire of Sentence completion test
Appendix 4…………………………….. questionnaire of Sexual Attitude scale
Appendix 5……………………………. questionnaire
3
Introduction:
Social loafing refers to a decline in motivation and effort found when people
combine their efforts to form a group product. People tend to generate less output
or to contribute less effort when working on a task collectively where
contributions are combined than when working individually. The consequence is
that people are less productive when working as part of a group than when
working individually.
Understanding when people loaf requires distinguishing between effort (the

contribution individuals make), performance (the product of those contributions),
and outcome (the reward or consequences attached to the performance). With this
distinction in mind, the various circumstances that influence social loafing can be
organized under three broad conditions, and people will loaf when any of the
conditions occur. First, people loaf when they perceive their individual efforts as
unrelated or inconsequential to a good performance. For example, if a student
working on a group project believes that the group will produce a good
performance regardless of whether he or she individually works hard, then he or
she is likely to loaf. Likewise, if the student believes that a good group product is
unachievable regardless of whether he or she works hard, then he or she is likely
to loaf. Second, people loaf when they perceive that the outcome is unrelated to
the quality of the performance. For example, if group members perceive that the
group’s performance will be rewarded regardless of the quality of the group
performance, they will loaf. Likewise, if people perceive that the group’s
performance will go unrewarded regardless of the quality of the group
performance, they will loaf. Third, people will loaf when they do not value the
outcome. More specifically, people will loaf when they perceive the costs of
achieving the outcome exceed any benefits of achieving the outcome. For
example, students may understand that a good group project in a class will receive
an A, but also recognize that the time required to produce a good group project
will impinge on the time they need to study for other classes. Thus, they may loaf
because they are unwilling to sacrifice study time for their other classes to achieve
a good group project. Notably, the finding that people loaf when contributions
cannot be identified also illustrates the third condition. When contributions cannot
be identified, individual contributors cannot be appropriately rewarded for their
high efforts but also cannot be appropriately punished should they loaf.
Gender seems to play a substantial role in social loafing. In 1983, Kerr found that
the male participants of the study were more likely to loaf than the female
participants. Many viewed social loafing as negative and “a kind of social
disease” (Latane et al., 1979 p. 831), several researchers suggested a different
view of it: social loafing as a positive, adaptive trait
4
Social Loafing Does Not Always Occur
It is important to keep in mind that social loafing does not always occur. For
example, Karau and Williams (1997) found that social loafing did not occur for a
cohesive group. Moreover, the findings of their second study suggest that people
may actually make a greater effort when working with coworkers who are low in
ability (a social compensation effect).
Method
Survey method was used to collect the required data. Structured questionnaires
were distributed to the participants and the required information was collected to
measure the social loafing.
The research was conducted with the management students of Lalitpur district,
studying in Bachelors level II semester. 10 participants were taken being 5 male
and 5 female participants and all of them were below 25. All the participants were
different age groups and different caste as well.
i) Materials Required
 Pen/Pencil.
 Social Loafing scale booklet (questionnaire).
ii) Procedures
Subjects were made to seat comfortably. After initial rapport build up the
instruction were provided. Then questionnaires and pens were distributed and the
purpose of the test was explained. They were left to do the task without any
disturbance. Encouragement was provided during the test. Queries were answered
during the task and the participants took nearly 15 minutes to complete the test.
1. Results:
Participants followed the instructions and filled out the questionnaire. No one
participant showed average or high social loafing. All of them fell under low
social loafing. The results from the study are given in the table below:
S.N. Participants Gender Group work Individual Explanation

work Score
Score In Individual In group
Raw T Raw T
5
1 Min M 1 - 4 - Low Social Low Social
Bahadur Loafing Loafing
Chand
2 Dev M 6 6.62 8 22.34 Low Social Low Social

Agarwal Loafing Loafing
3 Prakash M 2 - 4 - Low Social Low Social

Gautam Loafing Loafing
4 Sanjay K. M 9 20.32 8 22.34 Low Social Low Social

Bohora Loafing Loafing
5 Momtaj M 8 15.75 7 18.08 Low Social Low Social

Nadapha Loafing Loafing
6 Sabina F 3 - 4 - Low Social Low Social

Pyakurel Loafing Loafing
7 Sadhana F 5 - 9 26.59 Low Social Low Social

Tiwari Loafing Loafing
8 Sanju F 5 - 7 18.08 Low Social Low Social

Acharya Loafing Loafing
9 Rekha F 3 - 6 13.82 Low Social Low Social

Chhetri Loafing Loafing
10 Roji Karki F 6 6.62 4 - Low Social Low Social

Loafing Loafing
Discussion and Conclusion
Out of the ten participants, all the participants showed low social loafing, not only
in Group score, but also in individual score, which is a pretty good indication.
These young subjects showed a lot of energy and willingness to perform be it in a
group or individual basis.
6
Social loafing has often been characterized as a social disease. However, it is a
disease with a cure. Managers, teachers, and other people who depend on groups,
as well as people working in groups, can reduce or eliminate social loafing by
making sure that each of the following conditions is in place. First, people must
believe that their efforts make a difference and that their contributions are
essential to achieve a good performance. Second, people must perceive a strong
link between performance and the outcome. They must believe that a good
performance (both individual and group) will be rewarded and that a poor
performance will not. Often, this condition requires making individual
contributions identifiable. Finally, the outcome must be important to the
contributors. Moreover, the benefits of achieving a good performance must exceed
the costs of achieving a good performance.
Reference
Alam. Q. G, Srivastava. Ramji, Manual for Social Loafing Scale (1971), Agra,
India: National Psychological Corporation.
Jackson, J. M. & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/group/social-loafing/
http://www.psychologyandsociety.com/socialloafing.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_loafing
7
Introduction:
Locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they have control over
the outcome of events in their lives, as opposed to external forces beyond their
control (Rotter. Julian B. 1954). Rotter gave the construct was Locus of Control of
Reinforcement. In giving it this name, Rotter was bridging behavioural and
cognitive psychology. Rotter's view was that behaviour was largely guided by
"reinforcements" (rewards and punishments) and that through contingencies such
as rewards and punishments, individuals come to hold beliefs about what causes
their actions. These beliefs, in turn, guide what kinds of attitudes and behaviours
people adopt. This understanding of locus of control is consistent. According to
famous psychologist, Philip Zimbardo (1985), A locus of control orientation is a
belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are contingent on what we do
(internal control orientation) or on events outside our personal control (external
control orientation)." Thus, locus of control is conceptualised as referring to a
unidimensional continuum, ranging from external to internal.
While talking about locus of control, there is internal and external locus of
control. Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their
life derive primarily from their own actions. In other words, tend to attribute the
life events internally. For example: If the person passes in an exam, he believes it
was his hard work and since he worked hard he passed and that passing or failing
in exams would come to his preparation for exam. Whereas, People with a strong
external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors, or let's say, they
tend to attribute life events externally. For example: While failing in the exam, the
person tends to blame it all on the examiner's side like bad mood, and irrelevant
question etc.
There are drawbacks to both of these viewpoints, though. An internally-focused

person will be hard on themselves and constantly analyze what they did wrong.
That perspective almost forces these individuals to be hard charging, driven
individuals that at times can assume a take-no-prisoners attitude. Conversely,
those that have an external focus may come off as someone who just does not
accept responsibility. While they are and can be team players, if the result is not a
8
positive one, they will be the first to complain that something outside their
personal control attributed to the shortfall.
Research has found the following trends:
Males tend to have more internal locus of control than females and as people get
older they tend to have more locus of control. People higher up in organizational
structures also tend to have more internal locus of control. (Mamlin, Harris, &
Case,2001)
Sometimes Locus of Control is seen as a stable, underlying personality construct,

but this may be misleading, since the theory and research indicates that that locus
of control is largely learned. There is evidence that, at least to some extent, LOC
is a response to circumstances. Some psychological and educational interventions
have been found to produce shifts towards internal locus of control (e.g., outdoor
education programs; Hans, 2000; Hattie, Marsh, Neill & Richards, 1997).
Method
were distributed to the participants and the required information was collected to
calculate the locus of control.
 Pen/Pencil.
 Locus of control booklet (questionnaire).
ii) Procedures
Results:
9
Participants followed the instructions and filled out the questionnaire. No one
participant showed sole external locus of control. The results from the study are given in
the table below:
Gender Participants Score Locus of Control
Male Dev Agarwal 80 Internal Locus of Control
Sanjay Kumar Bohora 45 Both external and internal locus of control
Min Bahadur Chand 95 Very Strong Internal Locus of Control
Momtaj Nadapha 55 Both external and internal locus of control
Prakash Gautam 50 Both external and internal locus of control
Female Rekha Chhetri 95 Both external and internal locus of control
Sadhana Tiwari 75 Internal Locus of Control
Sabina Pyakurel 40 Both external and internal locus of control
Sanju Acharya 55 Both external and internal locus of control
Roji Karki 70 Internal Locus of Control
Out of the ten participants, two subjects, one male and female showed very high
internal locus of control, three subjects being one male and two females showed
internal locus of control and five participants being three males and two females
showed both internal and external locus of control.
The female participants of this study were found to be having more internal locus
of control than boys and seemed to believe in "Destiny in one's own hands". Even
though none of the participants showed sole external locus of control, as half of
the participants in this study showed both internal and external locus of control, it
can be said some believe in external factors as well such as luck, situational
factors etc while still giving importance to person's own internal temperament and
deeds.
10
Reference
Hans, T. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effects of adventure programming on
locus of control. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 30(1), 33-60.
Hattie, J. A., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T. & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure

Education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that have a lasting
effect.
Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., Case, L. P. (2001). A Methodological Analysis of

Research on Locus of Control and Learning Disabilities: Rethinking a Common
Assumption. Journal of Special Education,
http://study.com/academy/lesson/locus-of-control-definition-and-examples-of-
internal-and-external.html
https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/locus-of-control/
Introduction:
The Leadership Preference Scale aims at measuring one’s degree of
preference for authoritarian or democratic leadership style of the various types of
leadership described in industrial and social setup. The most common form of
leadership classification is on the basis of the manner of exerting influence. From
this point of view two opposite poles are authoritarian and democratic leadership
styles as initially presented by Lewin, Leppitt and White (1939), though some
objections have been raised to the use of value loaded terms ‘authoritarian’ and
‘democratic’.
Leadership is both a research area and a practical skill encompassing the
ability of an individual or organization to lead or guide other individuals, teams or
entire organization. Leaders help themselves and others to do the right things.
They set direction, build an inspiring vision and create something new. Leadership
is about mapping out where you need to go to “win” as a team or an organization
and it is dynamic, exciting and inspiring. The description given by Krech et al
(1962) served as the basis for the construction of items of the scale democratic and
authoritarian types of leadership.
Authoritarian Leadership:
In this leadership style, all decision-making powers are centralized in the leader,
as with dictators. Autocratic leaders do not entertain any suggestions or initiatives
from subordinates. It is more useful in emergency situations where urgency is
required. Also, it is efficient when the subordinates have low skills and
qualifications. It permits quick decision-making, as only one person decides for
11
the whole group and keeps each decision to him/herself until feels it needs to be
shared with the rest of the groups.
Democratic Leadership:
The democratic leadership style consists of the leader sharing the decision-making
abilities with group members by promoting the interests of the group members
and by practicing social equality. It is also called shared leadership. This type of
leadership is quite useful if requires a long-run functioning.
Schwartz (1987) found a high submissiveness among workers in democratic

organizations, but those in autocratic organizations expressed frustration and
anger.
Bales (1970) found two different categories of specialist in work groups. These
are task specialist and social-emotional specialist. The task specialist is concerned
with the achievement of the group goals while the social-emotional specialist is
concerned with maintaining positive social relationship within the group and
motivating the group members to accept the goals of the group. However, a good
leader can combine the two roles.
Method
having likert scale, were distributed to the participants and the required
information was collected to check whether the person has authoritarian or
democratic leadership style.
 Pen/Pencil.
 Leadership preference scale booklet (questionnaire).
ii) Procedures
12
Results:
Participants followed the instructions and filled out the questionnaire. Except for just
one subject, participants seemed to favour democratic leadership style. The results from
the study are given in the table below:
Name Score Leadership Preference
Male Dev Agarwal 84 Above Average Autocratic
Sanjay Kumar Bohora 112 Above Average Democratic
Min Bahadur Chand 120 Highly Democratic
Momtaj Nadapha 103 Moderate
Prakash Gautam 106 Above Average Democratic
Female Rekha Chhetri 101 Moderate
Sadhana Tiwari 94 Moderate
Sabina Pyakurel 117 Above Average Democratic
Sanju Acharya 108 Above Average Democratic
Roji Karki 97 Moderate
Out of the ten participants, one male subject seemed to be having authoritarian
leadership style as he scored 84 in total. One male subject was highly democratic
while two males and two females were above average democratic. Finally, among
remaining four subjects, three females and one male showed 'moderate' (both
authoritarian and democratic) leadership style.
The male participants of this study were found to be having more democratic
leadership style and tended to be more flexible and considerate while leading.
Democratic leadership has proven to be more efficient and sustainable these days
and the democratic leadership idea seemed to have gotten into the subjects.
In my point of view, however, ideal leadership style would be more situational. In
the demanding situation like that of Nepal where the country is in transition phase,
authoritarian leadership style would be more effective. But if it requires long run
leadership, democratic leadership style would be efficient.
13
Despite all these, I believe authoritarian leadership style would bring out results
no matter what the situation, as the commanding nature of this leadership style
demands output from subordinates, and they would be inclined to deliver.
Reference
Bhusan. L. I, Manual of Leadership Preference scale (LP scale). Agra, India:
National Psychological Corporation.
http://www.educational-business-articles.com/authoritarian-leadership/
http://www.icap.gr/Images/Kenexa%20-%20Leadership%20Preference.pdf
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/viewFile/14599/12891&gt
Introduction:
Conflict is described as a social situation where 2 parties struggle with one

another due to incompatibilities in perspectives, beliefs, goals, or values; this
struggle impedes the achievement of predetermined goals or objectives (Stevahn
L. 2005). It has been debated whether conflicts are detrimental or necessary for
social functioning. Some researchers have argued that the few positive effects of
conflict are outweighed by the negative effects, while others have suggested that
conflict can result in better understanding and adoption of effective teamwork. It
is generally agreed that conflicts are inevitable and need to be managed to avoid
negative impacts on the individual or organization (Spector 2008). When
characterized by a process of cooperation and joint resolution, conflict can create
a diverse environment that fosters growth and improves relationships.
Blake and Mouton (Blake R. R, Mouton J. S 1976) developed the Managerial
Grid, a framework of 5 conflict responses graded on 2 dimensions: concern for
people and concern for production. Building on Blake and Mouton's work,
Kilmann and Thomas in 1974 described conflict behaviors using the 2 dimensions
of assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness is the extent to which an
individual tries to satisfy his own concerns. Cooperativeness is the extent to which
an individual tries to satisfy others' concerns. Within these dimensions, 5 conflict-
14
handling modes were described, which paralleled those of Blake and Mouton:
competing, accommodating, avoiding, collaborating, and compromising. These 5
behaviors form the foundation of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict MODE
Instrument (TKI), used to assess conflict styles (Thomas, K. W, 1976).
These two basic dimensions of behavior define five different modes for
responding to conflict situations:
1. Competing is assertive and uncooperative—an individual pursues his own
concerns at the other person's expense. This is a power-oriented mode in which
you use whatever power seems appropriate to win your own position—your
ability to argue, your rank, or economic sanctions. Competing means "standing
up for your rights," defending a position which you believe is correct, or
simply trying to win.
2. Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative—the complete opposite
of competing. When accommodating, the individual neglects his own concerns
to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice
in this mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or
charity, obeying another person's order when you would prefer not to, or
yielding to another's point of view.
3. Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative—the person neither pursues his
own concerns nor those of the other individual. Thus he does not deal with the
conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue,
postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a
threatening situation.
4. Collaborating is both assertive and cooperative—the complete opposite of
avoiding. Collaborating involves an attempt to work with others to find some
solution that fully satisfies their concerns. It means digging into an issue to
pinpoint the underlying needs and wants of the two individuals. Collaborating
between two persons might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn
from each other's insights or trying to find a creative solution to an
interpersonal problem.
5. Compromising is moderate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that
partially satisfies both parties. It falls intermediate between competing and
accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less than
accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding,
but does not explore it in as much depth as collaborating. In some situations,
compromising might mean splitting the difference between the two positions,
exchanging concessions, or seeking a quick middle-ground solution.
Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes. None of us can be

characterized as having a single style of dealing with conflict. But certain people
use some modes better than others and, therefore, tend to rely on those modes
more heavily than others—whether because of temperament or practice.
15
One's conflict behavior in the workplace is therefore a result of both personal
predispositions and the requirements of the situation in which one find oneself.
The TKI is designed to measure this mix of conflict-handling modes.
Method
Survey method was used to collect the required data. Structured questionnaires of
TKI were distributed to the participants and the required information was
collected to check the conflict handling modes of the subjects. The questionnaire
contained 30 statements. The highest obtainable score for each dimension of TKI
in handling conflict is 12 and if the participant scores 6 or more than 6, in any
conflict handling style, that particular style is taken as participant’s conflict
handling style in conflicting situations.
The research was conducted with the management students of Lalitpur
district, studying in Bachelors level II semester. 10 participants were taken being 5
male and 5 female participants and all of them were below 25. All the participants
were different age groups and different caste as well.
 Pen/Pencil.
 TKI booklet (questionnaire).
ii) Procedures
Results:
Participants followed the instructions and filled out the questionnaire. Most of the
participants favoured competing when it came to handling conflicts and least favoured
was compromising. The results from the study are given in the table below:
Name Competing Cooperating Compromising Avoi Accomodating

ding
Male Dev 9 7 8 5 3
Agarwal
Sanjay 1 6 7 7 9
Kumar
Bohora
Min 9 4 8 5 3
16
Bahadur
Chand
Momtaj 9 8 1 7 5
Nadapha
Prakash 8 6 4 8 4
Gautam
Female Rekha 8 7 4 5 6
Chhetri
Sadhana 3 8 6 6 7
Tiwari
Sabina 6 6 7 6 5
Pyakurel
Sanju 9 7 4 6 4
Acharya
Roji 6 5 4 8 4
Karki

Male subjects were found to be favouring compromising style than female,
whereas, females liked avoiding and accommodating conflict handling style more
than males. In competing conflict handling styles, though, the data showed no
contrasts.
In my point of view, however, all these conflict handling styles would be more
situational. Also, little bit of all these styles is needed for handling conflict in
effective manner. Personally, i prefer competing style where one’s target is to
attain the goal by not distracting on other things like emotion, situation etc.
The goal of using the competing conflict style is to win without concern for others'
goals. It is appropriately used when a tough decision must be made in a timely
fashion. A study by Watson and Hoffman (1996) found that low-level managers
often adopt competitive stances in negotiation compared to the collaborative
stances seen in high-level managers.
When people work collaboratively, conflict will always arise. Causes of conflict
include the miscomprehension of communication, emotional issues, personal
history, and values. When the difference is understood and the resultant behavior
properly addressed, most conflict can be settled in a way that provides needed
change in an organization and interrelationships. There are serious consequences
of avoiding or mismanaging disagreements (Harolds).
17
1. Competing is best used:
a. when quick decisive action is vital; e.g., emergencies
b. with important issues where unpopular courses of action need
implementing. such as cost cutting, or enforcing unpopular rules and discipline
c. with issues vital to company welfare when you know you are right
d. to protect yourself against people who take advantage of you.
2. Collaborating is best used:

a. to find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important
to be compromised.
b. when your objective is to learn; e.g., testing your own assumptions,
understanding the views of others.
c. To merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem.
d. to gain commitment by incorporating other's concerns into a consensual
decision.
e. to work through hard feelings which have been interfering with an
interpersonal relationship.
3. Compromising is best used:

a. when goals are moderately important, but not worth the effort or potential
disruption of more assertive modes.
b. when two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually
exclusive goals; i.e., as in labor management bargaining.
c. to achieve temporary settlements to complex issues.
d. to arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure.
e. as a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails to be successful.
4. Avoiding is best used:

a. when an issue is trivial, of only passing importance, or when other more
important issues are pressing.
b. when you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns; e.g., when you
have low power or you are frustrated by something that
would be very difficult to change (national policies, someone's
personality).
c. when the potential damage of confronting a conflict outweighs the benefits
of its resolution
d. to let people cool down; i.e., to reduce tensions to a productive level and
regain perspective and composure.
e. when gathering more information outweighs the advantages of an
immediate decision.
f. when others can resolve the conflict more effectively.
g. when the issue seems tangential or symptomatic of another more basic
issue.
5. Accommodating is best used:

a. when others can resolve the conflict more effectively.
b. when the issue is much more important to the other person than to yourself
- to satisfy the needs of others,
and to show you are reasonable.
18
c. to build up social credits for later issues which are important to you.
d. when continued competition would only damage your cause, i.e., when you
are outmatched and losing.
e. when preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important.
f. to aid in the managerial development of subordinates by allowing them to
experiment and learn from their own mistakes.
Reference
Stevahn L., King J. A. (2005), Managing conflict constructively in program
evaluation. Evaluation.
Spector P. Organ P. E (2008), Introduction: conflict in organizations. .
Blake R. R., Mouton J. S. (1964) Solving Costly Organization Conflict. San
Francisco, CA:: Jossey-Bass.
Kilmann R. H., Thomas K. W. (1977) Developing a forced-choice measure of
conflict-handling behavior: the “Mode” instrument. Educ Psychol Meas.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2931232/#s1title
Desivilya H. S., Somech A., Lidgoster H., (2010) Innovation and conflict
management in work teams: The effects of team identification and task and
relationship conflict. International Association for Conflict Management.
http://www.kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-
instrument-tki
Introduction
The distance between different groups in society and is opposed to locational

distance which includes differences such as social class, race, ethnicity, gender or
sexuality, but also the fact that the different groups mix less than members of the
same group.Bogardus conducted the first study in 1926 and the second study in
1946. Except the change of 1926 in social distance towards Japanese and Chinese
in 1946 (because of Second World War) they maintained the same position of
1926 towards all the other nations.
Sociologist R.E. Park (1923) coined the term social distance for the first time
while describing the observed fact that the kinds of situations in which contact
occurs between a dominant group and subordinates vary in their degree of
19
intimacy like, from Kinship by marriage, residence in the same neighborhood,
work in the same occupation to absolutely no contact.
Affective social distance:
One widespread conception of social distance focuses on affectivity. According to
this approach, social distance is associated with affective distance i.e. how much
sympathy the members of a group feel for another group. Emory Bogardus, the
creator of “Bogardus social distance scale” was typically basing his scale on this
subjective affective conception of social distance.
Normative social distance:
A second approach views social distance as a normative category. It refers to the
widely accepted and often consciously expressed norms about who should be
considered as an insider and who an outsider/foreigner. In other words, specify the
distinctions between us, and them. So, normative social distance is different from
affective social distance, because it conceives social distance is conceived as a
non-subjective, structural aspect of social relations.
Interactive social distance:
A third conceptualization of social distance focuses on the frequency and intensity
of interactions between two groups, claiming that the more the members of two
groups interact, the closer they are socially. This conception is similar to the
approach in sociological network theory, where the frequency of interaction
between two parties is used as measure of the strength, of the social ties between
them.
To view these different conceptions as dimensions of social distance, that does not
necessarily overlap. The members of two groups might interact with each other
quite frequently, but this does not always mean that they will feel close to each
other or that normatively they will consider each other as the members of the same
group. So, interactive, normative and affective dimensions of social distance
might not be associated.
Sherif and Sherif(1969) “Social distance is a dimension of interaction
between members of different groups, ranging from intimacy to complete
separation. It is defined by norms governing the situation in which interaction
with members of the out group is permissible.
20
(K. Young) The idea of gradation of one’s own group and its values with respect
to those of another group, which symbolize avoidance on the one hand and
friendliness and close concept on other hand.
Methods
Survey method was used to collect the required data. Booklet of social distance
scale was distributed to the participants and the required information was
collected to see the social distance of the subjects. The questionnaire contained 12
questions. The highest obtainable score for each dimension of TKI in handling
conflict is 12 and if the participant scores 6 or more than 6, in any conflict
handling style, that particular style is taken as participant’s conflict handling style
in conflicting situations.
I) Materials Used
 Pen/pencil
 Questionnaire of social distance scale
II) Procedures
.
1. Results
21
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Humla district of all
subjects
Gende Z- Grade Level of Intimacy and Social
Name
r Score Distance
Male Dev Agarwal +2.34 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Sanjay Kumar Bohora <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Min Bahadur Chand <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Momtaj Nadapha +2.34 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Prakash Gautam +1.96 B High Social Intimacy
Femal Rekha Chhetri +2.21 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

e
Sadhana Tiwari +2.6 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Sabina Pyakurel +1.96 B High Social Intimacy
Sanju Acharya +2.6 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Roji Karki +1.96 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Jumla district of all

subjects
Name
r Score Distance
Sanjay Kumar Bohora +1.32 B High Social Intimacy
Prakash Gautam +2.47 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Femal Rekha Chhetri +1.83 B High Social Intimacy

e
Sabina Pyakurel +2.6 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
22
Sanju Acharya <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Roji Karki <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Kailali district of all

subjects
Name
r Score Distance
Male Dev Agarwal <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Momtaj Nadapha <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Prakash Gautam <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Femal Rekha Chhetri <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

e
Sabina Pyakurel <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Dang district of all

subjects
Name
r Score Distance
Min Bahadur Chand +2.6 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
23
e
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Gorkha district of all

subjects
Name
r Score Distance
Sanjay Kumar Bohora +2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

e
Sadhana Tiwari <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Lamjung district of all

subjects
Name
r Score Distance
24
Momtaj Nadapha +1.7 B High Social Intimacy
Femal Rekha Chhetri +1.96 B High Social Intimacy

e
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Dolpa district of all

subjects
Name
r Score Distance

e
Roji Karki +2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Jhapa district of all

subjects
Name
r Score Distance
Male Dev Agarwal +1.7 B High Social Intimacy
25

e
Roji Karki -1.62 F High Social Distance
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Morang district of all

subjects
Name
r Score Distance
Male Dev Agarwal +1.7 B High Social Intimacy

e
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Sunsari district of all

subjects
26
Name
r Score Distance

e
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Okhaldhunga district

of all subjects
Name
r Score Distance
Sanjay Kumar Bohora +1.19 C Above Average Intimacy

e
27
Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Ramechhap district of
all subjects
Name
r Score Distance

e
Sanju Acharya +1.83 A High Social Intimacy
From the above tables, subject typically felt social intimacy to the people of
almost all the district, except for one participant who showed high social distance
towards Jhapa district. Apart from that no other evidence of social distance was
found. One of the participant showed Above average intimacy towards
Okhaldhunga district and besides that participant showed either high or in most of
the cases extremely high social intimacy to the people of twelve different districts.
Discussion and Conclusions
The main purpose of the study was to find out the level of intimacy from average
to high and level of social distance from average to high of different individuals. It
was found that except one subject, everyone showed high intimacy instead,
maximum subjects were found to be having extremely high social intimacy.
In context of Nepal, as we know we have seventy five different districts having
each district’ own identity and culture of their own and it is obvious that it would
28
be very difficult to cope among people from other districts though we agreed to be
in next level of generation, but even then, the study showed otherwise.
Hartley (1946) and Spoerl (1951). It is thus concluded that persons
irrespective of their occupation, education, income and race have the same pattern
of social distance and the most striking aspect of the response of the respondents
is their remarkable correspondence.
Wark and Galliher (2007) attempt to show, for example, that "the invention of the
Bogardus Social Distance Scale was the result of a unique convergence of
biographical and historical circumstances.
So, the study shows that level of intimacy and social distance depends on a
situation on certain cases and only one subject has high social distance where it
would be difficult to live in cordially with other people and maintain the distance
while other participants showed no biasness towards other people from other
districts.
Reference
Manual of social distance scale
Bogardus, E. S. (1947). ‘‘Measurement of Personal-Group
Relations,’’ Sociometry, 10: 4: 306–311
Sharma, Rajendra, Sharma, Rachana (1972). Social Psychology. New Delhi:
Atlantic Publishers and distributors
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., &Algom, D. (2007). Automatic
processing of psychological distance: Evidence from a Stroop task. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 610-622.
Britt, S. R. (1958). 'Social Psychology of Modern Life'. Rinehart and Co. Inc. N.4
29
30

Social Loafing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Loafing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

I

II: Family climate scale……………………………….…..Page 6-10

Understanding when people loaf requires distinguishing between effort (the

S.N. Participants Gender Group work Individual Explanation

2 Dev M 6 6.62 8 22.34 Low Social Low Social

3 Prakash M 2 - 4 - Low Social Low Social

4 Sanjay K. M 9 20.32 8 22.34 Low Social Low Social

5 Momtaj M 8 15.75 7 18.08 Low Social Low Social

6 Sabina F 3 - 4 - Low Social Low Social

7 Sadhana F 5 - 9 26.59 Low Social Low Social

8 Sanju F 5 - 7 18.08 Low Social Low Social

9 Rekha F 3 - 6 13.82 Low Social Low Social

10 Roji Karki F 6 6.62 4 - Low Social Low Social

Discussion and Conclusion

Jackson, J. M. & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks.

There are drawbacks to both of these viewpoints, though. An internally-focused

Research has found the following trends:

Sometimes Locus of Control is seen as a stable, underlying personality construct,

Gender Participants Score Locus of Control

Male Dev Agarwal 80 Internal Locus of Control

Sanjay Kumar Bohora 45 Both external and internal locus of control

Min Bahadur Chand 95 Very Strong Internal Locus of Control

Momtaj Nadapha 55 Both external and internal locus of control

Prakash Gautam 50 Both external and internal locus of control

Female Rekha Chhetri 95 Both external and internal locus of control

Sadhana Tiwari 75 Internal Locus of Control

Sabina Pyakurel 40 Both external and internal locus of control

Sanju Acharya 55 Both external and internal locus of control

Roji Karki 70 Internal Locus of Control

Discussion and Conclusion

Hattie, J. A., Marsh, H. W., Neill, J. T. & Richards, G. E. (1997). Adventure

Mamlin, N., Harris, K. R., Case, L. P. (2001). A Methodological Analysis of

Schwartz (1987) found a high submissiveness among workers in democratic

Name Score Leadership Preference

Male Dev Agarwal 84 Above Average Autocratic

Sanjay Kumar Bohora 112 Above Average Democratic

Min Bahadur Chand 120 Highly Democratic

Momtaj Nadapha 103 Moderate

Prakash Gautam 106 Above Average Democratic

Female Rekha Chhetri 101 Moderate

Sadhana Tiwari 94 Moderate

Sabina Pyakurel 117 Above Average Democratic

Sanju Acharya 108 Above Average Democratic

Roji Karki 97 Moderate

Discussion and Conclusion

Conflict is described as a social situation where 2 parties struggle with one

Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes. None of us can be

Name Competing Cooperating Compromising Avoi Accomodating

Discussion and Conclusion

2. Collaborating is best used:

3. Compromising is best used:

4. Avoiding is best used:

5. Accommodating is best used:

The distance between different groups in society and is opposed to locational

Sanjay Kumar Bohora <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

Min Bahadur Chand <+2.73 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

Momtaj Nadapha +2.34 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

Prakash Gautam +1.96 B High Social Intimacy

Femal Rekha Chhetri +2.21 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

Sabina Pyakurel +1.96 B High Social Intimacy

Sanju Acharya +2.6 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

Roji Karki +1.96 A Extremely High Social Intimacy

Table of interpretation of social distance/ social intimacy of Jumla district of all

Sanjay Kumar Bohora +1.32 B High Social Intimacy