what is social loafing essay

Social Loafing in Psychology: Definition, Examples & Theory

Riley Hoffman

Lab Manager at Yale University

B.A., Psychology, Harvard University

Riley Hoffman is the Lab Manager for the Emotion, Health, and Psychophysiology Lab at Yale University. She graduated from Harvard University in May 2023 with a B.A. in Psychology. In the future, Riley plans to pursue a Ph.D. in Psychology and/or law school. Her research interests lie at the intersection of psychology, health, and society.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Social loafing in psychology refers to the phenomenon where individuals exert less effort in a group task than when working alone, often due to perceived reduced accountability and shared responsibility.
• Social loafing is more evident in tasks where the contribution of each group member is combined into a group outcome, making it difficult to identify the contribution of a single person.
• Social loafing can be detrimental in workplaces. When everyone does not put in their full amount of effort because they are part of a group, this can lead to reduced productivity.
• Factors influencing social loafing include expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness, and culture.
• The Collective Effort Model (CEM) of social loafing holds that whether or not social loafing occurs depends on members’ expectations for, and value of, the group’s goal.
• Fortunately, there are several ways to reduce social loafing to make groups more productive.

What is Social Loafing?

The Ringelmann effect, or social loafing is a phenomenon which occurs in groups of people that limits the amount of effort that each group member exerts (thus reducing individual productivity).

Social loafing was first identified when French agricultural engineer Max Ringelmann was studying group performance and found that groups (of people and animals) did not meet their potential, defining potential as the sum of the maximum output of each individual acting alone.

This effect was re-examined beginning towards the end of the 20th century and has been actively studied since.

Ringelmann’s Rope-Pulling Experiment

The history of the research into reducing individual effort in collective tasks—now referred to as social loafing—began with a French agricultural engineer called Max Ringelmann (1861-1931).

Ringelmann (as cited in Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Kravitz & Martin, 1986) was interested in how agricultural workers could maximize their productivity.

Ringelmann found that though groups outperform individuals, they usually do not perform to the extent they could if each individual worked at maximum capacity.

For instance, in one study, he had people pull on a rope attached to a pressure gauge and found that the more people pulled, the further below their potential they would perform.

If two individuals could pull 100 units separately, they would pull 186, not 200. Eight people working together could only pull 392, half of their sum potential of 800.

Ringelmann (1913) attributed this phenomenon to two sources: coordination losses and motivation losses.

He believed that coordination loss — “the lack of simultaneity of their efforts” (p. 9) — was the main cause of social loafing, but also acknowledged that in some cases, workers lose motivation due to each man “trusting his neighbor to furnish the desired effort (p. 10).

Throughout the 20th century, many studies were published exploring the causes of social loafing.

Expectations of Co-Worker Performance

The social compensation hypothesis posits that people will work harder collectively than individually when they expect their co-workers to perform poorly on a meaningful task (Williams Karau, 1991).

Jackson and Harkins (1985) conducted a study that manipulated participants’ expectations of how hard their co-workers would work and found that individuals who had low expectations of co-workers reduced their own efforts to maintain equity.

This means that social loafing is more likely to occur when working in a group of high-achievers, as an individual may slack off and allow the other competent group members to do most of the work.

Alternatively, individuals may actually increase their collective effort when they expect their co-workers to perform poorly on a meaningful task, an effect referred to as social compensation.

Evaluation Potential

Many researchers (Harkins, 1987; Harkins & Jackson, 1985; Harkins & Szymanski, 1987, 1989; Kerr & Bruun, 1983) have utilized the concept of evaluation potential to explain social loafing.

This theory suggests that reduction of effort occurs in collective tasks because group members cannot be evaluated individually; they can “hide in the crowd” (Davis, 1969) as they do not give their full effort.

Social Impact Theory

Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979) explained social loafing through the Social Impact Theory .

Latané (1981) describes social impact as: “any influence on individual feelings, thoughts, or behavior that is exerted by the real, implied, or imagined presence or actions of others.”

Lantané’s (1981) social impact theory focused on how individuals can be sources or targets of social influence and claimed that in social loafing experiments, there are few sources and few targets, so the effort of each target decreases.

The theory suggests that when individuals work collectively, social influence is diffused across group members, and each additional group member has less influence as group size increases.

Social Impactstates posits that while the impact of others on the individual increases as the number of people increases, the rate of increase in impact grows less as each new individual is added.

Self-Attention

Mullen (1983) attempted to explain social loafing in terms of the amount of self-attention that individuals maintain during collective versus individual tasks, but this theory has yet to gain empirical support.

This theory states that working on a group, task leads to a decline in self-awareness, whereby a person becomes less aware of their task contribution within a group and are less attentive to task demands.

Arousal Reduction

Jackson and William’s (1985) application of arousal reduction theory asserts that the low effort of individuals during collective tasks can be attributed to the reduction in a drive that individuals feel when working collectively.

They argue that the presence of other co-workers in a group reduces an individual’s motivation to perform a task.

Collective Effort Model (CEM)

Karau and Williams (1993) published a meta-analytic review of 78 such studies in order to integrate the findings of different scientists from across the field.

The meta-analysis found that social loafing is “moderate in magnitude and generalizable across tasks and subject populations” (p. 700).

Karau and Williams’s meta-analysis presented their own integrated model to explain social loafing: the Collective Effort Model (CEM).

The authors created this model by integrating multiple of the partial explanations discussed above, such as evaluation potential and effort matching. It also incorporated variables such as task meaningfulness and culture.

The CEM suggests that two key elements determine individuals’ levels of motivation when working in a group: their expectations regarding their ability to reach the goal and the value they assign to the goal.

Motivation increases when individuals have high expectations and high value for the goal, and motivation is reduced when either variable is diminished. In groups, each individual’s expectations tend to be low since one individual often cannot predict the outcome of the entire group.

Working in a group can also lead to a low value for the goal. According to CEM, this explains why motivation is low in these cases.

Karau and Williams’s meta-analysis supports the CEM; the authors found that variables such as evaluation potential, task valence (intrinsic “good” -ness or “bad” -ness of the task), expectations of co-worker performance, and group size all moderated social loafing effects as the CEM predicts.

For instance, regarding task valence, “the tendency to engage in social loafing decreased as task valence increased” (p. 696). This fits with the CEM, as task valence strongly relates to the CEM element of the value placed on the group’s goal.

The CEM also backs several implications found in studies throughout the meta-analysis. A few examples include findings that “loafing was greater among men than women, in Western countries compared to Eastern ones, and for simple tasks rather than complex ones” (Forsyth, 2009, p. 298).

Reducing Social Loafing

According to Donelson Forsyth (2009, pp. 296-298), several methods can be utilized to reduce social loafing within groups.

Social loafing can be limited by establishing individual accountability, minimizing free riding, encouraging team loyalty, and by assigning distinct responsibilities for each team member.

Establishing Individual Accountability

One factor that increases group productivity is when group members feel that they are being evaluated individually. Increasing identifiability tends to decrease social loafing (Hardy & Latané, 1986).

Minimizing Free Riding

Minimizing free riding is another important step that groups can take to decrease social loafing.

Free riding refers to situations in which group members exert less effort because others will compensate for them, when group members cannot free ride, social loafing decreases because group members feel more responsibility (Kerr & Bruun, 1983).

Assign Distinct Responsibilities

Assign separate and distinct contributions to every team member. Without distinct goals, groups and group members drift into the territory of social loafing with much more ease.

Setting clear goals helps group members be more productive and decrease social loafing (Harkins & Szymanski, 1989). The goals must also be attainable; they should not be too easy but not too difficult.

Encouraging Team Loyalty

Another factor that can greatly affect the presence of social loafing is involvement in the group. Members who feel involved and invested in the group tend to be more productive (Stark, Shaw, & Duffy, 2007).

So, increasing involvement in the group can encourage team loyalty and decrease social loafing.

Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance . Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23 (1), 1-18.

Hardy, C., & Latané, B. (1986). Social loafing on a cheering task. Social Science, 71 (2-3), 165–172.

Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology, 11 (4), 575-584.

Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation: New wine in old bottles. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 9. Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 167-188). Sage Publications, Inc.

Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (6), 934-941.

Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of experimental social psychology, 10 (4), 371-384.

Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (5), 1199-1206.

Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (4), 937-942.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration . Journal of personality and social psychology, 65(4), 681.

Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1), 78-94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78

Kravitz, D. A., Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 , 936-941.

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36 (4), 343-356.

Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing . Journal of personality and social psychology, 37 (6), 822.

Mullen, B. (1985). Strength and immediacy of sources: A meta-analytic evaluation of the forgotten elements of social impact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1458-1466.

Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animés: Travail de l’homme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]. Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique, 2e série—tome XII, 1-40.

Stark, E. M., Shaw, J. D., & Duffy, M. K. (2007). Preference for group work, winning orientation, and social loafing behavior in groups. Group & Organization Management, 32(6) , 699-723

Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance . Journal of personality and social psychology, 61 (4), 570.

Keep Learning

Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article

Karau & Williams (1993) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration

Related Articles

Social Science

Hard Determinism: Philosophy & Examples (Does Free Will Exist?)

Functions of Attitude Theory

Understanding Conformity: Normative vs. Informational Social Influence

Social Control Theory of Crime

Emotions , Mood , Social Science

Emotional Labor: Definition, Examples, Types, and Consequences

Famous Experiments , Social Science

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

What Is Social Loafing? Definition and Examples

Why Working in Groups Can Make Us Less Productive

IAN HOOTON/SPL / Getty Images

• Archaeology
• Ph.D., Psychology, University of California - Santa Barbara
• B.A., Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies, University of California - Berkeley

Social loafing is a phenomenon in which people put in less effort on a task when they are working in a group, compared to when they are working alone. Researchers focusing on the efficiency of groups study why this phenomenon occurs and what can be done to prevent it.

Key Takeaways: Social Loafing

• Psychologists define social loafing as the tendency to put in less effort when working as part of a group, compared to when working individually.
• Social loafing is one of the reasons why groups sometimes work ineffectively.
• Although social loafing is a common occurrence, it doesn’t always happen—and steps can be taken to encourage people to put in more effort on group projects.

Imagine you’re assigned to complete a group project with your classmates or coworkers. Will you work more effectively as part of a group, or on your own?

Some research suggests that people can actually be less effective when they’re working as members of a group. For example, you and your classmates might have difficulty coordinating the tasks. You might divide up the work in an ineffective way, or duplicate each other’s efforts if you don’t coordinate who does what. You might also face difficulties if not everyone in the group puts in the same amount of work—for example, some of your classmates might be less inclined to put in effort on the project, thinking that others’ work will make up for their inaction.

If you’re not a fan of group work, you might not be surprised to know that psychologists have found that this really does happen: people tend to put in less effort when they’re part of a group, compared to when they’re completing tasks individually.

Key Studies

The relative inefficiency of groups was first studied by Max Ringelmann in the early 1900s. He asked people to try to pull as hard as possible on a rope and measured how much pressure they were able to exert while on their own, compared to in groups. He found that a group of two worked less efficiently than two people working independently. Moreover, as the groups got larger, the amount of weight that each individual pulled decreased. In other words, a group as a whole was able to accomplish more than a single person—but, in groups, the amount of weight that each individual group member had pulled was less.

Several decades later, in 1979, researchers Bibb Latané, Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins published a landmark study on social loafing. They asked male college students to try to clap or shout as loudly as possible. When participants were in groups, the noise made by each person was less than the amount of noise that they had made when they were working individually. In a second study, the researchers sought to test out whether merely thinking that they were part of a group was enough to cause social loafing. To test this, the researchers had participants wear blindfolds and headphones, and told them that other participants would be shouting with them (in actuality, the other participants had not been given the instruction to shout). When participants thought they were acting as part of a group (but were actually in the “fake” group and were really shouting by themselves), they weren’t as loud as when they thought they were shouting individually.

Importantly, the second study by Latané and colleagues gets at the reasons why group work can be so ineffective. Psychologists hypothesize that part of the ineffectiveness of group work is due to something called coordination loss (i.e. the group members don’t coordinate their actions effectively) and that part is due to people putting in less effort when part of a group (i.e. social loafing). Latané and colleagues found that people were most efficient when working alone, somewhat less efficient when they only thought they were part of a group, and even less efficient when they were actually part of a group. Based on this, Latané and colleagues suggested that some of the inefficiency of group work comes from coordination losses (which could only happen in the real groups), but social loafing plays a role too (since coordination loss couldn’t account for why the “fake” groups were still less efficient).

Can Social Loafing Be Reduced?

In a 1993 meta-analysis, Steven Karau and Kipling Williams combined the results of 78 other studies to assess when social loafing happens. Overall, they found support for the idea that social loafing occurs. However, they found that some circumstances were able to reduce social loafing or even stop it from happening. Based on this research, Karau and Williams suggest that several strategies can potentially reduce social loafing:

• There should be a way to monitor each individual group member’s work.
• The work should be meaningful.
• People should feel that the group is cohesive.
• The tasks should be set up so that each person in the group is able to make a unique contribution and each person feels that their part of the work matters.

Comparison to Related Theories

Social loafing is related to another theory in psychology, the idea of diffusion of responsibility . According to this theory, individuals feel less responsible for acting in a given situation if there are other people present who could also act. For both social loafing and diffusion of responsibility, a similar strategy can be used to combat our tendency for inaction when we’re part of a group: assigning people unique, individual tasks to be responsible for.

Sources and Additional Reading:

• Forsyth, Donelson R. Group Dynamics . 4th ed., Thomson/Wadsworth, 2006. https://books.google.com/books?id=jXTa7Tbkpf4C
• Karau, Steven J., and Kipling D. Williams. "Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration."  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,  vol. 65, no. 4, 1993, pp. 681-706. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-33384-001
• Latané, Bibb, Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins. "Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing."  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 37, no. 6, 1979: pp. 822-832. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-30335-001
• Simms, Ashley, and Tommy Nichols. "Social Loafing: A Review of the Literature."  Journal of Management Policy and Practice, vol. 15, no.1, 2014: pp. 58-67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285636458_Social_loafing_A_review_of_the_literature
• What Is Social Facilitation? Definition and Examples
• Diffusion of Responsibility: Definition and Examples in Psychology
• What Is the Contact Hypothesis in Psychology?
• What Is Deindividuation in Psychology? Definition and Examples
• What Is Groupthink? Definition and Examples
• Understanding Social Identity Theory and Its Impact on Behavior
• What Is Stereotype Threat?
• What Is Decision Fatigue? Definition and Examples
• What Is Cooperative Learning?
• What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
• What Is the Mere Exposure Effect in Psychology?
• How to Give a Great Group Presentation
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Definition and Examples
• What Is a Cohort Effect? Definition and Examples
• What Is the Zeigarnik Effect? Definition and Examples
• Effective Cooperative Learning Strategies

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How Social Loafing Is Studied in Psychology

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

• First Experiment
• Other Experiments
• How to Reduce

Social loafing describes the tendency of individuals to put forth less effort when they are part of a group. Because all group members are pooling their efforts to achieve a common goal, each member contributes less than they would if they were individually responsible.

Here we discuss how researchers have studied social loafing and what we've learned from these psychology experiments . We also talk about the reasons why people may reduce their effort when in a group, as well as how to reduce this effect.

Example of Social Loafing

Before discussing the research, it's helpful to fully understand what social loafing is. Here's an example to consider.

Imagine that you're a student. If your teacher assigns you a project, you may break it down into workable steps and start it right away. You're responsible for the entire assignment, so you begin taking the actions necessary to complete it.

Now imagine that, instead of it being a solo project, your teacher has assigned you to work with 10 other students. Since you are part of a group, the social loafing tendency suggests that you would put less effort into the project.

Instead of taking responsibility for certain tasks, for instance, you might assume that another group member will take care of them. In some cases, the other members of the group may assume the same, and you end up getting stuck doing the entire assignment yourself.

Ringelmann's Rope-Pulling Experiments

One of the first experiments in social loafing was conducted in 1913 by French agricultural engineer, Max Ringelmann. Ringelmann asked participants to pull on a rope both alone and in groups. He found that when part of a group, people made less of an effort than when working individually.

In 1974, a group of researchers replicated Ringlemann's experiment, with a few small changes. One panel of participants was consistent with Ringelmann's original study and contained small groups of subjects. A second panel consisted of only one real participant; the rest were confederates who merely pretended to pull the rope.

Researchers found that groups containing all real participants experienced the largest declines in performance. This suggested that the losses were linked to motivational factors rather than group coordination problems.

Group dynamics cause all sorts of interesting outcomes and behaviors that you might not see outside of a large group. For example, deindividuation is the idea that you are much more likely to exhibit behaviors outside the norm if you are part of a large group exhibiting those behaviors.

Additional Social Loafing Experiments

Researchers continue to study social loafing to learn more about it, including whether certain factors can influence a person's level of effort when in a group. In a 2005 study, for example, it was discovered that group size can have a powerful impact on group performance.

In this study, half of the groups consisted of four people while the other half consisted of eight. Researchers found that people extended greater individual effort when they were in smaller groups.

This study also found that when group participants worked on a problem while seated at the same table together versus communicating through computers, they felt greater pressure to look busy even when they were not.

In a 2013 study, researchers added to our knowledge bank by finding that the personality traits of group members may impact social loafing as well. This piece of research found that when a team was high in conscientiousness and agreeableness, members tended to compensate for social loafing, resulting in greater team performance.

Research published in 2016 further suggests that social loafing is also present in online communities. It proposes that one of the reasons people may not participate much in online groups, being "lurkers" instead of active participants, is because of this effect.

Causes of Social Loafing

Those of us who've ever worked as part of a group have undoubtedly experienced this psychological phenomenon firsthand. And those of us who've ever led groups have also likely felt frustrated at the lack of effort that group members sometimes put forth.

Why does social loafing occur? Psychologists have come up with a few possible explanations:

• Motivation (or lack thereof) : People who are less motivated by a task are more likely to engage in social loafing when they are part of a group.
• Diffusion of responsibility : People are more likely to engage in social loafing if they feel less personally accountable for a task and know that their efforts have little impact on the overall outcome. This concept is also often used to explain the bystander effect , or the tendency to be less likely to help a person in need when others are present.
• Group size : In small groups, people are more likely to feel that their efforts are more important and will, therefore, contribute more. The larger the group, however, the less individual effort people will exert.
• Expectations : If it is expected that other people in a group will slack off, a person will probably do the same since they don’t want to get stuck doing all of the work. On the other hand, if in a group of high-achievers who seem to be in control of everything, a person might also be more likely to kick back and let others handle the work.

How to Reduce Social Loafing

Social loafing can have a serious impact on group performance and efficiency. However, some actions can be taken to help minimize its effects, such as:

• Assigning individual tasks and responsibilities
• Creating small groups with individual accountability of each member
• Establishing clear standards and rules
• Evaluating individual and group performance
• Highlighting achievements of individual members

Simms A, Nichols T. Social loafing: A review of the literature . J Manage Policy Pract . 2014;15(1):58-67.

Ingham AG, Levinger G, Graves J, Peckham V. The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance . J Experiment Soc Psychol. 1974;10(4):371-384. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90033-X

Chidambaram L, Tung L. Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups . Informat Syst Res . 2005;16(2):149-168. doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0051

Schippers MC. Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness . Acad Manage Learn Educ . 2013;13(1):62-81. doi:10.5465/amle.2012.0191

Amichai-Hamburger Y, Gazit T, Bar-Ilan, et al. Psychological factors behind the lack of participation in online discussions . Comput Human Behav . 2016;55(A):268-277. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.009

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Social Loafing (Definition + Examples)

If you’re here, you may have a research project or some homework that has to do with the term Social Loafing. Have no worries, after reading this article, you’ll have a complete understanding of what social loafing is, how it works, and specific measures you can take to prevent it.

What is Social Loafing?

Social loafing occurs when an individual is doing less when working in a group, as opposed to putting forth full effort if they were alone. Maximillian Ringelmann discovered it in 1913 when he noticed group pulling-power in a tug-of-war was less than the sum of individual strengths.

In fact, the average contribution decreased  each time he added members  to the team.

This phenomenon suggests members put in less effort as group size grows. When you think about it, social loafing makes a mockery of the idea that putting people into teams encourages them to work harder. An entire human resource team could have palpitations by reading this. But don't worry. This is only half the truth - I'll explain more below.

Social Loafing Examples

Tug of war, group homework projects, and an entertainer asking an audience to scream are all examples of social loafing because as you add more people to a group, the total group effort declines.

Tug of War is the perfect example because it's where Maximillian Ringelmann originally found it. He realized that as you add more people to a Tug of War game, the amount of pressure did not scale up perfectly. In fact, the more you add, the less each individual worked. Here's an image to show the overall effort as he added more pullers:

Group homework projects are another great example. We've all seen the meme where one student does all the work and the others get the grade. Those who don't work on the project are considered social loafers.

Examples of Social Loafing in Social Settings

Have you ever been at a concert or an event where the main speaker asks the audience to say something or maybe clap? This is a perfect place for social loafing to happen. Sometimes the speaker may even say "That wasn't loud enough". Interestingly, the same thing happens in tug of war; as you add more people to a group, they are less likely to participate in what the speaker is asking them to do.

Examples of Social Loafing in the Workplace

Have you ever been in a brainstorming meeting with your team and someone lets everyone else come up with solutions? Or worse, they only chime in to shoot down another person’s idea. That’s social loafing. Another example of social loafing in the workplace is simply logging off when members of your team step up to complete the daily tasks shared in a meeting or on Slack. When you’re in a Zoom conference room of 100, it’s easier to feel like you can turn your camera off, grab a snack, or zone out.

Examples of Social Loafing in Sports

But you don’t have to be in a suit and tie or tackle an academic project to see someone “loafing.” When you’re on a team with multiple star players, it may be easy to think that one of them will do the brunt of the work. Someone may not speak up and ask their coach or captain to be involved in big plays or lead the team because they are not in charge or all eyes are on other players.

Social Facilitation vs. Social Loafing

Did you know that social loafing is actually the result of a phenomenon known as “social facilitation?" Social facilitation is the idea that a person’s performance changes when they are around others versus when they are alone. Often, performance increases; however, when groups become larger and larger, performance may decrease (social loafing.)

Social Loafing vs. Bystander Effect

We can also apply this idea to other theories regarding group dynamics. Group projects and tug-of-war require everyone to pitch in. But what happens when you’re in a group and only one person must complete a task? Does social loafing apply here, too? 

Yes and no. A similar effect takes place, one that is infamous for having dire consequences: the bystander effect. 

The bystander effect suggests that when people are bystanders to an emergency, they will feel less motivated to help than if they were alone. For example, if you were the only one in a house with a person who fell down the stairs, you are likely to go over to them and help. But if you’re on a crowded subway and someone falls, you’re not going to rush to their aid. Neither will the person next to you. Or the person next to you. 

I say this has dire consequences because it’s often tied to the story of Kitty Genovese . Kitty Genovese was murdered in 1964 in New York City. Her screams were allegedly heard throughout her crammed Queens neighborhood - but no one came to her aid. Fun fact: this murder eventually led to the 911 system that we use today to report emergencies! 

The same causes behind social loafing could be said to be causes of the bystander effect! 

What Causes Social Loafing?

Team members begin loafing socially when they feel they are not going to achieve much, and therefore conclude that their participation is optional. Here are two main reasons that contribute to social loafing.

Loss of a sense of individual responsibility – Ringelmann’s experiment with a tug-of-war team showed how personal responsibility evaporated according to team size.

The best sports team coaches achieve incredible results when they hold the team together and motivate individual players and as well as the collective. They also know their team needs space to ‘let off steam’ too.

Reduced belief in the value of contributions – If a team member feels their impact will not be worth much - especially in a large team - they may decide to back off and enjoy the ride at the expense of the others.

This is one of the main reasons many of us don’t volunteer for projects, or take up leadership positions. It’s probably also why half the American population stays away from the polls during presidential elections.

In many cases, the individual that is "loafing" may not even realize it.

Also common is the division of "in-group" and  "out-group" members. This is common during homework projects when a small number of students work together and complete a large majority of the work.

Is Social Loafing Inherently Bad? 

A user on the SocialWork subreddit asked “ How much ‘social loafing’ do you engage in? ” They go on to describe social loafing in an office setting as socialization and water cooler talk. But something interesting happens in the comments. Other users do not see social loafing as this terrible, shameful thing. Instead, these breaks are encouraged: 

• “ I don't formally take breaks ( two 15s and a 30) and typically shoot the breeze for about an hour throughout a day. I work at a center for those unhoused and spend 30-60mins a day chilling with clients as well. "Loafing around" with clients or just in the area is a benefit by putting me in a more casual, stress free and approachable environment. It's a win win.”
• “Do we ALWAYS have to be productive? If you get a break, enjoy the F out of that thing. I work from home doing telehealth and I'm eager to get into private practice so I can cut my direct hours down to 20. Indirect hours don't bother me much because I'm usually watching tv and unaware of how much work I might be doing. We were not born to be little worker bees going 24/7, that's just capitalism trying to brainwash you. Work to live, don't live to work. As long as you can cover your rent, food, car payment, ect, then you're doing fine.” 
• “Maybe up to an hour, some days. I consider it absolutely crucial to my ability to do the work that I do. Social work is hard! I absolutely need to spend time talking through problems and getting support from my team. Guess that isn't *totally* loafing, but we certainly do talk about personal things as well. I would be way less productive if I didn't have that support.”

Healthy Socialization vs. Social Loafing

When teams come together, there is bound to be some sort of socialization taking place. “Social loafing” is only a worrisome phenomenon if it completely prevents your team from meeting their goals. Track your team’s progress appropriately. Know that if they are slacking off or socializing around the office, they might just be refueling or taking a break that was well-earned. (Want to learn more about setting goals and timelines effectively? I recommend checking out this post on Parkinson’s Law.) 

How to Manage Social Loafing Through Motivation

There are three ways that we can get our group moving in the right direction. These strategies are collaboration, content, and choice . This plan is a healthy alternative to encouraging competition because it reinforces the collective dynamic. It is important to remember that this works best during collective practices:

• Collaboration means each team member has their own meaningful task. For example, the worst social loafer could be allocated to keeping minutes of meetings and distributing them so they would ‘have no place to hide’.
• Content refers to the importance of a team member’s task, and how well this suits their personal attributes. A person who likes socially engaging could be an ideal person to lead brainstorming sessions. Allocating tasks according to individual talents is a great motivator .
• Choice is however equally important because it puts ownership on the shoulders of the person making that choice. Excessive social loafing will be less desirable to them because they have more important things to do.

The Difference between Individual and Group Decisions

Individual decisions can be best when we need a quick answer within a defined situation. For example, a decision about whether an achievement should be shared on social media is best left up to an individual. (In the best-case scenario, the company has delegated an individual who is in charge of social media.)

Decisions like allowing social media access during work hours are better taken in a group. This is because they are more wide-ranging and open-ended.

Individual Decisions :

• Are based on what the individual knows
• Are taken in isolation without asking other people
• Therefore have no moral power over the group
• Do not encourage interaction within a team

Individual decisions are quick and cheap. They are therefore best suited to situations where something must be done right away.

Group Decisions :

• Are taken by a group using collective wisdom
• Involve the whole group in the process
• Therefore impose a moral power over the group
• Encourage interaction and healthy group dynamics

However, group decisions take time to reach, and are therefore costly. Some of this inefficiency comes down to social loafing.

Social loafing makes a positive contribution to the soft, non-task-related aspects of group functioning. Collaboration, content, and choice provide a great framework for group leaders to manage it.

However, groups should also self-optimize from the bottom up, not be driven from the top. It follows individual members also have important contributions to make towards managing social loafing. If that sounds like you don’t wait, collaborate by choice and make a difference at meetings.

Related posts:

• William Glasser Biography - Contributions To Psychology
• Kurt Lewin Biography - Contributions To Psychology
• Convergent vs Divergent Thinking (Definitions + Examples)
• Choice Theory (Definition + Examples)
• Lewin’s Change Theory (Definition + Examples)

Reference this article:

About The Author

PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow Us On:

Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter

Psychology Resources

Developmental

Personality

Relationships

Psychologists

Serial Killers

Psychology Tests

Personality Quiz

Memory Test

Depression test

Type A/B Personality Test

© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

How it works

Transform your enterprise with the scalable mindsets, skills, & behavior change that drive performance.

Explore how BetterUp connects to your core business systems.

We pair AI with the latest in human-centered coaching to drive powerful, lasting learning and behavior change.

Build leaders that accelerate team performance and engagement.

Unlock performance potential at scale with AI-powered curated growth journeys.

Build resilience, well-being and agility to drive performance across your entire enterprise.

Transform your business, starting with your sales leaders.

Unlock business impact from the top with executive coaching.

Foster a culture of inclusion and belonging.

Accelerate the performance and potential of your agencies and employees.

See how innovative organizations use BetterUp to build a thriving workforce.

Discover how BetterUp measurably impacts key business outcomes for organizations like yours.

A demo is the first step to transforming your business. Meet with us to develop a plan for attaining your goals.

• What is coaching?

Learn how 1:1 coaching works, who its for, and if it's right for you.

Accelerate your personal and professional growth with the expert guidance of a BetterUp Coach.

Types of Coaching

Navigate career transitions, accelerate your professional growth, and achieve your career goals with expert coaching.

Enhance your communication skills for better personal and professional relationships, with tailored coaching that focuses on your needs.

Find balance, resilience, and well-being in all areas of your life with holistic coaching designed to empower you.

Discover your perfect match : Take our 5-minute assessment and let us pair you with one of our top Coaches tailored just for you.

Research, expert insights, and resources to develop courageous leaders within your organization.

Best practices, research, and tools to fuel individual and business growth.

View on-demand BetterUp events and learn about upcoming live discussions.

The latest insights and ideas for building a high-performing workplace.

• BetterUp Briefing

The online magazine that helps you understand tomorrow's workforce trends, today.

Innovative research featured in peer-reviewed journals, press, and more.

Founded in 2022 to deepen the understanding of the intersection of well-being, purpose, and performance

We're on a mission to help everyone live with clarity, purpose, and passion.

Join us and create impactful change.

Read the buzz about BetterUp.

Meet the leadership that's passionate about empowering your workforce.

For Business

For Individuals

The new free rider: How to keep social loafing from ruining your teams

Jump to section

What is social loafing?

What causes social loafing?

What are examples of social loafing.

What impact does social loafing have on teams?

How to reduce social loafing at work

Whether you’re accomplishing something at work or home, you likely know that work gets done faster when you collaborate with others.

But you may have had negative experiences with team collaboration in the past. If you’ve ever felt like you were putting in more than your fair share of work to pick up the slack, then you’ve already encountered social loafing.

But why does social loafing occur when people work together? How can you mitigate its effects as a team member or as a manager? Let’s explore the effects of social loafing and how to escape them.

What is social loafing? 

Social loafing is a term used in social psychology. It’s what happens when someone puts in less effort when they’re judged as part of a group.

This level of effort is lower compared to when the same person is working alone or judged individually. When working alone, many people tend to put in more effort. But when there’s teamwork involved , some people will slack off.

When you look at group performance as a whole, social loafing may not be obvious. It’s only when you take a look at everyone’s individual performance that you can begin to see social loafing in settings like work.

There are several causes of social loafing or social facilitation in a group setting. Some of these factors include:

• Larger group sizes (the larger the group, the smaller an individual’s contribution may seem)
• Lack of clarity for the tasks someone needs to complete
• Lack of motivation
• Lack of accountability
• Assuming teammates will step in to overcompensate for your low output 
• Expecting teammates not to perform well (which decreases team motivation )

Researchers Steven J. Karau and Kipling D. Williams attribute social loafing to the value someone assigns to a goal and what their expectations are for their ability to reach that goal. This is also known as the Collective Effort Model . When working together with members of the group to achieve a goal, two things happen:

• An individual will have a lowered expectancy that their contribution can help achieve the goal
• They don’t value the goal as much as they would individually

Both of these factors work together to decrease an individual’s motivation. This lack of motivation makes them less likely to contribute as much as they’re capable of contributing.

There’s also diffusion of responsibility. Several people share a common responsibility instead of taking on responsibilities for themselves.

Let’s break down some social loafing examples to illustrate how this psychological phenomenon works.

The first example leads back to 1913 when social loafing was first observed in a rope pulling experiment . This experiment was conducted by Max Ringelmann. He was a French agricultural engineer. 

Ringelmann asked people to pull on ropes. He asked people to do this both alone and in groups. He observed the outputs of the rope pulling based on various circumstances. 

During the experiment, Ringelmann noticed people put in less individual effort when they pulled as part of a group. Conversely, per individual, the outputs of the rope pulling were much higher when people pulled on their own. This is why social loafing is also sometimes called the Ringelmann effect.

The Ringelmann experiment was conducted again in 1974 to replicate the effect. The researchers found that performance in the rope pulling significantly decreased when the number of people in a group increased from one to two individuals rather than from two to three. The decrements were insignificant when a fourth, fifth, and sixth member were added.

Social loafing occurs in other types of tasks, too. We all remember working with classmates on a school group work project. Likely not all members of your group put in the same amount of effort to achieve the task. Some members may contribute nothing at all.

Without care to build commitment to a shared outcome , establish norms, and make work productive and engaging, the same thing can happen in group projects at work.

When performance and metrics are judged only at a group level, some team members may not be as motivated to put in their best effort. In some cases, responsibilities may not be assigned with clarity. Some coworkers may not be as invested in the goal as others. This further adds to the social loafing problem.

What impact does social loafing have on teams? 

There are several consequences of social loafing tendencies. First, coworkers putting in less effort will lead to lower productivity . This decrease in productivity will become even lower if more people fall prey to the social loafing phenomenon. 

Social loafing can also hurt employee relations . Resentment can build up between colleagues when some people feel that others aren’t pulling their weight. This resentment and frustration can further deteriorate the productivity output of the team when it leads to team conflicts .

Additionally, social loafing will lead to disappointing results from teams. Performing in a sub-par way can be even more demotivating for future tasks. This is especially true if team members struggle to deal with disappointment. Low team morale can make it difficult to overcome social loafing down the road.

Social loafing can also contribute to burnout for team members who contribute more than their fair share. Individuals who put in extra hours or put too much pressure on themselves to perform may not be able to sustain this effort over longer periods. 

This can also translate into higher turnover rates when burnt-out employees take a leave of absence. They may even decide to pursue their careers elsewhere in hopes of finding a team that’s better suited to their style.

Social loafing is also an important problem within virtual teams . This is because there’s a lack of social control for employees who work from home . Because of the lack of presence of others around employees, there’s no way to observe what they’re doing. This can make it difficult to keep virtual teams accountable.

Reducing the social loafing effect is everyone’s job. Both leaders and team members need to collaborate to increase the participation of social loafers.

How managers can reduce social loafing

Here are five ways that managers can change how they handle their teams to prevent social loafing.

• Break down large groups into smaller teams

Free-riding is more apparent in smaller groups. That’s because each contribution matters more.

In a team of three people, each person contributes 33% of the work. If they do only half of their work, that’s 16.5% of the work that doesn’t get done. Compare this to a team of six, in which someone is responsible for 16.5% of the work. Doing only half of the work in this case only leads to a decrease of 8.25% in productivity.

• Give someone the role of project manager

It’s easier to make the moving pieces of a project transparent when someone takes up the role of project manager . This person can also ensure all tasks are accounted for. 

Managers can take up this role. But they can also delegate to someone who has shown initiative when it comes to leadership and decision-making. Giving this role to someone in the team can also help them feel more committed to the project.

• Clarify roles and objectives

There should be no ambiguity when it comes to who’s responsible for what. It’s also important to achieve cohesiveness and clarity for both group tasks and individual tasks. Unclear roles and objectives can lead to accidental social loafing. How can someone pull their weight when they aren’t even certain of what they need to do?

Make sure everyone on your team knows:

• What outcome the group is working toward and why (understanding impact gives purpose and meaning to the effort )
• What group goals are and how that relates to their individual goals 
• How their work fits into the bigger picture
• What they need to do and who/what depends on them doing it

Clarifying roles and objectives is another great reason why project management matters.

• Meet regularly with each team member to keep them accountable

Make sure every individual is kept accountable. 

Don’t just meet with the team as a whole or judge team accomplishments. Take time every week to meet with every team member individually. Keep track of what each person contributes. Tell them what they’ve done well and what they can improve. 

This will help build a culture of accountability in your team. It’s more difficult to fall into the habit of social loafing when you know you’ll be judged on your individual performance.

• Appreciate individual contributions and accomplishments

Every member of a team should feel like their work matters. When you take time to appreciate individual contributions, you don’t just empower that person — you empower the entire team .

It’s especially important to highlight individual contributions for people who tend to loaf. They’ll be less likely to loaf again if you appreciate what they do when they pull their weight.

How employees can reduce social loafing

Here are three ways you can reduce social loafing as a member of a team.

• Build a sense of belonging

Your team members are more likely to contribute if they feel a sense of belonging . As a member of your team, you can take steps to build that culture.

For example, consider planning a team lunch to build bonds between colleagues. If you’re in a remote team, make sure you use face-to-face communication from time to time. Take the initiative if this isn’t enforced by your manager.

You can also make sure everyone feels included by asking for someone’s opinion when they’ve been quiet for a while.

Don’t be afraid to ask your manager for help nurturing this sense of belonging if you’re struggling to do this on your own.

• Highlight the achievements of your colleagues

Appreciation doesn’t only have to come from managers. As a member of your team, you can take the time to appreciate what your colleagues achieve. 

Make sure you keep an eye out for what others on your team are doing. Point out special achievements by individual members of your team when you notice them. This will further contribute to the sense of belonging that you and your colleagues feel. But it will also help increase morale.

• Resist the temptation to pick up the slack

Make sure you always do your work well. You have a responsibility to your colleagues, your manager, and yourself to contribute your fair share and work toward a common goal. Practice self-awareness to ensure you aren’t loafing without realizing it.

But don’t pick up someone else’s slack if your colleagues fall prey to social loafing. It will be easier for other people to fall into the habit of social loafing if they expect you to make up for it. This can develop into a pattern that’s difficult to break. 

Instead of making up for someone else’s lack of input, consider your other options. Remember that some people may loaf without realizing they’re doing it. In this case, an open and honest conversation can help to curb the habit.

You can also bring your concerns to your manager. Keep in mind that you don’t have to point fingers if you feel uncomfortable doing so. Instead, you can communicate your desire for better accountability in your team. 

Create productive and empowered teams free from social loafing

When your team feels empowered and accountable , each member is more likely to put in their best effort and contribute to a productive outcome. Achieving this requires more planning and better team management, but it’s well worth the effort. 

BetterUp can help you grow your people using the Whole Person Model. Request your custom demo to start the path toward more productive teams.

Thrive in your workplace

Connect with our Coaches to build stronger workplace relationships and cultivate a culture that drives success.

Maggie Wooll, MBA

Maggie Wooll is a researcher, author, and speaker focused on the evolving future of work. Formerly the lead researcher at the Deloitte Center for the Edge, she holds a Bachelor of Science in Education from Princeton University and an MBA from the University of Virginia Darden School of Business. Maggie is passionate about creating better work and greater opportunities for all.

Proximity bias: definition

7 key workplace trends to watch in 2018, a new "belonging tax" is reshaping the employee experience, european workers are lonely and have a 74% stronger intention to quit. learn how to keep them., overcoming distraction in the federal workforce, 6 winning strategies to improve team dynamics, 15 of the best leadership podcasts for professional growth, betterup and workday partner to enhance worker, workplace well-being, your workforce is lonely. it’s hurting your business., similar articles, the success behind virtual teams: the ultimate guide, how to be a good team player: tips for becoming the dreamy coworker, 30 team building exercises for the 2024 workplace, what self-serving bias is and 6 tips to overcome it, what makes a good team, and how can you build one, measure the impact of your deib investment with betterup’s people analytics dashboard, how new manager coaching sets you up for success in your next role, psychological safety: we all know it improves teams, but it can boost careers, too, why always working long hours is ruining your productivity, stay connected with betterup, get our newsletter, event invites, plus product insights and research..

3100 E 5th Street, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78702

• Platform Overview
• Integrations
• Powered by AI
• BetterUp Lead™
• BetterUp Manage™
• BetterUp Care®
• Sales Performance
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Case Studies
• Why BetterUp?
• About Coaching
• Find your Coach
• Career Coaching
• Communication Coaching
• Life Coaching
• News and Press
• Leadership Team
• Become a BetterUp Coach
• BetterUp Labs
• Center for Purpose & Performance
• Leadership Training
• Business Coaching
• Contact Support
• Contact Sales
• Privacy Policy
• Acceptable Use Policy
• Trust & Security
• Cookie Preferences

Social Loafing Psychology Theories & Examples

Human behavior is a fascinating subject, and psychology allows us to delve into the intricacies of how individuals think, feel, and behave in different situations. One intriguing phenomenon that psychologists have explored is social loafing. In this psychologyorg article, we will delve into the concept of social loafing , its definition, underlying theories, and real-life examples. So, let’s embark on a journey to understand the psychology behind social idleness.

Table of Contents

Understanding social loafing, what is social loafing.

Social loafing directs to the phenomenon where people exert less effort when performing in a group compared to when working separately. It is characterized by a reduction in motivation and a decrease in individual performance when individuals believe their efforts will not be individually evaluated or recognized. In essence, people may feel less accountable and inclined to contribute their full effort when they perceive their contributions as less noticeable or valuable.

The Origins of Social Loafing

The concept of social loafing emerged from research conducted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. French agricultural engineer Maximilien Ringelmann was one of the first to observe social inactivity while studying the performance of individuals in group tasks. He noticed that as the group size increased, individual effort and productivity decreased. This led to further investigations into the factors influencing this phenomenon and its implications for various group settings.

Theories of Social Loafing

The free-rider effect.

The free-rider effect theory suggests that social loafing occurs because individuals perceive that their individual efforts will not significantly affect the overall group outcome. When individuals believe that their contributions can be “free-ridden” by others, they may reduce their effort and rely on others to compensate for their lack of contribution. This theory highlights the importance of individual accountability and the perception of fairness in group dynamics.

Sucker Effect

The sucker effect theory posits that individuals may reduce their effort as a response to perceived social inactivity by others. When individuals perceive that their co-workers or team members are not putting in their fair share of effort, they may feel discouraged and become less motivated to invest their full effort. This theory emphasizes the role of social comparison and the impact of perceived inequity on individual motivation.

Equity Theory

The equity approach indicates that people strive for justice and equity in social interactions. According to this theory, individuals compare their inputs (effort, time, skills) and outcomes (rewards, recognition) with those of others. If individuals perceive an imbalance or inequity in the inputs and outcomes among group members, it may lead to social group loafing as a response to restore a sense of equity. This theory underscores the importance of perceived fairness and equitable distribution of rewards in preventing group loafing.

Factors Influencing Social Loafing

Task visibility.

The visibility of individual effort plays a crucial role in determining the occurrence of social idleness. When individual contributions are visible and identifiable within the group, individuals are more likely to exert effort to maintain a positive self-image and avoid the perception of social idleness. In contrast, when individual efforts are not easily discernible or measurable, group loafing tendencies may increase.

Task Identifiability

Task identifiability refers to the extent to which individual contributions are distinguishable and attributable to specific individuals within a group. When tasks are highly identifiable, and individual contributions can be clearly linked to specific outcomes, individuals are more likely to feel accountable for their performance and exhibit reduced colonial loafing tendencies. In contrast, when task outcomes are vague or not easily attributed to individual efforts, social idleness may be more prevalent.

Group size has been found to impact social idleness. As group size increases, individuals may feel less personally responsible for the overall outcome, leading to a diffusion of individual accountability. With a larger number of group members, individuals may perceive their contributions as less essential, resulting in decreased effort. Smaller groups, on the other hand, tend to promote higher levels of individual accountability and engagement.

Individual Accountability

The presence of individual accountability mechanisms can significantly influence social inactivity tendencies. When individuals are aware that their performance will be evaluated and recognized individually, they are more likely to invest greater effort and avoid group loafing. Accountability can be fostered through clear performance expectations, feedback mechanisms, and individual recognition for contributions.

Real-Life Examples of Social Loafing

Group projects and social loafing.

Group projects in academic and professional settings often provide opportunities for social idleness to occur. When tasks are divided among group members, some individuals may exert less effort, relying on their teammates to carry the workload. This can lead to imbalances in effort and reduced overall group performance. It is crucial for group members and project leaders to address social inactivity tendencies and promote a sense of individual accountability and collaboration.

Tug of War Experiment

A classic example of social idleness can be seen in a study involving a tug-of-war game. When individuals pulled on a rope alone, they exerted considerable effort. However, when they participated in a group tug of war, their individual effort decreased, assuming that others would compensate for their reduced effort. This experiment highlights how social idleness can manifest even in physical tasks where individual contributions are observable.

Consequences of Social Loafing

Reduced group performance.

One of the primary consequences of social idleness is a decline in group performance. When individuals contribute less effort, the overall productivity and quality of the group’s output tend to suffer. This can be particularly detrimental in contexts where high-quality outcomes rely on the collective efforts of all group members. Social inactivity can impede the group’s ability to achieve its goals effectively.

Negative Impact on Motivation and Engagement

Social idleness can also have a negative impact on individual motivation and engagement within a group. When individuals perceive that their efforts are not valued or necessary for success, their intrinsic motivation may decline. They may become disengaged, less committed to the group’s objectives, and experience decreased satisfaction with their own contributions. This can create a negative cycle where reduced motivation leads to further social idleness tendencies.

Preventing and Mitigating Social Loafing

Promoting individual accountability.

To prevent social idling, it is crucial to establish mechanisms that promote individual accountability within a group. This can be achieved by setting clear expectations for individual contributions, defining roles and responsibilities, and regularly evaluating and recognizing individual efforts. Creating a culture of personal responsibility and emphasizing the importance of individual contributions can help mitigate social idleness tendencies.

Enhancing Task Identifiability

Enhancing the identifiability of individual contributions within a group can discourage social idleness. Clearly linking specific outcomes to individual efforts and ensuring that individual contributions are visible and measurable can foster a sense of personal responsibility and increase motivation. This can be achieved by assigning specific tasks to individuals, tracking progress, and providing feedback on individual performance.

Establishing a Supportive Team Environment

Creating a supportive team environment is crucial for minimizing social idleness. Encouraging open communication, collaboration, and mutual respect among group members can foster a sense of shared purpose and commitment. Establishing a culture where individual efforts are valued and recognized can motivate individuals to contribute their best, reducing the likelihood of social idleness.

Social loafing is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when individuals exert less effort in group settings compared to individual settings. Understanding the causes, consequences, and factors influencing social idling can help individuals, leaders, and organizations mitigate its negative impact. By promoting individual accountability, enhancing task identifiability, and fostering a supportive team environment, we can encourage active engagement and optimize group performance. Recognizing and addressing social idleness tendencies is essential for creating productive and effective collaborative environments.

Read Also: Conversation topics to talk about with your boyfriend or girlfriend Psychologyorg

Is social loafing a universal phenomenon?

Yes, social loafing has been observed across cultures and contexts, although its prevalence may vary depending on factors such as cultural norms, task characteristics, and group dynamics.

Can social loafing be beneficial in any way?

In rare cases, social loafing can have some positive outcomes, such as providing opportunities for individuals to rest and recharge in situations where the collective effort is not critical. However, in most situations, social idleness hinders group performance and should be minimized.

How can leaders minimize the occurrence of social loafing in teams?

Leaders can minimize social loafing by promoting individual accountability, setting clear expectations, providing feedback and recognition, and fostering a supportive and collaborative team environment.

Are there cultural differences in social loafing tendencies?

Cultural norms and values can influence the prevalence of social loafing. Individualistic cultures, which emphasize personal achievement and autonomy, may experience less social inactivity compared to collectivistic cultures which prioritize group harmony and interdependence. However, individual differences within cultures also play a significant role.

How does social loafing relate to teamwork and collaboration?

Social loafing undermines teamwork and collaboration by reducing individual effort and overall group performance. Understanding social idleness can help teams and organizations implement strategies to promote active engagement, individual accountability, and a sense of shared responsibility in achieving collective goals.

If you want to read more articles similar to  Social Loafing Psychology Theories & Examples , we recommend that you enter our  Social Psychology  category.

I'm Waqar, a passionate psychologist and dedicated content writer. With a deep interest in understanding human behavior, I aim to share insights and knowledge in the field of psychology through this blog. Feel free to reach out for collaborations, queries, or discussions. Let's dig into the fascinating world of psychology together!

Similar Posts

Bullying it’s 8 types and its consequences | psychologyorg

Bullying is a form of abuse present in the school environment among children, adolescents, and young people with a very high prevalence today. It is said that one in four students…

Psychology Heuristics: The Mental Shortcuts

Psychology is a captivating field that delves into the intricacies of the human mentality. Among its many concepts, heuristics stand out as intriguing mental shortcuts that play a crucial role…

Social facilitation psychology definition

The field of psychology encompasses a wide range of fascinating topics that delve into the depths of human behavior and cognition. One such area of study is social facilitation psychology,…

Awkward Questions How to Respond Without Being Offended

Awkward questions” are those that leave us feeling embarrassed or uncomfortable. This post will discuss how to handle awkward questions politely and professionally. We’ve all been there, standing in front…

 Psychological Reversal & How To Overcome It?

In our journey through life, we often encounter obstacles that prevent us from achieving our full potential. These obstacles can manifest as limiting beliefs, and deeply ingrained thought patterns that…

8 ways to stop talking to someone without hurting them

If you want to stop talking to someone without hurting them, the most important thing is, to be honest, and clear with your reasons and intentions, but communicate with them…

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Social Loafing | Definition, Effects, Prevention & Examples

Devon has tutored for almost two years. They have a Bachelor's in Air Traffic Management from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and minored in Aviation Safety and Homeland Security. They also are AT-CTI certified.

Gary has a Master's degree in Counseling Psychology and has been teaching and developing courses in higher education since 1988.

What does social loafing mean?

Social loafing is the lessened participation of one person in a group because they believe that the entirely of the group will achieve the same quality and standard of work whether that individual is involved fully or not. Social loafing is a common occurrence in the workplace and leads to reduced motivation, performance, and quality of work from a team. It is most often found in large groups.

How can you reduce social loafing?

Social loafing is being reduced by companies in many ways. These include giving clear guidelines for individuals to follow, creating smaller groups to work in, and holding employees accountable. Further, organizations may provide guidance for any problems an employee may have and encourage work reviews. They also are rewarding participation and achievement and continuing to challenge employees through incentives to produce the best work possible.

What three things cause social loafing?

Social loafing is caused most often by working in larger group settings. Group size, disbursement of responsibilities among the group, and psychological stress/pressure usually attribute to lower performance in individuals.

Table of Contents

Social loafing definition, what is social loafing, social loafing examples, causes of social loafing, effects of social loafing, how to prevent social loafing, lesson summary.

What is social loafing ? This term can be broadly defined as people within a group whom individually put less effort into a task because they assume that the overall performance of the group will make up for their lack of participation in the final outcome. Members are less likely to put effort towards the group than if they were working alone. Societally, this can cause problems because the accountability of individual workers cannot be identified as easily. In turn, a group may not be able to get as much work done or the quality of the work suffers. Continue reading this lesson to discover more on the theory and effects of social loafing, as well as how to prevent social loafing.

To unlock this lesson you must be a Study.com Member. Create your account

An error occurred trying to load this video.

Try refreshing the page, or contact customer support.

You must c C reate an account to continue watching

Register to view this lesson.

As a member, you'll also get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons in math, English, science, history, and more. Plus, get practice tests, quizzes, and personalized coaching to help you succeed.

Get unlimited access to over 88,000 lessons.

Already registered? Log in here for access

Resources created by teachers for teachers.

I would definitely recommend Study.com to my colleagues. It’s like a teacher waved a magic wand and did the work for me. I feel like it’s a lifeline.

You're on a roll. Keep up the good work!

Just checking in. are you still watching.

• 0:05 What is Social Loafing?
• 0:27 Consequences of Social Loafing
• 1:37 What Promotes Social Loafing?
• 3:18 Culture & Social Loafing
• 3:57 How to Reduce Social…
• 4:55 Lesson Summary

The study of social loafing began in the 1880s with Maximilien Ringelmann , a French agricultural engineer who discovered that work animals in a group did not collectively make the same effort to complete their roles as individual animals did. This resulted in less farming productivity and a loss of profits for farmers. Although he did not publish the findings of his initial experiments until 1913, Ringelmann began the process of experimentation and created the hypothesis of social loafing, which set a groundwork for the further development of the theory. In perspective, the theory is relatively the same presently, but is used to describe individuals within a workplace most commonly.

Theory and Contributions

The theory of social loafing has evolved over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries with specific milestone experiments and hypotheses that have been tested on special research groups. A brief timeline of the development of social loafing theory follows:

• 1882-1887: Maximilien Ringelmann creates the hypothesis of social loafing and tests it using the Rope Pulling Experiment . At this time the phenomenon remains unnamed.
• 1913: Ringelmann publishes the results of his Rope Pulling Experiment and further research begins.
• 1979: A psychologist named Bibb Latane conducts a study involving a large study group creating noise, finding that the group produced a lower average of decibels than individuals performing the same task.
• 1979: Latane coins the term social loafing and publishes the findings of his study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
• 1981: Latane creates the term Social Impact Theory , meaning "any influence on individual feelings, thoughts, or behavior that is exerted by the real, implied, or imagined presence or actions of others."
• 1983: Psychologist Brian Mullen attempts to explain social loafing by stating that individuals pay less attention to themselves while in a group, which undermines their performance, a theory known as self attention.
• 1985: Psychologists Jackson and Williams describe their arousal reduction theory as individuals being less motivated to work as a result of being in a large group whom they assume will contribute more overall.
• 1993: The modern source for explaining social loafing is created by Steven Karau and Kipling Williams , which is called the Collective Effort Model .

Many of the experiments that have been carried out to form our current understanding of social loafing were actually applied in realistic settings. Since the initial testing for this phenomenon was intended to make the farming and agriculture sector more productive, scenarios were created that mimic basic human interactions and tendencies to work within a group to be as productive as possible.

Rope-Pulling Experiment

Ringelmann's most important experiment was by far the Rope Pulling Experiment, also known as the Ringelmann Effect . During this experiment, Ringelmann instructed male participants of similar body build to first individually, then in groups of 7 and 14, pull on a rope for 5 seconds. This experiment was repeated for each grouping and the results recorded by means of pressure being exerted by each person. Ringelmann found that each participant did not exert the same amount of pressure onto pulling the rope, meaning that some of the men relied on others to make up for their lack of participation. Upon further experimentation, Ringelmann theorized that the men who did not participate fully were not at motivated to use their full potential because they were in a group. This is the earliest experimentation in relation to social loafing.

Clapping and Shouting Experiments

In 1979, Bibb Latane conducted a number of tests in which individuals and groups of men were instructed to clap and yell as loudly as possible. Specific tests were completed using headphones and blindfolds to see if they influenced the results, and indeed they did. Once again, Latane discovered just as Ringelmann had that the men were not consistently producing the same individual level of decibels within a group setting as opposed to individually. Latane continued his research by telling the participants that they were in a group, when in fact they were alone. This later confirmed that the participants decreased their effort because an overwhelming majority yelled more quietly than when they were instructed to make noise individually. This became known as Social Impact Theory in 1981.

Social loafing can be caused by a number of factors, most of which directly stem from being involved in a group setting. Primarily, the size of the group contributes to how the individual will feel about participation. The larger the group, the less likely they are to insert their full effort. There is a larger diffusion of expectations and responsibilities amongst the group, meaning more people are expected to collectively contribute to the end result, thereby taking some weight off of the individual. The makeup of the group within a societal organization plays a clear role in how a person will psychologically adapt, as shown in Latane's experimentation. Specific effects that cause social loafing include the "sucker" effect and the Collective Effort Model.

The "Sucker" Effect

A "sucker" is a term for someone who will end up contributing more to a group than any of the other members. This is a very common effect of social loafing if each member believes that they can contribute a bit less because the group will collectively get the work done eventually. One person will normally determine themselves as leader and then pick up the slack of the other group members to get the task done. The "sucker" effect ties directly into the collective effort model.

Collective Effort

The collective effort model (CEM) is the most accurate understanding of social loafing to date. Steven Karau and Kipling Williams published their findings in 1993 based on a number of studies and deemed the results the CEM. The determination very generally states that no matter what the task, setting, or purpose of the objective, members of a group are more inclined to submit to doing less work because they know a collective effort will get the job done just as efficiently. The level of work for each person is supposed to be evenly distributed among them, but some will participate more than others. Unfortunately, this devalues the meaning of the task and can lead to lower performance on an individual level.

On a team level, social loafing encourages negativity in the work setting, further amounting to poor performance, lower work quality, and demotivation. Task groups may be interconnected and the failure of one group to properly execute their responsibilities may cause problems that other groups are unable to account or solve for. Social loafing takes place most commonly in individualistic cultures . Social loafing does not only affect the individuals who are a victim of this phenomenon, however; it can have more serious implications in the bigger picture, including in society and in the economy.

Impact on Society

Societally, social loafing can be demotivating for workers and cause them to become more acclimated to not working as thoroughly as they could be. It also allows for a lessened team morale, causing more than just an individual to be affected.

Impact on the Economy

Economically, social loafing could be an issue in terms of budgeting and allocating of resources properly. Further, groups who do not perform optimally are not contributing as much as possible to market stimulation.

Organizations have acknowledged that social loafing can have very serious effects on work output and performance of their employees. Therefore, they have begun to implement measures to prevent this event from happening. These include:

• Assigning clear responsibilities to each individual and allowing members the choice of which tasks they will be responsible for
• Creating smaller work groups of 4 to 6 members within the same division and reporting to one source
• Creating a team contract , a document to set team expectations and individual responsibilities within the group
• Implementing measures of accountability such as work update meetings to benchmark progress
• Providing for the review of work and assisting in feedback
• Guiding the employees if they become confused
• Challenging and rewarding employees for individual efforts and recognize outstanding achievements
• Encouraging peer reviews and evaluations to further motivate employees

Social loafing is defined as an individual contributing less work in a group setting because they expect the group to collectively output work of the same quality.

• Maximilian Ringelmann was the first person to experiment with the theory, but other important individuals include Bubb Latane , Brian Mullen , Steven Karau and Kipling Williams .
• The term "social loafing" was coined by Latane in 1979, and has since evolved with Karau and William's collective effort model.
• Important experiments along the path to modern knowledge of social loafing were Ringelmann's Rope Pulling Experiment and Latane's Clapping and Shouting Experiment
• Social loafing is caused by a number of factors, such as group size, task diffusion, and the "sucker" effect, and affects places in society and the economy
• Social loafing is preventable. Organizations are taking a number of steps to reduce this instance in the workplace such as outlining responsibilities in a team contract .

Video Transcript

What is social loafing.

Social loafing refers to the concept that people are prone to exert less effort on a task if they are in a group versus when they work alone. The idea of working in groups is typically seen as a way to improve the accomplishment of a task by pooling the skills and talents of the individuals in that group. But, in some groups, there is a tendency on the part of participants to contribute less to the group's goal than if they were doing the same task themselves.

Consequences of Social Loafing

Social loafing has negative consequences for both the group and the individuals in the group. The group dynamic is affected when certain individuals are seen as weak contributors to the group purpose. It tends to split the group and fosters a lack of cohesion. For example, if only five of the eight members of a team are doing most of the work, it will often create an 'in' group (those members that are working hard) and an 'out' group (those members that are not contributing as much). Resentment can easily build between the two factions, causing less productivity and more emotional tension than a cohesive group would experience.

Individuals in the group can also be affected by social loafing. While there is a disparity of effort between members of a group, individuals start to gauge their own effort based on what others are doing instead of maintaining a standard of excellence towards achieving the goal. This lowers the level of satisfaction for the task in all members of the group. For example, if a motivated team member repeatedly feels others are relying on them to do most of the work, they might deliberately reduce their workload or even stop collaborating with group members because they no longer want to feel exploited by the less productive members.

What Promotes Social Loafing?

• Group Size: The larger the group, the more likely it is that social loafing will occur. For example, if you have ten members of a group working on a project, it is easier for individuals who are not motivated or productive to hide because there are more people to pick up the slack.
• Another reason for low motivation is when individuals question the perceived value of the group's goal. If a group member doesn't think the group's purpose is worth their time or energy, their motivation to participate will likely be low.
• Reduced Sense of Contribution: If an individual doesn't feel their contribution matters, they are less likely to assert the effort. A good example of this is voting. Many people say that voting for a cause you believe in is important. But, if a person perceives that too many people will vote against their cause, they may choose to not vote all. They don't think their vote will change the outcome, so why bother?

Culture and Social Loafing

Social loafing is more likely to occur in individualistic cultures like the U.S. as opposed to collectivistic cultures like those found in many parts of Asia. A collectivistic culture puts group goals and collective action ahead of the interests of the individuals in the group. There is less social loafing in collectivistic cultures because the group's welfare is the highest priority. In contrast, individualistic cultures focus on the accomplishments of the individuals in the group. Each member is primarily interested in the rewards and benefits as it applies to their own situation and less concerned about the needs and overall success of the larger group.

How to Reduce Social Loafing in Groups

• Build Good Rapport Among Group Members: When individuals in a group know one another they are more likely to be respectful of the need to share responsibility for the group's task.
• Set Clear and Measurable Goals: Groups that set clear and challenging goals often have a strong sense of purpose that propels all members to feel challenged and productive.
• Develop a Team Contract: A team contract is simply a document the team creates at the start of their task that sets group expectations and individual responsibilities. Giving team members choices about which tasks they will take responsibility for also enhances motivation and ownership of the team's goals.
• Keep Group Size Small: The smaller the group, the less likely group members will be prone to social loafing. The ideal size of a group is between four and eight members. Groups larger than eight run a greater risk of social loafing.

Social loafing is when individuals in groups expend less effort on a task than they would if they were doing it by themselves. Social loafing is more likely in large groups, where motivation is low and where the individuals in the group don't see their contribution affecting the outcome. The good news is that social loafing can be minimized and even avoided by helping group members develop friendly relationships, setting clear and measurable goals, establishing the expectations and responsibilities up front, and keeping the group size small.

Learning Outcomes

Following this lesson, you'll be able to:

• Define social loafing
• Describe the factors that promote social loafing and its consequences
• Explain how culture affects social loafing
• List ways to prevent social loafing

Unlock Your Education

See for yourself why 30 million people use study.com, become a study.com member and start learning now..

Already a member? Log In

Recommended Lessons and Courses for You

Related lessons, related courses, recommended lessons for you.

Social Loafing | Definition, Effects, Prevention & Examples Related Study Materials

• Related Topics

Browse by Courses

• Guide to Becoming a Substance Abuse Counselor
• Praxis Special Education: Core Knowledge and Applications (5354) Prep
• Praxis School Psychologist (5403) Prep
• Common Core History & Social Studies Grades 9-10: Literacy Standards
• Instructional Strategies for Teachers: Help & Review
• Praxis English Language Arts - Content & Analysis (5039): Practice & Study Guide
• CSET Social Science Subtest I (114) Prep
• CSET Social Science Subtest II (115) Prep
• Praxis Marketing Education (5561) Prep
• NY Regents Exam - Global History and Geography: Help and Review
• NY Regents Exam - US History and Government: Help and Review
• NY Regents Exam - US History and Government: Tutoring Solution
• DSST Foundations of Education Prep
• Foundations of Education: Help and Review
• Praxis Biology: Content Knowledge (5235) Prep

Browse by Lessons

• Social Facilitation vs. Social Loafing | Definition & Examples
• Group Status, Social Loafing & Diversity in Global Groups
• Strategies for Making Team Meetings More Productive
• Excessive Force: Definition, Cases & Statistics
• Inevitable Discovery | Definition, Exception & Examples
• Pressing Charges | Definition, Purpose & Process
• Administration of Justice: Definition & Overview
• Grievance in the Law: Definition, Procedure & Policy
• Gun Control Act of 1968 | Overview, Facts & Analysis
• Subpoena Duces Tecum | Overview & Examples
• Hung Jury | Definition, Procedure & Reasons
• Courts of Limited Jurisdiction | Definition & Examples
• Trial De Novo | Definition, Appeal & Hearing
• Bench Trial | Overview & Process
• Prosecutorial Discretion: Definition, Pros & Cons

Create an account to start this course today Used by over 30 million students worldwide Create an account

Explore our library of over 88,000 lessons

• Foreign Language
• Social Science
• See All College Courses
• Common Core
• High School
• See All High School Courses
• College & Career Guidance Courses
• College Placement Exams
• Entrance Exams
• General Test Prep
• K-8 Courses
• Skills Courses
• Teacher Certification Exams
• See All Other Courses
• Create a Goal
• Create custom courses
• Get your questions answered

A Functional Model of Social Loafing: When and How Does Social Loafing Enhance Job Performance?

• Original Paper
• Published: 16 January 2024

Cite this article

• Xin Liu 1 ,
• Xiaoming Zheng 2 ,
• Ying Zhang 2 &
• John M. Schaubroeck 4  

1246 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Many previous studies have documented the detrimental effects of social loafing on others ( inter personal impacts) at the between-person level. However, social loafing may carry underappreciated intra personal functional effects at the within-person level. Our research develops a novel theoretical framework to investigate when and how engaging in social loafing enhances one’s job performance. Drawing on the effort-recovery model and moral cleansing theory, we propose that social loafing may improve subsequent job performance by enhancing recovery and guilt. Specifically, we argue that among employees who experience higher job demands or have higher moral identity, social loafing in the morning enhances their job performance in the afternoon by facilitating recovery or guilt in the morning. Two-wave daily data collected across ten consecutive workdays using the experience sampling method (ESM) supports this model. We discuss how this research identifies a functional basis for social loafing and provides implications for research and practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

When lonely employees are productive: an intervention study on workplace mindfulness and job autonomy

Social Job Stressors can Foster Employee Well-Being: Introducing the Concept of Social Challenge Stressors

“Your help isn’t helping me!” Unhelpful workplace social support, strain, and the role of individual differences

When we used the sample without applying the criterion of sufficient days (i.e., provided data on at least three days; N  = 71 participants, rendering 632 observations), all hypotheses were supported, except that the relationship between morning guilt and afternoon job performance became significant at p  < .10 ( B  = .08, p  = .054).

All results are available upon request from the authors.

Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A. I., Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97 (1), 123–141.

Article   Google Scholar  

Aquino, K., & Reed, A. I. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1423–1440.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands–resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 83 , 309–328.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45–103). Erlbaum.

Google Scholar  

Barkan, R., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2015). Ethical dissonance, justifications, and moral behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6 , 157–161.

Barkan, R., Ayal, S., Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2012). The pot calling the kettle black: Distancing response to ethical dissonance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141 (4), 757–773.

Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 , 408–437.

Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11 (2), 142–163.

Beal, D. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2 , 383–407.

Bennett, N., & Naumann, S. E. (2005). Understanding and preventing shirking, job neglect, social loafing, and free riding. In R. E. Kidwell & C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing Organizational Deviance (Vol. 1, pp. 113–130). Sage.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Blasi, A. (1984). Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning. In W. Kurtines & J. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 128–139). Wiley.

Blasi, A. (1993). The development of identity: Some implications for moral functioning. In G. G. Naom & T. E. Wren (Eds.), The moral self (pp. 99–122). MIT Press.

Bluhm, D. J. (2009). Adaptive consequences of social loafing. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2009 (1), 1–6.

Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage.

Carpini, J., Parker, S., & Griffin, M. (2017). A look back and a leap forward: A review and synthesis of the individual work performance literature. Academy of Management Annals, 11 (2), 825–885.

Comer, D. R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations, 48 (6), 647–667.

Cymek, D. H., & Manzey, D. (2022). Sequential human redundancy: Can social loafing diminish the safety of double checks? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 28 (4), 931–945.

Eder, P., & Eisenberger, R. (2008). Perceived organizational support: Reducing the negative influence of coworker withdrawal behavior. Journal of Management, 34 (1), 55–68.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 500–507.

Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12 (2), 121–138.

Fourie, M. M., Rauch, H. G. L., Morgan, B. E., Ellis, G. F. R., Jordaan, E. R., & Thomas, K. G. F. (2011). Guilt and pride are heartfelt, but not equally so. Psychophysiology, 48 (7), 888–899.

Freund, A. M., & Riediger, M. (2001). What I have and what I do: The role of resource loss and gain throughout life. Applied Psychology, 50 (3), 370–380.

Gabriel, A. S., Koopman, J., Rosen, C. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Helping others or helping oneself? An episodic examination of the behavioral consequences of helping at work. Personnel Psychology, 71 (1), 85–107.

Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., & Butts, M. (2019). Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22 , 969–1006.

George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35 (1), 191–202.

Geurts, S. A. E., & Sonnentag, S. (2006). Recovery as an explanatory mechanism in the relation between acute stress reactions and chronic health impairment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32 , 482–492.

Harkins, S. G., Latane, B., & Williams, K. (1980). Social loafing: Allocating effort or taking it easy? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16 (5), 457–465.

Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43 (6), 1214–1229.

Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology, 6 (4), 307–324.

Hobfoll, S. E., Johnson, R. J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A. P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (3), 632–643.

Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24 (5), 623–641.

Hung, T.-K., Chi, N.-W., & Lu, W.-L. (2009). Exploring the relationships between perceived coworker loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: The mediating role of a revenge motive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24 (3), 257–270.

Hunter, E. M., & Wu, C. (2016). Give me a better break: Choosing workday break activities to maximize resource recovery. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (2), 302–311.

Ilies, R., Peng, A. C., Savani, K., & Dimotakis, N. (2013). Guilty and helpful: An emotion-based reparatory model of voluntary work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (6), 1051–1059.

Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (5), 1199–1206.

Janssen, O. (2001). Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear relationships between job demands, and job performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5), 1039–1050.

Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/aptitude–treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (4), 657–690.

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

Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45 , 819–828.

Kim, S., Park, Y., & Niu, Q. (2017). Micro-break activities at work to recover from daily work demands. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38 (1), 28–44.

Kugler, K., & Jones, W. H. (1992). On conceptualizing and assessing guilt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62 (2), 318–327.

Lam, C. F., Wan, W. H., & Roussin, C. J. (2016). Going the extra mile and feeling energized: An enrichment perspective of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (3), 379–391.

Larson, R. B. (2019). Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61 (5), 534–547.

Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (6), 822–832.

Leary, M. R. (2002). When selves collide: The nature of the self and the dynamics of interpersonal relationships. In A. Tesser, D. A. Stapel, & J. V. Wood (Eds.), Self and motivation: Emerging psychological perspectives (pp. 119–145). American Psychological Association.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004). Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30 (2), 285–304.

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth & H. Thierry (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational psychology: Work psychology (pp. 5–33). Psychology Press.

Mihelič, K. K., & Culiberg, B. (2019). Reaping the fruits of another’s labor: The role of moral meaningfulness, mindfulness, and motivation in social loafing. Journal of Business Ethics, 160 (3), 713–727.

Miles, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Using punishment threats to attenuate social loafing effects among swimmers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56 (2), 246–265.

Miller, D. T., & Effron, D. A. (2010). Psychological license: When it is needed and how it functions. In P. Z. Mark & M. O. James (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 115–155). Elsevier Academic Press.

Monzani, L., Ripoll, P., Peiró, J. M., & Van Dick, R. (2014). Loafing in the digital age: The role of computer mediated communication in the relation between perceived loafing and group affective outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 33 , 279–285.

Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74 (1), 62–87.

Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003). Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations, 56 (1), 61–84.

Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15 (3), 263–280.

Pearsall, M. J., Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2010). Motivating interdependent teams: Individual rewards, shared rewards, or something in between? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (1), 183–191.

Perry, S. J., Lorinkova, N. M., Hunter, E. M., Hubbard, A., & McMahon, J. T. (2016). When does virtuality really “work”? Examining the role of work–family and virtuality in social loafing. Journal of Management, 42 (2), 449–479.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63 , 539–569.

Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., & Gavin, J. H. (2006). Withholding inputs in team contexts: Member composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91 (6), 1375–1384.

Puranik, H., Koopman, J., & Vough, H. C. (2021). Excuse me, do you have a minute? An exploration of the dark- and bright-side effects of daily work interruptions for employee well-being. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106 (12), 1867–1884.

Sachdeva, S., Iliev, R., & Medin, D. L. (2009). Sinning saints and saintly sinners: The paradox of moral self-regulation. Psychological Science, 20 (4), 523–528.

Schilpzand, P., Houston, L., & Cho, J. (2018). Not too tired to be proactive: Daily empowering leadership spurs next-morning employee proactivity as moderated by nightly sleep quality. Academy of Management Journal, 61 (6), 2367–2387.

Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13 (1), 62–81.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3), 456–476.

Simms, A., & Nichols, T. (2014). Social loafing: A review of the literature. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 15 (1), 58–67.

Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (3), 518–528.

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2008). “Did you have a nice evening?” A day-level study on recovery experiences, sleep, and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (3), 674–684.

Sonnentag, S., Binnewies, C., & Mojza, E. J. (2010). Staying well and engaged when demands are high: The role of psychological detachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (5), 965–976.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press.

Tangney, J. P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the self-conscious affect and attribution inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (1), 102–111.

Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (6), 1256–1269.

Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58 , 345–372.

Ten Brummelhuis, L. L., & Bakker, A. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67 (7), 545–556.

Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32 (6), 951–990.

Trougakos, J. P., Beal, D. J., Green, S. G., & Weiss, H. M. (2008). Making the break count: An episodic examination of recovery activities, emotional experiences, and positive affective displays. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (1), 131–146.

Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting met een vragenlijst [The measurement of psychosocial job demands] . Amsterdam, Netherlands: NIA.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103 (1), 18–31.

West, C., & Zhong, C.-B. (2015). Moral Cleansing. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6 , 221–225.

Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 490–495.

Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 (4), 570–581.

Xu, E., Huang, X., & Robinson, S. L. (2017). When self-view is at stake: Responses to ostracism through the lens of self-verification theory. Journal of Management, 43 (7), 2281–2302.

Zhong, C.-B., Ku, G., Lount, R. B., & Murnighan, J. K. (2010). Compensatory ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 92 (3), 323–339.

Zhong, C.-B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313 (5792), 1451–1452.

Zhong, C.-B., Liljenquist, K., & Cain, D. M. (2009). Moral self-regulation: Licensing and compensation. In D. D. Cremer (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on ethical behavior and decision making (pp. 75–89). Charlotte: Information Age.

Download references

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, specifically by Grant 72002214 and Grant 72372151 awarded to Xin Liu and by Grant 72172074 awarded to Xiaoming Zheng.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Renmin Business School, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China

School of Economics and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China

Xiaoming Zheng & Ying Zhang

School of Business Administration, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu, 611130, China

Department of Management, Robert J. Trulaske, Sr. College of Business, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA

John M. Schaubroeck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu Yu .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests.

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Liu, X., Zheng, X., Yu, Y. et al. A Functional Model of Social Loafing: When and How Does Social Loafing Enhance Job Performance?. J Bus Ethics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05599-3

Download citation

Received : 18 November 2022

Accepted : 10 December 2023

Published : 16 January 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05599-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social loafing
• Job demands
• Moral identity
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

•  Sign into My Research
•  Create My Research Account
• Company Website
• Our Products
• About Dissertations
• Español (España)
• Support Center

Find your institution

Examples: State University, [email protected]

Other access options

• More options

Select language

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Português (Brasil)
• Português (Portugal)

Welcome to My Research!

You may have access to the free features available through My Research. You can save searches, save documents, create alerts and more. Please log in through your library or institution to check if you have access.

Translate this article into 20 different languages!

If you log in through your library or institution you might have access to this article in multiple languages.

Get access to 20+ different citations styles

Styles include MLA, APA, Chicago and many more. This feature may be available for free if you log in through your library or institution.

Looking for a PDF of this document?

You may have access to it for free by logging in through your library or institution.

Want to save this document?

You may have access to different export options including Google Drive and Microsoft OneDrive and citation management tools like RefWorks and EasyBib. Try logging in through your library or institution to get access to these tools.

• More like this
• Preview Available
• Scholarly Journal

Social Loafing: A Review of the Literature

No items selected.

Please select one or more items.

You might have access to the full article...

Try and log in through your institution to see if they have access to the full text.

Content area

Social loafing is a phenomenon that has been discussed and researched since 1913. Though it has been long examined, recent technological developments offer ample opportunity for further study. This paper summarizes its long history of research and offers several propositions for future research.

INTRODUCTION

In 1913 a phenomenon was found that, at the time, did not receive sufficient attention. Maximilien Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer, observed that when a group of people collectively pulled on a rope, the output was less than when group members individually pulled on the rope (Kravitz and Martin, 1986; Ringelmann, 1913). The results of this finding were not considered further until 1974 when Ingham, Levinger, Graves, and Peckham recreated the experiment. The term "social loafing" was coined for the discovery that participants working in groups exert less effort than participants working individually. It was described as having a detrimental effect on individuals and the institutions associated with them (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). From there, the research evolved into five distinct categories: 1) establishing the existence of social loafing in both physical and cognitive group projects, 2) causes and deterrents of social loafing, 3) partner adaptation to group member social loafing (such as the "Sucker Effect"), 4) social loafing as a positive mechanism, and finally 5) social loafing in modern technology.

ESTABLISHING SOCIAL LOAFING EXISTS

The origins of social loafing begin with "The Ringelmann Effect," which describes the tendency for individuals to lower their productivity when in a group (Ringlemann, 1913); Ingham, Levinger, Graves and Peckham relabeled this effect "social loafing" when they were successful in demonstrating individual effort declines in a curvilinear fashion when people work as a group or only believe they are working in a group (Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974). Social loafing literature blossomed as these findings gave way to more questions: is the problem coordination and not motivation? Since the experiment involved groups created for the experiment, would established groups have the same results? What exactly causes social loafing? Is it because group dynamics allow an individual the ability to "hide in the crowd"? Does social loafing only exist in physical activities? Or does it also happen when groups are performing cognitive tasks? These questions paved the way for much more research over...

You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer

Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer

Suggested sources

• About ProQuest
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

• Corpus ID: 146158306

Social Loafing: A Review of the Literature

• A. Simms , Tom Nichols
• Published 2014
• Agricultural and Food Sciences

93 Citations

Diffusion of responsibility in group work: social loafing, don ’ t bring me down : people , puzzles , and social loafing, celebrities and slackers: a grounded theory of the dynamics of social loafing on student teams..

• Highly Influenced

Mediators of the relationship between perceived social loafing and team performance among university student teams

The impact of motive disposition on group performance, the relationship between organizational justice and social loafing in ho chi minh city, vietnam, people who need people (and some who think they don't): on compensatory personal and social means of goal pursuit, sociopsychotechnological predictors of individual’s social loafing in virtual team, influences of online learning on social loafing, taking a free ride: how team learning affects social loafing., 25 references, social loafing and self-evaluation with a social standard, social loafing as response to an appraisal of appropriate effort., equity in effort: an explanation of the social loafing effect., identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: two cheering experiments., social loafing and self-evaluation with an objective standard*1, the ringelmann effect: studies of group size and group performance, social loafing: allocating effort or taking it easy, social loafing: a field investigation, social loafing under fatigue., social loafing and self-beliefs: people's collective effort depends on the extent to which they distinguish themselves as better than others, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Social Loafing: Definition, Examples, and Tips on Preventing It

Table of Contents

Here’s a riddle for you: when does 2 plus 2 not equal 4? 

Apparently, in group work.

Although work can indeed be done faster when you work collaboratively with others , a phenomenon called social loafing can hinder group progress . 

If it doesn’t sound familiar, don’t worry — although its name might not be recognizable, you’ve definitely experienced social loafing first-hand at least once in your life. 

Have you ever found yourself feeling resentful because your teammates aren’t contributing as much as you are? 

Yes? Then, congrats — you’ve experienced the consequences of social loafing! 

If you want to find out more about this phenomenon, then keep reading — we’re diving deep into the topic of social loafing and answering the following questions:

• What is social loafing?

What are examples of social loafing?

• What causes social loafing?
• How does social loafing affect the workplace? 
• How can managers and employees reduce social loafing in the workplace?

Let’s get started!

• Social loafing is a phenomenon where people don’t put in as much effort when working in a group as they would during individual work. 
• Social loafing in the workplace can be a real problem for teams, as it affects productivity, team dynamic, and team communication.
• There are 8 different causes of social loafing – group size, lack of clarity, lack of accountability, diffusion of responsibility, perception of inequity, reduced motivation, expectations of other people’s performance, and cultural differences.
• Both managers and employees can help prevent social loafing — managers by establishing small groups where they evaluate everyone’s work individually and try to motivate and reward their employees, and employees by increasing their motivation and engagement and taking ownership for their work, among other things.

What is social loafing? 

Social loafing is a social phenomenon where people don’t display the same amount of motivation or effort in group or collaborative work as they would during individual work. 

The main difference between individual and group work — at least when it comes to social loafing — is in the way the end results are judged . 

When people know they’re being reviewed as a part of the group, they may feel a tendency to slack off and put in less effort than they would if they were the only person being assessed. 

Although social loafing might not be noticeable at the finish line, since the group usually picks up the slack and does the work of the social loafer as well, this phenomenon still affects group dynamics and negatively impacts the productivity of collaboration in the group .

We spoke about this to Paola Accettola , CEO & Principal Consultant of True North HR, who has over 25 years of experience in the HR field. 

She highlighted just how common social loafing is — and why that is. 

“Social loafing is actually a phenomenon derived from human psychology, which looks at how people work in group settings compared to alone. It shows that reduced accountability and shared responsibility either consciously or subconsciously influence those in the group to have decreased productivity. So, in the workplace, it can commonly happen when workers come together to complete a task or deliverable. Unfortunately, many people feel apathetic toward the meaningfulness of their job, which is exacerbated in the group setting.”

What are the origins of the term ‘social loafing’ ?

Officially, social loafing was first observed by Max Ringelmann in 1913 , during his rope-pulling experiment . Ringelmann found that people who participated in his experiment put in more effort when they were pulling on the rope by themselves, rather than when they were a part of a group. 

Since Ringelmann first observed it, it was dubbed the Ringelman’s effect and, at some point down the line, got renamed into the social loafing effect or simply — social loafing.

The secrets behind social loafing have been investigated by many social scientists since. They have been trying to not only define social loafing but also determine its causes and effects. Team performance and effectiveness have been at the very center of social studies for the past 5 or 6 decades. What’s more, social scientists have done everything they can to find out what makes teams perform poorly , which is why social loafing — a phenomenon that affects both performance and effectiveness of team effort — has been extensively studied. 

It has been under particular scrutiny since the 70s when the Ringelman’s effect was experimentally reexamined . This opened the door for another 80 or so studies, all trying to determine the cause of social loafing. 

Finally, in the 90s, Karau and Williams did a meta-analytic review of the theory on social loafing and proposed their Collective Effort Model (CEM) , which states that working in a group lowers a person’s expectancy that their own actions can lead to achieving the group goal, which reduces the value of the goal, and, finally, reduces that person’s individual motivation. 

Free team communication software

Try Pumble, a secure, reliable, and easy-to-use communication tool.

FREE FOREVER • UNLIMITED COMMUNICATION

Due to the ever-changing nature of teamwork and work organization — both of which became more complex due to technological changes and innovations — investigating social loafing is ever so important. 

With the rise of remote work changing the way we organize our work days as well as introducing the possibility of cross-cultural communication and collaboration, maintaining steady levels of productivity in remote teams is no easy task . And having a social loafer can only bring that productivity down (not to mention ruin team communication ).

But what does having a social loafer in the team look like? Here are a few examples.

Example #1: Slacking in a team

The most obvious example of social loafing is slacking. Slackers tend to see the team task as something someone else will take care of, thus refusing to take responsibility for it . 

Everyone who’s ever been a part of a group project has met the “slacker” social loafer. That’s the person who is made aware of their portion of the task via clear, transparent communication and yet still doesn’t manage to do it.

Instead of doing their work, they focus on other tasks they deem more important and then waste their teammates’ time by requesting to be brought up to speed. This negatively affects the team morale and can even lead to team conflict . 

💡 Pumble Pro Tip

Taking ownership of your own work is a trait of a great employee. However, not everyone is prepared to do that. What’s more, remote workers struggle with this aspect of work immensely due to the lack of external control. To find out more about that as well as how to improve accountability in your workers, check out this article:

• How to achieve work-from-home accountability

Example #2: Blending into the background

In almost every group, there’s that one person who is usually completely silent. They don’t contribute ideas, offer solutions, or take on tasks . 

Sometimes, these social loafers are afraid their opinions won’t be valued or will lead to miscommunication in the team , so they hold their tongues. 

Other times, they don’t feel their work environment is a safe space, which affects their mental health as well as participation, as they are reluctant to share their ideas.

If you notice that your employees are afraid to contribute, then that might be a sign they aren’t feeling safe in the workplace. To find out why that’s important (and how to remedy it), take a look at the article below:

• How to create psychological safety in the workplace?

Example #3: Freeriding

While the loafer who blends in the background is usually scared to self-advocate at work , a free rider sits back and waits until the task is done so they can reap the benefits of other people’s labor.  

Sometimes we end up doing more than our fair share of work because of social loafers. To learn how to avoid that, you must first learn how to say no and decline tasks that aren’t yours. The following two articles will give you excellent pointers on both:

• How to say ‘No’ professionally
• How to professionally say ‘This is not my job’

Example #4: “Doing as you do” 

Social loafing is often a problem in a driven team because the loafer stands out among their engaged and proactive teammates. But, what happens when everyone lacks motivation?

A person who’s motivated and full of energy and ideas can quickly turn into a social loafer who only does the bare minimum because their teammates do the same . 

This happens because the person in question doesn’t see the effects of their own work and the collective goal loses all value. 

Keeping your employees engaged and motivated will definitely help you in your battle against social loafing. To find out more about boosting employee engagement, take a look at this article:

• How to improve employee engagement in the workplace

Example #5: Bystanding

The bystander effect is a phenomenon where people in groups don’t offer help to those in immediate need because they think someone else will surely do it. A similar thing happens in the workplace and is a type of social loafing — people tend to not participate because they feel they don’t have to, as someone else will do it . 

You’ve probably been to many meetings where someone in a leading meeting role asks a question or asks for volunteers, and no one raises their hand (including you). That’s the bystander effect — you all assume someone else will do it. 

Active communication — which is pretty much the opposite of bystanding — is vital in the workplace. Being proactive improves collaboration and thus affects team performance. To learn more about the ins and outs of active communication, read the following article:

• Understanding active communication at the workplace

What causes social loafing? 

As mentioned, quite a few social scientists tried to determine why social loafing occurs. The social loafing theoretical research mostly focuses on two distinct causes:

• Group design and organization and
• Individual differences between group members.

As a complex phenomenon, social loafing is caused by several factors that fall into the two categories mentioned above, most notably:

• Group size,
• Lack of clarity,
• Lack of accountability,
• Diffusion of responsibility,
• Perception of inequity,
• Reduced motivation,
• Expectations of other people’s performance, and
• Cultural differences.

Let’s take a deeper look into each of these factors to answer the question — when does social loafing occur?

Cause #1: Group size

When you have a big task to do or you need some innovative solutions to fix a problem, your first instinct might be to gather a big group of people and have them work on it together, right?

Although that’s a wise strategy, given that a bigger group is able to generate more ideas, perspective, and creativity , having a big group work together on a task can also backfire — mostly due to social loafing. 

Well, the bigger the group, the more anonymous team members become. This affects group communication , which determines the group dynamic. 

No matter the type of team , the size of it will always affect the amount of effort every member puts in because it diminishes the chances of the effort being individually recognized by the upper management . 

Another issue that large groups have is that things often slide through the cracks. Coordinating individual efforts and maintaining effective communication in the team becomes increasingly difficult with each team member who joins. 

Cause #2: Lack of clarity

Although it might seem like social loafing only happens due to the insolence of workers, sometimes it’s actually the management’s fault. A lack of clear directions or lack of clarity when it comes to tasks and roles may lead to people feeling confused about what to do and, thus, less motivated to do it . 

According to an experimental study done at Ohio State University that included 1,699 employees, workers who have clear roles and responsibilities report higher levels of work satisfaction, which, in turn, leads to lower rates of workplace turnover. 

Furthermore, knowing what you need to do as well as when you need to do it is a sign of a positive work environment , which can increase employee engagement. 

We spoke about this to Sneha Mandala , a TEDx & Keynote Speaker and Professional Credentialed Coach and Advisor. She stated that social loafing is one of the direct consequences of disengagement . 

“Social loafing often creeps into the workplace due to various factors. One primary reason is the absence of the conditions needed to create a state of intense engagement at work. When individuals aren’t fully immersed in their tasks, they become more susceptible to feeling bored or apathetic.”

Cause #3: Lack of accountability

As mentioned, social loafing happens in groups where the end result is judged as a group effort. Thus, some team members feel they might not have to put in as much effort because it won’t be judged individually . 

Suppose a person thinks they won’t be held accountable for their actions. In that case, they might feel it’s perfectly fine not to contribute as much as they would if they were working individually (which would make them solely responsible for the task outcome). 

Lack of accountability can be a sign of low engagement in the workplace but, as testified by our expert, Paola Accettola, it can also happen due to a lack of acknowledgement or compensation . 

“The nature of workplaces depends on compensating people for their contributions. This incentive is reduced in the group setting by shared accountability and shared recognition.”

Cause #4: Diffusion of responsibility

Lack of accountability goes hand-in-hand with diffusion of responsibility.

In larger teams, people contribute less because they don’t feel personally responsible for the outcome . They aren’t as motivated to achieve the common goal precisely because it’s common (and not individual). 

One of our contributors, Keca Ward , an HR professional with over 20 years of experience, states that diffusion of responsibility is the most common cause of social loafing.

“One key factor is the diffusion of responsibility, where individuals feel less accountable for their efforts in a group, assuming others will pick up the slack.”

Although shared responsibility is a key aspect of good team collaboration , it’s vital that people also take ownership of their own, individual contributions — otherwise, they’ll slack off and expect the rest of the team to do their part as well. 

Cause #5: Perception of inequity

Social loafing is sometimes a direct consequence of real or perceived inequity. 

If a team member feels their contributions, opinions, or efforts aren’t as valuable as others, they might start to loaf. They might feel overshadowed or even unneeded, which will diminish their motivation and engagement .

That’s how we get employees who only do the bare minimum, which, according to our expert Sneha Mandala, is the worst thing for the company’s bottom line. 

“[Social loafing] disrupts the delicate equilibrium necessary for sustainable peak performance. When employees aren’t inspired and energized at work, they aren’t in their flow, driven by their internal motivation, and operating authentically, productivity suffers. The consequences ripple across teams and organizations, impacting not only individual performance but also the collective outcome of projects and tasks. As I like to say – no company has ever done anything innovative, pioneering, or award-worthy with employees doing the bare minimum.”

This often happens in cross-functional teams where there’s a clear imbalance between team members’ skills. Furthermore, social loafing caused by a perception of inequity also happens in remote teams. It’s difficult to feel included and connected in remote teams , which may lower the rates of some people’s engagement.

Secure, real-time communication for professionals.

Cause #6: Reduced motivation

Loss or lack of motivation was highlighted as one of the main contributors to social loafing in the first study that explored social loafing, done by Ringelmann. 

Since then, other researchers also noticed that motivation plays a big part in social loafing. 

Working in a group diminishes the individual’s drive and motivation to perform a task , which leads to a lack of effort, according to Jackson and William . They stipulated that the sheer presence of other people makes individuals less driven to achieve a specific goal.

Cause #7: Expectations of other people’s performance

One of the less prominent but equally important factors that contribute to social loafing is expectations of your coworkers’ efforts. If you think that other people will slack off, then it’s more likely that you won’t put in as much effort as you would.

This phenomenon, also known as “effort matching” manifests in 2 different ways:

• Individuals reduce effort because they feel their coworkers will do the same , and
• Individuals reduce effort because they believe their coworkers have sufficient abilities to achieve the group goals without their input . 

Cause #8: Cultural differences

The cultural differences in communication influence the way we collaborate with others. What’s more, these differences can also be the underlying cause of perceived social loafing. 

Cultural differences may prove to be significant communication barriers that influence not only collaboration but also individual performance. Some cultures are more group or social-oriented, while others value individual effort more than group work. This might contribute to the overall volume of social loafing in the workplace.

Working in multicultural environments can sometimes be challenging, but finding your way in a multicultural team is a necessity dictated by the global workforce. To learn how to overcome the challenges and cultural barriers, read the article below:

• Cultural intelligence: Working confidently in cross-cultural environments

What is the outcome of social loafing in the workplace? 

So far, we mentioned quite a few consequences that we can observe in the workplace due to social loafing, but now it’s time to go into further detail.

According to our expert, Paola Accettola, all consequences of social loafing fall into one of 2 categories.

“The negative effects of social loafing are twofold:

• Reduced productivity — social loafing almost guarantees the collective is not using its full potential to complete the task and make a meaningful impact. 
• Individual impacts for each team member — those who are left completing most of the task on behalf of the group can either feel burnout or have a false sense of entitlement, depending on the culture. While those who ‘free ride’ are less likely to feel fulfilled in their work and may even feel inferior.”

The decline in productivity is the most prominent consequence of social loafing, especially if your team isn’t dealing with just one social loafer but more of them. However, other, less prominent or measurable outcomes, are equally important.

Individual impacts that Accettola mentioned are as serious as a decrease in productivity. Social loafing can lead to resentment among team members and conflicts in the team, ultimately leading to low team morale . 

Keca Ward agrees and adds that social loafing can also have serious consequences for the overall business. 

“Social loafing can lead to negative effects in the workplace, including reduced productivity, as team members contribute less effort when they believe their actions go unnoticed. It can also strain relationships among team members when some feel they are carrying a disproportionate workload. Moreover, the overall quality of work may suffer , impacting the organization’s success and potentially harming its reputation.”

Mitigating team conflict is a serious and often difficult task. If you need some help on that front, learning a few conflict resolution phrases and methods will surely come in handy. Check out the following article:

• 15 Conflict resolution phrases to use to diffuse conflict at work

How to reduce social loafing in the workplace

As stated, social loafing can happen in any team. Overall, social loafing happens due to internal factors of specific individuals who loaf (which means it can happen even in teams run by good managers ) or due to external, organizational factors (which means even great workers can become social loafers).

Because of its prevalence, people are often left wondering how to prevent social loafing in the workplace. 

In the following chapters, we will answer that question from 2 perspectives – the managers’ and employees’.

How you can reduce social loafing if you’re a manager

A manager can do quite a bit to reduce the chances of having a social loafer on their team. 

If we go back to the root causes of social loafing, the answer to the question “How to avoid social loafing in teams” is by:

• Establishing small groups,
• Clearly setting expectations and tasks,
• Evaluating individual performance (as well as group one),
• Centralizing communication,
• Making tasks cooperative, and
• Adopting the right leadership style.

Let’s take a deeper look at each of these strategies to see what they entail.

Tip #1: Establish small groups

If you have a large team working under you, it might be a good idea to divide it into smaller sub-groups . 

As mentioned, large groups are the perfect social loafer breeding ground, as they allow members to be anonymous, thus reducing their perceived accountability. 

Furthermore, with fewer members in the group, each member is more likely to see the impact their efforts have on the outcome . Smaller groups also facilitate easier team communication and allow all members to avoid information overload , thus making both communication and collaboration more efficient.

Tip #2: Set clear expectations, tasks, and organizational rules

Clarity or, better said, lack of clarity is a great contributor to social loafing. That’s why it’s vital that you clearly set:

• Expectations,
• Organizational rules.

Properly communicating expectations is of the utmost importance because it makes the employee aware of their own duties and responsibilities and more likely to take ownership of them . 

You can also help to clear things up by assigning individual tasks. That way, each member of the team will have something they are responsible for, for which they will be judged, and, ultimately, recognized.

Let’s take a look at one of the previous examples to see how maintaining clarity in a team could have made things different. 

Tip #3: Evaluate both group and individual performance

Because being judged for the group outcome leads to some people slacking off, introducing both group and individual performance reviews is a good way to nip social loafing in the bud. 

Our expert, Keca Ward agrees with this and highlights that making employees take responsibility for their actions is the best method of fighting social loafing.

“[Aside from clarifying roles and expectations], managers can reduce social loafing by fostering a sense of individual accountability within teams and setting measurable performance goals for each team member.”

She continues by saying that these methods work best when combined with acknowledgment.

“Additionally, providing regular feedback and recognition for individual contributions can motivate employees to put in their best effort, reducing the likelihood of social loafing.”

Sometimes people loaf not because they see they can cut corners but because they feel their contributions won’t be properly recognized . So, set some time aside to praise individuals for their achievements in group tasks.

Tip #4: Centralize communication and collaboration in one tool

Lack of communication or ineffective communication can quickly lead to social loafing. Loafers tend to slip through the cracks, so, if you, as a manager, don’t have a handle on team communication, you’ll most likely miss that an employee isn’t putting their best foot forward.

The best way to stay in control is to streamline communication and collaboration in one tool . 

An internal communication software like Pumble can help you keep track of the individual tasks you’ve assigned to all the members of your team, as well as keep in touch with all of them. 

Constant communication provides extra clarity and improves psychological safety in the workplace — when your employees know they can reach out to you for help, they are more likely to be engaged. At the same time, they are also more likely to take ownership of what they do. 

Tip #5: Make tasks cooperative

A lack of motivation is often a big problem for social loafers. You might be able to get a handle on that and boost people’s motivation if you make tasks more cooperative. Collaboration entails people working to achieve a common goal — however, “working” doesn’t have to be done together. 

Cooperation, on the other hand, makes people work together. They work cooperatively and support each other with the goal of helping everyone reach their individual milestones . 

Motivating employees to achieve the company goals is of the utmost importance and, according to Paola Accettola, there’s another way to achieve that.

“Another thing managers have control over is the incentive or reward for completing the task. By framing a group task as something that should have a higher output, given the higher input of labor, managers can assign a larger incentive to further encourage individuals to contribute to the best of their ability to push the task forward.”

Tip #6: Adopt the right leadership style

Finally, managers can help their employees refrain from social loafing by adopting the right type of leadership style . 

There are some leadership styles, such as transformational leadership , for example, that have been proven to lower the chances of social loafing .

A good leader can not only inspire their employees but also create a work environment that’s conducive to productive and effective group work — something that our contributor, Sneha Mandala, marks as crucial for reducing social loafing.

“Managers can effectively reduce social loafing by fostering an environment that promotes a flow state for employees. This means employees are immersed in their work in the sweet spot between boredom and anxiety. This is when their work feels slightly challenging in a fun and positive manner. This involves aligning tasks with employee strengths and passions, encouraging autonomy, competence, and a clear connection between roles and the organization’s purpose. By creating such an environment, managers can actively reduce the incidence of social loafing, as employees are more likely to find themselves in the coveted flow state.”

How you can reduce social loafing if you’re an employee

Of course, because social loafing is often caused by internal factors, employees themselves can also do something to reduce the chances of loafing in the workplace. 

Overall, employees can:

• Maintain constant communication,
• Increase their engagement and motivation, 
• Take ownership of their work, and
• Set personal goals.

Tip #1: Maintain constant communication

Just like managers need to keep lines of communication open, employees need to do their part as well. After all, improving team communication isn’t just the manager’s job.

Our contributor, Paola Accettola, highlights just how important communication is.

“By openly communicating about expectations of contributions, employees can help reduce social loafing. Encouraging everyone to share ideas and valuing each contribution to the same degree is a good starting point. Of course, group settings invite disagreement, but overall, they should be an environment for deliberation of different perspectives that help create a product that would not have been possible by the work of any one individual alone.”

So, communicate what you’re doing for the tasks you’re assigned to and ensure all your teammates are aware of your efforts. 

To make things easier, you can use dedicated channels to help you organize your efforts in the communication and collaboration tool the manager used to streamline communication.

If you have the means, you can also practice some face-to-face and real-time communication . Although remote and hybrid teams tend to handle everything remotely and via asynchronous communication , it’s easier to bond or brainstorm with people in person. 

Tip #2: Increase your engagement and motivation

Engagement stems from motivation, but both are vital when it comes to avoiding social loafing in the workplace. 

Although there’s quite a bit that management can do to increase engagement, employees need to ensure they are dedicated to the tasks at hand.

The best way to do that is by getting invested and involved. Caring about the outcome of a task will help you maintain steady levels of motivation , and motivation is vital, according to our contributor, Sneha Mandala.

“Individual employees also play a crucial role in mitigating social loafing. By gaining a profound understanding of their intrinsic motivations and authentic selves, employees can proactively express the same with managers and contribute to a more engaging and productive work environment for themselves.”

Mandala continued by saying that increased motivation can also help employees feel more like their efforts and contributions are necessary , ultimately giving them a sense of purpose and ownership. 

“[Overcoming social loafing] is about taking ownership of their work, striving to be in their flow state, and ensuring that social loafing doesn’t disrupt their pursuit of sustainable peak performance. When employees are deeply motivated and aligned with their authentic selves, the risks of social loafing diminish significantly.”

Tip #3: Set personal goals

Finally, you can reduce your own desire for social loafing by setting personal goals. If the common, collective goal isn’t important enough to you or doesn’t hold a motivational value for you, you can always set personal goals that will keep you going and stop you from offloading your tasks and responsibilities onto your coworkers . 

Social loafing: You CAN have a social loafing-free team 

Although a complex phenomenon, social loafing can be broken down into basic elements, which helps us understand not only what causes it but also how we can prevent it in the workplace. 

Social loafing might seem like a direct consequence of laziness, but it’s actually caused by:

• Reduced motivation, or
• Expectations of other people’s performance.

Once you figure out the cause of social loafing, you can easily prevent or at least diminish it by:

• Breaking up into smaller brainstorming groups,
• Clearly defining everyone’s role and tasks, 
• Communicating with one another, 
• Taking accountability and ownership for your actions,
• Not presuming other people’s levels of effort,
• Maintaining steady motivation, and
• Being proactive. 

✉️ What are your ways of overcoming social loafing in the workplace? Do you have some extra tips for managers or employees on how they can reduce loafing in their teams?  Share your experience and tips at [email protected] and we may include your answers in this or future posts. And, if you found this blog useful, share it with someone you think would also benefit from it.

Bojana is a communication author and researcher with a background in speech and language pathology and years of writing experience under her belt. She specializes in researching and writing about the best ways one can navigate the tough challenge of communicating and collaborating in a remote setting.

What's on your to-do?

START COLLABORATING

with Pumble

Related posts

Keeping positive company culture in fast-growing businesses: 6 main signs you’re doing well.

Find out what a positive company culture looks like and how to achieve it. …

From Burnout to Boundaries: How a Team Messaging App Helped Me Reclaim My Time

A personal story about why using business messaging software is the best way to communicate at work. …

Top 17 Employee Appreciation Day Ideas for 2024

To express gratitude and make your employees feel recognized, use these Employee Appreciation Day ideas and celebrate it on March 1! …

What is Corporate Social Responsibility? Definition, Types, & Examples of CSR

Is corporate social responsibility a PR tactic or a genuine push toward a sustainable future? We asked the experts. …

Cultural Intelligence: Working Confidently in Cross-Cultural Environments

Learn all about cultural intelligence, its importance, and the ways you can improve it….

Code-Switching in the Workplace: What Is It & Why Do We Do It?

Should you try to curb code-switching at work or does this linguistic phenomenon have merits?…

Need better team communication??

Pumble is an all-in-one team collaboration app. Send messages and files, and start video conferencing with one click, and reduce emails. Free forever.

Free team chat app

Improve collaboration and cut down on emails by moving your team communication to Pumble.

Unlimited users • Unlimited chat history • Free forever

Social Loafing and Striving During Group Work Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Working with a group has both advantages and challenges. Careful analysis of the patterns of social loafing and social striving is the key to finding effective methods of ensuring that all members of the group contribute to the project equally.

While working to complete a project in a group, I noticed patterns both of social loafing and social striving. Social loafing is the phenomenon of decreasing activity when working in a group compared to the individual’s efforts when working alone (Meydan, Kahraman, & Bazar, 2014). Social loafing has certain general causes, as it appears to be typical for most people because of our disposition to put more effort into doing some tasks when we are alone.

Particular personal characteristics contribute to the person’s inclination to social loafing. People with unique knowledge and skills often appear to be not willing to share them with the members of the group and behave passively. However, the same people put much effort into the tasks suggesting individual work and demonstrate a high level of creativity in such situations. Cultural and educational background also influences the patterns of behaving while working in a group.

People coming from more individualistic cultures demonstrate less willingness to work in a team. Social striving is the inclination to put more effort when working in a team compared to the efforts put when working alone. Such a pattern is more common among people coming from countries with conformist culture, as collectivism has been an essential part of their everyday life. Some individual characteristics and skills also influence the disposition of social striving. Sociability and well-developed skills in organizing the work of a group stimulate the person’s willingness to put much effort into teamwork.

While social striving contributes to the effectiveness of teamwork, social loafing puts a threat to the successful results of group projects. Therefore, group leaders and project managers need to find effective solutions for dealing with the problem of social loafing, as it directly affects the group performance (Ying, Li, Jiang, Peng, & Lin, 2014). Providing a friendly atmosphere in the group is one of the keys to promoting the people’s willingness to cooperate while completing the project. Organizing activities aimed at encouraging the members of the team to communicate in an informal atmosphere can contribute to eliminating social loafing.

If good results of the group benefit each of its members, the motivation to put more effort into achieving these results will also raise. Therefore, defining the real benefits of effective work in a team for each of the individuals in a clear and comprehensible manner can also decrease social loafing. Regular collective assessment of the contributions of each of the members of the team to the successful completion of the tasks can also motivate people to participate in group work more actively.

Promoting the motivation of people to participate in group work is the key to eliminating social loafing. Proper activities help to ensure that all individuals contribute equally and do their best to achieve the goals of the teamwork.

Meydan, H., Kahraman, A., & Bazar, U. (2014). Social loafing and impression management in an organizational context. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4 (3), 201-206.

Ying, X., Li, H., Jiang, F., Peng, S., & Lin, Z. (2014). Group laziness: The effect of social loafing on group performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 42 (3), 465-472.

• Attending a Mosque During a Religious Services
• Effective Communication of Groups and Teams
• Supermarket Senior Administrator Job Responsibilities
• Interpersonal Communication Episode and Analysis
• Interpersonal Psychoanalysis: Personality and Personification
• Family Issues: Divorce and Family Mediation Process
• Communication Principles and Misconception
• Group Classification in Personal Experience
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, March 30). Social Loafing and Striving During Group Work. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-loafing-and-striving-during-group-work/

"Social Loafing and Striving During Group Work." IvyPanda , 30 Mar. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/social-loafing-and-striving-during-group-work/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Social Loafing and Striving During Group Work'. 30 March.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Social Loafing and Striving During Group Work." March 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-loafing-and-striving-during-group-work/.

1. IvyPanda . "Social Loafing and Striving During Group Work." March 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-loafing-and-striving-during-group-work/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Social Loafing and Striving During Group Work." March 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/social-loafing-and-striving-during-group-work/.

Home » Mental Health » Anxiety » Social Loafing: What Is It, Causes, Examples & How To Reduce It

Expert's opinion

The article is a subjective view on this topic written by writers specializing in medical writing. It may reflect on a personal journey surrounding struggles with an illness or medical condition, involve product comparisons, diet considerations, or other health-related opinions.

Although the view is entirely that of the writer, it is based on academic experiences and scientific research they have conducted; it is fact-checked by a team of degreed medical experts, and validated by sources attached to the article.

The numbers in parenthesis (1,2,3) will take you to clickable links to related scientific papers.

Social Loafing: What Is It, Causes, Examples & How To Reduce It

Updated on July 10, 2023 - Written by Lakshmi Vemuri, Former Health & Wellness Writer Medically reviewed by Gopal Ramakrishnan, Ph.D.

Working in a group is always a tricky thing. Not all group members work the same. Some team members perform very well, while other group members may simply churn out less productivity, which affects the outcome of the common goal the group is working on.

Social loafing is a concept that explains the social psychology of group members working together. It precisely deals with how some group members put in less effort, which, in turn, causes imbalances in the working culture of a group or team. 

If you were ever part of a group assigned tasks, you most probably would have experienced social loafing, without ever knowing about it. This article explains the definition of social loafing and all the things you should know about it. So, please continue reading.

How To Define Social Loafing?

Social loafing theorizes that people often contribute less when working in group meetings. There are several reasons for that such as lack of motivation , absence of individual performance assessments, and large group size among others. Promoting individual responsibility, regular feedback, and creating smaller groups can help in tackling social loafing.

What Is Social Loafing?

Social loafing is nothing but a social psychology phenomenon that comprises reduced performance and low productivity. According to it, employees working in a group put in less effort than they would when they work as individual members. People engage in social loafing because they develop a laid-back attitude towards the goal and assigned responsibilities, which makes them invest less effort, hindering the overall progress of the entire group.

The concept of social loafing is also known as the Ringelmann Effect [1] since the theory was first put forth by Max Ringelmann, a French engineer. He carried out a rope-pulling experiment, where he assigned the task of pulling a rope to several participants. They were asked to have group work of two, three, and eight respectively.

By the end of this experiment, Ringelmann found out that the group members feel less energy while working in a group setting. When the same experiment is carried out with participants working individually, the results come out much better. 

Types Of Social Loafing

Social loafing almost always causes different types of hurdles for an organization to thrive. When social loafing occurs, the less productive nature of individual efforts not only impacts the growth of an organization but also creates a negative working culture in the team. 

To reduce social loafing, first, you need to understand how it may occur and the different ways it could manifest in your team. So, here are the two most significant types of social loafing:

Free Rider Effect

Sometimes, when one team member or more exhibits a casual attitude toward the group projects, they tend to contribute less to achieving the overall group’s success. When the contributions from different members of the group vary by a larger degree, it creates an imbalance in the productivity of distributed groups.

Also, when this type of social loafing occurs, the void created by the less productive members has to be filled by an extra effort from the remaining teams. The group member who is responsible for this phenomenon is called a free rider [2] .

Sucker Effect

This form of social loafing happens when even the well-performing group members start to underperform, thanks to the undermining efforts of free riders in the group. The substandard individual effort of a group member impacts the other members in the group, causing them to underperform too.

This is popularly known as the sucker effect [3] . It occurs because the non-underperforming members subconsciously decide to stop the free riders from taking advantage of their effort. Usually, this type of social loafing causes a steep decline in the overall performance of a group or team, thus bringing down the efficiency of an institution they are working for. 

Understanding Social Loafing Theories

If you are looking for ways to reduce social loafing, first, you would have to understand the theory behind it. It is important to know how a phenomenon occurs so that you can do something to reduce its effects. Anyhow, here are some studies and theories that discuss social loafing in detail.

Performance Expectations

According to the social compensation hypothesis, by Williams and Karau [4] , groups work much harder collectively when they expect some of their co-workers to perform below par. However, a study conducted by Jackson and Harkins has proven otherwise.

This study has shown that individuals lower their effort when they expect their co-workers of subpar efforts, to maintain equity. This, in turn, shows that social loafing is more likely to happen when a group contains high-achievers, who, later down the road, slack off and let the other competent co-workers do most of the work. 

Also, some instances occur where the high-achievers take on extra work when they see that some of their co-workers contribute poorly. This phenomenon is known as social compensation [5] . 

Evaluation Potential

Several researchers including Harkins & Szymanski have demonstrated the social loafing theory using evaluation potential [6] . According to this, social loafers are less likely to put in effort when they work in groups.

This happens because a group provides them cover to hide in plain sight since there is no proper evaluation method to score individual performances, in a collective task. 

Arousal Reduction

Karau and Williams made an excellent attempt to explain social loafing behavior with the help of arousal reduction theory. Simply put, according to this theory, social loafing can be attributed to the lowered drive during collective tasks. This theory argues that the influence and presence of a group reduce the drive and motivation to work harder. 

Social Loafing Examples

Theories help you get a good grasp of social loafing. However, real-life examples allow you to gain a much better understanding since you can relate to them. These incidents happen all the time in pretty much everyone’s lives. Anyhow, without further ado, here are a few examples of social loafing:

When visiting a concert, have you ever seen the performer asking the audience to clap? Well, it is such a common sight, isn’t it? However, more often than not, when the crowd claps, the performer says “That wasn’t loud enough”. Well, it is because the audience put in less effort in the group performance, expecting others to clap louder. This is a classic example of social loafing.

In your childhood, you must have participated in group studies or projects. If you recall, there must be some students that used to avoid contributing, right? They do it because they expect the other students to carry forward the task to completion. Another solid example of this problem at play.

In restaurants, where there are not many customers, some members of the server team simply sit out and let the others do the job. They give in to their laziness since they know that their co-workers would take over and serve the customers, while they rest. 

The Causes of Social Loafing

There are many factors that lead to social loafing. When you understand such factors, it becomes easier to tackle the issue at hand. Here are some of the prominent causes of this personality and social psychology problem:

Lack of Motivation

This is one of the main driving factors behind social loafing. When an individual is deprived of motivation for a specific task, that individual may put in less contribution, when compared to the tasks that they are motivated about. 

Diffusion of Responsibility

The contributions from an individual go down when they feel less responsible and lack of establishing individual accountability. When the team member thinks that their contribution does not impact the end results, they tend to indulge in social loafing. 

In smaller groups, people are motivated and interested in focusing on better contributions. At the same time, when the group size is larger, the individual effort may see a steep decline. So, group size is very crucial when trying to understand the causes behind this personality and experimental social psychology issue .

How To Reduce Social Loafing?

Social loafing causes a serious negative impact on the performance of a team or a company. Hence, tackling it is highly necessary for a firm to flourish. Here are a few things to do to get social facilitation and decrease social loafing.

• Assigning individual responsibilities and tasks
• Establishing strict and clear rules and standards
• Assessing group performances as well as individual performances
• Rewarding and highlighting the individual effort
• Creating and managing small groups
• Promoting individual accountability
• Encouraging a better working culture
• Regularly taking feedback from the group members

The performance of a group, team, or institution could take a toll when social loafing takes place. However, you can reduce it to a greater extent when you understand this personality and social psychology issue thoroughly. Also, once you are done with that, taking appropriate measures is highly essential.

Make sure that the groups or teams are sized rationally, with a limited number of people. It becomes easier to manage such smaller teams, while it also helps the members feel accountable and responsible towards the collective effort model goal.

+ 6 sources

Health Canal avoids using tertiary references. We have strict sourcing guidelines and rely on peer-reviewed studies, academic researches from medical associations and institutions. To ensure the accuracy of articles in Health Canal, you can read more about the editorial process  here

• Kravitz, D. and Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann Rediscovered: The Original Article . [online] ResearchGate. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/209410111_Ringelmann_Rediscovered_The_Original_Article.
• Delton, A.W., Cosmides, L., Guemo, M., Robertson, T.E. and Tooby, J. (2012). The psychosemantics of free riding: Dissecting the architecture of a moral concept. [online] 102(6), pp.1252–1270. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027026.
• Mulvey, P.W. and Klein, H.J. (1998). The Impact of Perceived Loafing and Collective Efficacy on Group Goal Processes and Group Performance. [online] 74(1), pp.62–87. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2753.
• Apa.org. (2023).  APA PsycNet . [online] Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-33384-001.
• Williams, K.D. and Karau, S.J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. [online] doi:https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.61.4.570.
• Apa.org. (2023). APA PsycNet . [online] Available at: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-07410-001.‌‌

Written by:

Lakshmi vemuri, former health & wellness writer, medically reviewed by:.

Lakshmi Vemuri holds a bachelor’s degree in Dentistry. She is also a published author of several Food and Wellness books. Lakshmi has a profound interest in alternative medicines, various forms of physical exercise, mental health, diets, and new inventions in medical sciences. Besides being a dentist, Lakshmi is passionate about gardening and is an environmental enthusiast

Related Posts:

• Separation Anxiety In Relationships: What You Need To Know 2024
• How To Stop Anxiety Chills: Useful Advice You Should Know In 2024
• Best Supplements For Anxiety 2024 According To A Nutritionist
• Anxiety And Perimenopause: Signs & Solutions 2024
• Thyroid & Anxiety: What Is The Connection & Guide 2024

Childhood Social Anxiety: Symptoms & How To Help 2024

Medically reviewed by Taylor Spruce, M.Ed

Is Anxiety The Same As Stress? Key Differences To Know 2024

Amitriptyline for anxiety: how to take & side effects 2024.

Medically reviewed by Kathy Shattler, MS, RDN

Can Anxiety Cause Heart Problems? 5 Ways to Cope 2024

How to use lavender oil for anxiety: guides & benefits 2024, healthcanal newsletter, thanks for subscribing.

Look out for our email. Can’t wait? Check us out on social media

Journal of Physical Education and Sport

Trusted source, scielo - scientific electronic library online, african journals online.

Non-profit Platform for African Journals

Journal of The American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

RMIT University Library

European Food Safety Authority

Science, Safe food, Sustainability

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons

American Academy of Family Physicians

Strengthen family physicians and the communities they care for

Agricultural Research Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

The American Journal of Medicine

Official Journal of The Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Database From National Institute Of Health

Lippincott Journals

Subsidiaries of Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

National Institute on Aging

Translational research.

The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine

An All-science Publisher

Journal of Translational Medicine

Biomed central, federal trade commission.

Protecting America's Consumers

National Human Genome Research Institute

Food production, processing and nutrition, bmc gastroenterology, acs publications.

A Division of The American Chemical Society

Annual Reviews

Independent, Non-profit Academic Publishing Company

National Center for Biotechnology Information

PLOS Journals

Nonprofit Publisher of Open-access Journals

Thieme E-books & E-Journals

Peer-reviewed & Open Access Journal

European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences

Peer-reviewed International Journal Publishes

Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing Home

Chemical Science Journals, Books and Database

Publisher of Peer-reviewed Articles in Open Acess Journals

German Scholarly Publishing House

Open Access Research Journals & Papers

Oilseeds and Fats, Crops and Lipids

EDP Sciences

Cambridge Core

Cambridge University Press

FoodData Central

U.S. Department Of Agriculture

Journal of the American Heart Association

Peer-reviewed Open Access Scientific Journal

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

The americans with disabilities act.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Organization of Food and Nutrition Professionals

Sage Journals

Database From Sage Publications

National Institute of Drug Abuse

The clinmed international library.

A Repository and an Open Access Publisher for Medical Research

The Royal Society Publishing

United Kingdom's National Academy of Sciences

APA PsycNet

Database From American Psychological Association

The Pharma Innovation Journal

Peer-reviewed And Refereed Journal

Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Development

Peer-reviewed Bimonthly Journal

British Pharmacological Society

Journals - Wiley Online Library

American Psychological Association

Scientific and Professional Organization of Psychologists

AAP Publications

Database From American Academy of Pediatrics

Karger Publishers

Academic Publisher of Scientific and Medical Journals and Books

Cambridge University Press & Assessment

Database From Cambridge University

National Institute of Mental Health

Publisher of Open Access Journals

Bulletin of the National Research Centre

Part of Springer Nature

The New England Journal of Medicine

Massachusetts Medical Society

Economic Research Service

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

MedlinePlus

Database From National Library of Medicine

National Institute of Health

An agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Weekly Peer-reviewed Medical Trade Journal

The British Psychological Society

The British Psychological Society is a charity registered in England

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Google scholar, science.gov: usa.gov for science.

Government Science Portal

ResearchGate

Social Network Service For Scientists

American Heart Association

To be a rentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives

Research in progress

JAMA Network

Home of JAMA and the Specialty Journals of the American Medical Association

Springer Link

Database From Springer Nature Switzerland AG

Database from Office of Dietary Supplements

Database From U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Oxford Academic Journals

Oxford University Press

Taylor & Francis Online

Peer-reviewed Journals

Database from World Health Organization

Journal of Neurology

Peer-reviewed Medical Journal

ScienceDirect

Bibliographic Database of Scientific and Medical Publications

Wiley Online Library

American Multinational Publishing Company

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

U.S. National Public Health Agency

Database from U.S. National Library of Medicine

U.S. Food & Drug Administration

Federal Agency

PubMed Central

Help us rate this article, give us feedback in details, thank you for your feedback.

Keep in touch to see our improvement

Social Loafing Literature Review

Introduction.

In contrast to when they work alone, certain group members are more likely to be comfortable putting in less effort when they are part of a team, a phenomenon known as “social loafing” (Chang et al., 2020). Social loafers do not want to provide their best to collective projects. The effects of social loafing on the workplace might be adverse. The whole operation suffers when people in a group feel pressured to put in less effort than they can. Cultural norms, the significance of one’s job, and the expectations of one’s coworkers all play a role in preventing social loafing. This paper examines the problem of social loafing and the many remedies that have been proposed to address it.

Varieties of Social Loafing

There are two distinct forms of social loafing: the free rider effect and the sucker effect, both manifestations of the broader phenomenon of social loafing. The free rider effect occurs when a person believes other team members will cover for them if they do not do their fair share of the labour (Lount Jr & Wilk, 2022). On the other side, the sucker effect manifests itself when individuals who consistently give their all to the task are disheartened by others who have refused to work, and as a result, they are less productive (Lount Jr & Wilk, 2022).

Causes of Social Loafing

Chang et al. (2020) identified three primary factors contributing to free riding in their research. As an example, consider the phenomenon of blame being spread out. Some prominent group members may begin to feel de-individualized or stop holding themselves to the same standards of performance as they once did as the group’s size grows. De-individuation, the condition of not feeling responsible, might set in when it has been challenging to recognize one’s role in this situation.

The second reason people free ride is because they do not take full responsibility for their performance. When one of a team’s members believes they are not making a significant contribution, they are less likely to put out their best effort, as stated by Chang et al. (2020). Thirdly, people have an irrational fear of suckers. According to Chang et al. (2020), this happens when certain group members do not want to be exploited. The decision to wait and observe what other people do might be misread as a kind of protest by some.

Negative Impacts of Social Loafing

When employees engage in social loafing, it has a detrimental effect on team output and, by extension, on the organization’s overall productivity. It causes low morale and motivation when even just a few team members start slacking off and refusing to do their share of the work. Because as demonstrated by Mihelic and Culiberg, free riding may lead to biased sampling and significantly lessen the favourable outcome of social facilitation, negatively affecting group work (2018). Biased sampling occurs when a group’s members prioritize sharing information already known by the majority of the group above sharing new or different knowledge, which may lead to suboptimal decisions (Simms & Nichols, 2014).

The evaluation anxiety performance hypothesis (Mihelic & Culiberg, 2018) posits that being in the company of others may positively impact an individual’s performance, but only if they perceive that their performance is being evaluated on the basis of factors other than their own. However, it is essential to remember that social loafing negatively affects performance on group tasks. This is because the freeloaders will be seen as colleagues but not teammates.

A person is only affected by social loafing if they are the a free rider. When the endeavour is over, the individual may feel a lack of fulfillment and experience feelings of depression or disappointment. Lonely people who refuse to participate in group activities miss out on the benefits of learning from the experiences of others (Mihelic & Culiberg, 2018). The people who get things done suffer the most when social loafing is prevalent. This is because, in the end, the people will get discouraged from feeling like they are making the most significant contribution.

Ways of Reducing Social Loafing

Several strategies have been developed to discourage social loafing. Decreasing the size of the group is one strategy. In addition to regulating the distribution of responsibilities, this will also reduce the sense of anonymity that permeates the group (Gabelica et al., 2022). A second method for discouraging people from relying only on other people’s efforts is to require everyone in the team to contribute to a single, easily recognizable input job (Simms & Nichols,2014). For instance, recognizing people for their contributions to the group is a tried-and-true method of eliciting a favourable response, which in turn, maybe This is because members may make up for the expected loafing of others if each one learns that the result is significant enough to warrant a more excellent personal investment.

Another method is to bring in a devil’s advocate. The advocate will challenge everything and determine what should be relevant (Gabelica et al., 2022). Pee re-evaluation forms are one example of a tool that may be used to assess the quality of a group’s communication and consensus-building efforts in social comparison standards. Employees in a corporation often form teams to accomplish the firm’s objectives better. Only with everyone contributing their maximum effort can the organization reach its objective. Social loafing is less likely to occur if a group’s tasks can be distributed according to members’ skill sets and each member is given a due date for their contributions. Because of this, I am confident that every member will contribute 100%.

Establishing individual responsibility, reducing free riding, boosting team loyalty, and giving each team member different roles are all effective ways of curbing social loafing. One of the most effective measures a group can take to curb the phenomenon of social loafing is to limit the extent to which its members engage in free-riding. The term “free riding” describes when people in a group do not put in as much work as they might have because they know others will make the difference. It has been shown that limiting members’ ability to ride free reduces social loafing by making them take greater ownership of the group’s success. Participation in social activities may also significantly impact whether or not people engage in social loafing. Group members are more likely to contribute to its success when they feel their efforts are valued (Gabelica et al., 2022). Therefore, boosting participation in the group may increase team loyalty and lessen instances of social loafing.

Considering the adverse effects social loafing has on teamwork, it is evident that most loafers are either oblivious to their actions or acting in response to peer pressure. The strategies outlined below will thus give the best approach techniques to battle the issue. One of the significant issues with virtual teams is social loafing. This is because people who work from home are less likely to be subjected to social controls. There is no way to monitor workers’ actions since no one else is there to do so. Because of this, it might be challenging to hold members of virtual teams responsible.

We have two predictions. First, people who think their contributions are more identifiable will work harder on the task than those who think their contribution is pooled with others. Second, since prior research suggests that people tend to think that they do not engage in social loafing, we predict that regardless of individual contributions or pooled with others, people will think they worked equally hard.

Chang, Y., Hou, R. J., Wang, K., Cui, A. P., & Zhang, C. B. (2020 ). Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on social loafing in online travel communities .  Computers in Human Behavior , p.  109 , 106360.

Gabelica, C., De Maeyer, S., & Schippers, M, C., (2022).  Taking a Free Ride: How Team Learning Affects Social Loafing . American Psychological Association.

Hamamoto, H., Mizobata, R., Ishakawa, M., & Itakura, S., (2020).  Examining the social influence of reputation for partner productivity level on the collaborative task performance of young children . Wiley.  DOI: 10.1002/icd2213.

Lount Jr, R. B., & Wilk, S. L., (2022).  Working Harder or Hardly Working? Posting Performance Eliminates Social Loafing and Promotes Social Laboring in Workgroups . Institute for Operations Research and the Management Science (INFORMS).

Mihelic, K. K. & Culiberg., (2018).  Reaping the Fruits of Another’s Labor: The Role of Moral Meaningfulness, Mindfulness, and Motivation in Social Loafing . Journal of Business Ethics.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

A study of experiences of international mexican students in the united kingdom, technology and relationships, critically discuss why cyberspace is becoming increasingly difficult to regulate, perceiving machine vs human perception, exploring the interplay of nature and nurture in shaping intelligence and personality, china-russia relations, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail