The discovery of envy as a component has allowed further analysis in determining explanation for social loafing. According to Reber ad Reber, (2001:244) envy ‘is based on a resentful acknowledgement of those who are more fortunate persons’. Envy can be provoked numerous ways but social comparison is essentially the prompt for this incidence. The phenomenon of envy is usually due to the resentment of personal qualities in correspondence to the Cinderella myth (Ulanov & Ulanov, 1983. As cited in Duffy & Shaw, 2000). Acknowledgement of superior achievements of a work colleague could merely be adequate to trigger the reaction of envy (Tesser & Campbell, 1990. As cited in Duffy & Shaw). As could the recognition of lack of sporting abilities compared to other team members be enough to influence or generate this reaction.
Traditional workplace settings are believed to be the ideal location for envy to arise due to the tendency for individuals to work closely together (Vecchio, (1995). As cited in Duffy & Shaw, (2000).
Tesser and Campbell (1990). As cited in Duffy & Shaw, (2000) suggest on the occurrence that individuals work together or in groups they are prone to engage in a form of behavior that is not acceptable or norm or as some would say ‘deviant behavior’. Behavior demonstrating social loafing or sabotage would be classified as forms of deviant behavior (Tesser & Campbell).
Ringleman (Moede, 1927). As cited in Raven & Rubin, 1983:544) a German Psychologist was involved in one of the first methodical investigational studies based on ‘social loafing’. His simple study involved asking individual participants to pull on a rope as hard as they could. Once all individual responses were recorded, an average was calculated resulting in 138.6 pounds of strength being heaved on. His next task involved three participants to do the same task as conducted by individuals. Based on the average, a result of 415.8 pounds was expected. This theory became questionable when results were recorded at 346.5, only two and a half times the expected outcome. A further result supports the outcome of social loafing when eight participants were asked to perform this task. The expected outcome was 1108.8 but results were 545.6. This experiment maybe subjected to disagreement of ‘social loafing’ due to interference from diverse reasons. These could be based on co-ordination problems, decreased efficiency or an insufficient area to allow desired grasp. (Social Psychology, 1983:544)
However afterwards, results of experiments conducted by Alan Ingham (Ingham et al, 1974 as cited in Social Psychology, 1983:545) supported Ringlemans theory that social loafing occurs usually in a group environment as opposed to tasks for an individual. Ingham et al conducted similar circumstances with two exceptions. The first being that participants were blindfolded. The other was that when participants were meant to be pulling the rope in-group circumstances individual responses were actually recorded as all but one had been told to only hold the rope and not heave. Results were conclusive and showed when people believed they were pulling with others less effort was produced.
Latanè‚ investigated the phenomenon of social loafing, which states that in a group of people each one contributes less than he or she would contribute alone. He found that when eight people clapped their hands, the sound was not eight times as loud as the sound of each one individually, and the number of people pulling on the rope did not multiply that in a game of tug-of-war the force. This theory states that as a group gets larger, the individual contribution decreases disproportionate to the group size (Everett, Smith, & Williams, 1992; Hardy & Latane, 1986; Ingham et al., 1974). This is due to the diffusion of responsibility created as the size of the group increases. Imagine being assigned a project to complete by yourself. Most likely you would complete 100% of it. Now if two people are involved, the percentage will typically not be 50/50. As more people are added to the group, you will end up with a small percentage doing a large portion of the work and a large percentage doing a much smaller proportion.
When alone, we tend to be more relaxed; less concerned with the outward expression of our behaviour, and are basically 'ourselves.' Add just one other person, even if we don't know that person, our behaviour tends to change, and not always for the better. Research has found that when others are present, our level of arousal is increased (Zajonc, 1965). In other words, we are suddenly more aware of what's going on around us. Because of this, we tend to perform better at tasks that are well learned or simple (Guerin, 1993). When completing a difficult or new task, however, our performance level decreases and we tend to do more poorly. This phenomenon is called Social Facilitation (Guerin, 1993), and as we try harder due to the presence of others, our performance actually decreases for difficult or unlearned tasks. Think about learning to play basketball for the first time. If you are alone, you will likely be more relaxed, and better able to concentrate. When others are watching you, however, you are more likely to be self-conscious, and therefore make more mistakes. Professional basketball players, however, because the task is so well learned, perform better when others are watching and they are able demonstrate their confidence and ability.
This is the tendency for people to perform worse on simple tasks, yet better at complex tasks when they are in the presence of others. This appears to be a direct contradiction to , but can be explained by the differing circumstances in which it occurs. In particular, when we are working in a group, it can be easier to conceal laziness when working in a group of people who are working together. The key here is that the loafer is not worried about being evaluated. This can also be an attraction of being an acknowledge expert or in a position of authority: although it may take time to climb the mountain, you may be able to relax once you have got there. However, when we are being evaluated, such as when working on a team task, we will work hard to ensure nobody can criticize us for not pulling our weight. People who have less concern for groups are more likely to be social loafers, such as men and Western societies in general.
Diverse applications regarding the cure for the occurrence of social loafing have been suggested for specific forms of environmental contributions. The approach that is likely to be most effective would be self-evaluation. This involves group members evaluating each other and themselves. It would be suggested that it be essential individuals were aware that self-evaluation would be part of the final assessment to achieve full potential of everyone.
References
Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2000) The Saleiri Syndrome: Consequences of envy in groups. Small Groups Research, 31(1), 2-23.
Guerin, B. (1999). Social behaviors as determined by different arrangements of social consequences: Social loafing, social facilitation, deindividuation, and modified social loafing. The Psychological Record, 49(4), 565-578.
Karau, S.J., & Williams, K.D. (1993). Social Loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-786.
Latane, B. Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979).Many hands make light work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
Raven, B.H., & Reber. J. (1983) Social Psychology (2nd ed.). United state of America: Wiley/Sons.
Reber, A.S., & Reber. E. (2001). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (3rd ed.). England: Clays.
Weiten, W. (2004). Psychology : Themes and Variations (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
