7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

1/14

Do people try less hard when working in groups?

If so, why do they do so?

Ringleman Efect--- (e.g., with rope pulling task)

The average performance (input) of individuals decreasesasgroup size increases

Why?

a) Less effort

b) Coordination issues

Social Loang

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

2/14

Ringelmann Findings

Individuals IndividualEfforts(Sum)

GroupEffort

Group/Individual Ratio

1-7 764 480 .63

8-14 516 432 .84

15-21 533.7 435.4 .82

22-28 575.5 471.2 .82

15-28 1109.2 858.9 .78

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

3/14

Subject 1 Subject 2 Sum Dyaderformance

60.0 114.0 174.0 180.0

85.2 79.2 164.4 120.0

97.2 78.0 175.2 174.0

72.0 81.6 153.6 156.0

84.0 78.0 162.0 132.0

54.0 72.0 126.0 140.4

78.0 88.8 168.8 144.0

78.0 102.0 180.0 152.4

78.0 86.4 164.0 122.4

72.0 69.6 141.6 110.4

Ringelmann Findings (cont)

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

4/14

Yelling (& clapping) studies by Latane, Williams,& Harins

Alone

In actual groups

In pseudo-groups

Less indi!idual efort"#en in groups, e!enin $groups% "#en no

one "as present (butpeople t#oug#t t#ey"ere)

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

5/14

10

8

6

4

2

Soundpressure

perperson

1 2 6

Group sie

Reduced effort

(Social loafing)

Coordination lo

!otential "roducti#it$

!eudo-grou"

%ctual grou"

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

6/14

W#y less efort (loang)W#y less efort (loang)

' Epectation t#at ot#ers are trying (or "ill try)less #ard (euity)

' *ptimi+ing goal setting, rat#er t#an maimi+ing

' Less social pressure on eac# indi!idual groupmember

' Less contingency bet"een indi!idual inputs andoutputs (indi!iduals in groups cannot be

identiedanonymous)

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

7/14

Social Pressure

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

8/14

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

9/14

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

10/14

30

27

24

21

18

15

Performance Alone

Group

16.5

24.5

United States srael !"ina

23.3

20.8

23.8

18.5

!ountr#

Social Loafing Across Cultures

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

11/14

Isolated, cohesive,homogeneous

decision-makinggroup

Lack of impartial

leadership

High stress

Closed-mindedness

Rationalization

Suelching dissent

!"indguards#

$eelings ofrighteousness

and invulnera%ilit&

Self-censorship

Incompletee'amination of

alternatives

$ailure to

e'amine risksand conseuences

Incomplete searchfor information

The Stages of GroupthinkThe Stages of GroupthinkWhat are the causes and consequences of

groupthink?

Poor

decisions

ConseuencesS#stems ofS#stems ofGroupt"in$Groupt"in$

AntecedentAntecedent

!onditions!onditions

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYpbStMyz_Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYpbStMyz_Ihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYpbStMyz_I

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

12/14

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

13/14

(ther )roup *ecision-"aking Phenomena

Collective +ntrapment!!! The more effort used to ma"e a decision# thegreater li"elihood of stic"ing to that decision (even if it$s been sho%n to beincorrect)

Common noledge +ffect!!! &nformation held by most groupmembers e'erts a stronger impact on final decisions

7/24/2019 Loafing 2011

14/14

Leadership st&le(impartial# use of outside input)

.rainstorming/

0ominal )roup 1echniue efine the problem

&ndividuals anonymously generate solutions

*olutions presented to the group (no evaluation allo%ed)

+roup rates solutions

,est solution is chosen (vote# consensus)

Ways to Improve Group Decision-Making