The Problem of Social Loafing

Days before the 2016 presidential election multiple polls showed Hillary Clinton with a significant lead.  Explanations for her loss included the possibility that some who would have voted for her stayed home, convinced by polls and press reports that she didn’t really need their votes.  Analysts aren’t sure, but we know the “why bother” voter is common since turnout in most elections rarely reaches much over fifty percent.

In social psychology, there’s a term for people who hold back when they’re part of a group engaged in achieving a goal. It’s called social loafing.  It’s present in far more situations than elections.  Students working on a team project are familiar with classmates who let others do much of the work.  Workplace teams frequently experience the same problem - a few people carry most of the load, other slack off and some (called “free riders”) do nothing.  

The downsides of social loafing in an organization can include poor work products and resentment against coworkers. In society at large, social loafing can lead to failed institutions.  Social loafing citizens - those for example who don’t vote and don’t help address community problems when asked to do so – present a challenge to a healthy democracy. In politics social loafers risk leaving the playing field of policy and legislation to those willing to put in the effort to mobilize, which is one reason extremists have more impact than their numbers or views usually warrant. 

Researchers have studied social loafing for quite some time. In 1913, Max Ringelmann found that when asked to pull on a rope, participants working alone exerted more effort than when participants were part of a group doing the same task. Subsequent research concluded that the diminished incentive of individuals rather than poor coordination within the group explained such results.  In 2005, research by Laku Chidambaran and Lai Tai Tung showed that the larger the group the more likely social loafing is to occur and that geographically dispersed versus co-located groups also experienced more social loafing.  More recently, a study of online behavior – virtual dispersed groups - suggests that social loafing may be a reason many people do little in online communities once they’ve joined them.

One cause of social loafing may be that when people are in a group it can be easier to assume others will carry some of the load.  We also know this from a version of social loafing called the “bystander effect,” where people thrown into an emergency situation hang back to see what others will do.  

Also, in a group one’s individual contribution can be more hidden to others and the likely impact of one’s personal contribution to the group effort may be hard even for the individual to ascertain, both diminishing motivation.  Further, when we look around and perceive others are slacking off, we may wonder if we’re being taken advantage of and ask “why am I carrying such a heavy load?”  Add to these that if the group’s goals set by others seem either unacceptable or impossible, people may hold back their effort.  Social loafing may occur as well if people sense, as perhaps in the 2016 election, that the goal is being achieved anyway so why work on it.   

If you are designing a group project, running an organization or engaged in politics, you don’t want social loafers.  There are steps you can take.  One is to break a larger effort into work for small groups, where the tendency for social loafing is less since each member’s effort is more visible and can be made more meaningful.  Another step is to clarify – and even make public - the specific tasks and expectations for each member of a group so that each person feels personal responsibility.  Building in both individual and group updates and check-ins can also make individual effort more visible.  Recognition for individual as well as group achievement is also necessary.  Research at Purdue University found that relay swimmers swam faster when their personal time was announced as well as the team’s total time. It’s also a good technique to recognize people before the group begins: welcome each member and highlight why she/he is so important to the desired outcome.

Obvious but often ignored is the importance of matching each group member’s tasks to that person’s interests and capabilities.  Communication among the team as it forms and with the leader of a team can facilitate this matching of person to task.  As Catherine Sanderson notes in Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels, “people who are asked to perform a difficult task that they believe they can perform better than others do not generally withdraw effort . . . such as doctors in an emergency.”

The best groups are more than the sum of their parts, but when some individuals are social loafers, groups are less than that. Thinking about how to build the best performing groups requires thinking carefully about social loafing and how to prevent it.

Photo Credit: