A number of works are devoted to social loafing, among which the most famous are the studies of Max Ringelman, Bibb Latane, Kipling Williams and Stephen Harkins.

Research work using modern technologies also confirmed the manifestation of social laziness. Many of the reasons for this phenomenon stem from the individual's feeling that his efforts will not matter to the group.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 1

Social Influence: Crash Course Psychology #38

Story

Tug of war experiment

One of the first works devoted to the study of the phenomenon of social loafing was the work of Max Ringelmann (1913), known as the Ringelmann effect. Scientists conducted a series of experiments on groups of individuals who were not informed about hidden dimension their contribution to overall result. In the course of the study, he found that as part of a group, participants in tug of war made less effort than when working individually.

In 1974, researchers led by Alan Ingham repeated Ringelman's experiment using two types of groups: 1) groups with real participants (according to Ringelman's setup) 2) pseudo-groups with one real participant. In the pseudo-group, assistant researchers simulated the work of tug-of-war, but in reality only one person controlled the rope. The results showed that the achievement of the group, whose members really made an effort, is much lower than the achievement of the pseudo-group. Since the pseudo-groups lacked coherence within the team (because research assistants weren't physically pulling the rope), Ingham proved that communication between participants did not in itself reflect a possible decrease in performance - loss of motivation was the more likely cause of the decrease in performance.

The applause experiment

Bibb Latane, Kipling Williams, and Stephen Harkins continued to look for other ways to study this phenomenon. The experiments were carried out on a group of six individuals seated in a semicircle. The participants in the experiment were blindfolded and wearing headphones. A deafening ovation and screams were broadcast to a group of subjects through headphones. Participants were deprived of the opportunity to hear their own or others' cries and applause. According to the scenario of the experiment, the participants of the group had to shout or applaud "with all their might" alone or together with others. It was assumed that each of the participants would shout louder, because they would feel relaxed. In reality, social laziness manifested itself in full measure: in the group, the subjects shouting or applauding made three times less noise than each of them individually. However, according to the participants of the experiment, in both cases they "given the best" in the same way.

Influence of culture

Christopher P. Earley in 1989 conducted a study of social loafing, taking into account the influence of the cultural factor on this phenomenon. Groups of individuals with Western (individualistic) and Asian (collectivist) types of cultures took part in the experiment. An individualistic culture is characterized by the fact that in it the individual goals of its members are no less (if not more) important than group ones, in a collectivist culture, on the contrary, group goals prevail over individual ones. Earley suggested that social loafing may be less pronounced in collectivist cultures, focused on achieving a common result by a group rather than an individual. In his study, he showed that Chinese managers who completed a series of hour-long tasks worked harder in a group than US managers who worked harder alone.

Causes

Potential assessment

How more quantity group members, the more each member tends to feel deindividualized. This term defines a decrease in the personal responsibility of an individual in a group, which leads to a decrease in the efforts made by individuals in groups. Thus, this phenomenon can reduce the overall effectiveness of the group. The individual may feel "lost in the crowd", believing that his efforts will not be rewarded.

Insignificance of influence on the overall result

In a group with large staff individuals, each of them tends to believe that his contribution to the overall result is insignificant and does not have a significant impact on the result. Believing that his efforts are not important in the context general group He makes the least amount of effort. A case in point this approach is voting in the United States, where the majority of citizens believe that voting in elections is an important procedure, but the percentage of citizens voting in the presidential elections is very low (51% in the 2000 elections).

• - the presence of individual responsibility for the results of their work: the higher the level of responsibility, the lower social laziness;
• - group cohesion and friendships: people in groups goof off less if they are friends, and not strangers to each other;
• - group size: than more strength groups, the more social laziness;
• - cross-cultures and differences: members of collectivistic cultures are less prone to manifestations of social laziness than members of individualistic cultures;
• - differences: women in lesser degree show social laziness
• 4 The synergy effect when people are united into an integral group, additional intellectual energy arises, which is embodied in group result, which dominates the sum of individual results Formally, for this effect, the ratio 1 1 - more than 2 is valid. This effect was studied by Russian scientists V M Bekhterev and M M Lange. individual people This appears as in intellectual sphere, and in other forms of mental activity: an increase in the observation of people in a group, the accuracy of their perception and assessments, an increase in memory and attention, the effectiveness of solving simple arithmetic problems that do not require complex and coordinated interaction. However, Bekhterev also noted that when solving complex problems when logic and consistency are needed, "particularly gifted people" are dominated by average group indicators. The synergy effect is clearly manifested during the "brainstorming" - " brainstorming"when a person has to offer many new ideas without their critical and logical analysis.
• 5 effects of groupthink. This is a specific way in which a cohesive group is dominated by the search for agreement, which subordinates a realistic assessment of possible alternative actions. The discovery of this phenomenon of the term "groupthink" (groupthink), belongs to Irving Janis opposed to the opinion of the individual. When group members face the threat of diverging positions, opinions, disputes and conflicts, they try to reduce group cognitive dissonance and eliminate negative feelings as it does so, and at the same time find a solution, although this may not be sufficiently thought out and reasonable from the point of view of each individual member of the group. If the group is drawn into such decision-making strategies, the search for consensus becomes so important that group members voluntarily give up opportunities to look at the task with a new original view. Individual members of the group can also turn into so-called group supervisors who are busy fixing and severely punishing any dissent.
• 6 effects of conformism Members of the group dependent on it in their contacts with the world, in most situations they can even perceive sensory information with a certain modification, due to group factors and different nature The effect was established in 1956 by Solomon Ash. AT further research the following conformism factors are identified:
  • - personality type: persons with low self-esteem are more dependent on group pressure than have high self-esteem;
  • - group size: high level people show conformity when they encounter the unanimous opinion of three or more people;
  • - composition of the group: conformity increases if the group consists of experts, the members of the group are authoritative for the person and belong to the same social environment;
  • - cohesion: the greater the cohesion of the group, the greater its conformity (trap "groupthink");
  • - status (authority): people who have authority in the eyes of a person can more easily influence it, they are more often obeyed, the presence of an ally: if a person defends his position or doubts, the group has at least one ally who gives the correct answer, then the tendency to adopt a group position is reduced
  • - public situation: people have a high level of conformity when they have to speak in public, and not when they write down their position on their own

Having expressed their opinion in public, people tend to carry it out - the complexity of the task or problem: if the task is too difficult, the person feels incompetent and shows more conformity

Conformity should not be viewed as an unambiguously negative trend, since this factor contributes to group decision. You can specify the following reasons conforming behavior:

• 1) persistent and stubborn behavior of people seeking to dig up a person that her position is wrong;
• 2) the tendency of group members to avoid condemnation, punishment, removal from group members for their disagreement;
• 3) the uncertainty of situations and the lack of information contribute to the fact that members of the group begin to focus on the opinions of others
• 7 effects of fashion (group imitation) Imitation is one of the main mechanisms of group integration. In the process of group interaction, group members form common standards, stereotypes of behavior, following which emphasizes their unity and strengthens their membership in the group. Members of certain groups create certain well-established norms regarding appearance (group uniforms for the military, business suits for businessmen, white coats for doctors). Such a group uniform, sometimes not officially established, shows others to which group a person belongs, what norms and rules govern behavior. People tend to imitate the butt of a person, something similar to themselves, in more than dissimilar The imitation effect is the basis of any learning and contributes to the adaptation of people to each other, the consistency of their actions, preparedness and to the solution of group problems. This effect is similar in some elements to the effect of conformity, however, in last case the group exercises a certain pressure on its member, while imitation group norms are accepted voluntarily.
• 8 halo effects ("halo effect") This influence on the content of knowledge, personality assessments of a certain attitude that one person has in relation to another, occurs when people perceive and evaluate each other in the process of communication. This effect occurs under the following conditions:
  • - lack of time (a person does not have time to get to know another person well, think it over personal characteristics or analyze the interaction situation);
  • - an excessive amount of information (a person is overloaded with information about different people, therefore he does not have the opportunity and time to think about an individual person);
  • - non-significance of another person (formation of unpaid) representation of a person who performs the role of a halo;
  • - stereotypes of perception (functioning of generalized images various groups, which members certain group use as reduced versions of knowledge about these groups);
  • - brightness and eccentricity of the personality (certain features seem to catch the eye of others and push into the background all other qualities of this person, so feature is the person's appearance

There is also a negative version of the halo effect, when positive personality traits are mixed in, a biased attitude towards a person is formed on the part of others. Bias is a specific attitude towards the perception of the self, based on negative traits personality (object of perception), and information about traits is not reliable, but simply taken on faith.

9 The effect of group favoritism. This is the tendency to favor members of one's own group as opposed to members of a foreign group. This effect serves as a distribution mechanism between people who are perceived as their own and others The effect of group favoritism is more pronounced when the criteria for comparing the results of activities and the characteristics of relations with other groups are very important for the group, when groups compete with each other, opportunities for unambiguous manifestation of groups are formed. membership in a group is more important than interpersonal similarity, then they prefer "ours", even if "outsiders" are similar in their personal identities, interests, views.

Group members also tend to explain the success of their group by intra-group factors, but also by possible failure - by external factors. Therefore, if the group is successful in its activities, it believes that this is due to itself (its leadership, climate, the abilities of its members) When the group finds itself in a situation of defeat ( failure), then looks for the perpetrators of this outside the group or shifts the blame to other groups.

• 10 effects of group selfishness. This is the orientation of group interests, goals and norms of behavior against interests, goals and norms. individual groups or the whole society. In this case, entire groups are achieved due to opposition to the interests of members of other groups, neglect public interest Group egoism manifests itself when the goals and values ​​of the group become more important than social values ​​and goals, when they give in to the interior of the ESAM of an individual for the sake of the stability of the group's existence. In such cases, a person is sacrificed to the integrity of the group, completely subject to the requirements and standards group behavior. This effect is extremely Negative consequences for the group as a whole, its further life and the fate of its individual members.
• 11 pendulum effects This is a cyclic alternation emotional states sthenic and asthenic character, the intensity and duration of which depends on the activity of the group Experimentally, the emotional potentials of the group were studied by OM Lutoshkin. The emotional cycles of a group depend on such factors:
  • - day of the week and time of day, at the end of the week the mood of workers worsens, fatigue accumulates;
  • - peculiarities psychological structure group, leadership processes, system of relations, level of conflict, group cohesion;
  • - the level of discipline in the group: the higher the labor discipline in the group, the better mood its members
• 12 wave effects. This is the dissemination of ideas, goals, norms and values ​​​​in a group. An individual shares a new idea with his immediate environment, this idea is supplemented and developed by members of the group. The idea begins to be considered among other members of the group, its group evaluation and discussion is carried out, the idea covers everything more people. This is possible only when new idea meets the needs and interests of people, and does not contradict them. If the idea is in the interests of people and is developed by them, then the effect of the wave is enhanced. If the idea is contrary to the interests of people, then the wave fades.
• 13 Pulsar effect. This is a change in group activity depending on various stimuli. Group activity unfolds like a cycle: the optimal activity needed to normal operation groups - rise in activity - decline in activity - return to the optimal level of activity. The unfolding of this cycle depends on external (receiving an urgent task by the group) and internal (the desire of group members to solve the problem) incentives, in accordance with the pulsar effect, the activity of the group increases sharply at the beginning of the activity, and when the task is solved, there is a decline in activity. Then the level of activity rises again to the optimal level. necessary for the normal coordinated work of groups in a group.
• 14 Boomerang effect. First researched in activity funds mass media; lies in the fact that the person who perceives the information does not recognize it as true, but continues to adhere to the preliminary setting, or a new assessment of events or a person is formed, which is opposite in content than the information that the person was told. The boomerang effect occurs when conflicting information is communicated or when people interact, when the aggressive actions of one person are directed against another, in the end they act against the one who carries out these actions or responds negatively. In a group setting, people are more committed calm person than to her aggressive rival.
• 15 The "we - they" effect. This is a feeling of belonging to a group (the “we” effect) and, accordingly, detachment from others (the “they” effect). The effect of belonging to a group has two separate effects - emotional support and addition. The effect of the addition is that a member of the group feels attached to the problems, deeds, successes or failures of the group to which he really belongs or subjectively himself to her group is, feels responsible for the results of the group. The effect of emotional support is manifested in the fact that a member of the group expects emotional and real support, compassion, help from other members of the group. If a member does not receive support, his sense of "we" - the sense of belonging to the group - is destroyed and the feeling of "they" arises, that is, he is able to perceive his group as strangers who do not share his interests and concerns. The "we" effect is a psychological mechanism for the group's functioning. Exaggeration of the "we" feeling leads to an overestimation of one's capabilities and advantages, to separation from other groups, to group egoism. At the same time, the underdevelopment of the sense of "we" leads to the loss of a sense of value-oriented unity of the group.

Topic 2b

PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATION

Socio-psychological aspects of work in a group.

Phenomena of group influence

Plan:

Social facilitation.

social laziness.

3. Deindividualization.

4. Group polarization.

5. Grouping of thinking.

6. Minority influence.

The first three phenomena (social facilitation, social loafing, and deindividuation) can be observed with minimal interaction, but they also affect people's behavior with strong interaction.

Does the very presence of other people affect us? This means that these people do not compete with us, do not encourage or punish, in fact, they do nothing, they are simply present either as passive observers or “accomplices”. * ’’.

1. Social facilitation**

A century ago, psychologists noticed that cyclists show the best time when competing with each other, not with a stopwatch. Experiments confirmed these observations.

*Contributors: A group of people who work individually, but separately, doing non-competitive work.

**Social facilitation: 1) Initial meaning - the tendency to encourage people to perform simple or familiar tasks in the presence of others.

2) Modern meaning- strengthening of dominant reactions in the presence of others.

Children reeled in the spinning line faster, with more speed solved simple arithmetic examples, more precisely, they hit a metal rod in a circle placed on a moving disk of a gramophone.

However, when performing complex tasks (passing a maze, memorizing meaningless syllables, when solving examples for multiplication big numbers) efficiency in the presence of others decreased.

How to reconcile these conflicting data? Social psychologist Robert Zyens suggested, and then experimentally confirmed, that increased arousal always increases dominant reaction, i.e. a person, seeing a simple task, rather assumes success, therefore he copes faster and more correctly, and vice versa difficult task in a state of agitation is more likely to cause a reaction of failure and is solved more slowly and with errors. This is also confirmed in sports. At home in football, hockey, baseball, in the presence of their fans, teams win in 55-60% of meetings.

To be fair, it should be noted that in last example A number of other factors may also influence. This "effect social facilitation”, as it was called, was also observed in animals. In the presence of other individuals of their species, ants dig sand faster, and chickens peck more grains. So social arousal enhances dominant reaction, it improves performance simple tasks and impairs the performance of difficult ones. How can this effect be taken into account in our robot? For example, when designing a survey, oral questions should be simpler than written ones that do not require a public response. When conflict situations with individual students, it is necessary to solve the problem face to face, if possible, because defiant behavior may intensify in the presence of others. After all, the Russian proverb says: "In the world and death is red!".

Excitation increases another feature - massiveness. If in large audience a little person is sitting compactly, then they are more excited than if they were sitting apart. So, mass character increases arousal, which exacerbates dominant reaction.

Why does arousal occur? It arises due to fear of evaluation if people think they are being judged; due to overload and distraction; due to the presence of others as such (most joggers experience a boost of energy if they run with someone else, even if they don't judge or compete with them).

2. Social loafing*

Social facilitation usually occurs when people strive to achieve individual goals. What if people add up their efforts to achieve general goals and where each not is responsible for the joint result, something opposite is observed.

Engineer Max Rinilman discovered that the collective performance of a group does not exceed ½ of the sum of the performance of its members. What is the reason? Low motivation of group members or their inconsistency, poor coordination of actions lead to such a result? In a group tug-of-war experiment, each participant expended 18% less effort than if they were pulling alone. The 6 subjects, who were told to applaud and shout as loudly as possible, only made twice as much noise as one.

*Social laziness: the tendency of people to put in less effort when they join forces for a common goal than when they are individually responsible.

At the same time, the subjects did not perceive themselves as "loafers": they believed that efforts were applied equally both alone and in a group.

However, if the goal is so significant and it is so important that everyone makes every effort, then the team spirit causes and maintains real zeal. The challenge must be challenging, compelling, and engaging, so that everyone's contribution is seen as irreplaceable. The same thing happens with intergroup competition. Groups goof off less if their members are friends, if there is cohesion.

3. Deindividualization*

So the group can excite people, and in the group responsibility can be blurred. When arousal and responsibility erosion are combined, normative deterrence is sometimes weakened. The result can be actions from slight violation to vandalism, orgies, theft.

In 1967, 200 students at the University of Oklahoma gathered to watch their fellow student decide to end his life. They started chanting, “Jump! Jump!..” The poor fellow jumped and crashed.

*Deindividualization: loss of self-awareness and fear of evaluation; occurs in group situations that provide anonymity and do not focus on the individual.

About 7-8 years ago, fans of the Alisa group, after the concerts of their idols, walked along the streets of Moscow, entered the subway and crumbled everything in their path.

In certain group situations, people tend to discard normative constraints, lose their sense of individual responsibility, i.e. to feel “deindividualization”.

Under what circumstances does this occur? psychological condition?

If the group is large and it is easy for individual members to keep physical anonymity, then “deindividualization” occurs. After analyzing 21 cases where someone threatened suicide in the presence of a crowd, Leon Mann found that when the crowd was small and lit by daylight, as a rule, there were no suicide attempts, but in a large crowd and in the dark people usually teased suicide, mocking him.

Philip Zimbardo suggested that the impersonality in big cities itself means anonymity and provides for a code of conduct that permits vandalism. For the experiment, he bought two used cars and parked with the hood up, one on a New York street, the other in the small town of Palo Alto. In New York, there were 23 episodes of theft in three days, while the car was completely stripped by seemingly decent white citizens. In Polo Alto, only one in a week went to the car and closed the hood, because. it was raining. In the experiment, when a group of children were launched into a room, they were treated to chocolates from a dish, saying that they could take one at a time, while no one openly watched them, almost everyone took more than was allowed. If the children were let in one at a time, asking first for the name and address, then no one took more than one chocolate bar. Therefore, the level of honesty often depends on the situation.

Also available the effect of wearing a uniform. In the experiments, the white clothes of the Ku Klux Klan evoked cruelty, and the clothes of the nurse, on the contrary, more mercy, while in both experiments anonymity was maintained. Subsequent laboratory experiments revealed the fact that by simply wearing a black sweater, a person may already be prone to more aggressive behavior.

Deindividuation is facilitated by exciting and distracting activities. Explosions of aggression in large groups are often preceded by minor actions that excite and distract attention, reduce self-awareness. Throwing stones, shouting, chanting, dancing, etc., can set the stage for more unbridled behavior. Remember the example of the fans of the Alisa group. One eyewitness from the Moon sect recalls how the chant "choo-choo-choo" helped deindividualization. He said: “The power of choo-choo-choo scared me; but it also gave me a sense of comfort, and there was something extremely relaxing about this accumulation and release of energy. There is a self-enhancing pleasure in doing the impulsive act of watching others doing the same. When we see that others do what we do, we assume that they feel the same way, and thus strengthen our feelings.” Deindividualized people are less inhibited, less in control of themselves, more inclined to act without thinking about their values, but according to the situation. Those who have had their self-awareness raised, say, by being placed in front of a mirror or TV camera, brightly illuminated, or required to wear name cards, demonstrate increased self-control, they are more thoughtful, less vulnerable to appeals that contradict their value system. Circumstances that reduce self-awareness, such as alcohol intoxication, respectively, increase deindividuation. When a teenager goes to a party, a good parental parting word sounds something like this: “I wish you a pleasant evening, but do not forget who you are!”, i.e. enjoy being in a group, but don't lose your self-awareness.

4. Group polarization*

Which outcome, positive or negative, most often generates group interaction? We have already talked about social loafing and deindividuation, often demonstrating the destructive potential of this interaction. However, management consultants, educators praise its virtues. And in social and religious movements, people manage to strengthen their identification by joining communities of their own kind. It turns out that discussion in a group often reinforces the initial attitudes of its members, both positive and negative. This phenomenon has been called the "group polarization phenomenon". Dozens of experiments have confirmed the existence of group polarization. Always the discussion reinforced the initial position of the group members.

Then we applied another research strategy, selecting topics that would cause a divergence of opinions in the group, and then united the subjects who had the same view on the problem into subgroups, isolating them from opponents. Discussion with like-minded people strengthened general views and widened the gap in attitudes between subgroups. This polarization helped explain another recurring result. Groups compete more strongly and cooperate less with each other than individuals do with each other.

____________

* Group polarization: the strengthening of pre-existing tendencies of group members caused by the influence of the group; a shift in the average trend towards its pole instead of a split of opinions within the group.

How can this phenomenon be explained? During group communication, a bank of ideas is formed, most of of which is consistent with the dominant view.

When participants express the group's thoughts in their own words, verbal certainty enhances the impact. The more group members repeat each other's ideas, the more they internalize and appreciate them. Even the mere expectation of discussing a topic with opponents can motivate us to build our own argumentation system and take a radical position. Along with this, in human nature lies the desire to evaluate their opinions and abilities and compare them with others. And, if others share our views, we, wanting to please, can begin to express harsher opinions.

One can recall instances when everyone in the group was wary and reserved, until someone dared to say: “I believe…”, and to everyone's surprise, everyone found a coincidence of views. It's rare to hear anything in response to a teacher's question, "Who has questions?". Each student believes that his own silence is due to the fear of embarrassment, because others are silent, because. completely mastered the material.

5. Grouping thinking*

When do group influences get in the way of making intelligent decisions? In our cases, groups are able to accept good decisions, and how to manage the group so that it makes the best decisions?

*Group thinking: “the mode of thinking that occurs in people when the search for consensus becomes so dominant for a cohesive group that it tends to discard realistic assessments alternative way action” (Irwin Dianis, 1971)

In working groups, camaraderie increases productivity, but in a decision-making environment, solidarity sometimes comes at a cost. The soil on which group thinking grows is friendly cohesion groups, comparative insulation groups from conflicting opinions and policy leader, making it clear which solution he likes.

What are grouping symptoms thinking? Illusion of Invulnerability. Groups show excessive optimism, which does not allow to see signs of the danger of making the wrong decision.

· Stereotypical view of the enemy, i.e. its underestimation or biased assessment.

· Unquestioned belief in the ethics of the group. Members of the group believe in their infallibility and virtue, rejecting arguments about morality and morality. Group members become "intellectually deaf".

· Rationalization. The group comprehensively justifies and defends its decisions, by all means.

· The pressure of conformity. To those who express their doubts about the opinion of the group , the rest fight back, often not with arguments, but with ridicule that offends the individual.

· Self-censorship. Because disagreements are often uncomfortable, and there is a semblance of agreement in the group, its members prefer to hide or discard their concerns, fearing to appear “boring”.

· Illusion of unanimity. Self-censorship, conformism do not allow the agreement, which creates the illusion of unanimity, to be violated.

· Distortion or concealment of information. Some members of the group protect her from information that could raise questions. moral character or question the effectiveness of group decisions.

Due to the phenomenon of grouping thinking, the search and discussion of conflicting information and alternative possibilities may not take place. When the leader comes up with an idea and the group insulates itself from conflicting views, this phenomenon can lead to imperfect solutions.

So, group thinking leads to: high cohesion of the group; directive leadership style; isolation of the group from comprehensive information; high level of stress, little hope for a different solution. These social conditions when seeking consent, they lead to flawed decision-making, which has the following features: all possible alternatives are not considered; all objections are not taken into account; the degree of risk is not assessed decision; lack of awareness; biased evaluation of information; no contingency plan developed.

A tragic example of group thinking when making a decision is the unleashing of a war in Chechnya with all the terrible consequences.

So what, “Seven nannies have a child without an eye” or “The mind is good, but two are still better”, and “Truth is born in a dispute between friends” (David Hume)? Cohesion by itself does not always lead to group thinking. Here are a few rules , which must be observed by the manager to prevent this phenomenon:

· It is necessary to know and remember about this phenomenon, its causes and consequences.

· Do not take a biased position.

· Objections and doubts should be encouraged.

· From time to time it is advisable to divide the group into subgroups, give them the opportunity to discuss the problem separately, then bring them together to identify differences.

· If the problem concerns opponents, then you need to calculate their probable moves.

· Having developed a draft decision, discuss it, let the group members express the remaining doubts.

· Invite outside experts; ask them to challenge the group's views.

· Encourage group members to share ideas.

In the previous chapter we discussed the early work of Ringelmann (Ringelmann, 1913), who experimentally found an almost linear decrease in the average pull force per person on a rope as the number of people in the group increased. If there were no procedural loss there, then of course the force of pull on one person would remain constant despite the increase in group size. Both Ringelmann (Ringelmann, 1913) and Steiner (1972) suggested that perhaps process loss is related to group coordination, which becomes more difficult as group size increases. Several of Steiner's colleagues at the University of Massachusetts (Ingham et al., 1974) set out to clarify this issue. Their plan was simple: in order to estimate motivational losses, all coordination losses must first be eliminated. They came up with a very elegant way to achieve this: in order to eliminate the coordination loss of the group, you must exclude the group. As in the classic Ringelmann experiment, there were several people in the lab who participated in various tests, from about one to six people pulling the rope as hard as they could. The main difference in Inham's experiment (1974) was that seven people were assistants to the experimenters. The researchers made it so that in any situation the subject was always ahead of the others, that is, he was closest to the device that measured the tension. Each person was also blindfolded, supposedly so that nothing distracted him. During these tasks, assistants did not pull the rope; in fact, there was no group, only the subject, who believed that he was part of the group, did the work. Inham and colleagues found that as the "group" grew larger, the individual began to exert less effort; this was especially noticeable in small groups (i.e. one to three people). Thus, it turned out that Ringelmann's results, according to at least partly, motivational losses affected: as soon as the group became larger, people began to pull less strongly.

A few years later, Latane and colleagues (Latane et al., 1979a) obtained the same results when they were given the task of "clapping as loudly as possible". The experimental approach was similar: during these tests, the subject thought that he was part of the group, but in reality only he clapped his hands. Thus, both Ringelmann and Inham et al found that an individual's motivation decreases with an apparent increase in group size. Latane and his colleagues called this motivational loss social laziness. They suggested it might be a common "social disease" that harms many species. joint activities For example, the low efficiency of the Soviet agricultural collective, or collective farm, could be explained by such social laziness.

A follow-up study confirmed that the effect of social loafing does indeed exist (Jackson and Williams, 1986). It is not limited to motor tasks such as rope pulling or hand clapping: this effect is also seen in cognitive and perceptual tasks (Petty et al., 1980; Szymanski and Harkins, 1987). This effect has also been observed in studies conducted in various countries such as India (Weiner et al., 1981), Japan (Williams and Williams, 1984), and Taiwan (Gabrenya et al., 1981). In the course of research, it was assumed that this effect is not necessarily a universal characteristic of group activity (when it is opposed to individual activity), as it was considered in early work. For example, social laziness can be combated by means that are known to increase motivation. For example, social loafing is not observed if the task is sufficiently difficult (Brickner et al., 1986), attractive (Zaccaro, 1984), or interesting (Petty et al., 1985) among group members; if the degree of cohesiveness of the group is high enough (Williams, 1981) or if the group achieves some specific purpose(Brickner, 1987). In general, the effect of social loafing is observed in situations where an individual or group lacks strong incentives to complete the task.

Research has also uncovered a major reason for the effect of social loafing (Kerr and Bruun, 1981; Williams et al., 1981). When a person enters a group pulling a rope or clapping their hands, they may feel their individuality dissolve. By their nature, such tasks are connecting, they require the combined efforts of all members of the group to achieve the same result for all. In them it is not possible to determine what kind of contribution was made by a particular member of the group. If one member of the group decides not to put much effort into such a task (maybe it is tedious, uninteresting, or does not entail any reward), then this will go unnoticed by the group. The degree of anonymity partly increases with the size of the group: the more people contribute to the achievement of a common result, the more difficult it is to determine the procedural loss of a particular group member. However, since the poles of anonymity are individual work (there is no impersonality) and work in pairs (there is impersonality), it can be assumed that the maximum reduction in effort will be observed when moving from individual work to work in pairs and in the future, with an increase in the size of the group, the efforts of the participant will no longer decrease so significantly. As we said above, the first studies of social loafing considered only the model described above. (You will also notice that this data is in good agreement with the predictions of social influence theory; chapter 5.) As the number of influence targets grows, the influence factor, task requirements, begins to weaken, and the strength of this effect decreases with increasing group size. There is a direct way to test the influence of the impersonal factor. The experimenter can change the task in such a way that the subjects think that it is possible to identify the efforts of each member of the group. For example, Williams et al (1981) considered two options for the clapping task. In one variation, used by Latane et al (1979a), people sat in a circle with a single microphone in the center. When the group clapped their hands, it was possible to measure only overall strength sound, the contribution of each individual member of the group was impossible to determine. While experimenting with this variation of the task, Williams and colleagues observed the usual effect of social loafing: as group size increased, group members put in less and less effort. In the second option, each member of the group had their own microphone. Regardless of the size of the group, it was possible to register the contribution of each individual to the overall sound power. With this variant of the task, the effect of social laziness was not observed. (Kerr and Bruun (1981) got exactly the same results using a completely different kind of task: pumping air.)

These results once again prove what we already know very well: in the analysis of group work, the main role is played by the characteristics of the task. The effect of social laziness is not a universal (i.e., group) phenomenon. Moreover, it manifests itself only when a group performs certain tasks, namely those in which it is not possible to determine the contribution of each member of the group to the overall solution. Such tasks Davis (1969) calls tasks with reduced informativeness. However, in cases where the contribution of each member of the group is always known (tasks with stored information), the effect of social loafing is not observed.

In fact, we made a slight inaccuracy in determining the basis of the effect of social loafing. It is probably not a matter of identifiability per se, but rather of the likelihood of an individual being ranked in relation to the identified contribution to the overall outcome (Harkins 1987; Harkins and Szymanski, 1987b). In other words, even if I am sure that my contribution to the common cause can be measured, but at the same time I am also sure that it will not be evaluated, I can continue to be lazy. This has been demonstrated in one very clever study (Harkins and Jackson, 1985). The task was as follows: come up with as many uses for the item as possible. For half of the subjects, conditions were created under which they expected the experimenter to get acquainted with the options for each of them. The other half had to collect all the proposals received in a common box, that is, it was impossible to determine the contribution of each member of the group. When people believed that each member of the group came up with options for using the same item, the usual effect of social laziness was observed - in conditions of "unidentifiable" it was proposed less ways. When they assumed that everyone had a different subject to think about using it (hence the results could not be compared and evaluated), the effect of laziness was also observed, although each person's contribution could be identified here. Thus, to determine the effect of social loafing, it is not the possibility of identification that is important, but the probability of evaluation. In his next work Harkins and colleagues showed that the motivation of a group member is influenced not only by the assessment of his actions by someone from the outside. Likewise, motivation is likely to be judged by other members or even by oneself (Harkins and Szymanski, 1987b; Szymanski and Harkins, 1987). Furthermore, possible score group members' work of the whole group (but not the individuals in it) can motivate group members to work (Harkins and Szymanski, 1989). Thus, the effect of social laziness is observed in a limited range of situations in which the assessment of the actions of members of the group or the entire group by anyone is insignificant.

At first glance, the effects of social loafing and social facilitation contradict each other. We have already found that the presence of colleagues in activities helps us, at least for simple, well-known tasks (such as pulling on a rope or clapping hands). At the same time, we have seen in this chapter that people do not work to their full capacity and, as a result, they perform worse in this kind of tasks in a group setting. However, if we know how strongly the group process depends on the requirements for the group task, we immediately notice: “But the tasks are not the same. The effect of social laziness is observed when a person works together with others, and the effect of social facilitation - when he works only for himself. Is this difference in task requirements the key to understanding the apparent contradiction, and if so, why? These issues have been addressed by Harkins et al. (1987; Harkins and Szymanski, 1987a). Harkins notes that Cottrell, in his explanation of social facilitation in terms of arousal caused by past experiences, central location relegates the evaluation, which is supposed to always take place in the presence of spectators (at least this applies to people). In his work, Harkins hypothesizes that evaluation also underlies the effect of social loafing. The difference between these two situations lies in the effect that attendees have on the likelihood of scoring. In a situation of social facilitation, the (mere) presence of others increases the likelihood of evaluation, since in this case the actions of one individual can be compared with the actions of others. In a situation of social laziness (namely, when a group performs tasks with reduced information content), the presence of colleagues in activities reduces the likelihood of evaluation (since it is impossible to say with certainty who did what). The key point is this: in itself, being in social situation(as compared to a situation in which one individual is involved) does not have one, general and permanent effect on activity: depending on the requirements of the task, it can have completely opposite effects.

If Harkins is right, if the social loafing effect is something like the flip side of the social facilitation effect (and each of these effects is based on evaluation), then it is tempting to assume that the "social" (i.e. group) conditions in these two situations will have the exact opposite effect. We have already seen that this is true for simple tasks, but would that also be true for complex assignments? Will it teamwork over complex, little-known tasks with reduced information content, to influence the probability of evaluation predicted by the individual in the direction of its decrease (and, consequently, the degree of motivation, or "drive", which will also decrease accordingly), which will lead to an improvement in the performance of individuals and the entire group (remember , what high degree excitement interferes with the performance of complex tasks)? That is, can social loafing actually have a positive effect on the group's performance on the task? Jackson and Williams explored this possibility. The subjects performed a complex maze task on the computer, while they believed that their scores would be summed up with their partner's scores in such a way that it would then be impossible to determine how many points each of them scored. Under these conditions, under which the effect of social loafing usually occurs, the subjects actually performed better than the subjects who worked side by side with a partner. So, certain conditions contribute to the emergence of social loafing, and they will not necessarily negatively affect the performance of the task.

For example, if several diggers dig a pit together, then each of the diggers will “give out to the mountain” a smaller amount of soil per unit time than if the diggers worked alone. This, of course, applies not only simple species labor. This effect has been confirmed in huge number experiments on the example of the most different types activities. The overall result is that working in a group leads to a relative decrease in productivity compared to individual work.

A group in this case means a set of individuals whose activities are aimed at achieving common goals. To obtain the effect of social laziness, it is not at all necessary that the members of the group work in the same place, like diggers. A group can be called, for example, employees of the purchasing department, warehouse and sales department. They have common goal to the maximum extent and minimum terms meet the needs of buyers. It can be called a group of accounting staff, since they have a common goal - the preparation of correct financial statements. Generally speaking, the company as a whole can be called a group, since the employees have a common goal - the profit of the company.

What are the reasons for such "netting" individuals when they are combined into a group? And how to deal with it? Social psychologists explain this effect the fact that, while working in a group, an individual, as it were, hides in the crowd, his individual results are not clearly visible, and that is why he can afford to “jump”, “slip through for free”.

Indeed, the results of studies show that in those cases where, along with group, are fixed and individual performance results, in other words, when it is “seen” not only how much the group as a whole has done, but also how much each individual has done, then social laziness disappears. In order to ensure that work in a group does not reduce the productivity of diggers, it is enough to trace how much land each digger dug and make his payment dependent not only on group, but also on individual results.

However, the reality is that it is not always possible to clearly measure individual results. Let's take as an example group work at meetings. Suppose there is a discussion of ways to solve this or that production problem. The meeting is attended by heads and leading specialists of various divisions of the company. How to evaluate the individual contribution of each participant in solving the problem? By the number of ideas put forward, by their quality, by the total time of speeches ..? Problematic. One can talk a lot, but "not on business." And the other is to meditate silently throughout the entire discussion, and then give out a super idea.

More recently, a study by Worchel, Rothgerber, & Day, 2011 provided evidence that sheds New World on the phenomenon of social loafing and offer some additional recommendations to eliminate this undesirable effect.

The experimental results show that the magnitude of the effect of social loafing is related to the level of maturity of the group. In the early stages, when the group is just formed, the effect of social loafing is not observed, on the contrary, there is even a tendency for participants to work better in a group than individually. On the other hand, when the group has existed for a long time, when it becomes mature, the effect of social laziness is fully manifested.

The explanation for these facts is as follows. In the early stages, most members of the group, as it were, merge with it, consider themselves and the group as a whole. Over time, however, this sense of unity weakens, the individual begins to mentally separate himself from the team, separate his working interests and the interests of the group; as a result, the group becomes a collection of functionally (but not emotionally) related individuals.

Thus, in order for the activities of the group members to be as productive as possible, the following can be recommended:

First of all, in mature, established groups, it is necessary to clearly measure individual performance each of the employees, make the remuneration system dependent on individual results and not be limited only to the performance indicators of group work.

Secondly, necessary create new groups more often. This does not necessarily require the destruction, disbandment of existing collectives. It’s just that in addition to the existing ones, it makes sense to create new, possibly temporary associations of employees: for example, different kind project teams created to solve a specific problem on a temporary basis from employees of different departments. By the way, in "young" groups it is not necessary to fix the participants' attention on their individual results , it can disrupt the feeling of unity of the group members, shift the focus from the feeling of "we" to the feeling of "I", weaken the sense of identification with the group and the desire to work towards a common result. In young groups, it will most likely be sufficient to use only group performance as the basis of the reward system.