Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Social loafing negative consequences
Characteristics of social loafing
Social loafing negative consequences
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Social loafing negative consequences
Social Loafing
A major component of Social Psychological research is based on social
loafing. Social loafing can result in diverse possibilities and also
not only affects the individual who is conducting the social
phenomenon but also group members are subjected to exposure.
Discussion regarding the reasons of social loafing as an occurrence
will be based primarily on evidence from literature regarding the
specific component, envy. Possibilities of outcomes range from members
being awarded unfair workloads or dissatisfaction, to group
performance being decreased. Theories that support some of these and
other notions will become evident after the recognition of previous
research findings. Discussion will be based primarily on Ringleman who
is supported by Ingham and also Latane, Karau Williams and Harkins
(specifically Latane) and. To sum up, personal opinion will be
reviewed and compared to its validity in reducing social loafing in an
educational setting. ‘Educational setting’, on this occasion is
specifically referring to groups of University students creating
poster presentations.
Initially the definition of social loafing according to a recognised
Psychology dictionary will be stated. The dilemma as to what aspects
result in ‘social loafing’ is recognised in this literature with
differences from theories, concepts and experiments as cited being
evaluated. This evidence is aimed to acknowledge and prove the
predicament of the affects and causes related to ‘social loafing’.
Aspects, which contribute to the reduction of social loafing in an
educational setting, are resulted prior to the conclusion as a
prominent component o...
... middle of paper ...
...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.
The author of the essay, Carol Tavris, seems to be very passionate about what she is writing. She has her doctorate in Psychology and has had her articles published in many well-known magazines. The intended audience of her essay is the general public. The purpose of this article is to inform the public that they need to stand out and use their own minds in a group setting instead of hiding in the comfort of their fellow friends and colleagues.
Myers, David G. “Chapter 14: Social Psychology.” Psychology. 10th ed. New York, NY US: Worth
...onson, E., Wilson, T.D., & Akert, R.M. (2013). Social Psychology (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Passer, M., Smith, R., Holt, N., Bremner, A., Sutherland, E., & Vliek, M. (2009). Psychology; Science of Mind and Behaviour. (European Edition). New York.
The present study identified social loafing is less likely in collective conditions than coactive conditions although results were non-significant. This study supports the research of Worchel, Rothgerber & Day (2011) as participants who worked in newly formed groups worked harder in the group setting than alone. This was shown to occur due to a number of reasons including group goal setting and group level comparison between participants. Future studies should consider the influences of group tasks for group development. In conclusion, social loafing in collective groups are not significantly less than the coactive condition however results may vary in future experiments due to having new variables, different participants and a change methodology in future experiments.
On Tuesday the 8th, I was surprised to discover the number of times I drifted off into my thoughts, was preoccupied or distracted in a day. These were all instances when I realized I was not listening, nor being respectful to the other person. This assignment was particularly difficult because when a person is not listening usually, they are not aware of the situation until after the fact. I discovered my nonlistening habits in school, in my social life, and in my personal life.
The Social Imagination in my Life Described by Mills, the social imagination is as follows: “What [people] need, and what [people] feel they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to use information and to develop reason in order to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world and of what may be happening within themselves” (1959, 14). My opinion of social imagination is how our personal problems and experiences affect larger public issues. Whether a macro or micro issue, all of these issues are important to a formation for a better society. Social imagination can be present in social institutions, cultural factors, and historical factors. These different facts and institutions are important to the future formation of our society as a whole.
Stewart, G., Manz, C., & Sims, H., (1999). Teamwork and Group Dynamics. New York: Wiley. pp. 70- 125.
(2004) Psychology (2nd European edition). Essex: Pearson Education Limited Gross, R (1996).Psychology, The Science of mind and behaviour (3rd Ed). London: Hodder & Stoughton
The amount of situations appear with public indifference is increasing in current community. This lack of perception for general public is concern. There is a recent case in China, Yue-yue, a two-years old girl was run over twice, ignored by eighteen passers-by in seven minutes without any aid and finally passed out. This paper agrees with the belief that social apathy is an issue in today’s world. There are two main reasons for this: first, the scare emotion of the negative outcome after assist others, and second, bystander effect.
Social Loafing and Recommendations on How to Reduce Its Occurrence within Groups Working on University Poster Presentations
According to Louis (1980), organizational socialization is a process by which individuals come to be familiar with and to appreciate the value, norms, missions and required behaviors of organizations in which they are going to work. Each newcomer of any organizations has to experience a transition period, which typically last between 6 to 10 months, to adapt to a new setting, in another word, to be organizational socialized in the new setting (Louis, 1980). Experiences during this time largely influence the newcomer’s impression and future adjustment of the organization (Song & Chathoth, 2011). Taormina (1994) concluded that there were four factors that impact a worker’s organizational socialization: the received training from the organization, the understanding of the organizational context, the supports from significant co-workers, and the prospects of the future of the organization. Based upon the four aspects, Taormina (1994) created an Organizational Socialization Inventory (OSI) to measure workers’ socialization in organizations. This inventory has been used and examined by following researchers as a reliable measurement of organizational socialization (e.g. Bigliardi et al., 2005; Bauer et al., 2007).
In Betty White’s opening monologue to Saturday Night Live, she said, “I didn’t know what Facebook was, and now that I do know what it is, I have to say, it sounds like a huge waste of time. I would never say the people on it are losers, but that’s only because I’m polite.” Originally intended for the use of students at Harvard University in 2004, Facebook grew exponentially to be an online phenomenon in the years following. In 2006, it became accessible to anyone and everyone with internet connection. Aside from the advantages that give the site its popularity, creating a profile comes with a number of significant disadvantages inherit to online social networks. What do more than 500 million active users use their Facebook for? Communicating with long distance friends and spreading awareness of causes are common responses. Unfortunately, Facebook has it flaws, from limiting the privacy of relationships to creating a form of almost unmanageable bullying, making one reconsider their involvement and think, “do I really want my Facebook account?”
A highly valued view of building the community is that students must have the capability to motivate themselves and the likelihood to be active in both educational and social experiences. Socializing contains a variety of features from transferring messages to self-disclosure. Online professors can support the socialization by making a forum for discussions. The term ‘water cooler forum’ came from workers gathering at a water cooler to socialize with one another. For the online professor, this concept of socializing is done in an online forum where both student and the professor participate.
Social loafing is manifested when an individual offers less effort when he or she is part of a group. It is expected that all members of a group project share their efforts to achieve a common goal, the social loafer contributes less than he or she would if the project at hand required independence. For instance, suppose that a counselor, superior, assigned an employee to work on a project with a group of ten other counselors, to research new methods for counseling to assist clients more effectively. Independently working, one could break down potential methods of research into steps and begin step one of the research process. However, the project requires group efforts, one has to delegate the research steps or delay in hopes of another group member direction.