social loafing in academia: an exploratory study fcross ... · “social loafing" in academia:...

比治山大学現代文化学部紀要，第6号， 1鈎9Bul. Hijiyama Univ. No.6， 1999 1ω

“Social Loafing" in Academia: An Exploratory Study

。fCross-Cultural Differences

Damon E. Chapman &

Daniel Cochece Davis， Assistant Professor， Marist College， Poughkeepsie， New York， U.S.A.

Abstract

“Social loafing" is a group-level phenomenon出atexists across several types of situations， in-

c1uding business and social situations. Research on loafing in academic siωations， however， is woe-

fully lacking， while cross-cultural research in血isarea is virtually non-existent. This study measured

the prevalence of social loafing in naturally-occurring student groups on university campuses in Ja-

pan， Malaysia， and the United States. Subjecぉ wereasked how common social loafing is; how

they compensate for loafing in groups， and what， if anything， instructors do to prevent loafing. Re-

sults showed血atloafing in college groups is a well-known and common phenomenon that crosses

national boundaries. Most individuals do little to compensate for loafers in their groups， and the

m吋orityof students believe出eirir首位uctorsmake little， if any，剖民mptto reduce由eproblem. Rec-

ommendations are made for advancing this area of study in future research.

Introduction

Why do some people in group projects do much less work than other individuals within the

group? Do they have no interest? Is the cost of full participation more expensive than not partici-

pating? Is there any cost for not participating? Do individuals care if the group project gets com-

pleted? Could members of a group choose to invest less energy into the group because there is no

incentive to do so?。

“Social loafing" is the phenomenon of individuals in group situations doing less work， participat-

ing to a lesser degree， putting less energy or effort into the group project由加 theywould if出ey

did the work alone (Latane， Williams， & Harkins， 1979). Social loafing is a common occu町'en白血

many different situations from tasks requiring cognitive effort (e.g. brainstorming)， to work involving

physical effort or labor (e.g. see Latane & Darley， 1966， for a study on why people who witness an

emergency fail to help others in distress). The term “social loafing" is relatively new， evolving部

recentlyω1979 (see Latane， B.， Williams， K.， & Harkins， S.G.， 1979)， but research白血isarea

goes back nearly 100 years.

Social loafing is a group-level phenomenon， it cannot occur at the individual level (at the indi-

vidual level， it is known as“procrastination， "“laziness，" or a sirnilar term). It deals with the re-

duction or increase of the energy level， or effort， put inω 血egroup project by each individuαlin

the group. Related to social loafing is血e∞nceptof“free riding" (Marwell & Ames， 1979， 1980)，

110 Damon E. Chapman

a specific area of research within the category of social loafing literature which addresses the prob-

lem of individua1 group members trying to gain the benefits of group work. Specifically， free riding

describes an individua1， usually one who has less investment in the outcome of the group task， who

abstains from using much energy on the group task， thereby getting a “free ride" off the energy of

fellow group members. A related phenomenon is the “sucker effect，" where one person in the

group does the majority of the work rather than receiving the low group evaluation. For this person

(出e“sucker")，the burden of extra work is justifiable， if not necessary， because this individual has a

higher investment in the task， or outcome of the group，出another members. Because it dea1s with

reductions or increases in individual energy expendiωre within group tasks， social loafing，出e

group level phenomenon， subsumes both the “fr民 rider"and the “sucker effects" .

Taken toge由er，these three areas of research focus on group communication and the dynamics

of energy investment among group members. 官1Isfocused紅eaof research， however， lacks any

theoretical model under which it can be unified， a1though it can be argued白atthese phenomena fall

into a Human Energy Management (HEM) theory (Davis， 1997). According to this血ωry，humans

will conserve their energy within groups unless出eybelieve the outcome of the situation requires

their energy and， therefore， is a worthwhile investment. With regard to socia1 loafing， HEM theory

suggests血atindividuals will not invest their energy in the situation if they believe the result will be

the same whether or not they participate. That is， an individual might think ''The outcome won't

change if 1 participate， so why should 1 put a lot of energy into it?" Past research has shown出at

social loafing is common in business organizations (e.g. see George， 1992)， and this paper will ar-

gue， in academic si加ationsas well.

Social Loafing: Prevalence & Causes

As stated above， the definition of social loafing indicates it is a group-level phenomenon， in that

it cannot occur at the individual level， which deals with the reduction or increase of the energy

level， or effort， put into the group project by each of the group' s individuαls. Social loafing sub-

sumes bo血 the“free rider" and “sucker effects" because it deals with reductions or increases in in-

dividual energy expenditure within group tasks， and it is common across many different types of

tasks. Previous studies in血isarea have been done on groups doing a physical task suchぉ rope-

pulling， (Ingham， Levinger， Graves & Pec細川n，1974)， shouting (Latane， Williams， & Harkins， 1979)，

and pumping air (Kerr & Bruun， 1981). In these studies， participants were usually tested individu-

ally， then grouped together wi血 otherparticipants in the experiment， and tested again， collectively， as

a group. Group dynamics， thωretically， suggests血atany group effort should be close to the sum

of a11 the individual efforts combined. Known as“synergy，" this idea出atthe result of the group

work would be greater血anthe sum of all the individual efforts has long been aαntral characteris‘

tic in group thωry research.

In rea1ity， however， social loafing， rather than high “synergy，" is a much more common experi-

ence for groups. That is， loafing is more commonly reportedぉ symptomaticof group work. One

reason may be出atit' s much easier for group participants to recognize the problems encountered in

group work (i.e. more pωple compl泊nof the “loafer" or“free-rider" in the group， decreased pro-

ductivity is evident， frustration with other members may be obvious， and there is reduced group co-

“Social Loafing" in Academia: An Exploratory Study of Cross-Cultural Differences 111

hesion， etcふ Inshort， social loafing research empirically establishes由atwhen the individual efforts

of all group members are combined， it is greαter than the sum of the collective group effort， which

is opposite the notion of “synergy" so prevalent across group research.

While loafing may be more easily recognized within groups involving physical activity (e.g.“出e

more hands， the better，" which makes identification of the loafer easier)， studies also show the size

of the group may affect participation. People may be less likely to help others when alone白血

when in a group. Latane & Darley (1966) cite a phenomenon known出“bystanderapa血y，"and

found血atpeople are less likely to help people in emergencies when出eyare alone出anwhen they

are in a group. Wicker (1969) found由atmembers in a re1igious group are likely ωparticipa胞 less

when the size of the re1igious group increases. Social loafing， however， is also prevalent in tasks

requiring cognitive effort (e.g. brainstorming; see George， 1992; Harkins & Petty， 1982).

Efforts to discover the cause of loafing go back as far部出ela臼 ninetβenthcenturyぐrriplett，

1898) and the better known study by Ringlemann (1913). Work in church groups， as noted above，

found血atthe larger the size of the group， the more the productive it was， however， in smaller

groups， the individuals were more active than those in larger groups (Wicker， 1969). Williams，

Harkins and Latane (1981)， in a study on shouting， found血atwhen individual efforts were identifi-

able， they put out greater effort than when performing the task toge由er. Yet， when the participants

were never identifiable，血eyput out as 1ittle effort either alone or in the group. In short， people

loafed because they could not be discovered in the pooled efforts of the group. Their lack of effort

tended to be “lost in血ecrowd." 百1Isindividual effort was evident in research by Harkins and

Jackson (1985)， who conc1uded出atwhen participanω， individual efforts were identifiable，出eygen-

erated more uses由anwhen their efforts were pooled. This occurred， however， only when the p紅白

ticipants be1ieved their work would be compared to血.eperformance of their co-workers. That is，

some sort of meter， or“check" was necessary to measure the relative output of each individual

(Harkins & Szymanski， 1988; Szymanski & Harkins， 1987).

While the previously mentioned study by Williams， et al (1981) conc1uded血atidentifiability of

an individual's output is an important factor in preve


出eyignore the loafer and do the work themselves?

Since socia1 loafing inftuences the productivity of the individuals in a group， a lot of importance

has been given to loafing because of its connections to organizational interests (e.g. business-related

group work). Yet， it is common in most， if not all， educational majors at a university or college ω

engage in some sort of group project at some point over their university career. Within those

groups， it can be said血atmost participants in any academic community have experienced social

loafing in some form. Assuming 由atthese naturally-occurring， natura11y-developing groups are

prevalent， it is amazing出atthe social loafing research has neglected to study groups within the aca-

demic arena. Instead， pぉtresearch has been done on zero-history groups. That is， groups that

were formulated to do an artificially-created project， one由athad little va1ue or reward to出epar-

ticipants (e.g. a project created solely for the pu中oseof research， and not resulting in any evalu-

ation from the instructor)， and one unrelatedωtheir overall educational goals. This study aims to

fill in the gap of research on social loafing in the academic community by studying students and

their naturally-occurring student groups. Specifically， it will address the following issues: a)由e

preva1ence of social loafing in natura11y-occurring student groups; and b) what students do， if any-

thing， when they encounter social loafing， or free riders. Furthermore， this will be a cross-cu1tural

study由at∞mp紅白血.eprevalence of loafing in groups of students in the United States， Japan， and

Malaysia.

Cross-Cultural Rationale

Why compare Japanese and Malaysian academic groups wi血 U.S.groups? As previously noted，

the vast majority of research in由isarea stems from the U.S. This paper takes the position that部

two of the strongest economies in Asia (Japan， the strongest; and Ma1aysia， one of the “tiger"

economies of South East Asia)， more research should be done to∞mpare血ecross-cultural differ-

ences between such inftuentia1 countries， as well as between Asia and the West. Successful Asian

coun住iesmust wage war against血e“loafingculture，" states Akihiko Tanaka， Associate Professor of

Intemational Politics at the Institute of Orienta1 Culture at Tokyo University (Kathirasen， 1993). He

adds血atencouraging young Asians to work hard (both in and out of academia) in the new， eco・

nomically successful Asian coun佐iesis far from easy. “There is no incentive to compel the young

to s出vehard，" he adds (Ka血ir悩 en，1993). Is loafing in Japan， a fully developed country， more

preva1ent血anin a less-developed Asian country， such as Ma1aysia? Is loafing more preva1ent in

the U.S.， where most of the research on the phenomena has been done， outpacing both of these

Asian societies?

In Japanese culture， many young people view the four years of university work as a “break" for

出etypical Japanese student. That is， the actua1 process of entering the university is often ranked出

the most significant hurdle in a student' s academic career. This does not， in any way， diminish the

va1ue of a university education， but college is often seen as a time for the student to focus on

choosing a career ωenter into once graduation p錨 ses. Does由isexplain， or justify， putting mini-

ma1 effort inωacademic projects because the biggest hurdle (passing the university en佐anceexam)

has a1ready been achieved? In the U.S.， on the other hand， the opposite viewpoint tends to prevail:

entering the university is much less of an obstacle由anis successfully completing the requirements


for graduating from血einstitution. Therefore， one might suggest血atthere will be significant differ-

ences in social loafing in academic groups between these coun住iesdue to the different expectations

each society places on血eperform組問 ofits students.

Dr. Kasmini Kassim of血eUniversiti Kebangsaan， Malaysia fears that teenagers pick up bad hab-

i臥 such部 loafing，“when血eyape the ways of血eWest." (Omar， 1993). Furthermore， leaders

from the Prime Minister (of Malaysia) down have been “S悦 ssingthe need to re-arm ourselves mor-

ally and to give those negative錨 pectsof Westem culture a wide berth." (Business Times， 1993).

Is social loafing a product， or result， of Westem influence? If so， will it be most evident in U.S.

groups?

Social Loafing: Cross-Cultural Definitions

In Japanese society， social loafing is known， effectively， by two terms. One is“'putaro，" or a

person who is considered lazy; one who was胞stime; one who “hangs around" doing nothing in par-

ticular ; one who expels minimal energy in a given situation; and the term may also refer to an un-

employed person. Similarly， ''putlαro SUlぜ， is the verb form， meaning being 1位 y，loafing， or gen-

erally doing little in the given si佃ation(suru is a verb similar to“do" in English and appliesω

numerous actions). 百leother related， and socially recognized term in Japan， is“binjo suru hi札"

or“fr，白 rider"in Japanese-English. This is a person who gets a “free ride" from others; one who

uses other people for his I her benefit; one who takes advantage of other people to achieve his I

her own agenda (hito means person in Japanese). 百leverb form of出is包rmis“binjo suru，" or

using others， getting a free ride， etc. The term applies in si加ationsrequiring physica1 effort (e.g.

going from place A to place B at another' s physical or financial expense); and situations requiring

cognitive effort (e.g. business projects with co-workers， brainstorming， school group projects， etc.)

Within Malaysian sωiety， social loafing， or“lepak" in the Bahasa Malaysia language， has been

widely definedωbehavior ranging from “hanging around" doing nothing in particular 仏im，1993);

loitering (Chandrasekaran， 1993); or simply “discussing problems" and “exchanging opinions" among

friends and peers with no aim or pu中ose(Omar， 1993). Dr. Kasmini of出eUniversity Kebangsaan

Malaysia no胞s血atit can be called by any name (Omar， 1993). Research on loafing in public

places suggests that白 termencompasses a pωsive style， lack of participation in social events and

group projects， on血epart of individuals and I or groupsぐfeah，1994; zain & Kassim， 1995).

Loafing in Academia

With血isincreased awareness of the problem on society as a whole， one must ask what recog-

nition of loafing is there in academia? One study notes血atsuch behavior in the general society

should not be considered the “'norm" for students or teens in αny coun釘y，but出atit may stunt the

growth of a developing coun町 (e.g.Malaysia) (Iran， 1995). The notion血atstudents have strong in-

fluence in any coun句， and have由eability to change the course of a nation' s history is not new

(witness血erecent 1998 s佃dentdemonstrations伽 tforced出edownfall of Indonesia's former presi-

dent Suharto).

In Japan， much attention has been given to school problems such邸“iijime，" or“bullying"泊


and around sch∞1 campuses at all academic levels from elementary schools to universities. This is

a situation where one or more students “pick on，" abuse， or threaten another student (usua1ly one

who is considered “weak" and“vulnerable") for money， completion of homework assignments， etc.

Similarly， another highly recognized problem in Japanese education has been the dec1ining academic

performance of university studentsσhe Japan Times， November 9， 1999). Yet， virtua11y no work

has been done， let alone recognized， on the problem of social loafing on Japanese campuses， or， for

that matter， in Japanese society as a whole.

Beginning in the early 1990' s， when Malaysia， and severa1 other economic “tigers，" (as rapidly

developing Southeast Asian countries came to be known) began to analyze the negative aspects of

such rapid development on society， social loafing reached great levels of awareness. It came to be

known as“budaya lepak" or“loafing culture" (Kathirasen， 1993; Toh， 1993); 血e“loafingsyn-

drome" (Lim， 1993) and a new “loafing phenomenon" (F位idah，1994). At that same time， several

popular publications repor臼d出.eneed for a comprehensive study of出isnew syndrome， or culture

(Chandr出 ekaran，1993; Kathirasen， 1993; Berita Harian， January 8， 1994; Berita Harian， January

14， 1994; Berita Minggu， January 9， 1994).

A few in-dep血 studieshave catagorized loafing behavior (e.g. passivity， laziness， hanging

around) and the manifestations of loafing in public places (Fazidah， 1994; Z司令， 1995; Z泊n&

Kassim， 1995)， and in Kua1a Lumpur's Centra1 Market (Teah， 1994). While Zain & Kassim (1995)

did use students部 subjects，and catagorized血epublic behavior of socia1 loafing， they did not study

the effects of such behavior in academic groups. This same pair of researchers argued for more re-

search on the thinking of句ens，why由eyloaf. and what the consequences of it may be (Kassim &

Zain， 1995). 百lephenomena reached pop-status in Ma1aysia after being discussed in one of the

coun住y's leading magazines (Aripin， 1993). Loafing then shot to national prominence in a youth pro-

gram on the loafing culture， which dec1ared血atyouth engaged in such behavior were branded “tαh

bermαruαh" or“people without dignity"ぐToh，1993). The loafing culture， it was said “is the vul-

ture eating into our co11ective body. Everyone seems to be obsessed with it." (Kathirasen， 1993， p.

12). 百leY outh and Sports Minister of Ma1aysia even went so f:紅白旬開11it a“dis


(1994) argues for a link to a “theory of leisure"， or leisure class， taking root in Malaysian society.

The argument goes出atwith the development of the country， and the ensuing economic success，

youth， and students in particular， have less and less of a reason ωstrive to better themselves， be-

cause the success of the economy is making it easier to achieve one' s one goals. If血isis住ue，

one must ask if loafing will be significantly higher in a fully developed Asian society， such as Ja-

pan， where “leisure" is more readily available， and young people tend to be better off. It has also

been suggested that more “psycho-social" connections need to be made when studying loafing (Teah，

1994).

Thus far， this paper has shown出国 socialloafing exists across several situations and types of

groups. It can and should be considered a pervasive phenomenon出atgoes beyond the boundaries

of individual coun住ies. It exists more often where individual efforts are not identifiable， where no

standard or measurement exists for checking the effort of individuals in the group， and where the

overall goal or result of the group work has little intrinsic value to由egroup's individuals. The

pu中oseof this paper is to explore the phenomenon of social loafing in naturally-occurring academic

groups. Specifically，血ispaper will examine the presence of social loafing among academic groups

on university campuses in three different countries: Japan， the United Sta記s，and Malaysia. To do

so，由ispaper offers the following hypotheses:

H 1 : Social loafing is prevalent throughout academia.

Similarly， the following hypothesis is intended to prove由eextent to which social loafing exists in

academic con胞xtsacross national boundaries:

H 2 : Social loafing will be experienced by m吋oritiesof students across cultures.

In addition， because of their commitment to the group， class or course grade， the following hypothe-

sis is also offered:

H 3 : Student group members will ignore fellow student group members who are social loafers

(a. k. a.“fr民 riders").

Lastly， it is believed由atsocial loafing exists in academia because instrucωrs do not establish

methods in which ωprevent it. This would include ways to compensate for the loafing (e.g.， hav-

ing students grade each other on group projec脂)or methods to combat the problem (e.g.， making

each group member's con住ibution identifiable， thereby preventing anyone from “hiding" in the

group). Since reducing the problem of soc

Methodology

Data from Japanese subjects was collected from 154 undergraduates at a small， priva低 university

泊 WestemJapan. The survey， writ包nin Japanese， had b田 ntranslated， and cross-回 nslatedfrom

the English version (see Appendix A) by three native Japanese speakers， all ftuent in the English

language. The survey consisted of a series of 17 open-ended and closed-ended questions pertaining

to student' s past experience with social loafing in academic si同ations. The Japanese surveys were


dis釘ibutedin the student' s classroom， and the data w錨 collectedin October， 1999. All student re-

sponses were anonymous.

U .S. data was collected from 33 undergraduates at a small， liberal arts college in the northeast-

em United States. All responses were anonymous. The surveys were distributed in the student's

classr∞m and data was collected in October， 1999. In Malaysia， 69 undergraduate students were

surveyed at a large， national university in the capital city， Kuala Lumpur. The survey was identical

to血atused in the U.S. (English is the language of instruction at the university). All responses were

anonymous. The surveys were distributed in the student' s classroom and data was collected in Au-

gust， 1999.

Results & Discussion

The majority of participants had previously heard of “social loafing" (68%)， as well as free rid-

ing (60%)， indicating血atthe phenomena is well known across the three cultures. Surprisingly，

however， the lowest percentage of participants having heard of social loafing was in the United

States， where the m司orityof research on social loafing occurs. J apan ranked lowest in recognizing

血.econcept of“fr民 riding: "

Table 1

Students who heard of: Sωial [ρafing Free Riding

U. S.: 56% yes， 44% no U. S.: 81% yes， 19% no Japan : 63% y回， 36% no Japan : 42% yes， 57% no Malaysia: 85% yes， 15% no Malaysia: 91% yes， 9% no

Descriptive statistical analyses revealed participants' average contribution to group projects is

moderate， yet a majority of them (73%) have experience with social loafers among their group mem-

bers. Results indicate出atsocial loafing is common in academia， although the variation between the

three cultures was not statistically significant， therefore， providing only indirect support for hypo曲目is

two (Sωial loafing will be experienced by majorities of students across cultures.):

Table 2

Percent of students who experien偲 da group where one or more group member“loafed，" or did not participate fully in出egroup:

U. S.:

Ja戸n:Malaysia:

90% (30) y田， 10% ( 3) no. 47% (32) yes， 53% (36) no. 93% (53) y回 7%( 4) no.

(AlI participants answered the question.) (68 out of 154 answered出equ回tion.)(57 out of 69 answered the question.)

Social loafing， or human energy conservation， seems to be universal. With respect to cultural dif-

ferences， however， it should be noted出at55% (86 out of 154) of Japanese student's refused， or


were unable， to answer the question about whether or not other group members loafed. Whereas

Japan is widely reg紅白das a group-oriented society “the squeaky wheel does not get the oil")， it

could be argued出atJapanese students hesitate to talk bad about others and， in tum， avoid repo此ing

loafers in the group， even when their presence may be detrimental to the group. This may stem

from embarrassment， or fear of being singled out by group members as the “tattle tale." Another

reason for由islack of response may be no experience in academic group work.

Additiona11y，出etype of student's major (e.g.， business， communication， English， etc.) did not

provide useful distinctions， indicating the problem exists within groups regardless of the s加dent's

major field of s加dy，and is not significantly more p回 va1entin one academic area of study over an-

other. Only c1ass level revea1ed a statistica11y significant relationship with the con位ibutionlevels of

participants (F 4， 248 = 2.48， P = .044， eta squared = .039). Seniors were least contributive to出e

group (self-reporting a con佐ibutionlevel of 1.8 on a 5・pointsca1e， or below “barely any血ing，")，

while freshmen were second (averaging 1.38 on a 5・pointscale，“no白血g"to“b紅elyanything"). In

Japan， the data show由atfreshmen level students were (not surprisingly) the le，αst contributive to

their groups :

Table 3

Japanese Student Averages (on a 5-point scale)

Freshman 2.5 Sophomore 2.7 Junior 3.35 Senior 2.8

Somewhat surprisingly， age was not correlated with contribution levels at a11. Thus， the age compo-

nent of differing c1ass levels seems to have little effect.

With respectωmales and fema1es，出oughnot directly addressed， an ANOV A (Ana1ysis of

V紅 iance)test indicated血atma1es and fema1es were more a1ike血andifferent in terms of self-

repo巾 dsωia1 loafing (F 1， 250 = .115， P = .734， eta squared > .001). In short， in a也stof血ree

groups (Japanese， Ma1aysian and U.S. students) on the variable of self-reported levels of sωia1

loafing， there was no statistica11y significant difference across the three cultures， between men and

women， nor among different academic majors， in terms of how much people loafed. All由r田 na-

tiona1ities basica11y loaf the same.

Support for hypothesis血ree，(Student group members wil1 ignore fellow student group members

who are social loafers.) is less strong， but evident:


Table 4

Frequency with which group members believe people rely on other individuals ωdo their work for them in group projects:

u.s. Mean I Average: 3.45 on a 5 point scale

(979るofstudents believe it happens “sometimes" to “always." ) Japan M回 nI Average: 3.55 on a 5 point田ale

(98.5% of students believe it happens“sometimes" to“always." ) Malaysia M伺 nI A verage : 3.36 on a 5 point scale

(889もofstudents believe it happens“sometim白"to“always." )

Although there is no statistical significance， the data tend to support cross-culturaI simiIarities.

That is， sociaI Ioafing is a universaI phenomenon. The means (averages) are similar in aII culturaI

groups. Support for hypo出esisthree， the common acceptance of loafing in the group， could stem

from many factors. These include: a)血eidea伽 tloafing is normaI and to be expected in student

groups ; b) there is a high level of frustration with出istype of behavior among students， yet dealing

with the “loafer" or“free rider" requires too much energy， so students ignore them; or c) individuaIs

willingly do extra work in order to make up for the “loafer" within the group. While the latter

possibiIity may be common， (putting extra work into the group to insure a high evaIuation from出e

instructor)， accepting loafing部 normalshouldn't be the rule among academicians. The loafing may

persist because individual group members make little effort to solve the problem themselves， or it

could stem from a lack of involvement by the instructor. Similarly， some students may hesitate to

approach由eins位uctorwith problems in the group because， as previously mentioned，出eyare fearful

of being labeled a “rat" a “tatt1e臼le，"or a whiner. In Japan， specificaIly，出estudent could fear

speaking out because of血e“iりime，"or“buIIying" problem in Japanese schools.

When respondents indicated出at血ey“con住ibutedlessωa group project than出eycould have，"

the reasons are varied: 1 was lazy; 1 was angry; It was troublesome; 1 thought it was useless;

1 was embarrassed; It was difficult; 1 was not in the mood; 1 was uninterested; 1 had no en-

ergy; 1 was busy; 1 gave up and compromised. Perhaps the in住insicvaIue of the project was not

strong enough for the student to overcome these seemingly simplistic excuses for a lack of fuII par-

ticipation. As Teah (1994) suggested， there may be a link to a “leisure class" taking root in soci-

ety. That is， student involvement in society as a whole， (including task-based group projects)， cou-

pled with the apparent passive attitudes toward loafing in the group as a whole， may suggest young

people have less reason to strive; less incentive due to由elevel of developed society. Such

“psycho-social" connections should be applied when doing future work in this area.

On the other hand， the acceptance of loafing as normaI may stem from the instructor' s lack of

involvement. Though p紅 ticipantsestimat怠dthe sociaI loafer' s contributi


Table 5

Frequency with which s加denωbelievedinstructors took an active role in p陀 ventingsωial 1伺 fing:

u.S. : 2.85 on a 5 -point s回 le(n伺 f“sometimes0α町s"). (91 % of the students felt there were exceptions in tenns of whether佃 instructor“always"回edto prevent it.)

Japan: 2.29 on a 5-point scale (“rarely 0ω町s"). (94% of the students felt血erewe犯 exceptionsin tenns of whether組 instructor“always"凶dωpreventit.)

Malaysia: 3.00 on a 5-point scale (“sometimesωC町 s"). (96% of the 蜘 dentsfelt there were exceptions in tenns of whether祖 instructor“always"凶edto prevent it.)

Why don't instructors take a more active role? Possible reasons include apathy toward their

student' s work， a lack of awareness of their own class， or simply a lac孟 ofmethods for remedying

the problem. If the last option is住ue，teachers should look into research白atsuggest remedies for

social loafing. Past research offering preventative measures for loafing include， but are not limi怯d

to: a) provide individuals with incentives (e.g. do individual evaluations of each group member，

not one group evaluation); b) make each member's work indispensable while also making the cost

of participation minimal; c) give learning-oriented feedback (as opposed to perfonnance-oriented

feedback) to individuals and to the group as a whole; d) make all individual efforts measurable; e)

make the group's goals intrinsically valuable; and f) have all members give feedback to all other

members in the group (see Harkins & Petty， 1982; Jackson & Williams， 1985; Kerr & Brunn，

1983; Matsui， Kakuyama， & Onglatco， 1987; Sanna， 1992; Shepperd， 1993; Zaccaro， 1984).

Work in血isarea must address the teachers directly， and analyze their experiences with loafing in

academic groups.

This paper attempted to address a serious lack of research in group-dynamics across血reecul-

ωres. It was a far-reaching overview of the existence of loafing among student-groups across three

cultures出atshould serve as a basis for extensive future research. Although not statistically signifi-

cant， the hypotheses posed in血ispaper were generally suppor旬d. Loafing exists across cultures

and across academic majors. Students most often ignore the “loafers"血 theirgroups， and instruc-

tors do little， if anything， to prevent血eproblem. There are limits to出isstudy， however，血atmust

be noted (and overcome in fu卸reresearch). The number of subjects from the U.S. was smaller

血anexpec胞d，which could result in a less than representative s担npleof血atnation's students. Fur-

出erresearch should insure an adequate sample to study more strata of the student population， par-

ticularly highlighting differences among majors (e.g. the physical sciences， liberal arts， etcふ While

age differences were not detected in血isstudy， a comparison of undergraduate and graduate student

groups may yield significant differences given the increased responsibilities and group-based seminars

students encounter in graduate school.

Similarly， fuωre studies may use subjects from one academic majo


differences between members of the 8，αme student group. This may help reveal some “psycho-

sociaI" cIues Teah (1994) sugges蛇danalyzing in order to discover why stude凶 toler蹴 loafing. If

the problem of loafing persists due to causes s蛇mmingfrom the instructor， remedies are available， as

indicated above. If由eproblem originates more from the students， sociaI and or cultural factors

should be considered. As noted， why don't Japanese students report loafers more? Do westem

students have greater input and / or preventative measures imposed on them by their instructors?

Regardless of the route taken in the future， on one final note， it is suggested出atresearchers heed

the following waming: society shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that those who loaf . . .do

not fare very well in the academic community. (Business Times， 1993). That is， being a “loafer" or

a “free rider" does not always equate to a poor academic performance. But loafing is prevaIent， and

academicians shouldn' t acωpt this as normal.

Appendix A: Student Survey

Thank you for participating in由isresearch study. The study is being supervised by Damon

Chapman， Instructor剖 HijiyamaUniversity (Hiroshima， Japan); and Daniel Cochece Davis， Assistant

Professor of Communication Studies at Marist College (Poughkeepsie， New Y ork， U .S.Aふ Thepur-

pose of this survey is to collect information on students' experience in college groups. Your partici-

pation is completely voluntary and you are free to skip over any question you feel unable/unwilling

to answer or discIose. The results of由isstudy will appe紅 ina scholarly publication. However，

all responses will be kept anonymous. Thus， your complete candidness and participation are appreci-

a凶 andvaIued.

1. Your Sex (circle one) : MaIe Female

2. Age (in yea陪):

3. Year in School (circle one) :

151 Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year Masters Student Doctoral

4. School Major (e.g.， English， Communication， etc.):

5. Have you ever pa同cipatedin a graded， group project with other students? Yes No

If‘yes'， please continue. If‘no'， please go句 Questions15・16.

6. In your experience， are most of the group projects usually given a single group grade or

is each group member graded individually? (circle one)

Group Grade IndividuaI Grade

7. How much do you usually contribute to the student group projects you are involved in? (circle one)

Nothing Barely Anything RequiredlModerate Amount

More Than Required Everything (100%)


8. Have you ever experienced one of your fellow group members contributing dramatically less to

the group project than you thought they could have contributed? (ci陀leone) Yes No

If‘yes¥please continue.σf‘no¥please go to questions 13・17).

9. How much did that person contribute to the student group project? (circle one)

Nothing Barely Anything RequiredIModerate Amount

More Than Required Everything (100%)

10. What did your group do about the situation? (Please explain， briefly.)

11. Did your group tell the course instructor about the situation? Yes No

12. How common is it for an instructor to try and prevent this type of situation from 0∞urring? (circle one)

Never Rarely Sometimes Ofi倒 Always

13. What， if anything， do your instructors do to prevent this type of behavior? (Please explain， briefly.)

14. How often do students in group pr吋ectsrely on other students to do their work for them

in group projects? (circle one)

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

15. Have you ever contributed less to a group project than you could have contributed?

Yes No

If yes， why?

16. Have you ever heard of the concept of Social Loafing? Yes No

17. Have you ever heard of the concept of Free Riding? Yes No

References

Aripin， S. (1993， October). Psikologi: Budaya Lep紘一Sesuaikahdengan jiwa Remaja? (psychology:

Loitering Culture-does it fit the teenagers soul?) Mastika， #629， pp. 30・31.

Brickner， M.A.， Harkins， S.G.， & Ostrom， T.M. (1986). Effects of personal involvement: 百lOught-

provoking implications for social loafing. Joumal of Personality and Social Psychology， 51， 763・769.

Budaya lepak sal油 siapa.(百leLoafing Problem: Who is ωBl創ne?)(January 9， 1994). Berita Minggu， p. 11.

Ch組合邸ekaran，V. (August 15， 1993). Panel formed to combat loitering. The Star， p. 3.

Colleges tum to p陀 Pschool胞achersfor deficient students. (November 9， 1999). The Japan Times， p. 3.


Davis， D.A.C. (1997). Development and initia1 tests of a Human Energy Management theory. Dis-

sertation Abstracts Intemationa1.

Fazidah， B.M.Y. (1994). Fenomena Lepak Di Kalangan Remaja Melayu: Kajian Di Kuala Lumpur.

(The Loafing Phenomenon Among Malay Youths: A Study Done in Kua1a Lumpur). Master's百le-

sis， Jurusan Sosio-Budaya， Jabatan Pengajian Melayu， Universiti Malaya， Kuala Lumpur， Malaysia.

George， J.M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations.

Academy of Management Journal， 35， 191・202.

Harkins， S.G.， & Jackson， J. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating socia1 loafing. Personal-

ity and Social Psychology Bulletin， 11， 457-465.

Harkins， S.G.， & Petty， R.E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing.

Jouma1 of Personali砂 andSoc臼1Psychology， 43， 1214-1229.

Harkins， S.G.， & Szymanski， K. (1988). Social loafing and self-evaluation with an objective stan-

dard. Joumal of Experimantal Social Psychology， 24， 354-365.

Ingham， A.G.， Levinger， G.， Graves， 1.， & Peckham， V. (1974). The Ringelmann [sicJ effect: Studies of

group size and group performance. Joumal 01 Experimantal Social Psychology， 10， 371・384.

Iran， H. (1995). Tingkah Laku Lepak Remaja Luar Bandar: Strategi Menangani Masa1ah. (Loafing

behavior among rural youths: Strategies and solutions to overcome the problem). Prosiding:

Seminar Kebang Saan Gejala Sosial; Sekolah Pembangunan Sosial， Universiti Utara Malaysia.

Jackson， J.M.， & Williams， K.D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can

improve performance. Journal 01 Personalityαnd Social Psychology， 49， 937-942.

Kassim， M.D.M吋&Zain， A.N.M.(1995). Profil Aktiviti Remaja Lepak. (A Profile and Activities of

Loafing You由s). Prosiding: Seminar Kebang Saan Gejala Sosial; Sekolah Pembangunan

Sosial， Universiti Utara Malaysia.

Kathirasen， A. (October 23， 1993).“'Lepαk :" not new or uncommon. New Straits Times， p. 22.

Kerr， N.L.， & Bruun， S.E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Altemative explanations for the social

loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin， 7， 224・231.

Kerr， N.L.， & Brunn， S.E.， (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses:

Free-rider effects. Journal 01 PersonaU砂 andSocial Psychology， 44， 78・94.

Latane， B.， WilIiams， K.， & Harkins， S.G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes

and consequenαs of socia1 loafing. Journal 01 Personality an


Ringelmann， M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animes: Travail de l'homme. Annales de l'In-

stitut National Agronomique， 2 e serie-tome XII， 1-40.

Sanna， L.J. (1992). Self-efficacy 出eory: Implications for social facilitation and social loafing.

Journal 01 Personality and Social Psychology， 62， 774・786.

Shepperd， J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychol-

ogy Bulletin， 113， 67-81.

Szymanski， K.， & Harkins， S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social standard.

Journal 01 Personality and Social Psychology， 53， 891・897.

Tackling the Weak Link. (November 9， 1993). Business Times， p. 12.

Teah， H.C. (1994). Kajian Kes Lepak Di Sekitar Pasar Seni (Central Market). (Research Case on

Loitering around Central Market). Master' s Thesis， Jabatan Antropologi dan Sosiologi， Universiti

Malaya， Kuala Lumpur， Malaysia.

Toh， S.B. (August 15， 1993). All血efuss over teens who “lepαk". The Star， p. 3.

Triplett， N. (1898). The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. American Journal 01

Psychology， 9， 507・533.

Usaha sama kaji belia lepak. (Research On Youth Problems). (January 8， 1994). Berita Harian， p. 14.

Wicker， A. W. (1969). Size of church membership and members' support of church behavior set-

ting. Journal 01 Personali.砂 andSocial Psychology， 13， 278・288.

Williams， K. D.， & Karau， S. 1. (1991). Socia1 loafing and socia1 compensation: 百leeffects of expecta-

tions of co-worker perfonnance. Journal 01 Personality and Social Psychology， 61， 570・581.

Williams， K.， Harkins， S.， & Latane， B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent ωsocial loafing: Two

cheering experiments. Journal 01 Personali.ηand Social Psychology， 40， 303-311.

Zaidy， B.S. (1995). Kesan Budaya Lepak Di Kalangan Remaja: Satu Kajian Di Sekitar Wilayah

Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur.σhe Effect of the Loafing Culture: Research Around Kua1a Lumpur).

M部 ter's百lesis，Fakulti Usuluddin， Ak:edemi Islam Universiti Ma1aya， Kua1a Lumpur， Ma1aysia.

Zain， A.N.M.， & Kassim， M.D.M. (1995). Lepak Di Ka1angan Pelajar - Kajian Di Negri Perak Dan

Pulau町nang.(Loafing among Students: A Study in the States of Perak and Penang). Prosiding:

Seminar Kebang Saan Gejala Sosial; Sekolah Pembangunan Sosia1， Universiti Utara Ma1aysia.

Zaccaro， S. J. (1984). Social loafing: The role of task attractiveness. Personali.砂 andSocial Psy-

chology Bulletin， 10， 99-106. (1984)

(言語文化学科英語文化専攻)

(1999. 10. 29. 受理)

social loafing in academia: an exploratory study fcross ... · “social loafing" in academia:...

Documents