402 Social Influence and Group Dynamics
reflect social loafing. Results revealed that social loafing was
the operative mechanism. If participants thought they were
cheering with one other person, they shouted at 82% of their
individual capacity. Their productivity dropped to 74% if
they thought five others were working with them.
Social loafing is not limited to group tasks involving
shouting, or even to tasks involving physical effort of some
kind. The decrement in personal contribution with increasing
group size has been documented in groups working on a va-
riety of tasks, including maze performance, typing, swim-
ming, vigilance exercises, creativity problems, job-selection
decisions, and even brainstorming (e.g., Weldon & Mustari,
1988; cf. Forsyth, 1990). Social loafing applies equally well
to men and women, to people of all ages, and to groups in
many different cultures (e.g., Brickner, Harkins, & Ostrom,
1986; Harkins & Petty, 1982). There may be polarization of
attitudes and other mental states in social groups, but this in-
tensification effect apparently does not apply to group mem-
ber’s efforts in accomplishing a group task.
Social loafing varies in accordance with a set of specific
factors. Group members loaf less when they are working on
interesting or challenging tasks (e.g., Brickner et al., 1986).
Loafing is also minimized when each member’s contribution
to a group project can be clearly identified, presumably
because identification creates the potential for evaluation
by other group members (e.g., Harkins & Jackson, 1985;
Jackson & Latané, 1981; Williams, Harkins, & Latané,
1981). Social loafing is also partly attributable to the diffu-
sion of responsibility that takes place in groups and crowds
(cf. Latané & Darley, 1970). Bystanders to emergency situa-
tions feel less compelled to intervene if there are other poten-
tial helpers (Darley & Latané, 1968), for example, and
restaurant patrons leave pitiful tips when there are many peo-
ple in the dinner party (Latané & Darley, 1970). Diminished
personal responsibility reflects members’ feeling that some-
one else will make up the difference, and also reflects their
assessment that they can get away with not helping because
the blame is shared by everyone in the group.
The research on social loafing has focused primarily on ad-
ditive group tasks in which each member’s performance is re-
dundant with that of every other member. This hardly exhausts
the possible relationships among group members. In situa-
tions emphasizing individual rather than group performance,
for example, there is a tendency for individual energy expen-
diture and effort to increase rather than decrease when others
are physically present (cf. Triplett, 1898; Zajonc, 1965).
Whether thissocial facilitationeffect (cf. Cotterell, 1972)
translates into better performance, however, depends on fea-
tures of the task and the contingencies surrounding its occur-
rence. The presence of others typically enhances performance
on overlearned tasks, for example, but tends to hinder perfor-
mance on novel or difficult tasks (Zajonc, 1965). There is
some controversy regarding the social influence processes at
work in such contexts, although there is a fair degree of con-
sensus that the presence of others increases a performer’s
physiological arousal, which in turn activates his or her domi-
nant responses on the task. This is consistent with the empiri-
cal generalization noted by Zajonc (1965), because correct
responses are dominant for well-learned tasks and incorrect
responses are dominant for unfamiliar tasks.
Even in groups mandating cooperation among group mem-
bers, the nature of the task may entail forms of coordination
that go beyond the simple additive criterion employed in so-
cial loafing research (cf. Steiner, 1972). Neither simultaneous
shouting nor tug-of-war, after all, captures the essence of
groups that build machines or solve human relations prob-
lems. Many group goals are defined in terms of distinct sub-
acts that must be accomplished by different group members.
For such activities, the quality of the group’s performance de-
pends on how well members’ respective contributions are
synchronized in time. Assembling a car on a production line
requires such role differentiation, as does maintaining a
household, moving heavy pieces of furniture, or implement-
ing plans to manually recount votes in a close election. Coor-
dination is every bit as critical as individual effort per se in
such instances, and a particular blend of normative and infor-
mational influence may be necessary for the action to unfold
smoothly and effectively. Identifying these blends of influ-
ence is an agenda for future research.DeindividuationFestinger, Pepitone, and Newcomb (1952) coined the term
deindividuationto describe a mental state defined by total
submergence in a group. A deindividuated person feels he or
she does not stand out as a unique individual, and this feeling
leads to a reduction of inner restraints that can result in
impulsive acts or other behaviors that might otherwise be in-
hibited. Although these behaviors may be benign or even
desirable (e.g., spontaneous expression of feelings, laughing
and dancing at a boisterous party), researchers have typically
focused on the potential for antisocial and aggressive actions
under conditions that promote deindividuation (cf. Diener,
1980; Zimbardo, 1970). Soccer hooligans committing ran-
dom acts of violence, mobs rioting and looting stores, and
gangs terrorizing their enemies are disturbing manifestations
of this potential.
Several preconditions for deindividuation have been iden-
tified (Zimbardo, 1970). Being part of a large, unstructured
group, for example, increases one’s anonymity and thus can