Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social loafing on cognitive tasks: An examination of the “sucker effect”

  • Full Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study addresses the causes and potential mediators of social loafing on tasks which require active cognitive effort. Contrary to previous research, social loafing did occur despite the use of a task which was thought-provoking, personally involving, and provided the opportunity for unique contributions. The results suggest that equity theory, which has been supported as a reason for social loafing on physical tasks, may also be the basis for loafing on cognitive tasks. No significant loafing occurred when the subjects believed their partners would not loaf.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brickner, M., Harkins, S., & Ostrom, T. (1986). The effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 763–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkins, S., & Petty, R. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1214–1229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J., Harkins, S. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1199–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 936–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 823–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty & Cacioppo, J. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R., Harkins, S., Williams, K., & Latane, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1980). The effects of group diffusion of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information processing view.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 81–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnake, M. E. (1991). Equity in effort: The “sucker effect” in co-acting groups.Journal of Management, 17, 41–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. (1981).Social loafing and group cohesion. Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Association, Detroit.

  • Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clemson University, USA

    Tina L. Robbins

Authors
  1. Tina L. Robbins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

A copy of the more extensive manuscript can be obtained by writing the author, who is now at the Department of Management, College of Commerce and Industry, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina 29634.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robbins, T.L. Social loafing on cognitive tasks: An examination of the “sucker effect”. J Bus Psychol 9, 337–342 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230973

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02230973

Keywords

Search

Navigation