Effect of Perceived Anonymity of Group Task Social Loafing

Effect of Perceived Anonymity of Group Task Social LoafingTitleThe result of perceived anonymity upon separate parkway in a meeting task.AbstractSocial groundless(prenominal)ness according to Latan et al (1979) is the decrease in personal effort that occurs when an psyche whole kit and caboodle within a sort come to the fore. However, when people feel as though their input is identifiable they are motivated to exert more effort, thereby mitigating companionable loafing. (Harkins Jackson, 1985) In an attempt to discover if this effect could be replicated, an opportunity sample of 52 participants was recruited to partake in an in pendant measures experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two bases, the world group or the snobby group. Both groups were asked, via email, to provide suggestions on how their town centre could be improved. The domain group believed their results would be attributed to them publicly whilst the private group were assured anony mity. It was hypothesized that the public group would provide more suggestions than the private group. The private cause resulted in a lower mean number of responses (M 3.8, SD 2.6) than the public condition (M 6.8, SD 2.22) which supported the hypothesis.IntroductionSocial loafing is the propensity for group members to come to be less productive as the group size increases (Latan et al, 1979). This effect reveals the colloquy relationship that exists between group size and an individuals input to the accomplishment of a task. While examining the association between per ricochetance effectiveness and group productiveness, Ringelmann (1913) discovered that having members of a group work collectively (in this case, pulling a rope) actu exclusivelyy resulted in considerably less effort being applied than when the individual carried out the task independently. Ringelmann also revealed that as more individuals join a group, the group frequently grows progressively inefficient rejecting the premise that group effort faithfully leads to increase productivity. He suggested that groups fail to maximise their potential as several interpersonal processes diminish the groups overall ability. Williams, Harkins and Latan, (1981) attributed two distinct processes as potential sources for the reduced productivity within groups motivation loss, and coordination issues. However, group members largely believe that they are contributing to their full potential when asked evidence has indicated that individuals exhibit loafing without realising (Karau Williams, 1993). In order to facilitate a reduction in amicable loafing, several suggestions forwarded.Kerr Bruun (1983) state that individuals who exhibit accessible loafing often fail to run as they believe other group members testament compensate for them. Therefore, each member of a group should be made to feel like they are vital to the completion of the task at hand. By increasing the individuals perceived importance o f their part of the group, members tend to expend more effort towards achieving the required outcomes.Harkins Szymanski (1989) assert that groups that establish explicit goals tend to outper skeletal frame groups with unclear objectives. Setting clearly defined aims is believed to encourage m both production-enhancing processes, such as increased commitment, comprehensive planning and quality monitoring of group tasks, and increased effort (Weldon, Jehn, Pradhan, 1991). Similar results can be achieved by decreasing the group size as group size reduces, each members role in the group becomes increasingly integral, so the opportunity to loaf is reduced.Finally, and the focus of this study, when people feel as though their individual contribution is identifiable, they become motivated to work harder on a group project (Harkins Jackson, 1985). This is due to the individual experiencing evaluation apprehension, thereby increasing productivity through friendly facilitation. Social fac ilitation is an improvement in performance produced by the presence of others, as in the audience effect as demonstrated by Dashiell (1935), However, should a project allow individual members to remain anonymous, they feel less anxiety about being judged by others, resulting in social loafing (Harkins Petty,1982). The look for hypothesis for this study is Participants in the public group will provide more suggestions than participants in the private group.MethodDesignAn Independent measures experimental bearing with two groups was employed. The independent variable, attribution of comments, was manipulated so that one group was informed that their comments would be publicly attributed to them while the other group was informed that they would remain anonymous. The dependent variable was the total number of responses.Participants52 Participants from the experimenters friends, family and workplace were asked via email to participate. Participants were assigned, on an alternate basis , to either the public or private condition. The number of participants in each condition was equal.MaterialsStandard (2013) desktop PC running Windows 8 and Microsoft Office 2010 was used for all email correspondence, data morsel.Ethical consent form obtained from a university representative prior to experiment. (See Appendix A).Participant consent form (See Appendix B).Public group instruction form (See Appendix C). hush-hush group instruction form (See Appendix D).Response collation form (See Appendix E).Participant debrief form (See Appendix F).ProcedureEach participant in the first instance was contacted via email to ask if they wished to take part in a inquiry experiment. Participants who agreed were randomly assigned to one of two groups, the public group or the private group, by means of order of response. For example the first participant to agree to take part was allocated to the public group, the second to private and alternated thusly until all participants had been as signed a group. Each was then sent, via email, an instruction form relating to their group and a consent form to realised. Each participant was asked to pursue the instructions provided and succumb both the consent form and their responses by email within 48 hours. Once the responses were received the debrief sheet was sent out to inform the participant of the true nature of the experiment and advise them that they could remove their data and consent should they wish to. As no consent was withdrawn all data gathered was utilised. The total number of responses for each participant was counted and recorded under the appropriate group heading on the response collation form for statistical analysis.ResultsThe results from the two groups were collected and collated into a table of raw data (See Appendix G). Summary statistics are provided in Table 1 and the mean value are displayed in Figure 1. An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the number of responses in public an d private conditions (See Appendix H). There was a significant difference in the loads for the public (M=6.8, SD= 2.2) and the private (M=3.8, SD=2.6) conditions t (50) =4.52, p= Figure 1. Mean number of responses for public and private conditions.DiscussionThe results generated in this study support Harkins and Jacksons (1985) assertion that identification increases group productivity in that the public group provided a significantly higher response mean. It also suggests Ringelmanns (1913) observations and Latan et als (1979) social loafing may occur even when group members are not physically part of a group.A possible issue of victimisation an independent measures design for this type of search is the potential for error arising from individual differences between participants, for example it may fall in been that those selected for the public group may admit been, in general, more civically minded with a greater personal investment in their home town. As a result the public group major power return more responses, not as a result of the independent variable being altered but of the individual differences in participants. To mitigate this effect more information would need to be gleaned from participants to ensure equal distributions between groups.Social loafing and social facilitation, in general, are viewed as distinct lines of research in social psychological literature. It appears, however, that these two phenomena may be closely related as the latter appears to mitigate the former. Further research into the extent to which they act would be useful in uncovering the depth of the relationship. A pertinent question would be is there a situation where social facilitation fails to affect social loafing?ReferencesDashiell, J. F. (1935). Experimental studies of the influence of social situations on the behavior of individual human adults.Harkins, S. G., Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of disposition and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214.Harkins, S. G., Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,56(6), 934.Karau, S. J., Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.Journal of personality and social psychology,65(4), 681.Kerr, N. L., Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 44(1), 78.Latan, 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(6), 822-832. doi10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822Ringelmann, M. (1913). search on animate sources of power The work of man.Annales de lInstuit National Agronomique,12, 1-40.Szymanski, K., Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and self-evaluation with a social standard.Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology,53(5), 891-897. doi10.1037/0022-3514.53.5.891Weldon, E., Jehn, K. A., Pradhan, P. (1991). Processes that mediate the relationship between a group goal and improved group performance.Journal of personality and social psychology,61(4), 555.AppendixAppendix ACompleted ethical consent form obtained prior to study.Research Projects UHI StudentsAll Undergraduate, Taught Postgraduate and Research Students registered on any UHI programme underpickings a research project must seek ethical approval via their Project Supervisor prior to undertaking any form of fieldwork or data collection exercise. amuse read the UHI Research morals Framework before completing this form and leaseting it to your Project Supervisor for approval and signature. enthral pay close attention to the counseling notes, as it may be necessary for you to complete another form as part of this exercise.Further information on UHIs Research Ethics Policy and the ethical approval process can be found at http//www.uhi.ac.uk/en/r esearch-enterprise/resource/ethicsResearch Ethics ChecklistPlease complete as appropriateIf the dish out to the above question is Yes, compliance with NHS Guidelines will be required (see www.nhshighland.scot.nhs.uk/Research/Pages/ResearchEthics.aspx ), and there is no need for you to answer the rest questions. Please complete and sign the declaration at the end of this form and submit it to your Project Supervisor.If the answer is No, enliven continue to Question 2.If the answer to the above question is Yes, please answer the remaining questions.If the answer is No, please complete and sign the declaration at the end of this form and submit it to your Project Supervisor.If you have answered No in each case to Questions 3-14, please complete the Declaration and pass this form to your Project Supervisor for approval.If you have answered Yes to any of the questions, please complete Form REC1-D Student and submit it to your Project Supervisor along with this form.DECLARATION*please delete as appropriatePROJECT supervisory program AUTHORISATIONI confirm thatComments Approved or Not Approved convey You. Once authorised, please pass this form, along with Form REC1-D Student if relevant, to the UHI Research Ethics OfficerAppendix BParticipant consent form.Consent FormNameAgeTop of FormGender MaleFemaleWould you like a copy of the completed report? Yes NoBottom of FormAppendix CPublic group instruction form.Instructions Public GroupThank you for volunteering to take part in this project.You are in a group of about 40 people from your local community who have been asked to provide suggestions on how your local town centre can be improved (e.g. provision of litter bins, other shops you would like to see/not see, activities etc).All group members will receive a copy of all suggestions and their authors, made by the group.You can provide as many suggestions as you like.Please send your suggestions by return email within 48 hours.You will then receive a debrief sheet. Appendix DPrivate group instruction form.Instructions Private GroupThank you for volunteering to take part in this project.You are in a group of about 40 people from your local community who have been asked to provide suggestions on how your local town centre can be improved (e.g. provision of litter bins, other shops you would like to see/not see, activities etc).No-one else in your group will see your suggestions or name and participation will be in the strictest confidence.You can provide as many suggestions as you like.Please send your suggestions by return email within 48 hours.You will then receive a debrief sheet.Appendix EResult collation form.Appendix FParticipant debrief form.Debrief sheetThank you again for taking part in this project.You have in fact been taking part in an experiment into social loafing. You were amongst a group of 40 participants who were randomly assigned to one of two groups, a public group and a private group. The aim of the experiment was to compar e the amount of suggestions provided by each group. It was anticipated that the public group would provide more suggestions as they believed they would be determine and as such would not want to appear to be putting the overall performance of the group down, the private group were expected to provide less suggestions as they were not to be identifiable and it would not be known if they provided only one suggestion for the group, and therefore more prone to social loafing.The data has now been collated and we did indeed find that the public group provided more suggestions than the private group. These findings along with a report will be written and submitted to the University of Highlands and Islands as part of an assessment carried out by 3rd year Psychology Degree students.Your personal details will not appear in the last-place report other than the amount of suggestions provided and you will be referred to by number only.We apologise for deceiving you and accept that you may wi sh to withdraw your data from this study, if so please inform us by return email and we will remove your data from the group.In order for us to use your data, please complete the affiliated form and return by email as soon as possible.Should you wish to receive a copy of the report, please tick the appropriate recession on the attached form.Thank you again for your participation in this study.Appendix GRaw data collated from participant responses.Appendix HIndependent Samples T Test results.1