Published date:Aug 09 2024

Journal Title: KnE Social Sciences

Issue title: 6th Social and Humaniora Research Symposium (6th SoRes): Community & Youth Development

Pages:98–109

DOI: 10.18502/kss.v9i22.16669

Aditia Wirayudhaaditia.wirayudha@unisba.ac.idUniversitas Islam Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia

Firman Shakti FirdausUniversitas Islam Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia

Rafi Ariq MaajidUniversitas Islam Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia

Firda NurfaridaUniversitas Islam Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia

Muhammad Iqbal SantosaUniversitas Islam Bandung, Bandung, Indonesia

Social loafing is influenced by factors like the absence of individual contribution evaluation, unclear responsibility distribution, and intrinsic motivation. Equity theory posits that individuals compare inputs and outcomes with others and respond to eliminate inequity. When one group member engages in social loafing, others may reduce their efforts to avoid being perceived as “suckers.” Conversely, if one member overachieves, others may free-ride on their efforts. This behavior threatens group productivity and should be balanced among members. A survey revealed that many students felt some group members were unproductive, indicating social loafing behavior. The study examined the impact of equity on social loafing behavior, hypothesizing that equity negatively affects social loafing. Linear regression analysis was employed, and data were collected from 106 students. The findings indicate a significant negative relationship between equity and social loafing, supporting the hypothesis. Inadequate equity perceptions can lead to the spread of social loafing, impacting group performance. In conclusion, equity plays a crucial role in mitigating social loafing behavior in group learning processes. Clear rules and guidelines for group assignments can help maintain equity perceptions among students, ultimately fostering a more productive and collaborative learning environment.

Keywords: social loafing behavior, students, group work

[1] Yang N, Ghislandi P, Dellantonio S. Online collaboration in a large university class supports quality teaching. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2018;66(3):671–91.

[2] Moore MG. Editorial: Three types of interaction. Am J Distance Educ. 1989;3(2):1–7.

[3] Naila I. “Perilaku Social Loafing dalam Pembelajaran Daring: Studi Kasus Pada Mahasiswa Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar,” Jurnal Pendidikan Dasar Flobamorata, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 136–141, Mar. 2021, [Online]. Available: https://ejournal. unmuhkupang.ac.id/index.php/jpdf https://doi.org/10.51494/jpdf.v2i1.417.

[4] Bestari MP DR, Oktari S, Purna RS; D. R. A. Bestari MP. S. Oktari, and R. S. Purna, “Perilaku Social Loafing Mahasiswa Dalam Mengerjakan Tugas Kelompok Melalui Sistem Daring,”. Jurnal Psikologi Tabularasa. 2022 Aug;17(1):1–10.

[5] Byun G, Lee S, Karau SJ, Dai Y. Sustaining collaborative effort in work teams: Exchange ideology and employee social loafing. Sustainability (Basel). 2020 Aug;12(15):1–14.

[6] Pratama KD, Aulia F. Faktor-faktor yang Berperan dalam Pemalasan Sosial (Social loafing): Sebuah Kajian Literatur. Jurnal Pendidikan Tambusai. 2020;4:1460–8.

[7] Luthans F, Luthans BC, Luthans KW. Organizational behavior : An evidence-based approach. 14th ed. North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Incorporated; 2021.

[8] Latane B, Williams K, Harkins S. Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1979;37(6):822–32.

[9] Mihelič KK, Culiberg B. Reaping the fruits of another’s labor: The role of moral meaningfulness, mindfulness, and motivation in social loafing. J Bus Ethics. 2019 Dec;160(3):713–27.

[10] Luo Z, Marnburg E, Øgaard T, Okumus F. Exploring antecedents of social loafing in students’ group work: A Mixed-methods approach. J Hosp Leis Sport Tour Educ. 2021 Jun;28:100314.

[11] Kerr NL. Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;45(4):819–28.

[12] Simms A, Nichols T. Social loafing: A review of the literature. Journal of Management Policy and Practice. 2014;15(1):58–67.

[13] Robbins SP, Judge TA. Organizational Behavior. 18th ed. Pearson Education Limited; 2022.

[14] Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1- 4899-2271-7.

[15] Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Briere NM, Senecal C, Vallieres EF. The academic motivation scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educ Psychol Meas. 1992;52(4):1003–17.

[16] Griffin RW, Phillips JM, Gully SM. Organizational behavior: Managing people and organizations. 13th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning Inc; 2020.

[17] Miles SR, Cromer LD, Narayan A. Applying equity theory to students’ perceptions of research participation requirements. Teach Psychol. 2015;42(4):349–56.

[18] Piezon SL, Ferree WD. Perceptions of social loafing in online learning groups: A study of Public University and U.S. Naval War College students. Int Rev Res Open Distance Learn. 2008;9(2):1–17.

[19] Şarkaya SS, Tanriogen ZM. Educational research and reviews a two-way perspective on social loafing and organizational cynicism. Academic Journals. 2019 Dec;14(18):678–87.

[20] Zhu M, Singh S, Wang H. Perceptions of social loafing during the process of group development. Int J Organ Theory Behav. 2019 Nov;22(4):350–68.

[21] Mulvey PW, Klein HJ. The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1998 Apr;74(1):62–87.

[22] George JM. Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Acad Manage J. 1992;35(1):191–202.

[23] Pabico JP, Anthony J, Hermocilla C, Paul J, Galang C, De Sagun CC. Perceived social loafing in undergraduate software engineering teams. Philippine Information Technology Journal. 2008 Oct;1(2):22–8.