Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind? An Empirical Study of Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Groups

Authors:
Laku Chidambaram;Lai Lai Tung
Affiliations:
-;-
Venue:
Information Systems Research
Year:
2005

Citing 0
Cited 18

Counting the cost of virtual teams

Communications of the ACM
Don't look now, but we've created a bureaucracy: the nature and roles of policies and rules in wikipedia

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Teams

Computer Supported Cooperative Work
Understanding social loafing in knowledge contribution from the perspectives of justice and trust

Expert Systems with Applications: An International Journal
Modelling the characteristics of virtual teams' structure

International Journal of Business Intelligence and Data Mining
Enhancing the Motivational Affordance of Information Systems: The Effects of Real-Time Performance Feedback and Goal Setting in Group Collaboration Environments

Management Science
Evaluation of computer tools for idea generation and team formation in project-based learning

Computers & Education
Should I e-collaborate with this group? A multilevel model of usage intentions

Information and Management
An alternative to methodological individualism: a non-reductionist approach to studying technology adoption by groups

MIS Quarterly
Internet Technologies, ECRM Capabilities, and Performance Benefits for SMEs: An Exploratory Study

International Journal of Electronic Commerce
Team Size, Dispersion, and Social Loafing in Technology-Supported Teams: A Perspective on the Theory of Moral Disengagement

Journal of Management Information Systems
Impact of similarity between avatar and their users on their perceived identifiability: Evidence from virtual teams in Second Life platform

Computers in Human Behavior
Effect of knowledge sharing visibility on incentive-based relationship in Electronic Knowledge Management Systems: An empirical investigation

Computers in Human Behavior
Emergent roles in decision-making tasks using group chat

Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work
What signal is your inspection team sending to each other? Using a shared collaborative interface to improve shared cognition and implicit coordination in error-detection teams

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
Technology-Mediated Collaboration, Shared Mental Model and Task Performance

Journal of Organizational and End User Computing
Let's get together: the formation and success of online creative collaborations

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Understanding the effect of organisational reward on knowledge sharing: the role of exchange ideology and knowledge sharing visibility

International Journal of Information Technology and Management

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.02

Visualization

Abstract

Research on group behavior has identified social loafing, i.e., the tendency of members to do less than their potential, as a particularly serious problem plaguing groups. Social Impact Theory (SIT) helps explain social loafing in terms of two theoretical dimensions--the dilution effect (where an individual feels submerged in the group) and the immediacy gap (where an individual feels isolated from the group). In this study, which employed a controlled experiment, we investigated these dimensions of social loafing in the context of group decision making, using collocated and distributed teams of varying sizes. Our results--in line with SIT--indicate that small groups, signifying a small dilution effect, had increased individual contributions and better group outcomes compared to their larger counterparts. However, support for SIT's arguments about the immediacy gap was mixed: Members contributed visibly more when they were collocated, but no significant differences in group outcomes were evident. Regardless of dimension, the quality of the input (ideas generated) determined the quality of the output (decisions made). Also, contrary to the literature on brainstorming, having more ideas to work with resulted in poorer-quality decisions. This apparent paradox is explained using the notion of integrative complexity, which challenges conventional wisdom regarding the relationship between individual inputs and group outputs. The implications of these results for practice and research are examined.