Expectancy value theory holds that goal-directed behavior is a function of (a) expectations—the belief that performance depends on effort, (b) instrumentality—the belief that outcome depends on performance, and (c) outcome value—the value attached to achieving the outcome. The present research provides a direct test of two factors involved in the instrumentality component: the contingency between individual performance and group performance and the contingency between group performance and group outcome. Experiment 1 revealed that collective participants worked hard when they perceived a contingency between individual performance and group performance. Experiment 2 revealed that collective participants worked hard when they perceived a contingency between group performance and the group outcome. Taken together, the results confirm the importance of high instrumentality in eliminating social loafing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Harkins, S. G. , & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social loafing and self-evaluation with an objective standard. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 354-365.
2.
Ilgen, D. R. , Nebeker, D. M., & Pritchard, R. D. (1981). Expectancy theory measures: An empirical comparison in an experimental simulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 189-223.
3.
Ingham, A. G. , Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 371-384.
4.
Karau, S. J. , & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.
5.
Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 819-828.
6.
Kerr, N. L. (1986). Motivational choices in task groups: A paradigm for social dilemma research. In H. A. M. Wilke, D. M. Messick, & C. G. Rutte (Eds.), Experimental social dilemmas (pp. 1-27). New York: Lang.
7.
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, 78-94.
8.
Latané, B. , Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes of consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.
9.
Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupational preference and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empirical appraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 81, 1053-1077.
10.
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Expectancy-value models in organizational psychology. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions: Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 293-312). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Mullen, B. , & Baumeister, R. F. (1987). Group effects on self-attention and performance: Social loafing, social facilitation, and social impairment. In C. Hendricks (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 189-206). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12.
Peters, L. H. (1977). Cognitive models of motivation, expectancy theory and effort: An analysis and empirical test. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20, 129-148.
13.
Petty, R. E. , Harkins, S. G., Williams, K., & Latané, B. (1977). The effects of group size on cognitive effort and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 579-582.
14.
Porter, L. W. , & Lawler, E. E., III. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
15.
Pritchard, R. D. , & De Leo, P. J. (1973). Experimental test of the valence-instrumentality relationship in job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 264-270.
16.
Sanna, L. J. (1992). Self-efficacy theory: Implications for social facilitation and social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 774-786.
17.
Sanna, L. J. , & Pusecker, P. A. (1994). Self-efficacy, valence of self-evaluation, and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 82-92.
18.
Sanna, L. J. , & Shotland, R. L. (1990). Valence of anticipated evaluation and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 82-92.
19.
Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67-81.
20.
Shepperd, J. A. (1995). Remedying motivation and productivity loss in collective settings. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 131-134.
21.
Stroebe, W. , & Frey, B. S. (1982). Self-interest and collective action: The economics and psychology of public goods. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 121-137.
22.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: John Wiley.
23.
Weldon, E. , & Mustari, E. L. (1988). Felt dispensability in groups of coactors: The effects of shared responsibility and explicit anonymity on cognitive effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 330-351.
24.
Williams, K. D. , Harkins, S. G., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311.
25.
Williams, K. D. , & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 570-581.
