ringelmann effekt experiment

Social Loafing in Psychology: Definition, Examples & Theory

Riley Hoffman

Lab Manager at Yale University

B.A., Psychology, Harvard University

Riley Hoffman is the Lab Manager for the Emotion, Health, and Psychophysiology Lab at Yale University. She graduated from Harvard University in May 2023 with a B.A. in Psychology. In the future, Riley plans to pursue a Ph.D. in Psychology and/or law school. Her research interests lie at the intersection of psychology, health, and society.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

Social loafing in psychology refers to the phenomenon where individuals exert less effort in a group task than when working alone, often due to perceived reduced accountability and shared responsibility.
Social loafing is more evident in tasks where the contribution of each group member is combined into a group outcome, making it difficult to identify the contribution of a single person.
Social loafing can be detrimental in workplaces. When everyone does not put in their full amount of effort because they are part of a group, this can lead to reduced productivity.
Factors influencing social loafing include expectations of co-worker performance, task meaningfulness, and culture.
The Collective Effort Model (CEM) of social loafing holds that whether or not social loafing occurs depends on members’ expectations for, and value of, the group’s goal.
Fortunately, there are several ways to reduce social loafing to make groups more productive.

What is Social Loafing?

The Ringelmann effect, or social loafing is a phenomenon which occurs in groups of people that limits the amount of effort that each group member exerts (thus reducing individual productivity).

Social loafing was first identified when French agricultural engineer Max Ringelmann was studying group performance and found that groups (of people and animals) did not meet their potential, defining potential as the sum of the maximum output of each individual acting alone.

This effect was re-examined beginning towards the end of the 20th century and has been actively studied since.

Ringelmann’s Rope-Pulling Experiment

The history of the research into reducing individual effort in collective tasks—now referred to as social loafing—began with a French agricultural engineer called Max Ringelmann (1861-1931).

Ringelmann (as cited in Ingham, Levinger, Graves, & Peckham, 1974; Kravitz & Martin, 1986) was interested in how agricultural workers could maximize their productivity.

Ringelmann found that though groups outperform individuals, they usually do not perform to the extent they could if each individual worked at maximum capacity.

For instance, in one study, he had people pull on a rope attached to a pressure gauge and found that the more people pulled, the further below their potential they would perform.

If two individuals could pull 100 units separately, they would pull 186, not 200. Eight people working together could only pull 392, half of their sum potential of 800.

Ringelmann (1913) attributed this phenomenon to two sources: coordination losses and motivation losses.

He believed that coordination loss — “the lack of simultaneity of their efforts” (p. 9) — was the main cause of social loafing, but also acknowledged that in some cases, workers lose motivation due to each man “trusting his neighbor to furnish the desired effort (p. 10).

Throughout the 20th century, many studies were published exploring the causes of social loafing.

Expectations of Co-Worker Performance

The social compensation hypothesis posits that people will work harder collectively than individually when they expect their co-workers to perform poorly on a meaningful task (Williams Karau, 1991).

Jackson and Harkins (1985) conducted a study that manipulated participants’ expectations of how hard their co-workers would work and found that individuals who had low expectations of co-workers reduced their own efforts to maintain equity.

This means that social loafing is more likely to occur when working in a group of high-achievers, as an individual may slack off and allow the other competent group members to do most of the work.

Alternatively, individuals may actually increase their collective effort when they expect their co-workers to perform poorly on a meaningful task, an effect referred to as social compensation.

Evaluation Potential

Many researchers (Harkins, 1987; Harkins & Jackson, 1985; Harkins & Szymanski, 1987, 1989; Kerr & Bruun, 1983) have utilized the concept of evaluation potential to explain social loafing.

This theory suggests that reduction of effort occurs in collective tasks because group members cannot be evaluated individually; they can “hide in the crowd” (Davis, 1969) as they do not give their full effort.

Social Impact Theory

Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979) explained social loafing through the Social Impact Theory .

Latané (1981) describes social impact as: “any inﬂuence on individual feelings, thoughts, or behavior that is exerted by the real, implied, or imagined presence or actions of others.”

Lantané’s (1981) social impact theory focused on how individuals can be sources or targets of social influence and claimed that in social loafing experiments, there are few sources and few targets, so the effort of each target decreases.

The theory suggests that when individuals work collectively, social influence is diffused across group members, and each additional group member has less influence as group size increases.

Social Impactstates posits that while the impact of others on the individual increases as the number of people increases, the rate of increase in impact grows less as each new individual is added.

Self-Attention

Mullen (1983) attempted to explain social loafing in terms of the amount of self-attention that individuals maintain during collective versus individual tasks, but this theory has yet to gain empirical support.

This theory states that working on a group, task leads to a decline in self-awareness, whereby a person becomes less aware of their task contribution within a group and are less attentive to task demands.

Arousal Reduction

Jackson and William’s (1985) application of arousal reduction theory asserts that the low effort of individuals during collective tasks can be attributed to the reduction in a drive that individuals feel when working collectively.

They argue that the presence of other co-workers in a group reduces an individual’s motivation to perform a task.

Collective Effort Model (CEM)

Karau and Williams (1993) published a meta-analytic review of 78 such studies in order to integrate the findings of different scientists from across the field.

The meta-analysis found that social loafing is “moderate in magnitude and generalizable across tasks and subject populations” (p. 700).

Karau and Williams’s meta-analysis presented their own integrated model to explain social loafing: the Collective Effort Model (CEM).

The authors created this model by integrating multiple of the partial explanations discussed above, such as evaluation potential and effort matching. It also incorporated variables such as task meaningfulness and culture.

The CEM suggests that two key elements determine individuals’ levels of motivation when working in a group: their expectations regarding their ability to reach the goal and the value they assign to the goal.

Motivation increases when individuals have high expectations and high value for the goal, and motivation is reduced when either variable is diminished. In groups, each individual’s expectations tend to be low since one individual often cannot predict the outcome of the entire group.

Working in a group can also lead to a low value for the goal. According to CEM, this explains why motivation is low in these cases.

Karau and Williams’s meta-analysis supports the CEM; the authors found that variables such as evaluation potential, task valence (intrinsic “good” -ness or “bad” -ness of the task), expectations of co-worker performance, and group size all moderated social loafing effects as the CEM predicts.

For instance, regarding task valence, “the tendency to engage in social loafing decreased as task valence increased” (p. 696). This fits with the CEM, as task valence strongly relates to the CEM element of the value placed on the group’s goal.

The CEM also backs several implications found in studies throughout the meta-analysis. A few examples include findings that “loafing was greater among men than women, in Western countries compared to Eastern ones, and for simple tasks rather than complex ones” (Forsyth, 2009, p. 298).

Reducing Social Loafing

According to Donelson Forsyth (2009, pp. 296-298), several methods can be utilized to reduce social loafing within groups.

Social loafing can be limited by establishing individual accountability, minimizing free riding, encouraging team loyalty, and by assigning distinct responsibilities for each team member.

Establishing Individual Accountability

One factor that increases group productivity is when group members feel that they are being evaluated individually. Increasing identifiability tends to decrease social loafing (Hardy & Latané, 1986).

Minimizing Free Riding

Minimizing free riding is another important step that groups can take to decrease social loafing.

Free riding refers to situations in which group members exert less effort because others will compensate for them, when group members cannot free ride, social loafing decreases because group members feel more responsibility (Kerr & Bruun, 1983).

Assign Distinct Responsibilities

Assign separate and distinct contributions to every team member. Without distinct goals, groups and group members drift into the territory of social loafing with much more ease.

Setting clear goals helps group members be more productive and decrease social loafing (Harkins & Szymanski, 1989). The goals must also be attainable; they should not be too easy but not too difficult.

Encouraging Team Loyalty

Another factor that can greatly affect the presence of social loafing is involvement in the group. Members who feel involved and invested in the group tend to be more productive (Stark, Shaw, & Duffy, 2007).

So, increasing involvement in the group can encourage team loyalty and decrease social loafing.

Davis, J. H. (1969). Group performance . Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23 (1), 1-18.

Hardy, C., & Latané, B. (1986). Social loafing on a cheering task. Social Science, 71 (2-3), 165–172.

Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (1985). The role of evaluation in eliminating social loafing. Personality and Social Psychology, 11 (4), 575-584.

Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation: New wine in old bottles. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology, Vol. 9. Group processes and intergroup relations (pp. 167-188). Sage Publications, Inc.

Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (6), 934-941.

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 (4), 371-384.

Jackson, J. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1985). Equity in effort: An explanation of the social loafing effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (5), 1199-1206.

Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks: Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (4), 937-942.

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. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 (1), 78-94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78

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

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36 (4), 343-356.

Latané, 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.

Mullen, B. (1985). Strength and immediacy of sources: A meta-analytic evaluation of the forgotten elements of social impact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48 (6), 1458-1466.

Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches sur les moteurs animés: Travail de l’homme [Research on animate sources of power: The work of man]. Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique, 2e série—tome XII, 1-40.

Stark, E. M., Shaw, J. D., & Duffy, M. K. (2007). Preference for group work, winning orientation, and social loafing behavior in groups. Group & Organization Management, 32(6) , 699-723

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 (4), 570.

Keep Learning

Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article

Karau & Williams (1993) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration

Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Ringelmann Effect

Ringelmann effect definition.

The Ringelmann effect refers to individuals expending less individual effort on a task when working as part of a group than when working alone.

Background and History of the Ringelmann Effect

In some of his preliminary research, Ringelmann had male participants pull horizontally on a rope for approximately 5 seconds. Participants pulled on a rope individually, in groups of 7, or in groups of 14. During this time, their maximum pulling effort was recorded via a dynamometer (a device that measures maximum force exerted). Those participants who pulled alone exerted a mean force of 85.3 kg per person. When participants pulled in 7- and 14-person groups, the mean force exerted per person was 65.0 kg and 61.4 kg, respectively. Thus, as group size increased, the average force exerted per individual decreased. Ringelmann found similar results when participants were asked to push a crossbar connected to a two-wheeled cart. When participants pushed alone they exerted more force (170.8 kg), on average, than when they pushed together with another person (154.1 kg).

Some of Ringelmann’s most cited findings involve examining relative group performance as a function of group size in groups ranging in size from one to eight participants. Similar to his research mentioned previously, individual effort decreased as a function of group size. For example, assuming that the total force exerted for one worker was 1.00, the force exerted for two through eight workers was 1.86, 2.55, 3.08, 3.50, 3.78, 3.92, and 3.92, respectively, indicating a curvilinear relation among group size and group performance. That is, as group size increased, the total force exerted for the group decreased but the difference between two-and three-person groups was greater than the difference between four- and five-person groups and the difference between seven- and eight-person groups was still smaller. Interestingly, Ringelmann did not clearly specify what types of tasks these data were based on. They may or may not come from research specific to rope pulling as is often assumed.

Ringelmann acknowledged two potential reasons underlying this decrement of individual performance when working in groups. The first was that the effect was caused by coordination losses. For example, two people pulling on a rope would be more coordinated in their pulling (more likely to be in sync in their pulling) than would a group of seven or eight people putting together. For Ringelmann, this was the most likely explanation. Nonetheless, he also acknowledged the fact that such an effect might be the result of decreased motivation. For example, with more people pulling on a rope, individuals may feel that the work of their coworkers will be enough to successfully accomplish the task at hand, thus individual effort decreases as the result. Others did not attempt to disentangle the mystery of the Ringelmann effect until nearly a century after Ringelmann’s original work.

Contemporary Research on the Ringelmann Effect

Until the mid-1970s, researchers cited Ringelmann’s work, but no one had attempted to replicate his findings. Then in 1974, researchers sought to better understand the Ringelmann effect. Is this effect real? Would similar findings emerge if Ringelmann’s research had been conducted in a controlled laboratory environment? Are the effects Ringelmann obtained primarily because of coordination losses involved with working together on a task? Alternatively, can Ringelmann’s data be explained primarily through other mechanisms such as decreased individual motivation?

Similar to Ringelmann’s original research, more contemporary findings indicate that individual effort does decrease as a function of group size. These findings have been replicated using a number of different group sizes and a number of different tasks (clapping, shouting, brainstorming, job evaluation, etc.), including one of Ringelmann’s original tasks, rope pulling. Moreover, both reduced motivation and coordination losses contribute to decreased group performance on a task, with coordination playing a bigger role as group size increases. At least two possible causes have been suggested to account for decreased motivation. The first is that as group size increases so does an individual’s belief that other group members will be able to successfully accomplish the task at hand, thus leading to decreased effort (i.e., motivation). This is referred to as the free-rider effect. A second explanation for motivation decrements concerns the perception that other group members are not putting forth their best effort. As a result, an individual will reduce his or her effort, compared with when the individual is working alone, so as not to appear as a sucker (i.e., the sucker effect). This research also led to a change in terminology used to describe this effect; the original Ringelmann effect was replaced with a term that more aptly describes this phenomenon, social loafing. When working on a task as part of a group, many times people are apt to loaf or work less hard than they would if working alone.

Since the reemergence of research in this area, several variables have been found to moderate or mediate the extent to which individuals will tend to loaf while performing a group task. A few of these variables are identifiability, personal relevance, group cohesiveness, and task interdependence. For example, individuals are less likely to decrease their individual effort within a group if they believe their individual effort is identifiable, the group task has some personal relevance for the individual (i.e., is important), the group is more cohesive or tight-knit, and successful completion of a task depends on the effort of all group members.

References:

Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental .Social Psychology, 10, 371-384.
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.
Kravitz, D. A., Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 936-941.

Ringelmann Effect: What It Is And How It Affects Group Performance

When people are faced with tasks that require the combined efforts of each team member to achieve a group objective, there is a tendency to make less effort as the size of the group increases. This is known as the Ringelmann Effect and arises when individual effort is confused with that of the group of people who collaborate with each other.

In this article we will learn about the origin of this effect, why it occurs and how it can be combated.

The Ringelmann Effect, named after French engineer Max Ringelmann, refers to the phenomenon where individual performance decreases as group size increases. This concept sheds light on the complexities of group dynamics and productivity, highlighting the challenges inherent in coordinating efforts and maximizing collective performance. In this article, we delve into the origins, implications, and strategies for mitigating the Ringelmann Effect in various contexts.

Table of Contents

Origins of the Ringelmann Effect

Max Ringelmann first observed the phenomenon in the early 20th century while conducting experiments on the performance of tug-of-war teams. He found that as more people were added to the team, the average force exerted by each individual decreased, leading to diminishing overall effectiveness. Ringelmann attributed this decrease in individual effort to social loafing, wherein individuals exert less effort in a group setting due to diffusion of responsibility or a perceived decrease in accountability.

The Ringelmann Effect is a phenomenon of social psychology and group psychology. proposed by Maximilien Ringelmann , (1861–1931), a French engineer. M. Ringelmann developed a series of studies between 1882 and 1887, in which he observed the action of pulling a rope, both of people individually and in groups of two, three and eight people.

Specifically, his studies were aimed at finding out the effectiveness in agricultural tasks, where he observed that when a group of people pull a rope, which is tied to an instrument that measures the pulling force, The larger the group of people, the less force each individual uses to pull

In this way, he observed that the relative performance of each person individually progressively decreased as the number of them in each group increased. That is to say, The individual contribution was reduced proportionally to the increase in people who collaborated in the action. Maximilien called this phenomenon Ringelmann Effect.

In 1913 Max Ringelmann’s research was published. In them it was demonstrated that group or collective effort in teams only reaches half of the sum of individual efforts, contrary to the common belief that “unity is strength.”

Characteristics of the Ringelmann Effect

The Ringelmann Effect is defined as the loss of performance per subject as the group size increases (the number of its members increases). This effect is also known as free riding or “striving for nothing.” It appears because one’s own contribution is seen as dispensable.

Steiner was an author who proposed that the nature of the task predicts group performance In this case, the Ringelmann Effect appears in three types of tasks:

1. Additive tasks

They are those tasks that imply that a greater number of people, greater performance or potential productivity. In this type of tasks, the group result is equal to the sum of each person’s contributions.

In this case, the Ringelmann Effect appears because the members think (consciously or unconsciously) that the work “others will do”

2. Disjunctive tasks

In this type of tasks, the best option and group performance are selected. is determined by the performance of the most competent

Here the Ringelmann Effect appears in low-skilled subjects, since being a type of task where the best option is selected as the “winner”, these members would feel that they are not good enough to propose anything (since they will not be selected), and therefore stop participating or reduce their effort.

3. Conjunctive tasks

Here all the members of the group they work at the same time, in unison In this case, the Ringelmann Effect appears in conjunctive tasks of large groups, specifically in very skilled subjects, since when everyone acts at the same time, the most skilled “relax” and reduce their performance, which they consider dispensable.

Implications for Group Dynamics

The Ringelmann Effect has significant implications for various aspects of group behavior and productivity:

1. Coordination Challenges

As group size increases, coordinating efforts and aligning individual contributions become more complex. Communication breakdowns, conflicting agendas, and diffusion of responsibility can hinder effective collaboration and decision-making, leading to decreased productivity and performance.

2. Motivational Factors

In large group settings, individuals may feel less motivated to exert maximum effort due to a perceived lack of impact on the overall outcome. The presence of others may create a diffusion of responsibility, where individuals believe their contributions are less essential, leading to decreased intrinsic motivation and engagement.

3. Social Comparison

Individuals may engage in social comparison within group settings, assessing their own performance relative to others. In situations where individual contributions are not clearly evaluated or rewarded, individuals may adjust their effort levels based on perceived norms or expectations, contributing to the Ringelmann Effect.

Causes of the Ringelmann Effect

The Ringelmann Effect appears due to possible causes.

On the one hand, it is likely that team members may feel less motivated when they perform additive tasks (where the final result is determined by the execution of each person), since they unconsciously think “others will do it.”

On the other hand, it is possible that individual performance is reduced by a lack of coordination among the members of the group.

Thus, in group experiments typical of social psychology, it has been observed how people believe or feel that they are being evaluated, only when they act alone.

In this way, team situations or tasks reduce individual responsibility, since people are not directly responsible for the results and therefore do not evaluate their own efforts, causing them to reduce or even eliminate them.

Strategies to Mitigate the Ringelmann Effect

Despite the challenges posed by the Ringelmann Effect, there are strategies that groups and organizations can employ to enhance productivity and performance:

1. Clear Goals and Roles

Establishing clear goals, roles, and expectations within the group helps clarify individual responsibilities and fosters accountability. Clearly defined objectives provide a sense of purpose and direction, reducing ambiguity and enhancing motivation.

2. Effective Communication

Promoting open, transparent communication channels facilitates information sharing, collaboration, and alignment of efforts. Encourage active participation and feedback exchange to ensure that all members feel valued and heard, minimizing the likelihood of social loafing.

3. Task Division and Delegation

Break down tasks into manageable components and assign specific responsibilities to each group member. By distributing workload effectively and leveraging individual strengths, groups can optimize efficiency and mitigate the negative effects of social loafing.

4. Accountability Mechanisms

Implement accountability mechanisms, such as progress tracking, performance evaluations, and peer reviews, to ensure that individuals are held accountable for their contributions. Recognize and reward individual effort and achievement to reinforce positive behavior and maintain motivation.

How to combat its effect on teams?

To combat the Ringelmann Effect It is important to increase the motivation of team members To do this, it is advisable to ensure that their individual performance is identifiable, that is, that they feel like “important pieces” of the group, essential pieces to achieve the desired group result or objective.

If the members are made to feel this way, and if they can also concretely identify their individual contribution, it is very likely that they will put more effort into the group task.

The Ringelmann Effect underscores the importance of understanding group dynamics and its impact on productivity and performance. By recognizing the challenges associated with larger group sizes and implementing strategies to mitigate social loafing, organizations can foster a culture of collaboration, accountability, and excellence. Through effective communication, clear goal-setting, and distributed leadership, groups can harness the collective potential of their members and achieve greater success.

Surprising Social Psychological Phenomena

Media Center

Social Loafing

The basic idea.

What was your last group project? Maybe you were in college, grouped with three other perpetually-tired students, trying to collectively write 20 pages on your favorite behavioral phenomenon. Should be easy right? If the work is divided equally, that’s five pages each – a very feasible workload within a semester. However, as you started to work on the project, two of your group members never answered their email, never contributed ideas, and never showed up to group meetings. Sound familiar?

This classic college behavior – that spans far beyond the college years – is referred to in psychology as social loafing.

Two cartoon bread loaves are drawn with faces. The one on the left has a frowning expression, and the one on the right is smiling. A speech bubble from the frowning loaf says, "I feel like you're free-loafing." The title "Social Loafing" is written at the top of the image, and the background shows simple hills in orange and green.

Sunday is a day of rest. Loafing is not rest. – Robert Baden-Powell

Social loafing: This refers to the phenomenon in which people tend to put in less effort on any given assignment when they are working in a group than if they had performed the same task individually. 1

Social facilitation : The concept that the real, imagined, or implied presence of others promotes an increase in the level of effort on a given task. 2

Collective Effort Model (CEM): A model that proposes working on tasks collectively tends to decrease individual motivation. This is because collective work reduces the belief of each individual that their actions can aid in the attainment of a goal and lowers the subjective value of these goals to each individual. 3

Also referred to as the Ringelmann effect, social loafing was discovered by French agricultural engineer Max Ringelmann while working on a rope pulling experiment in 1913. Ringelmann was interested in understanding how agricultural workers could maximize their productivity. During each round of tug-a-war, Ringelmann found that although groups of men pulling would outperform individual men overall, the total pulling force of each group did not equal to the sum of each individual’s maximum pull strength. In other words, each man in a group did not pull as hard collectively as they did when they were asked to pull alone. As well, he found that as more people were added to the group, the further below maximum capacity they would pull. This meant that, if each individual can pull a maximum of 100 units, a group of eight people would pull only 392 units, not 800. 1

Ringelmann attributed the source of his findings to two types of losses: coordination and motivation losses. He stated that coordination loss, or the “lack of simultaneity of their efforts,” was the primary cause of social loafing. He believed motivation loss, the belief that other group members will supply the remaining effort, occasionally made the lack of coordination worse. 4

Max Ringelmann

Maximilien Ringelmann was a French professor of agricultural engineering. He was involved in the testing and development of agricultural machinery, and was interested in determining its efficiency. Ringelmann’s most notable contributions are the Ringelmann scale, a machine still used today to measure smoke, as well as the Ringelmann effect which is known in the social psychology field as social loafing.

Bibb Latané

Bibb Latané is an American psychologist widely known for his research on the consequences of social loafing, social impact theory, and bystander intervention, which was prompted after the highly-publicized murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City. Latané’s writing can be seen in over 140 articles, chapters, and books. He has won the Behavioral Science Award twice from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and he also won the career research award given by the Society of Experimental Social Psychology and the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, as well as James McKeen Cattell and Solomon R. Guggenheim Fellowships. 6, 7

Consequences

One of social loafing’s primary implications is the reduced performance in collaborative group efforts. Inspired by Ringelmann’s initial findings and attributed causes of social loafing, American Social Psychologist Bibb Latané and his colleagues studied noise production in groups versus alone in 1979, and confirmed this idea. Latané and his co-authors state that social loafing is a “disease,” in which the negative consequences affect individuals, social institutions, and societies. It leads to a decrease in human efficiency, lowering profits and thus lowering benefits for everyone.

The study goes on to discuss the causes of social loafing through the lens of the Social Impact Theory, which according to Latané, states that while the overall impact of others on a certain individual increase and the number of people increases, the rate of the increase in impact diminishes as each new person is added. According to Latané, social loafing is caused by three factors:

Attribution and Equity: The failure to assign and maintain an equitable workload division among group members. This is due to three factors, based on the physics and psychophysics of producing sound: individuals judging their own outputs as louder due to the relative proximity to others, sound cancellation in group settings, and misperceptions of the sound produced in a group. The study mentions that this leads individuals to think that other participants are less motivated or skillful than themselves, leading individuals to produce less sound because they felt there was no reason to work hard when those around them were shirkers or less competent.
Submaximal Goal Setting: Instead of maximizing the quality of work produced, participants put in enough effort to simply match the standard of what was expected of them. In social psychologist Ivan Dale Steiner’s words, the task was changed from a maximizing task to an optimizing task.
Lessened Contingency Between Input and Outcome: Participants felt a disconnect between the goal and what needed to be done to get there when performing in groups compared to individually. Since it is difficult to gauge individual efforts when performing in groups, people cannot receive appropriate credit or blame for their efforts. 8

In a meta-analysis of 78 studies done by Psychologists Kipling Williams and Steven Karau in 1993, they proposed the idea of the Collective Effort Model (CEM), which hypothesized that working on a collective task will reduce motivation amongst group members due to lowered expectations of successful goal attainment and decrease in the subjective value of the goal. 9 According to Williams and Karau, individual expectations for goal attainment tend to be low since it is difficult to predict the probability of success for an entire group compared to working alone. This study also found support for the idea that “loafing was greater among men than women, in Western countries compared to Eastern ones, and for simple tasks rather than complex ones.” 2, 10, 11

Controversies

The definitions of social facilitation and social loafing might seem to contradict each other. Does the presence of others help performance (social facilitation) or hinder it (social loafing)? This discrepancy will be clearer once their definitions are clarified. Social loafing requires collaborative work: everyone present must strive to complete the same goal. Social facilitation, however, does not require collaborative work. Social facilitation simply requires others to be present — they don’t need to be working to reach the same goal.

In the same study done by Lantané and colleagues in 1979 discussed above (whose aim was to replicate Ringelmann’s 1913 experiment findings), Lanté and colleagues found that instead of the previously attributed reason for social loafing being lack of coordination as stated originally by Ringelmann, there was a reduction in individual efforts due to causes stated above (Attribution and Equity, Submaximal Goal Setting, and Lessened Contingency Between Input and Outcome). This does not discredit whether social loafing exists, but simply provides more reasons to explain its occurrence.

A study done by Williams and Karau in 1991 found support for the social compensation hypothesis, which states that people tend to work harder in group settings than individually when they expect their group member to perform poorly on an important task. They studied participants working either collectively or collaboratively on an idea generation task, with expectations of group member performance being inferred from participant interpersonal trust scores, direct manipulations from a confederate group member statement of intended effort, or their ability at the task. 12

This contradicts the first attributed cause cited by Latané and colleagues in 1979 above, as this study argues that when group members are perceived to put in less effort, the individual will put in more effort to compensate. On the other hand, Latané and colleagues state that individuals will put in less effort because they believe there is no reason to put in a lot of effort when those around them were shirkers. Perhaps more research needs to be done in order to understand the circumstances under which social loafing and social compensation apply.

Case Studies

Can workplace friendship reduce social loafing.

In a study done in Taiwan, researchers examined the relationship between workplace friendships and the effects of social loafing among employees in a Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firm. They found that there was a negative relationship between workplace friendship and social loafing effect among CPA employees. In other words, the closer a pair of CPA employees were, the less social loafing was observed, and thus more effort was put in on collective tasks involving both parties. 13

Why Less Is More in Teams

A publication in the Harvard Business Review provides some food for thought by asking the reader why they think different sports have different specifications for the number of players that can play at once. It addresses the possible causes of social loafing and provides four options for how one can prevent social loafing when reducing group size is not an option: (1) dividing tasks in such a way so that each team member can be held accountable for a part of the overall goal, (2) creating a sense of urgency amongst members, (3) making weaker team members feel overly responsible for the underperformance of the team (which the author notes to be “unappetizing”), and (4) creating an environment that is transparent and open in terms of providing and receiving feedback. 14

Social Loafing versus Elite Female Rowers

A 1995 publication from Anshel analyzes the effects of task duration and mood on elite female rowers. Arguably, rowing is particularly interesting in the context of social loafing as the task itself requires high-level coordination in order to reach the team’s highest performance capabilities.

As predicted, researchers found that social loafing did not occur when performing tasks alone. However, social loafing did not occur under the “short duration” condition and was only apparent when participants performed the task under relatively prolonged conditions. This contradicts the findings of previous research, as they have suggested that social loafing occurs when the task at hand is not personally interesting or holds important meaning and consequences to those involved. 15 The most note-worthy finding for this particular study is that social loafing was an influence not only by the presence (or lack thereof) of other rowers or the amount of effort put into the task but also by the duration of the task. They offer a possible explanation to be that the longer the duration of the task, the harder it is to identify who may be slacking in effort. 16

Case studies

From insight to impact: our success stories, is there a problem we can help with, about the author.

Woman smiles, wearing a light blue sweater over a white shirt. The background shows a dark window surrounded by green leafy plants.

Adrienne Fu

Adrienne Fu is a student at McGill University studying Economics, Computer Science, and Psychology. She is passionate about behavioural economics, particularly its intersection with consumer decision-making and UX Design. Outside of the (virtual) office, she enjoys film photography, reading, and taking care of her (many) plants.

We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy

Our insights are leveraged by the most ambitious organizations.

I was blown away with their application and translation of behavioral science into practice. They took a very complex ecosystem and created a series of interventions using an innovative mix of the latest research and creative client co-creation. I was so impressed at the final product they created, which was hugely comprehensive despite the large scope of the client being of the world's most far-reaching and best known consumer brands. I'm excited to see what we can create together in the future.

Heather McKee

BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST

GLOBAL COFFEEHOUSE CHAIN PROJECT

OUR CLIENT SUCCESS

Annual revenue increase.

By launching a behavioral science practice at the core of the organization, we helped one of the largest insurers in North America realize $30M increase in annual revenue .

Increase in Monthly Users

By redesigning North America's first national digital platform for mental health, we achieved a 52% lift in monthly users and an 83% improvement on clinical assessment.

Reduction In Design Time

By designing a new process and getting buy-in from the C-Suite team, we helped one of the largest smartphone manufacturers in the world reduce software design time by 75% .

Reduction in Client Drop-Off

By implementing targeted nudges based on proactive interventions, we reduced drop-off rates for 450,000 clients belonging to USA's oldest debt consolidation organizations by 46%

A diagram illustrating the components that influence target behavior. It is structured in three columns. The first column lists 'Capability,' 'Opportunity,' and 'Motivation' as key factors, each with a question beneath: 'Can this behavior be accomplished in principle?' 'Is there sufficient opportunity for behavior to occur?' and 'Is there sufficient motivation for the behavior to occur?' The second column breaks these down further into 'Physical' and 'Psychological' for Capability, 'Social' and 'Physical' for Opportunity, and 'Automatic' and 'Reflective' for Motivation. The third column shows these factors converging into a purple box labeled 'Target Behavior.'

The COM-B Model for Behavior Change

Outline icon of a human head with a Venn diagram inside. Each circle in the diagram is labeled with a letter: E, B, and C.

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

Social Sciences

An outline icon of a man's head with an outline icon of a brain inside

Gestalt Psychology

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?

Get new behavioral science insights in your inbox every month..

Group Performance

First Online: 26 February 2023

Cite this chapter

Jeannine Ohlert 5 ,
Christian Zepp 5 &
Mark Eys 6

3147 Accesses

1 Citations

Compared to the performance of individuals, groups and teams perform surprisingly well in some situations and surprisingly poorly in others. Therefore, this chapter aims to clarify under which circumstances one or the other applies and which phenomena and processes play a role in sport contexts. First, important definitions and theories concerning the area of groups and teams are presented. Second, the phenomenon of social loafing, which leads to a loss of performance within groups, is discussed. In contrast, the focus of the third section is performance gains in groups, followed by theoretical explanations regarding both aspects. Fourth, group-related phenomena that have a scientifically supported effect on group performance are presented. Finally, validated instruments are demonstrated, which can be used to measure important group-related constructs.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

An empirical link between motivation gain and NBA statistics: applying hierarchical linear modelling

Beyond key performance indicators

Ames, C. A. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161–176). Human Kinetics.

Google Scholar

Anshel, M. H. (1995). Examining social loafing among elite female rowers as a function of task duration and mood. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18 (1), 39–49.

Apitzsch, E. (2006). Collective collapse in team sports: A theoretical approach. In F. Boen, B. de Cuyper, & J. Opdenacker (Eds.), Current research topics in exercise and sport psychology in Europe (pp. 35–46). LannooCampus Publishers.

Appleton, P. R., Ntoumanis, N., Quested, E., Viladrich, C., & Duda, J. L. (2016). Initial validation of the coach-created Empowering and Disempowering Motivational Climate Questionnaire (EDMCQ-C). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22 , 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.05.008

Article Google Scholar

Balaguer, I., Duda, J. L., Atienza, F. L., & Mayo, C. (2002). Situational and dispositional goals as predictors of perceptions on individual and team improvement, satisfaction and coach ratings among elite female handball teams. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3 , 293–308.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control . Freeman.

Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39 , e137. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X15000618

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Beauchamp, M. R., Bray, S. R., Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2002). Role ambiguity, role efficacy, and role performance: Multidimensional and mediational relationships within interdependent sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6 (3), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1037//1089-2699.6.3.229

Benson, A., & Eys, M. (2017). Understanding the consequences of newcomer integration processes: The Sport Team Socialization Tactics Questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39 , 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0182

Benson, A. J., Evans, B., & Eys, M. A. (2016). Organizational socialization in team sport environments. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26 , 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12460

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Bies, R., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond trust: “Getting even” and the need for revenge. In R. D. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 246–260). Sage Publications.

Chapter Google Scholar

Boss, M., & Kleinert, J. (2015). Explaining social contagion in sport applying Heider’s balance theory: First experimental results. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16 (3), 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.10.006

Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101 (8), 1151–1177.

Brown, R., Condor, S., Matthews, A., Wage, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59 , 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1986.tb00230.x

Bruner, M. W., Eys, M., Carreau, J. M., McLaren, C., & Van Woezik, R. (2020). Utilizing the Team Environment AssessMent (TEAM) to enhance team building in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 34 , 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2018-0174

Burke, S. M., Carron, A. V., & Shapcott, K. M. (2008). Cohesion in exercise groups: An overview. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1 (2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/17509840802227065

Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. (1998). The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in sport. A meta analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24 , 168–188.

Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., & Hausenblas, H. A. (Eds.). (1998). Group dynamics in sport (2nd ed.). Fitness Information Technology.

Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7 , 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100105

Castaño, N., Watts, T., & Tekleab, A. G. (2013). A reexamination of the cohesion–performance relationship meta-analyses. A comprehensive approach. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17 (4), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034142

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (4), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909

Cunningham, I., & Eys, M. A. (2007). Role ambiguity and intra-team communication in interdependent sport teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37 (10), 2220–2237.

de Backer, M., Boen, F., de Cuyper, B., Høigaard, R., & Vande Broek, G. (2015). A team fares well with a fair coach: Predictors of social loafing in interactive female sport teams. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 25 , 897–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12303

de Cremer, D., van Dijke, M., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). Cooperating when “you” and “I” are treated fairly: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95 (6), 1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020419

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits. Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

DeLamater, J. (1974). A definition of “group”. Small Group Research, 5 (1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649647400500103

Drescher, S., Burlingame, G. M., & Fuhriman, A. (2012). Cohesion: An Odyssey in empirical understanding. Small Group Research, 43 (6), 662–689. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412468073

Duda, J. L. (2013). The conceptual and empirical foundations of empowering coaching™: Setting the stage for the PAPA project. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11 (4), 311–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2013.839414

Duda, J. L., & Appleton, P. R. (2016). Empowering and disempowering coaching climates: Conceptualization, measurement issues, and intervention implications. In M. Raab, P. Wylleman, R. Seiler, A.-M. Elbe, & A. Hatzigeorgiadis (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology research (pp. 373–388). Elsevier.

Duda, J. L., & Balaguer, I. (2007). Coach-created motivational climate. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 117–130). Human Kinetics.

Estabrooks, P. A., & Carron, A. V. (2000). The Physical Activity Group Environment Questionnaire. An instrument for the assessment of cohesion in exercise classes. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4 , 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.3.230

Evans, M. B., Eys, M. A., & Bruner, M. W. (2012). Seeing the “we” in “me” sports: The need to consider individual sport team environments. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 53 (4), 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030202

Everett, J. J., Smith, R. E., & Williams, K. D. (1992). Effects of team cohesion and identifiability on social loafing in relay swimming performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23 (4), 311–324.

Eys, M., Beauchamp, M. R., Godfrey, M., Dawson, K., Loughead, T. M., & Schinke, R. J. (2020a). Role commitment and acceptance in a sport context. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 42 , 89–101. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2019-0057

Eys, M. A., Carron, A. V., Beauchamp, M. R., & Bray, S. R. (2005). Athletes’ perceptions of the sources of role ambiguity. Small Group Research, 36 (4), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496404268533

Eys, M. A., Evans, M. B., & Benson, A. (2020b). Group dynamics in sport (5th ed.). Fitness Information Technology.

Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for youth: The youth sport environment questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31 , 390–408.

Eys, M. A., Ohlert, J., Evans, B., Wolf, S. A., Martin, L., VanBussel, M., et al. (2015). Cohesion and performance for female and male sport teams. The Sport Psychologist, 29 (2), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2014-0027

Feltz, D. L., Forlenza, S. T., Winn, B., & Kerr, N. L. (2014). Cyber buddy is better than no buddy: A test of the Köhler motivation effect in exergames. Games for Health, 3 (2), 98–105.

Feltz, D. L., Kerr, N. L., & Irwin, B. C. (2011). Buddy up: The Köhler effect applied to health games. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33 , 506–526.

Feltz, D. L., & Lirgg, C. D. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams, and coaches. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 340–361). Wiley.

Feuchter, A., & Funke, J. (2004). Positive Effekte sozialen Faulenzens beim Lösen komplexer Probleme [positive effects of social loafing when solving complex problems]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 56 (2), 304–325.

Fielding, K. S., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Working hard to achieve self-defining group goals: A social identity analysis. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31 (4), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1024//0044-3514.31.4.191

Forsyth, D. R. (2014). Group dynamics (6th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Fransen, K., Coffee, P., Vanbeselaere, N., Slater, M., de Cuyper, B., & Boen, F. (2014a). The impact of athlete leaders on team members’ team outcome confidence: A test of mediation by team identification and collective efficacy. The Sport Psychologist, 28 (4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2013-0141

Fransen, K., Vanbeselaere, N., de Cuyper, B., Vande Broek, G., & Boen, F. (2014b). The myth of the team captain as principal leader: Extending the athlete leadership classification within sport teams. Journal of Sports Sciences, 32 (14), 1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2014.891291

Fransen, K., Vanbeselaere, N., Exadaktylos, V., Vande Broek, G., de Cuyper, B., Berckmans, D., et al. (2012). “Yes, we can!”: Perceptions of collective efficacy sources in volleyball. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30 , 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.653579

Franz, T. M. (2012). Group dynamics and team interventions. Understanding and improving team performance . Blackwell.

Fraser, S. N., & Spink, K. S. (2002). Examining the role of social support and group cohesion in exercise compliance. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 25 (3), 233–249.

Glenn, S. D., & Horn, T. S. (1993). Psychological and personal predictors of leadership behavior in female soccer athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 5 (1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209308411302

Greenlees, I. A., Graydon, J. K., & Maynard, I. (1999). The impact of collective efficacy beliefs on effort and persistence in a group task. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17 , 151–158.

Gully, S. M., Incalcaterra, K. A., Joshi, A., & Beubien, J. M. (2002). A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 , 819–832.

Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for greater performances . Harvard Business School Press.

Hardy, C. J. (1990). Social loafing. Motivational losses in collective performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 21 , 305–327.

Hardy, C. J., & Latané, B. (1988). Social loafing in cheerleaders: Effect of team membership and competition. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 10 , 109–114.

Harkins, S. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23 , 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(87)90022-9

Harkins, S., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 , 934–941. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.6.934

Hart, J. W., Bridgett, D. J., & Karau, S. J. (2001). Coworker ability and effort as determinants of individual effort on a collective task. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5 (3), 181–190.

Hart, J. W., Karau, S. J., Stasson, M. F., & Kerr, N. A. (2004). Achievement motivation, expected coworker performance, and collective task motivation: Working hard or hardly working? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34 (5), 984–1000.

Heckhausen, H. (1977). Achievement motivation and its constructs. A cognitive model. Motivation and Emotion, 1 , 283–329.

Henry, K. B., Arrow, H., & Carini, B. (1999). A tripartite model of group identification: Theory and measurement. Small Group Research, 30 , 558–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000504

Hertel, G. (2002). Management virtueller teams auf der basis sozialpsychologischer Theorien. Das VIST-Modell. [Management of virtual teams based on social psychological theories. The VIST model]. In F. H. Witte (Ed.), Sozialpsychologie wirtschaftlicher Prozesse (pp. 172–202). Pabst.

Heuzé, J.-P., & Brunel, P. C. (2003). Social loafing in a competitive context. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1 (3), 246–263.

Hodge, K., Henry, G., & Smith, W. (2014). A case study of excellence in elite sport. Motivational climate in a world champion team. The Sport Psychologist, 28 (1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2013-0037

Høigaard, R., Fuglestad, S., Peters, D. M., de Cuyper, B., de Backer, M., & Boen, F. (2010). Role satisfaction mediates the relation between role ambiguity and social loafing among elite women handball players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22 (4), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2010.495326

Høigaard, R., & Ingvaldsen, R. P. (2006). Social loafing in interactive groups. The effects of identifiability on effort and individual performance in floorball. Athletic Insight, 8 (2), 52–63.

Huddleston, S., Doody, S. G., & Ruder, M. K. (1985). The effect of prior knowledge of the social loafing phenomenon on performance in a group. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 16 , 176–182.

Hüffmeier, J., Dietrich, H., & Hertel, G. (2013a). Effort intentions in teams: Effects of task type and teammate performance. Small Group Research, 44 (1), 62–88.

Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2011). When the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Group motivation gains in the wild. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47 (2), 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.004

Hüffmeier, J., Kanthak, J., & Hertel, G. (2013b). Specificity of partner feedback as moderator of group motivation gains in Olympic swimmers. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16 (4), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212460894

Hüffmeier, J., Krumm, S., Kanthak, J., & Hertel, G. (2012). Don’t let the group down: Facets of instrumentality moderate the motivating effects of groups in a field experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42 , 533–538.

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.

Irwin, B. C., Scorniaenchi, J., Kerr, N. L., Eisenmann, J. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Aerobic exercise is promoted when individual performance affects the group: A test of the Kohler motivation gain effect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 44 (2), 151–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9367-4

Jackson, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (1985). Social loafing on difficult tasks. Working collectively can improve performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 , 937–942. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.4.937

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2009). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (10th ed.). Pearson.

Karau, S. J., Markus, M. J., & Williams, K. D. (2000). On the elusive search for motivation gains in groups. Insights from the collective effort model. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31 (4), 179–190.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing. A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (4), 681–706.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1997). The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1 (2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.2.156

Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44 , 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.78

Kerr, N. L., Forlenza, S. T., Irwin, B. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2013). ‘… been down so long …’: Perpetual vs. intermittent inferiority and the Köhler group motivation gain in exercise groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17 (2), 67–80.

Kleinert, J., Ohlert, J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., Feltz, D. L., Harwood, C., et al. (2012). Group dynamics in sport. An overview and recommendations on diagnostic and intervention. The Sport Psychologist, 26 , 412–434.

Kleinknecht, C., Kleinert, J., & Ohlert, J. (2014). Erfassung von „Kohäsion im Team von Freizeit- und Gesundheitssportgruppen“ (KIT-FG) [Measuring group cohesion in recreational and health sport (KIT-FG]. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie, 22(2), 68–78.

Köhler, O. (1926). Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit [Power performance in individual and group tasks]. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3 , 274–282.

Köhler, O. (1927). Über den Gruppenwirkungsgrad der menschlichen Körperarbeit und die Bedingung optimaler Kollektivkraftreaktion [On group efficiency of physical human work and the conditions of optimal collective power reactions]. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 4 , 209–226.

Kramer, R. M. (1998). Paranoid cognition in social systems: Thinking and acting in the shadow of doubt. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 , 251–275.

Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50 (5), 936–941.

Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36 , 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.4.343

Latané, B., Williams, K. D., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822

LaVoi, N. M. (2007). Interpersonal communication and conflict in the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 29–40). Human Kinetics.

Loughead, T. M., Hardy, J., & Eys, M. A. (2006). The nature of athlete leadership. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 29 , 142–158.

Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., & Loughead, T. (2012). Development of a cohesion questionnaire for children’s sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16 , 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024691

Max, E. J., Samendinger, S., Winn, B., Kerr, N. L., Pfeiffer, K. A., & Feltz, D. L. (2016). Enhancing aerobic exercise with a novel virtual exercise buddy based on the Kohler effect. Games for Health Journal, 5 (4), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2016.0018

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Miles, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Using punishment threats to attenuate social loafing effects among swimmers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56 (2), 246–265.

Moede, W. (1927). Die Richtlinien der Leistungs-Psychologie [Benchmarks for performance psychology]. Industrielle Psychotechnik, 4 , 193–207.

Moll, T., Jordet, G., & Pepping, G.-J. (2010). Emotional contagion in soccer penalty shootouts: Celebration of individual success is associated with ultimate team success. Journal of Sports Sciences, 28 (9), 983–992.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15 , 137–192.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2012). A history of small group research. In A. W. Kruglanski & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 383–405). Taylor & Francis.

Morgan, K., Sproule, J., Weigand, D., & Carpenter, P. J. (2005). A computer-based observational assessment of the teaching behaviours that influence motivational climate in physical education. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 10 (1), 83–105.

Murrell, A. J., & Gaertner, S. L. (1992). Cohesion and sport team effectiveness. The benefit of a common group identity. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 16 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/019372359201600101

Newton, M. L., Duda, J. L., & Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the psychometric properties of the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18 (4), 275–290.

Nilsen, T., Haugen, T., Reinboth, M., Peters, D. M., & Høigaard, R. (2014). Explicit prior knowledge of social loafing does not reduce social loafing in subsequent team cycle trial performance. Kinesiologia Slovenica, 20 (2), 17–25.

Ntoumanis, N., & Vazou, S. (2005). Peer motivational climate in youth sport. Measurement development and validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27 (4), 432–455.

Ohlert, J. (2009). Teamleistung. Social loafing in der Vorbereitung auf eine Gruppenaufgabe [Team performance. Social loafing during preparation for a group task] . Kovač.

Ohlert, J. (2012). Kohäsionsfragebogen für Individual- und Teamsport—Leistungssport (KIT-L)—A German-language instrument for measuring group cohesion in individual and team sports. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10 (1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.645129

Ohlert, J., & Kleinert, J. (2013). Social loafing during preparation for performance situations. The preloafing effect. Social Psychology, 44 , 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000107

Ohlert, J., & Kleinert, J. (2014). Sozialer Kontext und antizipierter Alkoholkonsum bei Leistungssportlern [Social context and anticipated alcohol consumption in elite athletes]. SUCHT, 60 (2), 73–83.

Ohlert, J., Kleinknecht, C., & Kleinert, J. (2015). Group cohesion reworded—Measuring group cohesion feelings in sport. Sportwissenschaft, 45 (3), 116–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-015-0364-1

Ohlert, J., & Zepp, C. (2016). Theory based team diagnostics and interventions. In M. Raab, P. Wylleman, R. Seiler, A.-M. Elbe, & A. Hatzigeorgiadis (Eds.), Sport and exercise psychology research (pp. 347–370). Elsevier.

Petitta, L., Jiang, L., & Palange, M. (2015). The differential mediating roles of task, relations, and emotions collective efficacy on the link between dominance and performance. A multilevel study in sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19 (3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000031

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52 (4), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12006

Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. (1997). Sacrifice, cohesion, and conformity to norms in sport teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1 (3), 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.1.3.231

Rees, T., Alexander Haslam, S., Coffee, P., & Lavallee, D. (2015). A social identity approach to sport psychology: Principles, practice, and prospects. Sports Medicine, 45 (8), 1083–1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0345-4

Ringelmann, M. (1913). Recherches Sur les moteurs animes: Travail de l’homme [Research on living machines: Work of human]. Annales de l’Institut National Agronomique, 12 (1), 1–40.

Short, S. E., Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2005). Development and preliminary validation of the collective efficacy questionnaire for sports. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9 (3), 181–202.

Silver, W. S., & Bufanio, K. M. (1996). The impact of group efficacy and group goals on group task performance. Small Group Research, 27 , 347–359.

Smith, N., Tessier, D., Tzioumakis, Y., Quested, E., Appleton, P., Sarrazin, P., et al. (2015). Development and validation of the multidimensional motivational climate observation system. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37 (1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0059

Sobleski, B. (2017, February 6). How did the Atlanta falcons blow super bowl LI? Bleacher Report. https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2691400-how-did-the-atlanta-falcons-blow-super-bowl-xli

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity . Academic Press.

Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Koehler effect. Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior. Small group processes and interpersonal relations (pp. 37–65). Lawrence Erlbaum; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swaab, R. I., Schaerer, M., Anicich, E. M., Ronay, R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). The too-much-talent effect. Team interdependence determines when more talent is too much or not enough. Psychological Science, 25 (8), 1581–1591.

Swain, A. (1996). Social loafing and identifiability: The mediating role of achievement goal orientations. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67 (3), 337–344.

Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 61–76). Academic Press.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.

Thompson, B., & Thornton, B. (2007). Exploring mental-state reasoning as a social-cognitive mechanism for social loafing in children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147 (2), 159–174.

Todd, A. R., Seok, D.-H., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (2006). Social compensation: Fact or social-comparison artifact? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9 (3), 431–442.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63 , 348–399.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Management, 2 (4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (Eds.). (1987). Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory . Blackwell.

Van Dick, R., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Lemmer, G., & Tissington, P. A. (2009). Group membership salience and task performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24 (7), 609–626. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940910989011

Van Dick, R., & West, M. A. (2013). Teamwork, Teamdiagnose, Teamentwicklung [Teamwork, team diagnosis, team development] (2nd ed.). Hogrefe.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation . Wiley.

Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007). Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93 (6), 973–993. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.6.973

Wergin, V. V., Zimanyi, Z., Mesagno, C., & Beckmann, J. (2018). When suddenly nothing works anymore within a team - causes of collective sport team collapse. Frontiers in Psychology, 9 , 2115. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02115

Whipple, R. (2009). Reinforcing candor: It builds trust and transparency. Leadership Excellence, 26 (6), 17.

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 (4), 570–581.

Williams, K. D., Nida, S. A., Baca, L. D., & Latané, B. (1989). Social loafing and swimming. Effects of identifiability on individual and relay performance of intercollegiate swimmers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10 , 73–81.

Woolfolk, A. (2019). Educational Psychology (14th ed.). Pearson Studium.

Yukelson, D. P. (1993). Communicating effectively. In J. Williams (Ed.), Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (pp. 122–136). Mayfield Publishing.

Zepp, C., & Kleinert, J. (2015). Symmetric and complementary fit based on prototypical attributes of soccer teams. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18 (4), 557–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214556701

Zepp, C., Kleinert, J., & Liebscher, A. (2013). Inhalte und Strukturen prototypischer Merkmale in Fußballmannschaften [contents and structure of prototypical attributes in soccer teams]. Sportwissenschaft, 43 (4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12662-013-0305-9

Zhang, Z., Wladman, D. A., & Wang, Z. (2012). A multilevel investigation of leader-member exchange, informal leader emergence, and individual and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 65 (1), 49–78.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany

Jeannine Ohlert & Christian Zepp

Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeannine Ohlert .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Universität Konstanz, Constance, Germany

Julia Schüler

University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Mirko Wegner

Ruprecht-Karls-University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

Henning Plessner

Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Robert C. Eklund

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Ohlert, J., Zepp, C., Eys, M. (2023). Group Performance. In: Schüler, J., Wegner, M., Plessner, H., Eklund, R.C. (eds) Sport and Exercise Psychology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03921-8_16

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-03921-8_16

Published : 26 February 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-03920-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-03921-8

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

THE RINGELMANN EFFECT

Related links, the ringelmann effect quiz - test your knowledge of the ringelmann effect, the ringelmann effect - why you never finish your group project.

Updated on 14th December, 2022

The Ringelmann Effect Definition

Are you a team player or a lone wolf? According to this psychological effect, you would be better off being a lone wolf because being in a team means you and your teammates will likely slack off or become lazy. Officially called the Ringelmann Effect, this psychological phenomenon describes the tendency for individual productivity to weaken as group size increases. This may come as a shock to you because we have been consistently told that a team of people could complete work more efficiently than individuals working separately through processes such as synergy and collaboration.

However, the Ringelmann Effect evokes a paradox that shows the complete opposite: individual productivity significantly decreases when group size increases. Considering this, to achieve a goal, the ideal way to approach it would not be to recruit as many hands as possible to help. Instead, it would be to find the optimal number of participants, allowing people to retain maximal productivity levels and not squander their efforts. Fun Fact - Have you ever been called a “Loafer?” Another way to describe the Ringelmann Effect is called social loafing, which refers to the proclivity for members of a social group to become lazy when brought together.

What is the Ringelmann Effect?

The Ringelmann Effect has been found to appear in many contexts ranging from team sports and professional environments to more mundane social actions such as clapping. When investigating the reasons behind the Ringelmann Effect, research combined the mechanisms of the phenomenon into two possible causes, which were: 1. Decreased coordination abilities 2. Decreased motivation Concerning the lack of coordination abilities, it is fair to say that the larger the group, the more difficult it is to organize everyone to work efficiently towards a given goal.

For example, think of a time when you tried to plan a group activity with your friend group. Getting everybody to follow the same plan without any obstruction or challenge is almost impossible. Essentially, the same process happens throughout the workforce or in team-playing sports where larger groups of people demand more potent coordination abilities, which are difficult to attain. As for the decrease in motivation, two possible processes have been proposed to explain this. The first is: when found in a larger group, there will be an individual belief that other group members will be able to complete a task successfully without any help. By believing this, some group members will disengage and become what is referred to as a “free-rider.” The second reason is that individuals from a large group may tend to perceive their group members as not putting their best effort into the task. Because of this, people do not want to look like the only person doing all the work while others are lazy, so they conform to the rest of the group’s behavior. This is called the “Sucker Effect."

The right number of seats for optimum output

History of the Ringelmann Effect

The Ringelmann Effect was named after Maximilien Ringelmann (1861-1931), a French agricultural engineer who discovered it while running experiments on maximizing agricultural efficiency. Typically, agricultural work is undertaken using farm animals such as horses and oxen, but Ringelmann wanted to see how humans would pair against these animals. By undertaking these experiments, Ringelmann inadvertently became an unknowing social psychologist who brought to light humanity’s proclivity to be lazy when surrounded by others. Fun Fact - Keep in mind that these experiments were undertaken long ago when systematic research on human factors was still in its infancy, so this was one of the earliest forms of recorded social psychological research! Ringelmann observed the effect arise during an experiment where he asked participants to pull horizontally on a rope, like a tug of war, either individually, in a group of seven, or in a group of fourteen. During each experimental condition, Ringelmann would then measure the pulling force exerted by each group using a dynamometer (i.e., a device that registers pulling force). When analyzing the results after the experiment, Ringelmann saw that participants who pulled alone would display an average force of 85.3 kg per person. In contrast, participants in the groups of 7 and 14 would display an average force of 65 and 61 kg, respectively. Surprised with his findings, Ringelmann tried to see if this effect would arise in different activities, such as pulling a two-wheeled farming cart, and found that the results were replicated every time.

We have all been affected by the Ringelmann Effect

Case Examples of the Ringelmann Effect

Case 1: Although this is not a concrete case, its constant mentions and references make it seem like it is an example of the Ringelmann Effect shared by everybody. In school, have you ever been put into a group project where you had to create a poster or a presentation to deliver to the rest of the class? And if you are honest, did you and your fellow group mates work to the best of your abilities to present the best end product? Or did all of you end up “free-riding” through the entire process and completing it last minute? If you resonate with this example, you have definitely fallen victim to the Ringelmann Effect. The issue with most group projects is that no one is willing to be appointed as a leader, especially when you are in primary or secondary school. Because of this, no robust decisions are made to complete the project, and everyone slowly relegates their responsibility to the other, thus indirectly displaying the “Sucker Effect.” The moral of the story – Don’t blame yourself, blame the Ringelmann Effect.

Case 3: In 1993, the Ringelmann Effect had already been subject to extensive study, and researchers wanted to develop a thorough model that would outline all the factors responsible for decreasing productivity within a group context. To do this, psychologists Kipling Williams and Steven Karau teamed up and analyzed 78 studies investigating the Ringelmann Effect to see if they could develop an overarching model explaining the effect. After their analysis, they came up with the “Collective Effort Model” (CEM), which stated that the decrease in task productivity in group contexts was due to lowered expectations of attaining the task goal and the decrease in the perceived value of the goal. Put simply, the more people are grouped together for a particular task, the less responsibility they will feel for completing it, and the less important it will feel for them to complete it. On the other hand, if you are alone or in a smaller group, the weight of responsibility is more prominent, and you will tend to personally identify more with a task you need to complete. Surprisingly, this study also found that men tended to display the Ringelmann Effect more than women.

A Beautiful Quote

- Anonymous Online Loafer

Questions and Answers

Q1. the ringelmann effect leads to social loafing. but can it impact people outside the workplace too.

Yes, social loafing is observed in several scenarios outside the workplace where an individual's actions can go under the radar. Examples of such social loafing are avoiding voting, clapping without bothering whether it is audible, witnessing a public emergency such as an accident, and not doing anything about it.

Q2. Could the Ringelmann effect be related to the Bystander Effect?

The Bystander Effect occurs when several people are witnesses to an accident or emergency and do not act, thinking that somebody else will do something about it. This effect parallels the Ringelmann Effect, as social loafing is an essential theme.

Q3. How can an organization counter the Ringelmann Effect and social loafing of employees?

Companies should be wary of creating optimal team sizes where individual actions are observable and accountable. Unfortunately, there isn't a known fixed formula for calculating the right group size. However, specific rule-of-thumb guidelines develop within the company over time. For example, Jeff Bezos considers a group too large if two pizzas can't feed it.

What do you think?

The Inventory

The psychological theory that explains why you’re better off working solo

In 1913, a guy named Max Ringelmann noticed something strange about humans. Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer, took a rope and asked individual people to pull on it.

Then he asked those same people to pull on the rope with a group. He observed that when people pulled with a group, they put in less effort than when pulling on their own.

We call it “the Ringelmann effect,” or social loafing. It describes the tendency for individual productivity to decrease as group size increases. And it doesn’t just happen in tug-of-war games: It’s present in companies like Google and Facebook more than a century after Ringelmann’s discovery. And chances are, it’s happening in your workplace, too.

Bigger groups mean less personal responsibility

We’re typically taught that larger groups accomplish more. We’re assigned to group projects in school, we play sports with a team, and we create task forces to accomplish big goals at work. It seems reasonable to think that more people would get more work done. And generally, I’d say this holds true in most cases.

But sometimes, the Ringelmann effect proves otherwise.

You’ve experienced it in brainstorm meetings, when you’re wrapping up the meeting and think, “Oh hey, Tim was here this whole time? He never said a word.” That’s because enough people were talking to make Tim feel like he could sit back unnoticed. He didn’t feel pressure to contribute, because nobody realized he wasn’t contributing.

The bigger the group, the harder it is to evaluate individual performance. And when nobody’s noticing what you are or aren’t doing, the easier it is to keep doing nothing. The work will get done, yes, because someone has to do it. But it doesn’t have to be you.

We’re all at risk of social loafing

The term “rest and vest” is thrown around among employees at big companies where employee will gain stocks after four years spent there—25% every year. The process is called vesting. So what do you do while you wait for your stocks to be worth something? Well, you could either work your ass off, or you rest and vest. This means chilling out and only doing the minimal amount of work needed. The bigger the company, the easier it is to fly under the radar.

The Ringelmann effect is one of the main reasons Stefan Sagmeister of Sagmeister & Walsh decided to keep his design studio small. “There are situations where I know that if I don’t do it, nobody will, so I’m forced into coming up with something,” Sagmeister says. “While if I know that if two or three other teams are working on it, I’m like, ‘Well if something comes to mind, excellent. But if not, I’ll hope that someone else [comes up with something.]’”

Even freelancers can experience the effect. When you’re working on your own projects, there’s no option but to do the work, because it won’t get done otherwise. But when you collaborate with others on a project, the pressure comes off. If the project sinks, it’s not necessarily your fault, so less ownership can lead to less motivation.

The Ringelmann effect appears beyond the workplace, too. It’s why you feel like you can clap more softly in a crowd. It’s why people don’t vote, because they think it won’t make a difference. It’s why dozens of people watched Kitty Genovese get murdered in New York in 1964, because everyone thought someone else was doing something about it. (This example technically illustrates the bystander effect , but it relates.)

You may not know you’re experiencing it

OK, we’ll give poor Tim some credit: He probably didn’t realize he was slacking in that brainstorm. It’s unlikely he walked into it thinking, “Now, how can I get away with doing nothing?” Yet he still did nothing. The team landed on an idea, they figured out their next steps, they executed. They barely noticed Tim was missing.

While some people are just plain lazy, most don’t necessarily slack off on purpose. You show up, don’t you? You check a few things off your list, you respond to a few emails, you manage to fill your timesheet. But unless your boss or team is expecting something from you specifically, how much work are you actually getting done? What are you accomplishing?

The lasting effects of small slacks

The impact of the Ringelmann effect may seem small in one meeting, but it’s toxic to a company’s productivity. When people within a team are slacking, the group dynamic shifts: Projects are less efficient, responsibilities are unbalanced, and other employees are overworked and unhappy. The entire business suffers, and so does each person involved.

The upside for our friend, Tim, is that he gets away with doing less work. He’s paid just for showing up. He can skate by with the smallest required effort.

The downside for Tim is that he’s not going to be the first person who comes to mind when the next project comes along. He’s not going to be recognized or rewarded for his work on this project. He’s not growing in his career, learning new skills, showing what he’s worth. And he’s certainly not finding satisfaction in the minimal work he is doing.

And for that, we feel sorry for Tim. He’s missing out.

And if you’re experiencing the Ringelmann effect in your workplace, whether you’re contributing to it or on the receiving end of it, you’re missing out, too.

The ideal group size

There are times when having different perspectives and a diverse range of skills on a project is valuable. And sometimes the work is simply too much for one person. So the question is: What’s the ideal group size? At what point does productivity start decreasing in a group?

Many people, like Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, use the “two pizza rule:” If you can’t feed a group with two pizzas, your group is too big. The scrum guide, which outlines the group-focused scrum approach to development, says optimal performance happens in groups of 3-9. Ringelmann, though, noticed the most significant decrease in effort as soon as one person worked with even one or two more people.

The fact is, putting a person in a group of any size is going to make them less productive. But dismissing group work entirely is unrealistic. So what’s the solution?

Motivation, not congregation

There’s lots of advice out there for business owners or managers who are trying to prevent the Ringelmann effect in their company. One suggestion is to counteract it with yet another social tendency called social facilitation. This is when someone performs differently while other people are watching because they care what others think of them. So if you make each person’s contribution known along the way, you motivate them to work harder.

Other recommendations include making individuals feel indispensable—like the success of the project depends on them—setting specific goals for each person that can be measured along the way, or creating competition between team members.

Making yourself useful

That’s all great, but how do we personally counteract the Ringelmann effect? How do we avoid it in the first place ourselves?

It’s actually easy, no social science required. Simply ask yourself: How can I be useful?

When you ask yourself how you can be useful, you immediately become more aware of the needs around you. You see where the holes are, and you find a way to fill them. The question jumpstarts your brain and shifts your thoughts from “Well, surely someone will find a solution” to “How can I help fix this?”

Sometimes, the answer to that question doesn’t fall within your job description or field of expertise. In some cases, you may be more effective by making a fresh pot of coffee for the team rather than spitballing ideas. In those times, make the coffee. Other times, you may convince yourself you’d be more useful by letting other people lead the conversation. If that’s the case, then take notes. Interject your ideas once you’ve had some time to mull it over outside the group. Then send your notes out to the team and determine how you fit in to next steps.

When you choose to be useful, you are counteracting the Ringelmann effect. And affecting your environment is so much more satisfying than dealing with the effects of it.

It may be easy to sit back and let others do the work, but an easy life is not a happy life. A useful life, though, is an entirely different story.

📬 Sign up for the Daily Brief

Our free, fast, and fun briefing on the global economy, delivered every weekday morning.

Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance

By Lucas Augustin , Writer at Business Value-Oriented Principles

Wednesday Mar 9, 2022

Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance

Under the name Ringelmann effect, there is a tendency according to which there is an inverse relationship between the number of a group of people and its productivity.

When it comes to working in a group, there is one mistake that is often made, namely that more people participate in a group than necessary, which affects their overall productivity.

We can observe such situations everywhere - from working in a team of employees from any organization to collaboration on a team basis between students or pupils when preparing a joint project or presentation.

What is the Ringelmann effect?

Maximilian Ringelmann (1861–1931) was a professor of agricultural engineering at the French National Institute of Agriculture.

In 1913, Ringelmann discovered that when members of a group worked together on a task, it led to significantly less effort on their part than when individual members acted alone.

Ringelmann conducted experiments in tug-of-war competitions in which people participated alone or in a group of two, three, and eight participants. He measured the pulling force with a dynamometer and made curious discoveries:

When one participant stands on both sides of the rope, the pulling force of the rope from each of them is approximately 63 kg.

When two participants stand on both sides of the rope, the pulling force is not 126 kg, ie. 63 kg. multiplied by two, and 118 kg. or there is a loss of 8 kg.

When there are three participants on each side of the rope, the pulling force of the rope is not 189 kg, ie. 63 kg. multiplied by three, and 160 kg. or there is a loss of 29 kg.

When there are eight participants on each side of the rope, the pulling force of the rope is not 504 kg, ie 63 kg. multiplied by eight, and 248 kg. or there is a loss of as much as 256 kg. compared to the potential of the participants.

Ringelmann concludes that the loss of productivity of the group increases with an increasing number of the group.

This inverse relationship between group size and productivity became known as the Ringelmann Effect.

What causes the Ringelmann effect?

Thanks to the efforts of Ringelmann, but also other researchers, it is clear that as the number of a group increases, productivity decreases due to three types of losses:

Motivational losses - the tendency to transfer the performance of work from one participant to another, because it is impossible to determine the contribution of individual participants in a group, and because usually, no one wants to be burdened with maximum work and thus allow others to roll. This phenomenon is also known as "Social laziness".

Coordination losses - participants in the group may not pull the rope in the right direction or may not use their potential force. This happens when people fail to organize and combine their strengths and qualities productively.

Relational losses - as the number of participants in the group increases, each individual receives less and less support than the others. This includes emotional support, help at work, help with information to solve various problems, etc.

Practice shows that small groups are often more cohesive, and large groups find it difficult to maintain the same close relationships.

Taking into account all types of losses, we can draw the following conclusion: group or team productivity is a quantity that depends on potential productivity, motivational losses, coordination losses, and relational losses.

Group productivity = Potential productivity - Motivational losses - Coordination losses - Relational losses.

How to neutralize the Ringelmann effect?

If you are the leader of a group of people (department, branch, directorate, team, etc.), you can use some of the following techniques:

Determine the ideal size of your group. Some organizations use the Two Pizzas rule (a discovery by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos) to build a team, which means the team should never need more than two pizzas to eat. Or, the optimal number of the group, so that there are no excessive losses in productivity, is probably 5-9 people, and the figure varies according to the appetite of the team. In any case, if a team becomes a two-digit number, it is probably already too big.

Keep people motivated. Regardless of the size of the team, but especially for larger teams, it is important to pay attention to people's motivation to ensure that they have a clear vision of what they need to achieve, as well as a strong commitment and enthusiasm for high-quality work.

In this regard, it is useful to know and use theories and models of workplace motivation such as those of McLeland, Orphan, Adams and Amabile, and Cramer.

Learn how to successfully manage a team. The teams have a special nature, rules, and dynamics. It is useful to know the main types of teams, stages of team development, team decisions, and weaknesses in teamwork. This way you will be able to avoid many coordination and relational losses in the joint work.

Such actions help to reduce motivational, coordination, and relational losses to achieve higher overall productivity when working in a group or team. Read more: Why do teams and organizations fall victim to Parkinson's Law?

Managers often try to solve problems at work simply by "throwing" new people into it.

Ringelmann found that the group's loss of productivity increased as the group grew.

Such a conclusion supports the idea that more quantity does not automatically mean higher quality. In the context of a group or teamwork, the correct principle is "Less is more".

When someone offers you help with a job, the forces double, but the speed of execution slows down. Or, the more people complete a task, the slower the process. This paradox has been noticed, studied, and formulated by scientists since the 19th century.

More people may make the job easier, but at the same time, it is neither easier nor faster for any of them. Scientists have even coined a term for this phenomenon. They call it "Social Laziness."

When it comes to group interaction, many reasons for the emergence of social laziness immediately arise: everyone has their own pace of work, resources, and characteristics of the ability to communicate in a group. And if one of the groups lags behind the others in any of these parameters, the probability of slowing down the work of the whole group begins to increase sharply.

This pattern gets known as the "Ringelmann effect". As early as 1861, the French professor of agricultural engineering Max Ringelm was trying to understand why if five times more people were added to a task than planned, the task was not accelerated 5 times, but quite the opposite.

To investigate this phenomenon, Ringelmann devised a simple experiment: he asked several people to play tug of war. The first time - individually, then together. Thus he established the following dependence: Three people pulled about 2.5 times harder than one. By the way of logic, six should pull with five times more force.

Nothing of the kind! In the next stage, 8 people lined up on the rope and it turned out that they were pulling a total of four times harder. And then, the more participants became, the more the pulling force decreased.

Based on these results, Ringelmann also compiled a special formula, which calculates if the capacity of one person is 100 kg. traction, then two pull by 93% of the sum of their abilities, three - by 86%. And for eight people - the figures fall to 51%.

What is the explanation? "Social laziness", i.e. when one works alone, one makes every effort. If in a team, he unloads the maximum responsibility from himself and "distributes" it to the other members of the group. The more they are, the less effort everyone puts in because they rely on others to make up for it.

It should be noted that to this day no method has been found to overcome the "Ringelmann effect". Teamwork is not an unconditional advantage. But, still, there is a way to improve team results. It's just that everyone should have specific obligations, the responsibility for the implementation of which should be their own.

The Ringelmann effect in psychology

During an experiment, most ordinary people were forced to lift weights. For each of them was fixed the maximum that can lift. Then the people were united in groups, first in pairs, then in fours and eight people.

The expectation was that if one person could conditionally lift 100 kg, then two would have to lift either 200 kg or more. The myth of group work already existed, consisting in the fact that the group achieves greater results than the sum of the individual results of its members individually.

Two people lifted only 93% of the sum of their indicators. And eight people lifted only 49%.

The results were checked many times after that with other tasks. For example, when pulling a rope from two groups of people. But again, the results were the same. As the number of people in the group increased, the percentage inevitably fell.

A friend recently mentioned a pretty good historical example of this effect. 60 senators were involved in the plot of the Roman senators for the assassination of Gaius Julius Caesar, but when the act itself took place, there were only 23 stab wounds on Caesar's body. Typical project work.

The reason for this behavior is clear. When I rely only on myself, I make every effort, and in the group, I willingly or unwillingly hide. For better or worse, social technology has not yet found a way to counteract this effect. And it will always be good to take this into account when collectivists tell us how good it is for society to have everything arranged by group, collective efforts.

Questions and Answers

Q1: what is the ringelmann effect.

A1: The Ringelmann Effect, also known as social loafing, refers to the phenomenon where individual effort decreases as the size of a group increases. In other words, as more people are added to a group, each individual's contribution to the group's task or goal tends to diminish.

Q2: What factors contribute to the Ringelmann Effect?

A2: Several factors contribute to the Ringelmann Effect. One primary factor is the diffusion of responsibility, where individuals feel less personally accountable for the group's outcome, leading to reduced effort. Additionally, coordination challenges in larger groups can lead to decreased motivation and productivity among individual members.

Q3: How has the Ringelmann Effect been studied?

A3: Researchers have conducted various studies to investigate the Ringelmann Effect. Classic experiments involving rope-pulling tasks have shown that as more individuals participate in the task, the average individual effort decreases. Similar studies have been conducted in different contexts, such as academic settings, sports teams, and workplace environments, to understand its impact on group performance.

Q4: What are the implications of the Ringelmann Effect for group performance?

A4: Understanding the Ringelmann Effect has significant implications for group performance. It suggests that increasing the size of a group may not necessarily lead to proportional increases in productivity. In fact, larger groups may experience reduced efficiency and effectiveness due to social loafing, impacting the overall performance and success of the group.

Q5: How can organizations mitigate the Ringelmann Effect?

A5: Organizations can implement several strategies to mitigate the Ringelmann Effect. Clear and well-defined individual roles and responsibilities within the group can reduce the diffusion of responsibility. Fostering a strong sense of team identity and belonging can enhance intrinsic motivation and commitment among group members. Effective communication and coordination mechanisms can prevent challenges that arise in larger groups and maintain individual engagement.

Q6: Can the Ringelmann Effect be observed in all group settings?

A6: While the Ringelmann Effect has been widely observed in different contexts, its strength and impact may vary based on factors such as the nature of the task, individual motivation, and the level of group cohesion. Some tasks may be less affected by social loafing, especially when individual contributions are easily identifiable and essential for task completion.

Q7: What are the historical origins of the Ringelmann Effect?

A7: The Ringelmann Effect is named after French engineer Maximilien Ringelmann, who conducted rope-pulling experiments in the late 1800s. He observed that individual effort decreased as more people pulled on the rope together, leading to the formulation of the social loafing theory.

Q8: How does the Ringelmann Effect impact team dynamics?

A8: The Ringelmann Effect can impact team dynamics negatively. As social loafing increases, team cohesion and collaboration may suffer, and members might rely excessively on others, leading to reduced overall performance and a potential decline in team morale.

Q9: Are there any positive aspects of group collaboration despite the Ringelmann Effect?

A9: Despite the challenges posed by the Ringelmann Effect, group collaboration still offers several positive aspects. Diverse perspectives and collective problem-solving can lead to innovative solutions. Effective team dynamics, with strong leadership and a clear sense of purpose, can mitigate social loafing and foster high-performance outcomes.

Q10: How can leaders leverage the Ringelmann Effect to improve group performance?

A10: Leaders can leverage their awareness of the Ringelmann Effect to implement strategies that optimize group performance. Encouraging individual accountability, setting clear performance expectations, and providing regular feedback can motivate team members to contribute actively. Moreover, fostering a positive team culture and emphasizing the value of individual contributions can mitigate social loafing and enhance overall group effectiveness.

About the author

Lucas Augustin , Writer at Business Value-Oriented Principles

Lucas Augustin is a lecturer in business and management with over 20 years of practical experience in managing teams and organizations.

Previous article What is strategic planning and how to write a strategic plan?
Next article What is Parkinson's Law and how to overcome it?

Many people see the negotiations as an unpleasant, stressful moment that should be avoided at all costs.

Parkinson's Law explains why it happens that a job takes much longer than planned.

The strategic plan is a document used to communicate in the organization about its main goals, the necessary actions to achieve them, and other key elements developed during planning.

The OSCAR coaching model was developed by British coaching experts Andrew Gilbert and Karen Whittleworth in 2002.

What is Ethical Leadership? We are constantly witnessing unethical behavior on the part of a business or political leaders around the world.

Creating a company culture that encourages creative thinking and curiosity can provide employees with the boost of inspiration they need.

Employee retention continues to be one of the biggest challenges facing businesses in recent years.

Get Certified
Terms of Service

Become a Certified Project Manager $280 $130

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance

1974, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

ringelmann effekt experiment

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS

Social Loafing in Psychology: Definition, Examples & Theory

Key Takeaways

What is Social Loafing?

Ringelmann’s Rope-Pulling Experiment

Expectations of Co-Worker Performance

Evaluation Potential

Social Impact Theory

Self-Attention

Arousal Reduction

Collective Effort Model (CEM)

Reducing Social Loafing

Establishing Individual Accountability

Minimizing Free Riding

Assign Distinct Responsibilities

Encouraging Team Loyalty

Keep Learning

Ringelmann Effect

Background and History of the Ringelmann Effect

Contemporary Research on the Ringelmann Effect

References:

Ringelmann Effect: What It Is And How It Affects Group Performance

Origins of the Ringelmann Effect

Characteristics of the Ringelmann Effect

1. Additive tasks

2. Disjunctive tasks

3. Conjunctive tasks

Implications for Group Dynamics

1. Coordination Challenges

2. Motivational Factors

3. Social Comparison

Causes of the Ringelmann Effect

Strategies to Mitigate the Ringelmann Effect

1. Clear Goals and Roles

2. Effective Communication

3. Task Division and Delegation

4. Accountability Mechanisms

How to combat its effect on teams?

Related Posts:

Social Loafing

Max Ringelmann

Bibb Latané

Consequences

Controversies

Case Studies

Why Less Is More in Teams

Social Loafing versus Elite Female Rowers

Related TDL Content

Case studies

Adrienne Fu

We are the leading applied research & innovation consultancy

OUR CLIENT SUCCESS

Increase in Monthly Users

Reduction In Design Time

Reduction in Client Drop-Off

The COM-B Model for Behavior Change

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)

Social Sciences

Gestalt Psychology

Eager to learn about how behavioral science can help your organization?

Group Performance

Cite this chapter

Access this chapter

Similar content being viewed by others

An empirical link between motivation gain and NBA statistics: applying hierarchical linear modelling

Beyond key performance indicators

Author information

Corresponding author

Editor information

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

THE RINGELMANN EFFECT

The Ringelmann Effect Definition

What is the Ringelmann Effect?

History of the Ringelmann Effect

Case Examples of the Ringelmann Effect

A Beautiful Quote

Questions and Answers