UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
DAMPAK SELF-ESTEEM TERHADAP PERILAKU KEMALASAN
SOSIAL
MAKALAH NON SEMINAR
Diajukan sebagai salah satu syarat untuk memperoleh gelar sarjana Psikologi
MELLISA TARA NURSALIM
1006718391
FAKULTAS PSIKOLOGI
PROGRAM STUDI KELAS KHUSUS INTERNASIONAL
Depok
Agustus 2014
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak Self-esteem Terhadap Perilaku Kemalasan Sosial
Mellisa Tara Nursalim dan Ike Anggraika
1. Fakultas Psikologi, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia
2. Fakultas Psikologi, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstrak
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi dampak self-esteem terhadap perilaku kemalasan sosial.
Penelitian ini menggunakan design 2x2 independent group antara dua kondisi tugas (koaktif x kolektif) dan dua
tingkat kesulitan tugas (mudah x sulit). Partisipan di dalam grup kondisi koaktif menyelesaikan tugas secara
individu sedangkan partisipan di dalam group kondisi kolektif menyelesaikan tugas secara berkelompok.
Partisipan di dalam group tugas mudah diminta untung menghafal 15 nama buah dan hewan sedangkan
partisipan di dalam group tugas sulit diminta untuk menghafal 15 istilah ilmiah. Setelah itu partisipan diminta
untuk mengisi kuesioner untuk mengukur self-esteem mereka. Tugas tersebut diberikan kepada 60 mahasiswa
dengan jumlah yang seimbang untuk setiap group. Hasil analisis menunjukan bahwa partisipan yang berada
dalam grup tugas mudah mengerahkan usaha yang lebih besar dalam mengerjakan tugas ketika bekerja sendiri
dibandingkan dengan ketika bekerja bersama-sama. Namun prestasi partisipan yang berada di dalam group
tugas sulit tidak berbeda. Partisipan di dalam grup tugas sulit mempunyai self-esteem lebih tinggi dibandingkan
dengan partisipan di dalam group tugas mudah. Di dalam grup kondisi koaktif, self-esteem yang rendah
mengarah kepada kompensasi sosial sedangkan di dalam group kolektif hal tersebut mengarah kepada
kemalasan sosial. Partisipan dengan self-esteem yang tinggi cenderung mengerahkan usaha yang lebih besar di
dalam group kolektif. Kesimpulannya, penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa self-esteem mempengaruhi kemalasan
sosial. Kinerja sebuah group dapat ditingkatkan dengan memfokuskan persepsi anggota kelompok tentang
kesulitan tugas yang dilakukan.
Effects of Self-Esteem on Social Loafing
Abstract
This research aimed to investigate the effect of self-esteem in social loafing. 2x2 independent group analysis
was conducted between task condition (coactive x collective) and task difficulty (easy x difficult). Participants
in the coactive task condition complete the task individually whereas participants in the collective task condition
complete the task as a group. Participants in the easy task condition were asked to memorize 15 fruit and animal
name whereas participants in the difficult task condition were asked to memorize 15 scientific terms. Afterward,
the participants were asked to complete questionnaire to measure their self-esteem. The task was given to 60
university students with equal amount for each group. As expected, the results show that participants in easy
task condition exert more effort when working coactively compared to working collectively. However, the
performances do not differ in the difficult task condition. Participants in the difficult condition have higher self-
esteem than participants in the easy condition. In coactive condition, low self-esteem lead to social
compensation whereas in collective condition, it leads to social loafing behavior. On the other hand, people with
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
high self-esteem incline to exert more effort for group performance. In conclusion, this research suggests that
self-esteem affects social loafing. We can increase group performance by focusing on group members’
perceptions of the task difficulty.
Keywords: social loafing; self-esteem; group performance
Introduction
There is a saying here “ TEAM Together Everyone Achieves More”. This is fascinating as it
explains that an individual goal is easier to be fulfilled when they work together as a group.
In contrast, when there are many people available in the group, people usually do not work as
hard as when they are alone because they divided the tasks for some people. It means that
people tend to work less than they ought to.
The phenomenon of this issue that has recently received significant attention is social
loafing. Social loafing occurs in different domain such as education and business. According
to Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979), social loafing refers to the situation that people tend
to reduce individual effort when they work collectively than when they work individually.
Some people might not work at all or relaying on other reliable people to finish the work on
time. In previous studies, social loafing occurs in various tasks such as decision making
(Chidambaram & Tung, 2005), shouting ability (Jackson & Harkins, 1985), and
brainstorming (Gagné & Zuckerman, 1999).
The effectiveness of group is important to predict the group performance. In the group
condition, each member of the group should understand their role and participate effectively
because their work will affect the work of other people. When the work is not clear and the
delegation of tasks is not balance, some member may think they are not needed as a member
(Chidambaram & Tung, 2005). As the result, they will not participate and loaf more.
Therefore, understanding the theory of social loafing is important and research in social
loafing is also required to understand the group dynamic.
Factors affecting social loafing in the group performance have been widely
investigated. People tend to loaf more in groups because there is a stronger relationship
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
between individual efforts and valued outcomes when they work individually (Karau &
William, 1993). People tend to lose their individuality and the recognition that comes with
their contributions when they work in a group condition. Therefore, those people lose
motivation to offer their ability since it will not be acknowledge (Charbonnier, Huguet,
Brauer, & Monteil, 1998. Social loafing also negatively related to group cohesiveness (Yip et
al., 2007). In line with Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1981), social loafing has generally
been explained as due to lack of identifiability. However, social loafing reduces when
working collectively does not eliminate valued outcomes (Karau & William, 1993).
Furthermore, research indicated that individual differences such as need of cognition
(Smith, Kerr, Markus, & Stasson, 2001), self-beliefs (Charbonnier, Huguet, Brauer, &
Monteil, 1998; Huguet, Charbonnier, & Monteil, 1999), and personal involvement (Brickner,
Harkins, Ostrom, 1986) affect social loafing in group performance. People with high self-
uniqueness exert less effort in group performance on easy task, however, they exert effort as
much as individually on more challenging task (Huguet et al., 1999). Harkins and Petty
(1982) stated that with a difficult task, participants work as hard as individually, even thought
their outputs are not identifiable.
According to Lin, Baruch, and Shih (2012), group performance is affected by the
components of corporate social responsibility that mediated by team-efficacy and team self-
esteem. Moreover, individual in coactive condition will work harder because they are really
involved in the tasks and they have to try hard to hold their pride as they performance is
identified as individual performance. In addition, group performance lead to social loafing
which caused by attribution and equity, submaximal goal setting, and lessened contiguity
between input and outcome (Latané et al., 1979). Submaximal goal settings occurs when the
team members perceive that they can work less as the goal is well defined and several
reliable people are already working for that. Therefore, they become more optimizing rather
than maximizing. In addition, lessened contingency between input and outcome refer to the
feeling of lost in a crowd and unable to gain recognition for their contribution (Latané et al.,
1979; Charbonnier, Huguet, Brauer, & Monteil, 1998). However, there is no evidence
whether or not self-esteem affects social loafing in group performance. Therefore, we are
questioning whether self-esteem has an affect on social loafing.
The present study aimed to investigate the effect of self-esteem on social loafing
behavior. This is a part of understanding the moderating influence of individual differences
on social loafing (Huguet, Charbonnier, & Monteil, 1999). The participants are university
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
students and they will be asked to complete task specific self-esteem (memorization task) and
questionnaire includes self-esteem scale and manipulation checks. Task condition (coactive
and collective) and task difficulty (easy and difficult) will be manipulated to examine the
effect of task condition, task difficulty, and self-esteem on their individual performance. By
increasing the task difficulty we expect that social loafing will reduce in their performance.
The study begins with the prediction that people in the easy task condition will recall
more words in coactive condition than in collective condition. Moreover, we expect that the
people in the difficult task condition also will recall more words in coactive condition than in
collective condition. This study also suggests novel contribution in the effect of self-esteem
towards social loafing. Therefore, this research is relevant in the understanding about
individual differences in social loafing behavior.
Material and Methods
Participants
Sixty university students (21 male and 39 female) were asked to volunteer their time
in this study. The participants were selected around campus using convenience sampling.
Ages ranged from 18 to 24 years (M= 20.55; SD= 1.64). There are 15 participants involved
for each condition consist of seven male and eight female in collective easy, five male and
ten female in collective difficult, six male and nine female in coactive easy, and four male
and eleven female in coactive difficult.
Design
The participants completed one of four conditions on a 2x2 between subject design
(Task condition: coactive vs. collective X Task difficulty: easy vs. difficult). The dependent
variable is the number of words recalled by the participants.
Materials and Measures
The participants were given list of 15 words and asked to remember as many words as
possible in 1 minute. In the easy task, the list consists of five words each from animal, fruit,
and color categories (e.g., Bird, Lemon, Blue…). Moreover, difficult task consisted of 15
more abstract words (e.g., Dendrite, Celsius, Glucose…) to manipulate the task difficulty. In
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
coactive condition, participants were told that their individual scores will be assessed and
compared to others. In collective condition, participants were told that their individual scores
will be pooled and the average score will be assessed and compared with other groups.
The questionnaire was adapted from the 10-item Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale. It
consisted of 10 short statement designed to measure self-esteem by asking the participants to
reflect their feeling regarding their performance in memorization task. We were added four
questions regarding manipulation checks which were designed to measure interest toward
memorization task, perception about task difficulty, and whether or not they aware their
individual or group performance was being assessed. The items used Likert scale ranging
from one to five: one=not likely at all, two=somewhat unlikely, three=either, four=somewhat
likely, and five=extremely likely. The participants choose one answer to what extent they
agreed to each statement.
Procedure
The participants were acquired through convenience sampling. It is sampling design
where determining the individual participants depend on the ease of researcher (Gravetter &
Forzano, 2009). The participants were told that they would be participating in study about
memory ability and measures the amount of words a person were able to remember in 1
minute. There are four group conditions where the participants were asked to participate in
one of the groups. In order to ensure the control in the experiment, the participants in
collective and coactive conditions were explicitly told about the marking criteria whether
they were being assessed according to individual score or as an average of group. They were
then given a list of 15 words, asked to remember the words in one minute, and reported as
many words as they could remember in the following one minute. At the end of the study, the
participants completed the questionnaire measuring self-esteem and manipulation checks.
The participants were then thanked for their participation, debrief and given the opportunity
to ask any questions.
Results
Tests of Manipulations
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
An independent group t-test was used to analyze the result. Manipulation checks show
a significant difference between easy and difficult conditions, t(58)= 5.51, p < .01. In
examining the effects of the coactive and collective conditions, we find that the participants
in collective condition (M= 3.38, SD= .99) scored significantly higher in terms of the degree
to which they believe that their individual performance was being assessed compare to
coactive condition (M= 2.60, SD= .97), t(58)= 3.00, p < .01. However, there is no significant
difference in their awareness regarding the degree to which their group’s performance was
being assessed, t(58)= 1.19, p= .24. On average, the participants generally rated the task to be
interesting (M= 2.92, on five point Likert scales). Thus, we can conclude that the task was
moderately interesting for the participants.
Performance Data
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations for Number of Words Recalled between Easy and Difficult Task
Conditions in Coactive and Collective Conditions.
Coactive Collective
Easy Task 13.067 8.533
(1.981) (2.134)
Difficult Task 9.333 9.133
(1.496) (1.598)
Note. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.
An independent t-test performed on the number of words recalled between easy
coactive and easy collective conditions indicates that there is a significant difference, t(28)=
6.04, p < .00. As the table shown, the participants in the coactive condition tend to recalled
more words (M= 13.07, SD= 1.98) than the participants in the collective conditions (M= 8.53,
SD= 2.13). In addition, there is no significant difference on the number of words recalled by
the participants in the difficult coactive condition (M= 9.33, SD= 1.50) and the difficult
collective condition (M= 9.13, SD= 1.60), t(28) = 0.31, p = .76.
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
Test of Self-esteem
The result shows that there is a significant difference of self esteem between easy task
condition (M = 14.5, SD = 5.26) and difficult task condition (M= 18.4, SD= 5.31), t(58)=
2.85, p < .01. Participants in the difficult task condition have higher self-esteem compare to
the participant in the easy task condition.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine whether self esteem affected social loafing
based on memorization task and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. We found strong support for
the first hypothesis which people in the coactive easy condition recalled more words
compared to the collective easy condition. It is consistent with prior conclusion, individuals
tended to engage in social loafing in the collective condition (Latané et al., 1979). It can be
viewed as the effect of group cohesiveness where there was only hypothetical group informed
among the collective condition. Shiue, Chiu & Chang (2010) argued that social loafing
occurs because of the weak social ties in the group. In addition, role of identitfiability also
supports the finding (Brickner & Harkins, 1986). Latané et al. (1981) stated that
identifiability or visibility of group member contributions related negatively to social loafing.
In fact, there is no real group presented in this research, thus, social loafing occurs more in
collective condition.
However, we reject the second hypothesis as we found that the amount of words
recalled do not differ in the difficult task conditions between the coactive and collective
group. One question still remain, why the participants in collective condition felt their
performance were more evaluable than those in the coactive condition. Jackson and Harkins
(1985) effort matching interpretation suggested that people tend to match their partners
efforts and in fact worked significantly harder to maintain equity when they were working
collectively. Therefore, they worked as hard with their partner as alone. In addition, because
the group size is unknown, it leads the participants to work harder as a function of social
impact theory. According to Latané et al. (1981), the amount of effort expended on group
should decrease as an inverse power function of the group size. Thus, the unknown group
size will increase self-awareness and self-regulation to work harder.
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
Moreover, by increasing the task difficulty, participants’ uncertainty about their
performance may have also increased (Huguet et al., 1999). Therefore, there is no significant
difference in difficult task conditions. It indicates that rather than individuating group
members to overcome social loafing, we can increase group performance by focusing on
group members’ perceptions of the task difficulty. It is supported by Harkins and Petty
(1982) stated that by increasing task difficulty, individuals perceive that they can make a
unique contribution to a group effort, social loafing is reduced even if the individual
contributions remain unidentifiable.
Besides the effect of task difficulty, the present study enhances the previous studies
by providing the effect of self-esteem in social loafing. The result indicates that people in the
easy condition significantly have lower self-esteem compare to the difficult task condition.
The fact that participants with low self-esteem engaged either in social loafing or in social
compensation becomes the key findings of our research. We suggested that the possibility of
making a difference is because they perceived their collective efforts would not make a
difference and essential on the easy task. However, in the difficult task condition, participants
work harder and incline to exert more effort in group because they have higher self-esteem.
They perceived their contribution as essential for the group outcomes.
One of the limitations of this study is lack of real group members presence in this
study. The participants in the collective conditions were only told that their scores would be
accumulated and averaged as group scores. Nevertheless, real group presented and more
precise instructions will provide more accurate findings about the manipulation of each
condition.
Further research is needed in order to really understand how self-esteem can have
different effects on individuals’ performance. Another question remains, how low self-esteem
lead to social loafing and social compensation. Real group members’ presence is necessary in
order to specify the boundary of each condition for the present effects. In addition, more
precise instruction and more participants is necessary considering that limitation of present
study.
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
References
Brickner, M. A., Thomas, O. M., & Stephen, H. G. (1986). Effects of personal involvement:
Thought provoking implications for social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(4), 763-769. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.763
Charbonnier, E., Huguet, P., Brauer, M., & Montel, J. M.(1998). Social loafing and self
beliefs: People's collective effort depends on the extent to which they distinguish
themselves better than others. Social Behavior and Personality, 26(4), 329-340. Doi:
10.2224/sbp.1998.26.4.329
Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. (2005). Is out of sight, out og mind? An empirical study of
social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information System Research, 16(2),
149-168. Doi: 10.1287/isre.1050.0051
Gagné, M., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). Performance and learning goal orientations as
moderators of social loafing and social facilitation. Small Group Research, 30(5),
524-541. Doi: 10.1177/104649649903000502
Gravetter, F. J., & Forzano, L. B. (2009). Research methods for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd
ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1982). Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social
loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6), 1214-1229. Doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1214
Huguet, P., Charbonnier, E., & Monteil, J-M. (1999). Productivity loss in performance
groups: People who see themselves as average do not engage in social loafing. Group
Dynamiscs: Theory, Research and Practice, 3(2), 118-131. Doi: 10.1037/1089-
2699.3.2.118
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. Doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1199
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and
theoretical integrating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706.
Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014
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), 822-832. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822
Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing:
Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 301-
311.
Lin, C., Baruch, Y., Shih, W. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and team performance:
The mediating role of team efficacy and team self-esteem. Journal of Business Ethics,
108(2), 167-180. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1068-6
Shiue, Yih-Chearng., Chiu, Chao-Min., & Chang, Chen-Chi. (2010). Exploring and
mitigating social loafing in online communities. Computers In Human Behavior,
26(4), 768-777. Doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.014
Smith, B. N., Kerr, N. A., Markus, M. J., & Stasson, M. F. (2001). Individual differences in
social loafing: Need for cognition as a motivation in collective performance. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5(2), 150-158. Doi: 10.1037/1089-
2699.5.2.150
Yip, W., Chow, C., Cheng, K., Cheuk, C., McBride-Chang., Cathrerine. (2007). Individual
contribution in brain-storming: Does group composition make a difference? Korean
Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 17(2), 77-84.
Dampak self-esteem.., Mellisa Tara Nursalim, FPsi UI, 2014