REVIEW JURNAL INTERNASIONAL PSIKOLOGI SOSIAL

Dosen Pengampu :
Dr. Novi Qonitatin, S.Psi., M.A
Dito Aryo Prabowo, S.Psi., M.Psi.

Disusun oleh:

Shoffiyah Salsabila

15000122120053

PROGRAM STUDI PSIKOLOGI

FAKULTAS PSIKOLOGI UNIVERSITAS DIPONEGORO

TAHUN AJARAN 2022/2023

 Exploring antecedents of social loafing in students’ group work: A
mixed-methods approach
Nama penulis : Zhenpeng Luo, Einar Marnburg, Torvald Øgaard, Fevzi
Okumus
Tahun : 2021
Nama Jurnal : Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
Education
Vol, issue, no. halaman : 28, 11, -
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100314

PENDAHULUAN
Latar Belakang dan Literatur Review
Strategi pembelajaran dengan berkolaborasi dalam proyek sudah sering
diterapkan. Manfaat yang diperoleh dari strategi pembelajaran seperti ini pun sangat
luar biasa. Dengan strategi pembelajaran kolaborasi dalam kelompok, para siswa
dapat saling berdiskusi untuk menciptakan ide baru dan menghasilkan pemahaman
yang mendalam. Strategi kolaborasi ini juga dapat mengembangkan skill siswa yang
dibutuhkan dalam dunia pekerjaan seperti komunikasi, kompromi, kolaborasi, dan
bekerja sama dengan orang lain. Satu lagi nilai plus dari strategi kolaborasi ini adalah
dapat dilakukan kapanpun dan dimanapun dengan memanfaatkan teknologi
komunikasi yang ada.
Namun dari sekian banyak hal positif yang ditawarkan strategi pembelajaran
kolaborasi, ternyata strategi nini menemui banyak tantangan dalam prakteknya. Salah
satu yang paling berbahaya adalah “social loafing”. Fenomena yang sering disebut
juga dengan free riding ini adalah kecenderungan individu untuk menyumbang
kontribusi lebih kecil dan tidak berkomitmen pada tujuan jika bekerja dalam sebuah
kelompok dibandingkan bekerja secara individu. Terdapat dua hal yang diidentifikasi
menjadi faktor penyebab social loafing yaitu loafer apathy dan loafer social
disconnectedness. Kemudian sebuah studi mengatakan bahwa tingkat social loafing
dapat dipengaruhi oleh identitas diri. Identitas diri sendiri memiliki tiga level yaitu
Individual, relasi, dan kolektif (individual, relational, and collective). Kolektivis
sangat terbuka dengan kerjasama dalam kelompok, sedangkan individualis tidak
terlalu menaruh ketertarikan dengan kerjasama dalam kelompok. Tingkat social
loafing individu yang berasal dari kultur individualis lebih tinggi daripada individu
yang berasal dari kultur kolektivis.
 Tujuan penelitian dalam jurnal ini adalah :
1. Mengeksplorasi secara kualitatif faktor yang menyebabkan social loafing
pada mahasiswa S1 (undergraduate).
2. Menganalisis apakah hasil penelitian dapat digeneralisasi dengan studi
kuantitatif.
Kemudian penelitian ini juga akan menawarkan rekomendasi untuk meminimalisir
social loafing pada mahasiswa S1 guna peningkatan kualitas pengajaran dan prestasi
akademik.

METODOLOGI
Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian dalam jurnal ini adalah mixed-methods
sequential. Pada tahap pertama akan dilakukan studi kualitatif untuk mengetahui
faktor yang mendorong munculnya social loafing. Kemudian pada tahap kedua akan
dikembangkan instrumen secara kuantitatif untuk mengetahui konsistensi dan
dampak dari social loafing.
Tahap 1 (Studi Kualitatif)
Metode : Metode yang digunakan dalam tahap pertama ini adalah daftar bebas
(free-listing). Digunakan dengan membuat daftar item untuk mengetahui apakah
suatu item cukup kuat untuk dimasukan dalam konsep serta menentukan apakah item
tersebut dapat dianalisis lebih lanjut.
Sampel : Sampel dalam penelitian jurnal ini berasal dari mahasiswa S1 Sekolah
Manajemen Perhotelan dan Pariwisata di China. Sampel diambil 30 mahasiswa dari
10 kelas dengan tingkatan yang berbeda.
Prosedur : Pertama, mahasiswa dikenalkan dan diberi penjelasan mengenai social
loafing. Kedua, mahasiswa ditunjukkan mengenai kebijakan kerahasiaan. Ketiga,
mahasiswa diminta untuk menuliskan secara anonim di selembar kertas hal-hal yang
menyebabkan mereka malas dalam tugas kelompok. Dari hasil tersebut diperoleh 211
jawaban valid dari 250 mahasiswa dan kemudian terbentuk 409 item.
Analisis Data : Dilakukan untuk membantu peneliti mengetahui faktor pendorong
social loafing dalam tugas kelompok. Analisis ini dilakukan dengan
pengidentifikasian dan penghitungan item yang muncul. Analisis ini dilakukan dalam
3 proses oleh seorang peneliti dan 2 orang mahasiswa. Pertama, penyaringan jawaban
valid dan tidak valid yang menghasilkan 112 jawaban dari 250 mahasiswa valid.
Kedua, dilakukan pengkodean item berdasarkan kesesuaian makna item dan
menghapus item yang tidak relevan. Ketiga item dikategorisasikan dalam faktor atau
dimensi berdasarkan kesesuaiannya. Penamaan faktor-faktor ini berdasar pada teori
dan penelitian yang sudah dikembangkan sebelumya.
Hasil : Dari penelitian tahap satu ini menghasilkan 6 faktor dari 409 yang telah ada,
yaitu :
1. Tanggung jawab bersama (Shared responsibility). Faktor ini memiliki
frekuensi paling tinggi diantara faktor-faktor lain. Para responden
mengindikasi bahwa beberapa anggota kelompok lebih sedikit dan bahkan
sama sekali tidak bertanggung jawab, sementara anggota lainnya menjalankan
tanggung jawab penuh dalam tugas.
2. Sikap apatis (Apathy). Faktor ini mengarah pada anggota yang tidak memiliki
ketertarikan pada topik tugas, materi yang dipelajari, dan bahkan pada jurusan
pilihan mereka. sikap yang seperti ini kan membawa dampak buruk pada
kinerja kelompok karena kepasifan anggota.
3. Keterbatasan waktu (Time limitation). Sekitar 19% mahasiswa memiliki
masalah terkait keterbatasan waktu. Yang artinya mereka juga menemui
kendala bukan hanya dalam akademik, tetapi juga kegiatan lain seperti
ekstrakurikuler, dan kegiatan sosial yang bekerja dalam kelompok. Karena
kebanyakan tugas harus dikumpulkan dalam waktu singkat, mahasiswa yang
buruk dalam manajemen waktu akan merasa tidak sanggup dalam
mengerjakan tugas.
4. Kompetensi (Competency). Sekitar 15% mahasiswa mengatakan mereka tidak
mempunyai kompetensi yang memadai dalam tugas yang diberikan sehingga
mereka tidak tahu apa yang harus dikerjakan. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena
kemampuan akademik individu, atensi dalam kelas, dan penjelasan tugas dari
dosen.
5. Keadilan (Fairness). Faktor ini mengarah pada pembagian tugas
masing-masing anggota, perlakuan antaranggota, dan penilaian. Beberapa
mahasiswa menganggap penilaian yang diberikan tidak sebanding dengan
besar kontribusi dalam kelompok sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpuasan.
Sering pula anggota yang berkontribusi lebih sedikit justru mendapat
penilaian yang bagus sehingga memunculkan kecemburuan.
6. Konflik dalam kelompok (Group Conflict). Faktor ini merupakan faktor yang
paling umum dan paling sering dijumpai dalam kelompok. Ketidaksepahaman
 antar anggota kelompok seringkali menyebabkan konflik. Jika konflik tidak
dapat diatasi, maka hal tersebut akan berpengaruh pada pengabaian tanggung
jawab oleh anggota sehingga performa kelompok menjadi buruk.
Selain faktor yang didapat dari studi kualitatif, peneliti menambahkan beberapa
faktor yang sekiranya dapat mendorong social loafing. Faktor tersebut yaitu identitas
diri baik individual maupun kolektif, jenis kelamin, dan ukuran kelompok.

Tahap 2 (Studi Kuantitatif)

Tahap ini dilakukan untuk menguji konsistensi faktor-fktor yang telah ditemukan
dengan cara studi kuantitatif. Hal ini dilakukan untuk menguji validitas dan
reliabilitas faktor dan dampaknya pada social loafing.
Pengukuran (Measures) : Setelah studi sebelumnya selesai dilakukan, peneliti
kemudian melakukan diskusi dan revisi hingga tercipta skala final. Untuk
memperoleh skala dalam versi bahasa China digunkan strategi adaptasi. Skala yang
telah selesai dalam proses adaptasi, kemudian diuji cobakan dan direvisi sesuai
feedback dari partisipan. Skala ini terdiri dari 8 faktor yaitu, kemalasan sosial,
tanggung jawab bersama, apatis, keterbatasan waktu, kompetensi, keadilan,
kelompok konflik, dan identitas diri.
- Kemalasan sosial diukur dengan meminjam pemikiran Jasawalla, dkk (2009)
yang di dalamnya termasuk dua sub-faktor yaitu doing less dan doing poor
dan masing-masing sub-faktor terdiri dari 4 item.
- Tanggung jawab bersama diukur dengan mengadaptasi pemikiran Chen and
Kanfer (2006) dengan item berjumlah 3.
- Konflik kelompok terdiri dari 4 item yang diadaptasi dari Jehn (1994).
- Relasi emosi dengan anggota kelompok terdiri dari 4 item.
- Keadilan diukur melalui tiga faktor yaitu procedural, outcomes, dan
interpersonal fairness.
- Kompetensi diukur dengan 5 item yang disusun berdasarkan jawaban
mahasiswa.
- keterbatasan waktu diukur dengan 4 item yang disusun berdasarkan jawaban
mahasiswa.
- Sikap apatis terdiri dari 4 item.
- Identitas diri diukur melalui dua faktor pada tingkatan identitas individu dan
kolektif.

Sampel dan Prosedur : Sebanyak 303 mahasiswa pariwisata dan perhotelan dari dua
universitas di China turut menjadi partisipan dalam penelitian ini. Pengumpulan data
dilakukan dengan menggunakan sebuah aplikasi yaitu Survey Star dari WeChat.
Kemudian data yang diperoleh diolah menggunakan software SPSS.

Analisis Data : Analisis data dilakukan dengan teknik analisis kuantitatif yang terdiri
dari primarily descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, reliability, dan
hierarchical regression analysis.
● Primarily descriptive statistics : responden terdiri dari 303 orang yang
sebagian besar adalah perempuan (60.8%). Sebagian besar responden adalah
senior, sebanyak 22.1% adalah mahasiswa tahun pertama, sebanyak 14.2%
adalah mahasiswa tahun kedua, dan 10.9% adalah junior. Sebagai tambahan
 sebanyak 47.5% responden mengklaim dirinya berkontribusi secara rata-rata
dan 43.9% mengklaim berkontribusi di atas rata-rata. semnatara itu beberapa
mengklaim mereka bekerja di bawah rata- rata (4.0%) atau sama sekali tidak
berkontribusi (0.7%).
● Exploratory factor analysis: dilakukan untuk mengetahui apakah faktor masih
konsisten dari studi kualitatif atau tidak. Uji Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) pada
tes ini memperoleh 0.912, sedangkan uji Bartlett’s menunjukkan signifikansi
sebesar 0.01. Dari hasil uji tersebut diperoleh data yaitu pengukuran identitas
diri terkonfirmasi valid, kemalasan sosial hanya terkonfirmasi valid satu
faktor, hubungan emosi valid, konflik mengenai tugas tidak valid, faktor
prosedural dan interpersonal dalam keadilan valid sedangkan outcome tidak
valid, tanggung jawab bersama valid, 3 item dalam sikap apatis valid, 3 item
dalam keterbatasan waktu valid, 5 item dalam kompetensi valid.
● Hierarchical regression analysis : untuk menguji dari dampak faktor social
loafing, dilakukan hierarchical regression analysis ini setelah pengujian
asumsi (normalitas, linearitas, multikolinearitas, homoskedastisitas, dan
independensi data). Dalam tahap pertama dalam pengujian, beberapa variabel
yaitu jenis kelamin, lamanya studi dalam universitas, preferensi tugas
kelompok, kontribusi, ukuran kelompok dan nilai tugas menjadi variabel
terkontrol, sedangkan 11 faktor lain sebagai variabel prediktor.

Hasil menunjukkan variabel terkontrol hanya menjelaskan 12,8% dari varians

kemalasan sosial, sedangkan kesebelas faktor menjelaskan 52,5% kemalasan sosial.
Dua dari koefisien model 1 menunjukkan signifikansi, sedangkan dalam model 2
terdapat 3 faktor yang signifikan. Ini artinya kompetensi, hubungan emosi, dan
identitas kolektif adalah prediktor utama dari social loafing. Sedangkan faktor
lainnya tidak signifikan dalam memprediksi social loafing.
KESIMPULAN
Sebagai kesimpulan, penelitian dalam jurnal ini menganalisis fenomena social
loafing pada mahasiswa S1. Penelitian dilakukan dengan dua tahap, tahap pertama
menggunakan studi kualitatif untuk mengetahui faktor-faktor yang menjadi penyebab
social loafing. Faktor yang berhasil ditemukan terdiri dari tanggung jawab bersama,
sikap apatis, keterbatasan waktu, kompetensi, keadilan, dan konflik kelompok.
Kemudian tahap kedua dilakukan dengan studi kuantitatif. Dalam tahap ini beberapa
variabel kontrol seperti jenis kelamin, lama kuliah, preferensi kerja kelompok, dan
konsep diri siswa ditambahkan sebagai prediktor perilaku kemalasan sosial
ditambahkan. Kemudian item dari masing-masing faktor dianalisis validitas serta
reliabilitasnya. Hasil menunjukkan adanya konsistensi antara studi kualitatif dan
kuantitatif. Selanjutnya analisis regresi hirarkis dilakukan dengan hasil tiga faktor
yaitu kompetensi mahasiswa, hubungan emosi, dan identitas kolektif adalah faktor
utama pendorong social loafing.
IMPLIKASI
Implikasi Teoritis
 1. Mengidentifikasi 6 faktor pendorong social loafing. Menurut studi terdahulu
faktor kompetensi, hubungan emosi, dan tanggung jawab bersama
terkonfirmasi. Dan faktor keadilan dan keterbatasan waktu adalah faktor baru
yang diciptakan dalam penelitian ini.
2. Terdapat 3 faktor yang menjadi prediktor utama dari social loafing yaitu
kompetensi, hubungan emosi, dan identitas kolektif.
3. Faktor jenis kelamin dan ukuran grup yang pada studi terdahulu dikatakan
sebagai prediktor, ternyata tidak terkonfirmasi.
4. Penelitian ini menunjukkan preferensi tugas kelompok, lama berkuliah, nilai
tugas , and dan kontribusi pada tugas tidak menjadi prediktor dalam social
loafing.
5. Menguji skala two-factor yang dikembangkan Jasawalla dan dihasilkan hanya
satu faktor yang mengkombinasi dua faktor dari quantity dan quality.

Implikasi Praktis
Penelitian ini juga menawarkan cara untuk mengatasi social loafing. Pertama, karena
hubungan emosional antar anggota sangat berperan, kunci untuk meminimalisir
social loafing adalah dengan membangun hubungan yang baik dengan anggota
kelompok. Kedua, identitas kolektif juga berperan. Untuk itu perlu dipastikan formasi
kelompok yang ideal agar tidak mengganggu performa kelompok. Ketiga, mengenai
kompetensi. Mahasiswa diberi kebebasan untuk memilih tugas mana yang sekiranya
cocok dan mudah untuk dia dia kerjakan. Serta dengan bantuan teman kelompok dan
dosen/guru, mahasiswa dapat mengembangkan kompetensinya.
 Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Hospitality, Leisure,

Sport & Tourism Education
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhlste

Exploring antecedents of social loafing in students’ group work: A

mixed-methods approach
Zhenpeng Luo a, *, Einar Marnburg b, Torvald Øgaard b, Fevzi Okumus c, d
a
Institute of Tourism Planning and Development of Tourism College, Beijing Union University, The North Fourth Ring, East Road, No.99, Chaoyang
District, Beijing, China
b
University of Stavanger, Norway
c
Rosen College of Hospitality Management, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
d
Visiting Professor at WSB University, Wrocław, Poland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this article is to explore and validate antecedents of social loafing behavior among
Undergraduate students undergraduate students. A mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) study was conducted. In
Higher education the first phase, the free-listing method was used to collect data from undergraduate students at a
Group work
hospitality and tourism school in China, yielding 211 valid responses from 250 students with 409
Social loafing
items. Six factors were identified using the content analysis of those 409 items, including shared
Hospitality
Tourism responsibility, apathy, time limitation, competency, fairness, and group conflict. In the second
phase, 303 responses were collected for exploratory factor analysis. Results revealed a good
consistency of factors between the qualitative study and the quantitative study. The hierarchical
regressions analysis tested the effects of the factors on social loafing behavior. Study results show
that students’ competencies, emotional relationships, and collective identities are key de­
terminants of social loafing behavior. Specific theoretical and practical implications are provided.

1. Introduction

Students at management schools normally work on class projects in collaboration with other students (Ettington & Camp, 2002;
Jassawalla, Malshe, & Sashittal, 2008). The benefits of collaborative and student-centered learning are well recognized. For example,
students can discuss new concepts and generate new ideas (Brooks & Ammons, 2003) and can develop the ability to communicate,
cooperate, collaborate, and compromise with others. These skills are becoming increasingly important in today’s business world and
are crucial attributes for job seekers (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; Chapman, Meuter, Toy, & Wright, 2006; Kayes, Kayes, & Kolb, 2005;
Liden, Wayne, Jaworski, & Bennett, 2004). It is therefore imperative that universities strive to help students develop such skills
(Stevens & Campion, 1994).
Group assignments can encourage differentiated but cooperative learning, as well as reciprocal exchange. On the other hand,
students may face challenges. For example, students may not feel as positively about group assignments as their instructors (Maiden &
Perry, 2011). Among many problems with group projects (Fiechtner & Davis, 1985), the most destructive is so-called “social loafing” or
“free-riding” behavior, referring to the tendency to put in less effort when working collectively than when working individually

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lytzhenpeng@buu.edu.cn (Z. Luo), einar.marnburg@uis.no (E. Marnburg), torvald.ogaard@uis.no (T. Øgaard), fevzi.okumus@
ucf.edu (F. Okumus).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhlste.2021.100314
Received 15 December 2019; Received in revised form 13 March 2021; Accepted 16 March 2021
Available online 31 March 2021
1473-8376/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

(Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Although group assignments are popular, social loafing behavior among students remains
widespread and poorly handled (Arevalillo-Herráez, 2014; Atoum & Farah, 1993; Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Charbonnier, Huguet,
Brauer, & Monteil, 1998; El Massah Suzanna, 2018; Saghafian & O’eill, 2018; Seltzer, 2016).
Furthermore, few research studies on social loafing behavior in undergraduate student group assignments appear in higher
educational journals (Jassawalla et al., 2008). More research in this field is therefore needed. Specifically, it is important to determine
how students define the variables (factors) that drive social loafing behavior. A major deficiency of previous studies is their lack of
cultural context regarding social loafing behavior of students from Eastern cultures, and of comparative studies between Eastern and
Western students’ social loafing behaviors (Hofstede, 2001). Given this research gap, the purposes of this exploratory study are: (1) to
qualitatively explore the dimensions driving social loafing behavior of undergraduate students, and (2) to determine whether the
findings can be generalized through a quantitative study. This study further aims to offer recommendations to reduce social loafing
behavior among undergraduate students. The research findings can improve teaching quality and students’ academic performance.

2. Literature review

2.1. Education and group work

Social learning theory posits a clear connection between learning and collaboration (Almajed, Skinner, Peterson, & Winning,
2016). Learning is more effective in a group setting (McGowan, 2012). Group work refers to an assignment that requires students to
work collaboratively across multiple classes and outside the normal class environment (Ettington & Camp, 2002). In-class group work
as a teaching and learning strategy has the potential to engage students, cross-fertilize ideas, and produce deep learning about complex
content areas (Jassawalla et al., 2008), and it is easy for today’s students to communicate with group members by using technologies
such as online chat platforms (Perron, 2011).
One concern of education for business is to produce job-ready graduates with the problem-solving, interpersonal, and teamwork
skills necessary for high job performance (Betta, 2016; Maiden & Perry, 2011; Vik, 2001). Those participating in course-related and
team-based assignments may therefore be given a collective group grade instead of individual grades because in most cases individual
contributions are not easily identified (Maiden & Perry, 2011). To receive a collective grade, team members are expected to collab­
orate, contribute equally, address key issues, write a comprehensive report together, and make a final oral or written presentation
(Jassawalla et al., 2008; Perron, 2011). As a key mode of learning in preparation for future job performance, educational group work is
indeed necessary. However, educators who require group work in their teaching are aware of the negative effects of students’ social
loafing behavior (Hall, 2013).

2.2. Social loafing and group work

Social loafing is the tendency of individuals to either put less effort when working in groups than individually (Latané et al., 1979)
or to yield poor-quality work along with distractive, disruptive behavior (Jassawalla, Sashittal, & Malshe, 2009). Social loafing is also
known as “free riding,” meaning that team members make less-than-fair contributions to group assignments or show little commitment
to the group’s collective goals, even as they reap the benefits of the group’s outcomes by putting in a modicum of personal effort
(Dyrud, 2001; Morris & Hayes, 1997; Strong & Anderson, 1998). Individuals may engage in social loafing either consciously or un­
consciously when working in groups (Ringelmann, 1913).
Group work is popular regardless of the task type and industry in contemporary businesses. Thus, the phenomenon of social loafing
is also inevitable and has been a notorious blight on management, education, and group performance (Maiden & Perry, 2011; Teng &
Luo, 2014; Xiangyu, Huanhuan, Shan, Fei, & Zhongxin, 2014). Social loafing is a common complaint among students reporting un­
satisfactory group work experiences (Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Mello, 1993). There is a need to further explore the antecedents of this
behavior, especially in today’s higher education institutions, which continue to rely heavily on group assignments in teaching and
learning.

2.3. Self-identity and social loafing

Self-identity is comprised of an individual’s opinions, feelings, perceptions, or attitudes that help evaluate one’s perception of self.
Lord and Brown (2004) argued that self-identity helps individuals regulate social interactions. Self-identity has three levels: individual,
relational, and collective (Johnson, Selenta, & Lord, 2006). At the individual level, one’s interests are accorded greater importance
than the needs of the group when conflicts arise. Collectivists, however, care more about the well-being of the group they belong to
than their interests (Vagner & Moch, 1986). Collectivists are more apt to cooperate in groups, while individualists tend to avoid
cooperation in groups (Wagner III, 1995). Individuals from highly collectivist cultures show less social loafing than individuals from
individualistic cultures and perform better in a group than alone (Early, 1989; Wagner III, 1995). Students’ self-identification may
therefore influence their preferences of group assignment and tendencies toward social loafing behavior.

2.4. Studies on social loafing in higher education

Social loafing affects group performances in learning environments (Jackson, Sibson, & Riebe, 2014; Jaikumar & Mendonca, 2017;
Kent Thomas & Hasbrouck Robert, 2003; Schippers, 2014). While related studies in the higher education sector are scant in more

2
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

reputable publications, much of the research conducted on higher education includes antecedents of social loafing (Aggarwal &
O’Brien, 2008; Alnuaimi, Robert Jr, & Maruping, 2010; Hsiang-Ming & Wen-Ching, 2014; Jaikumar & Mendonca, 2017; Mefoh &
Nwanosike, 2012; Thompson & Thornton, 2014) and consequences of social loafing (Jassawalla et al., 2009). Much of the previous
research has focused on how to deal with social loafing behavior toward improving group performance (Kelly, 2008; Kent Thomas &
Hasbrouck Robert, 2003; Lam, 2015; Ma, Huang, Wu, Dong, & Qi, 2014; Meyers, 1997; Modell Micah, 2017; Perron, 2011).
Regarding antecedents of social loafing, Jassawalla et al. (2009) identified two factors driving social loafing: loafer apathy and
loafer social disconnectedness. Although their study was well designed, it has several limitations. For instance, because the sample is
limited to one university in a Western country, the resulting data may not apply to Eastern countries, where cultural influences on
social loafing may or may not differ. In addition, the factors of apathy and social disconnectedness are not sufficient without also
linking them to existing research findings concerning gender (Takeda & Homberg, 2014; Thompson & Thornton, 2014), group size
(Alnuaimi, Robert, & Maruping, 2010; Bacon, Stewart, & Silver, 1999), group formation (Bacon et al., 1999; Hall, 2013), attitudes
toward group work (Bacon et al., 1999; Beigi & Shirmohammadi, 2012), and competency or self-efficacy (Charbonnier et al., 1998; Su,
2007).
Furthermore, the validity of measures developed for social loafing behavior—e.g., Jassawalla et al.’s (2009) two-factor measur­
e—of students has not been tested in different cultural contexts up to now. Most importantly, only a few studies on antecedents of
social loafing from students’ perspectives are available (Jackson et al., 2014; Jassawalla et al., 2008, 2009), despite the likelihood that
students could tell the real story of why they loaf in group work. Due to such limitations of prior studies, it was necessary to conduct a
survey in Eastern cultures to identify drives of social loafing behavior of undergraduate students and to make comparisons between
Eastern and Western countries. The findings of the current study may help resolve social loafing problems in China’s undergraduate
education system and may also be instructive for higher education in Western countries.

3. Methodology

The current study employed a mixed-methods sequential methodology (Creswell & Clark, 2011). It began with a qualitative study
to explore the dimensions driving social loafing behavior in the first phase. For the second phase, an instrument was developed based
on the findings of the first phase to test the consistency of antecedents of social loafing behavior and impacts of the factors on social
loafing behavior.

3.1. Phase 1: qualitative study

The first phase of this study included a qualitative exploration of dimensions driving social loafing behavior among undergraduates
majoring in tourism and hospitality. The findings of the qualitative study were used to develop measures for the quantitative study that
follows.

3.1.1. Data collection

3.1.1.1. Method. The free-listing method was used to collect empirical data. This method helps people understand how a domain is
perceived within and across demographics by examining the average psychological salience of items. The assumption is that there is a
common understanding of semantic domains. The way to know whether an item is salient enough to be included in a concept is to list
all the items according to their frequency of first mention, then to decide what items to keep for the next stage of analysis. The survey
can be stopped when the frequencies of the items do not change significantly (Verma, 2012).

3.1.1.2. Sample. Participants of this study were undergraduate students at a hospitality and tourism management school in China. To
make the sample representative, 10 classes were selected in different grades, each with around 30 students. Due to the similarity in the
structure of the classes in terms of gender proportion and age, these classes were selected as a convenience cluster.

3.1.1.3. Procedure. One of the authors selected classes to collect data with the help of other teaching colleagues. First, the concept of
social loafing was introduced and explained to avoid bias in answers. Second, a confidential policy was addressed to avoid errors
among students’ answers. Then, a piece of paper was delivered to each student, and they were asked to write down an anonymous list
of ideas on why they loaf in group assignments. In total, 211 valid responses were collected from 250 students and 409 items were
listed.

3.1.2. Data analysis

The analysis for Phase 1 helped us answer the research question concerning the dimensions or factors driving undergraduates’
social loafing behavior in group assignments. Content analysis is an acceptable method of studying text documents in communication,
which involves identifying categories and counting frequencies of items in the text that appears in each category (Silverman, 1993).
One author and two undergraduate students conducted the content analysis. This process was completed in three iterations. First,
invalid or irrelevant responses were filtered out to yield 211 valid answers from 250 responses. Next, items were coded into schemes
according to the item meanings while ignoring unclear or irrelevant items based on Miles and Huberman (1994). A total of 409 valid
items were coded. Finally, the emerging schemes were categorized into dimensions or factors, which were based on the similarity of

3
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

the schemes. During this step, factors were identified that confirm existing findings, then found new insights on the drives of social
loafing behavior. These factors were named after reviewing whether they fit into existing theories developed in previous studies, and
gave the same names as existing ones, where appropriate. Preexisting terms included shared responsibility and apathy, while terms
unidentified by previous studies, such as time limitation, were developed for the present one.

3.1.3. Results
Following Verma (2012), factors with significant natural breaks or significantly lower frequencies were ignored. Based on this, six
factors were generated from the 409 items: shared responsibility, apathy, time limitation, competency, fairness, and group conflict (see
Fig. 1).
Shared responsibility was the factor with the largest frequency. It refers to group members doing the assignment together and
contributing to it equally. Respondents indicated that some members did less and did not take responsibility, while one or more
students took full responsibility for the work for a variety of reasons, thus giving opportunity for those group members who did not care
about the assignment to exhibit social loafing behavior.
Apathy was the second factor. It refers to students who are not interested in the topic of an assignment, the course they are studying,
or even their chosen major. This mindset negatively influences their behavior in a group assignment setting, manifesting as passivity
and poor performance on their part. Around 19% of the students exhibited the problem of time limitation, meaning they felt too
constrained by academic, extracurricular, and social activities to expend interest in a group assignment. Because group assignments
sometimes need to be finished in a short time, students with poor time management skills felt disengaged. Among such students, social
loafing seemed to be an organic decision.
Competency was the fourth factor that can lead to social loafing in group assignments. About 15.0% of participants said that they did
not fully understand the parameters or feel they possessed the knowledge required to contribute viably to the project at hand.
Therefore, they did not know how to execute their parts of the assignment. This may have been caused by lack of academic ability,
attention paid in class, or proper instruction from teachers on how to do the assignment. Fairness, accounting for 15.2% of the re­
sponses, was the fifth factor of social loafing behavior. This problem manifested itself in assignments of individual tasks, interpersonal
treatment between group members, and grading. Some students received grades one might consider unfair in light of their contri­
butions (or lack thereof), thus leading to feelings of dissatisfaction among those who received the same grades as those who
contributed less.
Group conflict is a general problem of group work in any context and revolves mainly around tasks to be done and relationships
between group members. There might, for instance, be disagreements over how to do the work due to lack of consensus or even factors
beyond the context of the group assignment itself. If conflicts, whatever their source, cannot be settled by the group leader, group
members may neglect their contributions, leading to poor quality of execution.
Continuing with the content analysis of the qualitative data, we added factors that went beyond the respondents’ opinions—such as
self-identity at both the collective and individual levels, gender, and group size—that we considered to be determinants of social
loafing behavior. Other issues thought relevant to social loafing included years at the university, preference for group assignment,
contribution to group assignment, and grade of the assignment.

3.2. Phase 2: quantitative study

This phase aimed to test the consistency between factors explored in the qualitative study of Phase 1 and the factors in the
quantitative study of Phase 2. It was designed to test the validity and reliability of the factors and their impacts on social loafing
behavior.

Fig. 1. Factors driving social loafing behavior.

4
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

3.2.1. Measures
Based on an exploratory study, a questionnaire was designed by the authors of this paper after discussions and revisions. The
authors further discussed the factors and items of the factors and made the final version of the questionnaire. To get a Chinese version
of the questionnaire, the back translation method (Brislin, 1980) was used. One author translated the questionnaire into Chinese. The
Chinese version was then translated into English by a native Chinese speaker who studied in the United States. Finally, an author from
the United States reviewed the English version of the questionnaire to make sure the language was correct. Pilot tests were conducted
in China at a tourism management college, and revisions were made based on student feedback.
The questionnaire consisted of eight factors: social loafing, shared responsibility, apathy, time limitation, competency, fairness, group
conflict, and self-identity. Measures for social loafing were derived from Jassawalla et al. (2009), including two sub-factors of doing less
and doing poor. The doing less sub-factor was measured through four items (e.g., “I put forth less effort than other members in my
group”). The doing poor sub-factor was also measured through four items (e.g., “I did a poor job of the work assigned to me”). Measures
for shared responsibility were adopted from Chen and Kanfer (2006) and included three items (e.g., “Members of the group shared the
responsibility for getting things done”). Group conflict includes two factors. Four items for task conflict were adopted from Jehn (1994)
(e.g., “There were differences of opinions in my group”). Measures for emotional relationship with group members were adopted from
Hjertø and Kuvaas (2009) with four items (e.g., “It was an emotional conflict which the group experienced as unessential in relation to
the task”).
Fairness was measured through three factors—procedural (e.g., “The procedures we used worked well”), outcome (e.g., “The grade
reflected the effort I have put into my work”), and interpersonal fairness (e.g., “I was treated with dignity by other group members”)—
adopted from Colquitt (2001). Competency was measured through five items based on students’ answers regarding their problems with
group assignments (e.g., “I was not familiar with the knowledge relating to the assignment”). Time limitation was measured through
four items based on students’ answers (e.g., “Extracurricular work made it difficult for me to do the assignment”). Apathy was
measured through four items based on an exploratory survey (e.g., “The topic of the group assignment was not interesting”). Self-­
identity was measured through two factors, including individual- and collective-level identity (each having five items), from Selenta
and Lord (2002).

3.2.2. Sample and procedures

This study focused on undergraduate students in hospitality and tourism management. A total of 303 undergraduate students from
two universities in China participated in the second phase of this study. Data collection was conducted through an app called Survey
Star through the Chinese social media platform WeChat, currently very popular as a tool of scientific survey in China. By using Survey
Star, one of the authors went to classes and asked students to answer the questions through WeChat. A total of 303 responses were
collected, and the data was exported into SPSS software. This method saved paper, time, and labor while ensuring confidentiality and
viability of opinions. It also reduced errors from the data input process, making it a cost-effective method.

3.2.3. Data analysis

Quantitative data analysis techniques (primarily descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, reliability, and hierarchical
regression analysis) were used to test the validity of the constructs, and the causal relationships between antecedents and social loafing
behavior. Hierarchical regression analysis was also conducted in this phase to test how the factors impact the social loafing behavior of
undergraduate students.

Table 1
Basic information of students.
Items Frequency Percent (%)

Gender Male 89 29.4

Female 214 70.6
Years at university 1 year 67 22.1
2 years 43 14.2
3 years 33 10.9
4 years 154 50.8
5 years 2 0.7
6 years or more 4 1.3
Contribution to group assignments nothing 2 0.7
lower than average 12 4.0
on average 144 47.5
higher than average 133 43.9
the whole 12 4.0
Preference of assignments like individual assignment the most 70 23.1
like individual assignment more 35 11.6
no preference 103 34.0
Like group assignment more 34 11.2
like group assignment the most 61 20.1
Members of the group 4.94 (Mean) 1.20 (S.D.)
Grade of the assignment 85.54 (Mean) 9.16 (S.D.)

5
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

3.2.4. Findings

3.2.4.1. Descriptive statistics. The sample consisted of 303 undergraduate students studying hospitality and tourism. Female students
account for 60.8%, as is reflective of the current gender ratio in hospitality and tourism schools in China. Most of the respondents were
senior (i.e., fourth-year) students who had rich experiences in group work, followed by freshman (first-year) students (22.1%) who had
less experience in group work. Of the respondents, 14.2% were in their second year while 10.9% were junior students and for the most
part involved in internships. In addition, 2% of students were in their fifth or sixth years of learning. In terms of contribution to group
assignments, almost half of the respondents (47.5%) claimed they made the average contribution while 43.9% claimed they did more
than average. Few admitted contributing less than average (4.0%) or nothing (0.7%) to group assignments. It seems contradictory that

Table 2
Results of exploratory factor analysis.
Item Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IID1 .709
IID2 .734
IID3 .623
IID4 .598
IID5 .738
CID1 .655
CID2 .707
CID3 .632
CID4 .577
CID5 .637
RES1 .432 .437
RES2 .644
RES3 .489 .463
APA1 .796
APA2 .713
APA3 .691
APA4 .525
TIME1 .669
TIME2 .581
TIME3 .453
TIME4 .718
COMP1 .628
COMP2 .493 .665
COMP3 .459 .655
COMP4 .641 .485
COMP5 .635 .430
PROF1 .764
PROF2 .679
PROF3 .782
PROF4 .409 .579
OUT1 .441
OUT2 .828
OUT3 .755
OUT4 .563
INTER1 .827
INTER2 .860
INTER3 .846
INTER4 .802
TASK1 .629
TASK2 .424 .548
EMOT1 .638 .409
EMOT2 .545 .430
EMOT3 .552
EMOT4 .558
LOAF1 .687
LOAF2 .560
LOAF3 .807
LOAF4 .859
LOAF5 .781
LOAF6 .867
LOAF7 .770
LOAF8 .802

Note: “IID” stands for individual identity; “CID” stands for collective identity; “RES” stands for Shared responsibility; “APA” stands for Apathy; “TIME”
stands for Time limitation; “COMP” stands for Competency; “PROF” stands for Procedural fairness; “OUT” stands for outcome fairness; “INTER” stands for
Interpersonal fairness; “TASK” stands for Group task conflict; “EMOT” stands for emotional relationship; “LOAF” stands for Group emotional conflict.

6
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

only 4.7% of respondents contributed less than average while more respondents contributed more than average (43.9%). The self-
administered survey can hide some truth of the results, and social loafing could be noticeable in terms of the quality (another indi­
cator of social loafing in this study) of individual parts. Regarding attitudes toward group work, this is a normal distribution of re­
sponses, meaning there is no significant difference between preferences for group or individual assignments. The average group size
was around five members, and the average grade of group assignments was 85.54 with a standard deviation of 9.16. Overall, the
sample had good representativeness of the population (see Table 1).

3.2.4.2. Exploratory factor analysis. Although the factors causing social loafing behavior were generated in the first phase, the results
were based on the exploratory qualitative study. Therefore, they might have been subjectively biased in the results. A quantitative
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) technique was used to test whether the factors explored were consistent with the results from the
qualitative study. The sample size of this study reached a ratio of six cases for each item, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was 0.912,
and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at the 0.01 significance level. Therefore, the sample size and correlations between items
were sufficient to conduct an EFA (Hair, Black, Babin, & Abderson, 2011; Pallant, 2005) .
Based on the assumptions, EFA was conducted with principal component factor analysis with Varimax rotation. Table 2 presents
the factors with item loadings. The self-identity measures were well confirmed; Jassawalla et al.’s (2009) social loafing measures were
confirmed, but only one factor was identified instead of the two sub-factors of doing less and doing poor. Hjertø and Kuvaas’s (2009)
emotional relationship was confirmed; Jehn’s (1994) task conflict was not confirmed. Regarding Colquitt’s (2001) fairness measures,
procedural and interpersonal fairness were confirmed, while outcome fairness was not. Chen and Kanfer’s (2006) measures for shared
responsibility were confirmed. Three of the four items of the apathy factor were accepted, three of the four items of the time limitation
factor were accepted, and five items of the competency factor were confirmed. The time limitation and competency factors were cate­
gorized as one factor through the EFA, but considering the meanings of the items in the context of our original study, they were treated
as two different factors. The emotional relationship and social loafing factors were treated the same way.
Study results show that most of the items were confirmed as indicators of the corresponding factors categorized through explor­
atory analysis in the first phase or adapted from prior studies such as the shared responsibility, procedural justice, interpersonal justice,
emotional relationship, and social loafing measures. Generally speaking, the data confirmed prior studies and the exploratory findings of
Phase 1.
Based on the EFA results, the final factors with items and their reliabilities were identified. Except for the shared responsibility factor,
the reliability indicators (α) of all other factors reached the threshold of 0.70. Therefore, the reliabilities of the factors were acceptable
(see Table 3). Table 4 shows that CID, RES, PROF, and INTER are negatively and significantly related to LOAF, while APA, TIME,
COMP, and EMOT are positively and significantly related to LOAF. The factor OUT is not significantly related to LOAF. Given the
nature of group assignments, it is understandable that OUT is not related to social loafing and other factors. The above correlations
reasonably reflect the relationship between factors and LOAF. Except for IID and OUT, other factors are all significantly correlated to
each other, and the correlation coefficients are not too strong, which ensures no multicollinearity problem.

3.2.4.3. Hierarchical regression analysis. To test the impact effects of the factors on social loafing, a hierarchical regression analysis was
conducted after checking assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, and independence of residuals of
the data. In the first phase of the hierarchical regression analysis, variables of gender, years at the university, preference for group
assignment, contribution to group assignment, group size, and grade of the assignment were treated as controlled variables. The other
eleven main factors were then entered as predictors of social loafing in the second phase.
As presented in Table 5, study results show that the controlled variables only explained 12.8% of the variance of social loafing,
while the eleven factors explained 52.5% of social loafing, and that Model 2 is much better than Model 1 (Adj R2 = 0.615 and 0.096,
respectively). Two of the coefficients of Model 1 were significant (gender and contribution), while only three factors were significant in
Model 2 (COMP, EMOT, and CID). This means that competence, emotional relationship, and collective identity are key determinants of
social loafing behavior of undergraduate students. Although other factors were not significant predictors of social loafing, with the
significant correlations between factors (see Table 3), there might be complex causal relationships among the factors that cause social
loafing behavior.

Table 3
Identified factors and reliabilities through exploratory factor analysis.
Factor (number of items) Cronbach’s α Factor (number of items) Cronbach’s α

IID (5 items) .764 PROF (4 items) .822

CID (5 items) .809 OUT (2 items) .786
RES (3 items) .680 INTER (4 items) .933
APA (3 items) .744 TASK (2 items) .769
TIME (3 items) .751 EMOT (4 items) .886
COMP (5 items) .891 LOAF (8 items) .931

7
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

Table 4
Correlation coefficients between factors.
IID CID RES APA TIME COMP PROF OUT INTER TASK EMOT LOAF

IID 1
CID .323** 1
RES -.029 .431** 1
APA .001 -.204** -.155** 1
TIME .133* -.167** -.303** .409** 1
COMP .106 -.245** -.355** .447** .660** 1
PROF .128* .481** .375** -.205** -.166** -.134* 1
OUT .274** .176** .084 .171** .092 -.015 .064 1
INTER .041 .454** .560** -.193** -.262** -.292** .520** .059 1
TASK .158** -.183** -.208** .394** .389** .440** -.208** .240** -.313** 1
EMOT .208** -.184** -.362** .345** .433** .496** -.237** .211** -.459** .560** 1
LOAF .120* -.326** -.372** .356** .502** .704** -.177** -.036 -.376** .477** .639** 1

Notes: n = 303; **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 5
Results of hierarchical regression analysis.
Variables Social loafing

Model1 Model 2

Step 1
Gender -.487*** -.084
Years at university -.009 -.013
Contribution to group assignment -.235* -.084
Preference for group assignment -.024 .036
Number of the group members .074 .022
Grade of the assignment -.009 -.002
Step 2
RES -.003
APA -.001
TIME -.010
COMP .438***
PROF .062
OUT -.073
INTER -.018
TASK .066
EMOT .317***
IID .069
CID -.176*
R2 .128 .653
ΔR2 .128 .525
Adj. R2 .096 .615
Overall F 4.004** 16.946***

Notes: n = 303, *p < 0.05 (2-tailed), **p < 0.01 (2-tailed), ***p < 0.001 (2-tailed).

4. Conclusions and discussion

4.1. Conclusions

This study explored antecedents of social loafing behavior of undergraduate students in group assignments from students’ per­
spectives. A two-phase qualitative and quantitative method was used. In the first phase, the free listing qualitative method was used to
collect factors causing social loafing behavior. Six factors were generated: shared responsibility, apathy, time limitation, competency,
fairness, and group conflict. Of these, fairness was categorized into three sub-factors: procedural fairness, outcome fairness, and inter­
personal fairness. Similarly, group conflict was re-categorized into task conflict and emotional relationship. Therefore, nine factors were
ultimately identified. In the second phase, a quantitative study was conducted based on the first phase.
In addition to the nine factors, several controlled variables such as gender, years at university, preference of group work, and
students’ self-concept were added as predictors of social loafing behavior based on the literature review. With a quantitative study, the
nine factors were confirmed first. Items of each factor were then identified using exploratory factor analysis, along with reliability
indicators of the factors. Results show a good consistency of factors between the qualitative study and the quantitative study. Thus, the
factors driving social loafing behavior were confirmed. Furthermore, the hierarchical regressions analysis tested the effects of the
factors or variables on social loafing behavior. Students’ competency, emotional relationship, and collective identity are key determinants
of social loafing behavior, while the causal relationships among the factors need more investigation.

8
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

4.2. Theoretical implications

This study offers several theoretical implications. First, it identified six general factors driving social loafing behavior from un­
dergraduate students’ perspectives. Compared to previous studies, such common factors as competency (or self-efficacy) (Charbonnier
et al., 1998; Su, 2007), apathy (or attitudes) (Beigi & Shirmohammadi, 2012; Jassawalla et al., 2009), emotional relationship (or social
disconnectedness) (Jassawalla et al., 2008), and shared responsibility (Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Guerin, 2003) were confirmed, while
fairness and time limitation are new to this line of research. Second, although six antecedents of social loafing were identified, com­
petency, emotional relationship, and collective identity were found to be significant predictors of social loafing behavior in this study.
Results confirmed that collectivists are more team-oriented and less prone to social loafing than individualists.
Third, gender and group size, which were considered predictors of social loafing by some studies (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008; Bacon
et al., 1999; Mefoh & Nwanosike, 2012; Takeda & Homberg, 2014; Thompson & Thornton, 2014), were not significant predictors
according to the present analysis (Bacon et al., 1999). Fourth, this study shows that preference for group assignment, years at uni­
versity, grades of the assignment, and contribution to assignments are not predictors of social loafing behavior. Finally, this study
tested the two-factor scale of social loafing developed by Jassawalla et al. (2009), and it was only a one-factor scale that combines two
factors of quantity and quality. It also confirmed the scale of identity (Selenta & Lord, 2002) and other scales involved in this study in
the context of education. Generally speaking, this study provides new findings on antecedents of social loafing behavior among un­
dergraduate students that extend theories of social loafing behavior. Therefore, the theoretical contribution of this study is obvious and
its findings are especially important in the Eastern cultural context of hospitality and tourism education.

4.3. Practical implications

In contemporary hospitality and tourism education, group assignments are popular. However, the social loafing behavior of stu­
dents negatively influences teaching effects and learning quality. The findings of this study offer new insights in dealing with social
loafing behavior. The results of regression analysis indicate that, as a member of a group, emotional relationships are very important to
behavior, such that bad emotional relationships can drive social loafing behavior. Knowing how to build good group member re­
lationships is key to reducing social loafing behavior. In addition, students’ collective self-identity plays an important role in social
loafing behavior, meaning that teachers can focus on the formation of collective identity to promote cooperation and participation in
group assignments, especially when helping other members.
Finally, a student’s academic competence is very important concerning her/his part of the group assignment. In the distribution
process of group assignments, it is important to let a student choose the part s/he is good at or interested in. Meanwhile, teachers
should be available when students have problems with their parts of a group assignment. In-class interaction and mentoring should be
high when training students to work in teams rather than just assigning teams randomly (Bacon et al., 1999; Vik, 2001). With the help
of group members and teachers, students can improve their quality of assignments, learning, and teaching effects. In short, to reduce
social loafing behavior, hospitality and tourism educators need to improve emotional relationships among group members, to pay
attention to students’ collective identity in the long run, and to provide help to group members and teachers. In addition, other factors
such as shared responsibility, fairness, and apathy should nevertheless be taken into consideration in dealing with social loafing
behavior because these factors may be that necessary “extra push” for students’ active participation in group work.

4.4. Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations that offer opportunities for future research. First, this study was based on Chinese undergraduate
students studying hospitality and tourism. Due to cultural differences, the study findings may not be fully applicable in other cultural
contexts. Therefore, there is a need to conduct comparative studies in other countries to have a clear understanding of what drives
social loafing behavior among undergraduate students. Second, the sample was limited to hospitality and tourism management stu­
dents from two universities. One should therefore also be cautious to apply the results to other fields such as sciences or engineering.
Third, this study used convenience sampling, and so, bias may be inevitable. Future studies may employ other sampling methods.
Finally, this study aimed to explore factors driving social loafing behavior but relationships among the factors were not discussed. As
the results show in this study, not all factors are significant predictors of social loafing behavior. Therefore, there is a need to further
explore the causal relationships among these factors in future studies.

References

Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3),
255–264.
Almajed, A., Skinner, V., Peterson, R., & Winning, T. (2016). Collaborative learning: Students’ perspectives on how learning happens. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 10(2), 16.
Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., Jr., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of
moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203–230.
Arevalillo-Herráez, M. (2014). Impact evaluation of reactive assessment strategies to address social loafing by promoting student cooperation and encouraging mutual
support. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 51(5), 523–532.
Atoum, A. O., & Farah, A. M. (1993). Social loafing and personal involvement among Jordanian college students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(6), 785–789.
Bacon, D. R., Stewart, K. A., & Silver, W. S. (1999). Lessons from the best and worst student team experiences: How a teacher can make the difference. Journal of
Management Education, 23(5), 467–488.

9
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

Beigi, M., & Shirmohammadi, M. (2012). Attitudes toward teamwork: Are Iranian university students ready for the workplace? Team Performance Management:
International Journal, 18(5/6), 295–311.
Betta, M. (2016). Self and others in team-based learning: Acquiring teamwork skills for business. The Journal of Education for Business, 91(2), 69–74.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol.
2). Boston: MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brooks, C. M., & Ammons, J. L. (2003). Free riding in group projects and the effects of timing, frequency, and specificity of criteria in peer assessments. The Journal of
Education for Business, 78(5), 268–272.
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes.
Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 557–569.
Charbonnier, E., Huguet, P., Brauer, M., & Monteil, J.-M. (1998). Social loafing and self-beliefs: PEOPLE’s COLLECTIVE EFFORT DEPENDS ON THE EXTENT TO
WHICH THEY DISTINGUISH THEMSELVES AS BETTER THAN OTHERS. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 26(4), 329–340.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (Eds.). (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2 ed.). US: SAGE.
Dyrud, M. (2001). Group projects and peer review. Business Communication Quarterly, 644(4), 106–112.
Early, E. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A comparison of the United States and the people’s Republic of China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34,
565–581.
El Massah Suzanna, S. (2018). Addressing free riders in collaborative group work: The use of mobile application in higher education. International Journal of
Educational Management, 0(ja), 00-00.
Ettington, D., & Camp, R. (2002). Facilitating transfer of skills between group projects and work teams. Journal of Management Education, 26, 356–379.
Fiechtner, S. B., & Davis, E. A. (1985). Why some groups fail: A survey of students’ experiences with learning groups. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9(4),
75–88.
Guerin, B. (2003). Social behaviors as determined by different arrangements of social consequences: Diffusion of responsibility effects with competition. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 143(3), 313–329.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Abderson, R. E. (2011). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Beijing: China Machine Press.
Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher
Education, 14(1), 37–49.
Hjertø, K. B., & Kuvaas, B. (2009). Development and empirical exploration of an extended model of intra-group conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management,
20(1), 4–30.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
Hsiang-Ming, F., & Wen-Ching, C. (2014). The effects of member familiarity, task results visibility and perceived Co-worker loafing on technology-supported team
performance: Social loafing effect perspective. Asia Pacific Management Review, 19(4), 361–373.
Jackson, D., Sibson, R., & Riebe, L. (2014). Undergraduate perceptions of the development of team-working skills. Education + Training, 56(1), 7–20.
Jaikumar, S., & Mendonca, A. (2017). Groups and teams: A review of bad apple behavior. Team Performance Management: International Journal, 23(5/6), 243–259.
Jassawalla, A., Malshe, A., & Sashittal, H. (2008). Student perceptions of social loafing in undergraduate business classroom teams. Decision Sciences Journal of
Innovative Education, 6(2), 403–426.
Jassawalla, A., Sashittal, H., & Malshe, A. (2009). Students’ perceptions of social loafing: Its antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom
teams. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(1), 42–54.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of valuebased intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 5, 223–238.
Johnson, R. E., Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2006). When organizational justice and the self-concept meet: Consequences for the organization and its members.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 175–201.
Kayes, A. B., Kayes, C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36, 330–354.
Kelly, P. (2008). Achieving desirable group work outcomes through the group allocation process. Team Performance Management: International Journal, 14(1/2),
22–38.
Kent Thomas, W., & Hasbrouck Robert, B. (2003). The structural factors that affect classroom team performance. Team Performance Management: International Journal,
9(7/8), 161–166.
Lam, C. (2015). The role of communication and cohesion in reducing social loafing in group projects. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(4),
454–475.
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, 822–832.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004). Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 285–304.
Lord, R. G., & Brown, D. G. (2004). Leadership process and follower self-identity. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Ma, Z., Huang, Y., Wu, J., Dong, W., & Qi, L. (2014). What matters for knowledge sharing in collectivistic cultures? Empirical evidence from China. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 18(5), 1004–1019.
Maiden, B., & Perry, B. (2011). Dealing with free-riders in assessed group work: Results from a study at a UK university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36
(4), 451–464.
McGowan, B. S. (2012). Learning is a team sport. Medical Meetings, 39(7), 12-12.
Mefoh, P. C., & Nwanosike, C. L. (2012). Effects OF group size and expectancy OF reward ON social loafing. IFE PsychologIA, 20(1), 229–240.
Mello, J. A. (1993). Improving individual member accountability in small work group settings. Journal of Management Education, 17(2), 253–259.
Meyers, S. A. (1997). Increasing student participation and productivity in small-group Activities for psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 24(2), 105.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Modell Micah, G. (2017). Instructors’ professional vision for collaborative learning groups. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9(3), 346–362.
Morris, R., & Hayes, C. (1997). Learning through teaching. In I. R. P. Willcoxson (Ed.). Perth: Murdoch University.
Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (version 12). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Perron, B. E. (2011). Reducing social loafing in group-based projects. College Teaching, 59(4), 163–164.
Ringelmann, M. (1913). Research on animate sources of power: The work of man. Annales de L’Instuit. National. Agronomique, 12, 1–40.
Saghafian, M., & O’eill, D. K. (2018). A phenomenological study of teamwork in online and face-to-face student teams. Higher Education, 75(1), 57–73.
Schippers, M. C. (2014). Social loafing tendencies and team performance: The compensating effect of agreeableness and conscientiousness. The Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 13(1), 62–81.
Selenta, C., & Lord, R. G. (2002). The individual, relational, collectival levels: Constrcut refinement and development of a measure of the self- concept levels. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Seltzer, J. (2016). Teaching about social loafing: The accounting team exercise. Management Teaching Review, 1(1), 34–42.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stevens, M. A., & Campion, M. J. (1994). The knowledge, skill and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of
Management, 20, 503–530.
Strong, J., & Anderson, R. (1998). Free riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of Marketing Education, 12, 61–67.
Su, A. Y.-L. (2007). The impact OF individual ability, favorable team member scores, and student perception OF course importance ON student preference OF team-
based learning and grading methods. Adolescence, 42(168), 805–826.

10
Z. Luo et al. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education 28 (2021) 100314

Takeda, S., & Homberg, F. (2014). The effects of gender on group work process and achievement: An analysis through self- and peer-assessment. British Educational
Research Journal, 40(2), 373–396.
Teng, C.-C., & Luo, Y.-P. (2014). Effects of perceived social loafing, social interdependence, and group Affective tone on Students’Group learning performance. The
Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(1), 259–269.
Thompson, R. B., & Thornton, B. (2014). Gender and theory of mind in Preschoolers’Group effort: Evidence for timing differences behind children’ earliest social
loafing. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(6), 475–479.
Vagner, J. A., III, & Moch, M. K. (1986). Individulism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group & Organization Studies, (11), 280–303.
Verma, R. (2012). Globalization in the twenty-first century. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53(2), 9.
Vik, G. N. (2001). Doing more to teach teamwork than telling students to sink or swim. Business Communication Quarterly, 64(4), 112–119.
Wagner, J. A., III (1995). Studies OF individualism-collectivism: Effects ON cooperation IN groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152–173.
Xiangyu, Y., Huanhuan, L. I., Shan, J., Fei, P., & Zhongxin, L. I. N. (2014). Group laziness: The effect OF social loafing ON group performance. Social Behavior &
Personality: An International Journal, 42(3), 465–471.

11