Post on 19-Jan-2017
UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA
DAMPAK HUKUMAN DAN KONDISI KELOMPOK TERHADAP
KEMALASAN SOSIAL
MAKALAH NON SEMINAR
Diajukan sebagai salah satu syarat untuk memperoleh gelar sarjana Psikologi
NADIA BELLA KARTIKA
1006805896
FAKULTAS PSIKOLOGI
PROGRAM STUDI KELAS KHUSUS INTERNASIONAL
Depok
Agustus 2014
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
Dampak Hukuman dan Kondisi Kelompok terhadap Kemalasan Sosial
Nadia Bella Kartika dan Ike Anggraika
1. Fakultas Psikologi, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia
2. Fakultas Psikologi, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia
Email: Nadiabellakartika@gmail.com
Abstrak
Kerja kelompok merupakan keterampilan penting bagi banyak orang. Bekerja dalam kelompok
bermanfaat karena dapat membuat pekerjaan lebih efisien dan produktif. Namun, ada juga beberapa kelemahan
bekerja dalam kelompok. Salah satunya adalah terjadinya kemalasan sosial. Hal ini terjadi ketika anggota
kelompok tidak memberikan usaha yang cukup saat bekerja dalam kelompok. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah
untuk mengidentifikasi pengaruh hukuman dalam kemalasan sosial. Untuk menjawab pertanyaan tersebut
dilakukan penelitian menggunakan desain 2 x 2 antar subjek yaitu hukuman (tidak ada hukuman & hukuman)
dan kondisi kelompok (kolektif & koaktif). Dalam kondisi tanpa hukuman, partisipan menerima hadiah terlepas
dari performa mereka. Dalam kondisi dengan hukuman, partisipan akan menerima hadiah lebih sedikit jika
mereka berperforma rendah. Dalam kondisi kolektif, performa partisipan dinilai sebagai gabungan dari performa
anggota kelompok hipotetis. Dalam kondisi koaktif, performa partisipan dinilai secara individu. Penelitian ini
dilakukan dengan 40 peserta dengan jumlah yang seimbang antar jender (20 perempuan dan 20 laki-laki). Hasil
analisis menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara kondisi kolektif dan koaktif pada
kondisi hukuman. Selain itu, tidak ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara kolektif dan koaktif dalam kondisi
tidak ada hukuman. Dengan begitu, dapat disimpulkan bahwa hukaman dan kondisi kelompok tidak efektif
untuk mengurangi kemalasan sosial.
The Impact of Punishment and Group Conditions in Social Loafing
Abstract
Working as a part of a group is an important skill for people. It is beneficial because it can increase
work efficiency and productivity. However, there are also some disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is
social loafing. It occurs when group members does not put enough effort on group work. The aim of the study is
to identify the impact of punishment and group conditions in social loafing. To answer the research question, 2
x 2 in between subject design was conducted with 4 conditions. The conditions are punishment (no punishment
& punishment) and group condition (collective & coactive). In the no punishment condition, participants
received the reward regardless of their performance. In the punishment condition, the participants are given less
reward if their performance is low. In collective condition, the participants’ performances were measured as a
combination with hypothetical group members. In coactive condition the participants’ ideas were measured
individually. The research was conducted with a total of 40 participants with equal number between gender (20
female & 20 male). The result shows no significant difference between collective and coactive in punishment.
In addition, there was no significant difference between collective and coactive in no punishment condition. To
conclude, punishment and group conditions are not effective to reduce social loafing.
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
Keyword: Punishment; Social Loafing; Group Conditions; Collective; Coactive
Introduction
To get a job done sometimes individual work will not suffice. It requires people to
work as a group in order to finish a task. Working with other people can be more efficient
and less time consuming because workload can be shared with other group members.
However, there are also downsides of working in a group. One of the downsides is that there
might be group members who do social loafing. It is defined as the decreasing of personal
effort that are caused by the social presence of other group members (Latane, Harkins, &
Williams, 1981). Social loafing would happen when the member presume that other member
will not loaf and therefore they are allowed to loaf, when individual performance cannot be
identified, and no clear expectation regarding performance (Williams, 2012). It is important
to find out ways to diminish social loafing to increase productivity of groups. According to
Kramer, Bhave, and Johnson (2014), group work has become critical in organization setting.
There are escalating needs in structured team work which exceeds simple individual
performance. It will be beneficial if applied in work or university setting where group works
become vital to productivity.
The present study will examine the effect of punishment on social loafing. The
research predicts that people will generate more ideas when working collectively than
coactively in punishment condition. In addition, people will also generate more idea when
working coactively than collectively in no punishment condition. The present study adapted a
previous study conducted by Gagnè and Zuckerman (1999). The novel contribution that we
will get from the study is by adding punishment. In specific, researcher wants to examine the
student’s performance within coactive and collective condition, based on their reaction
toward punishment to generate more ideas.
Literature Review
The collective effort model by Karau and Williams (1993) suggest that motivation of
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
the individual is contingent on the expectation of high effort that cause high performance,
perception that high effort is needed to acquire results, and the results is perceived as
covetable.
Miles and Greenberg (1993) argued that the occurrence of social loafing could be
decreased by increasing the desirability of the task and by giving unpleasant consequences
such as punishment. Furthermore, in group condition, if the punishment given not only to the
individuals but also to the groups will make the punishment effect effective to reduce social
loafing.
Gagnè and Zuckerman (1999) conducted a study where the participants generated
ways to utilize a knife in 12 minutes. They were then assigned to 3 conditions: low evaluation
potential condition, medium evaluation potential condition, and high potential evaluation
condition. In low condition, the outputs were pooled and that individual performance was not
assessed. In medium condition, only the experimenter could evaluate the individual output.
While in the high condition, experimenter and other participants could evaluate the output.
Following the task, participants were asked to fill in a questionnaire. The result of the
research shows that the low condition generated the lowest number of idea and the high
condition generate the highest number of idea.
Method
The participants in the study were university of Queensland student that were
acquired with convenient sampling around the university area. There were 10 participants in
each condition with total participant of 40 (20 female and 20 male). Participants were given
chocolates as a reward for their participation.
The design of the study is 2 x 2 between subject designs. The independent variable is
punishment and group conditions. Each of the independent variable has 2 levels. For
punishment there are the no punishment and the punishment. While for group conditions
there are the collective and coactive condition. The dependent variable in the research is the
number of ideas generated at the brainstorming task.
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
The participants were asked to generate ideas on how to use ruler creatively and
rationally within 3 minutes. They were asked to fill in questionnaire afterward after being
briefed about the conditions they were randomly assigned to. In punishment condition,
participants were given 4 chocolates but it will be taken away if they did not generate
sufficient ideas. 40-30 ideas got 4 chocolates, 29-20 ideas took away 1 chocolate, 19-10 took
away 2 chocolates, and 9-1 ideas will take away 3 chocolates. In no punishment condition,
the participant got chocolate regardless the quantity of their ideas. Participants were also
assigned to different group condition: in coactive condition their performance is assessed
individually, while in the collective condition their performance is pooled with other 3
hypothetical group members that already did the task. The number of ideas generated in the
brainstorming was measured. The questionnaire used 4 point Likert scale that serve as
manipulation check. One of the questions: “How motivated were you to work for your
chocolates?” The answers range from 1 as not motivated to 4 as extremely motivated. The
third question evaluates the interestingness of the, which indicates that the study is perceived
as interesting by the participants. Additionally, question number four also shown no
significant difference between Punishment condition and Non-punishment condition in the
motivation evaluation.
Result
Manipulation Check Items
There are four questions in the questionnaire about individual performance, group
performance, interestingness of the task, and the motivation to work for the reward. The
result shows that participants in coactive (M= 3.1) and collective condition (M= 2.6) has no
significant difference on their perception regarding researcher’s interest on their individual
performance, t (38)=- .1.61, p= .12. Results of perceived researcher’s interest on participants
group performance in participants in coactive (M= 2.75, SD= .96) and collective condition
(M= 2.55, SD= .97) also yield result that is not significant, t (38)=-.60, p=.55. Question 3
asses the participants’ interest in the task (M= 3.10) that shows participants perceive the task
as interesting. Last question, measure punishment condition (M = 2.65) and no punishment
condition (M = 2.40)
regarding the participants’ perception of the researcher’s interest on their individual
performance, t (38)= .71, p=.48.
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
Figure I. Number of Ideas Generated
Independent T-test was conducted on punishment in coactive and collective condition.
The difference of punishment condition in coactive (M= 9.3) and collective (M= 9.7)
condition regarding the ideas generated is not significant, t(18)= .17, p=.86. Furthermore, in
the no punishment condition in coactive (M= 10.3) and collective condition (M= 7.6) also
yield not significant result for the number of ideas generated, t(18)= 1.89,p=.08.
Discussion
The study aimed to examine the effect of punishment on social loafing. Researchers
predict that participants in coactive condition generated more ideas than participants in
collective condition in both punishment and no punishment conditions. It is because
participants in collective condition were assumed to do social loafing. Our results revealed
that there is no significant difference between the collective and the coactive condition in
punishment and no punishment condition. That means both hypotheses in the research are not
supported. The task for brainstorming in the research was perceived as interesting by the
participants contrary to Gagnè and Zuckerman (1999) participants that found the task was
averagely interesting. This supported the Miles and Greenberg (1993) that argued social
loafing will decrease if the task is interesting. The collective condition may have scored
similar to the coactive condition because the task was perceived as interesting.
The limitation of the study is that the sample size is small because in each condition
there are only 10 participants. Due to the small sample size, the statistical power of the
Coactive Collective
Punishment 9.300 9.700
(4.165) (6.001)
No Punishment 10.300 7.600
(2.946) (3.438)
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
research is weak. The other limitation is that the instruction for the punishment condition was
complicated to explain. Some of the participants were in hurry to do their activity, such as
going to the class, therefore they may not have paid full attention and just agreed upon
whatever the researcher were saying. The faulty of giving instruction to the participants also
affects the result of manipulation check. The manipulation checks regarding perceived
researcher’s interest on individual performance, group performance, and participant’s
motivation shows no significant differences. In collective condition, the participants
brainstorm individually but the result will be pooled with other group members. Due to not
actually being in a group this might influence the result because there are no group
belongingness therefore participants might work on the task as coactive instead of collective.
Latanè (1981) suggest with social impact theory that because the collective condition work in
individual condition they still feel the same social force. It was caused pressure by the
researcher that led the participants to perform the best they could, in the same magnitude with
participants in coactive condition.
For future research, the researcher should acquire more samples in order to have more
statistical power that makes the research results more generalizable. The researcher should
also make more concise instruction regarding the task to make the time more efficient and
improve the comprehension of the participants. The gender of participants also suggested to
be divided equally per condition to avoid confounding variable regarding gender differences.
In collective condition, it is better to have real group instead of hypothetical group in order to
precisely predict whether social loafing would occur in collective condition.
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014
References
Gagne, M., & Zuckerman, M. (1999). Performance and learning goal orientation as
moderators of social loafing and social facilitation. Small Group Research, 30(5), 524-
541. doi:10.1177/104649649903000502.
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-
681. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681
Kramer, A., Bhave, D. P., & Johnson, T. D. (2014). Personality and group performance: The
importance of personality composition and work tasks. Personality and individual
differences, 58, 132-137. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.10.019
Miles, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Using punishment threats to attenuate social loafing
effect among swimmers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 56,
246-265. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1993.1054
Latane, B. (1981). The social impact theory. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343-356.
doi:0003-066X/81/3604-0343800.75.
Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latane, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing:
Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2),
303-311. doi:0022-3514/81/4002-0303100.75.
Williams, R. (2012, March 31). How teamwork can damage productivity. Psychology Today.
Retrieved October 8, 2012, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-
success/201203/how-teamwork-can-damage-productivity
Dampak hukuman…, Nadia Bella Kartika, FPsi UI, 2014