dampak hukuman dan kondisi kelompok terhadap kemalasan sosial ...

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 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: [email protected]

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.


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


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.


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.


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)


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.


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 dan kondisi kelompok terhadap kemalasan sosial ...

Documents

Transcript of dampak hukuman dan kondisi kelompok terhadap kemalasan sosial ...