The Influence Of Social Loafing

Research by Hoigaard et al. (2010) in Norway with 110 elite level, women handball players on 10 seperate teams supported previous research that role satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with the athlete’s formal task-related role on the team) would mediate the relationship between perceived role ambiguity (i.e., lack of clear information about one’s position and the expectations) and the athletes’ willingness to engage in social loafing (the phenomenon when an individual athlete displays less motivation followed by exerting less effort towards a task when engaged and operating collectively in a group or team sport than when working alone (Eccles & Turner, 2014)). The plethora of research also supports a negative association between social loafing

For example, if an individual pursues personal goals (i.e., that are not in alignment with team goals) with a sense of effort as if no one else exists on the team, this could push other players out of the picture; thereby, forcing others to give up on their personal goals resulting in social loafing. The link to goal setting is through Self-Determination Theory and it’s close association with Dweck and the growth-mindset where competence is connected to task-involvement through development, which focuses on learning goals as related to tasks, personal improvement, and skill development. In contrast, an ego-involvement and demonstration, which focuses on performance and ego goals to avoid displaying inadequacy of their stable ability, would facilitate the fixed mindset associated with social loafing through a connection with coordination losses (Harwood, Beauchamp, & Keegan, 2014). “If a coach notices that a team member is not ‘pulling their weight’ or ‘going the extra mile’ for the good of the team, then it pays for the coach to understand a team member’s achievement goals, their perceptions of the motivational climate, and to ensure way in which transparent, identifiable performance-related feedback might be communicated” (p.

The continuum varies from athlete-to-athlete and could change each day based on factors outside the control of the athlete. Evidence-based research demonstrates that a task-involving climate (i.e., a focus on effort, improvement, and task-mastery) is the byproduct of an autonomy supportive coach, instructor, teacher, and/or peers in a physical activity, which facilitates an autonomous quality of motivation associated with integrated regulation (the highest form of extrinsic motivation) and intrinsic regulation (the only form of regulation of intrinsic motivation; fully engaged without the aid of external rewards and/or constraints). This autonomous quality is also associated with increased team cohesion; thereby, increasing performance and reducing the likelihood of social loafing (Standage & Vallerand, 2014; Hoption, Phelan, & Barling, 2014). There are seven characteristics of an autonomy-supportive coach: (a) providing as much choice as possible within certain guidelines, (b) providing reasons for decisions, (c) asking for and considering other’s thoughts and feelings, (d) allowing others to take initiative, (e) providing non-controlling competence feedback, (f) avoiding guilt, statements of control, and tangible rewards, (g) and preventing