International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011

Investigating the Role of the Big Five on the

Social Loafing of Information Technology
Workers1
Hilal Esen Ülke and Reyhan Bilgiç
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
[email protected]

The main purpose of the study was to investigate the role of Big Five personality dimensions
(Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, Neuroticism, and Agreeable-
ness) on social loafing (SL) in a field setting. Data were gathered from both employees and
their supervisors working in three leading software companies in Ankara, Turkey. The study
was conducted in two phases. In the pilot study, SL and perceived coworker SL scales were
developed. The task visibility scale was adapted to Turkish. The internal consistency
reliabilities of the scales were tested using a pilot study with a sample of employees. In the
main study, hypotheses were tested by gathering data from 156 participants and their 33
supervisors. Results supported only the two hypotheses proposing positive relations between
extraversion and SL and between neuroticism and SL. The results are discussed along with
practical implications, limitations of the study, and future directions.

1. Introduction problems and motivation problems (cited in Kerr &

Bruun, 1983).

T oday, work groups have become essential parts of the

way business is being done in organizations. The
underlying reason is that groups outperform individuals
Social facilitation and social loafing (SL) are two
phenomena related to this topic. Karau (1994) defined
social facilitation as the tendency to expend more effort
when the tasks require multiple skills, judgment, and when working in group settings than when working
experience. There are two basic mechanisms by which individually. SL is the other phenomenon in which group
individuals work better when they are in teams: aggrega- membership degrades individual motivation and SL as the
tion and synergy. The individuals who make up the team tendency of individuals to expend less effort when work-
bring unique resources to it, such as knowledge, skills, ing collectively than when working individually.
abilities, and energy. It is difficult to find such a variety of In the work arena, groups become a major mechanism
resources in a single individual. The second mechanism, for organizations to tackle problems that are too large or
synergy, is the increase in effectiveness of the group that complex for individuals to solve alone. Hence, in order to
comes about through collective action or cooperation. make the maximum benefit from group work, it is
By having individuals who have multiple skills and abilities important for organizations to determine under which
and who can bring out synergy, group work can be better conditions individuals are likely to reduce their effort
than individual work. when working collectively. Therefore, the purpose of this
However, there are several drawbacks to group work, study was to investigate SL in relation to personality in
which can take more time and more resources than the information technology (IT) sector in Turkey, where
individual work. Moreover, groups demand increased group work is required.
communication and more conflicts may have to be
managed. For many tasks, teams and groups do worse
than the theoretical maximum one would expect,
1.1. Identifiability of individual effort and evaluation
given the resources members bring to the group – a
approaches
problem termed by Steiner as ‘process loss.’ Steiner One of the possible causes of SL is the unidentifiability of
proposed two sources of process loss: coordination individual effort in group context. In collective tasks, if the

& 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA
302 Hilal Esen Ülke and Reyhan Bilgiç

rewards are distributed on egalitarian basis, individuals less effort in order not to carry a free rider. This
can ‘hide in the crowd,’ meaning that they can benefit motivation loss is called the ‘sucker effect.’
from the group success by making less or even no There are other studies that have investigated the
contribution to the group product. (Latané, Williams, & relation between coworker social loafing (CSL) and an
Harkins, 1979). In conditions where individual group individual’s own SL. Schnake (1991) found a negative
members are rewarded equally for the final group relationship between expectations of CSL and the quan-
product, some members may think that they will not be titative task performance in co-acting groups. However,
able to receive their fair share for a high individual Mulvey and Klein (1998) found the opposite. Williams
performance in reaching a good group product. There- and Karau (1991) found that, when working on a task that
fore, they resort to SL (Price, 1987; Williams, Harkins, & they considered meaningful, individuals compensated for
Latané, 1981). a coworker whom they expected to perform poorly. In a
Task visibility is the term used for defining identifiability similar vein, Plaks and Higgins (2000) found that indi-
of individual effort. Perceived task visibility is an indi- viduals socially compensate for their partners when the
vidual’s belief that his/her supervisor is aware of each partner is expected to be a poor performer. Another
person’s effort in a group context (Kidwell & Bennett, study that revealed similar findings was conducted by
1993). Some studies have found a negative relation Hart (2000). Only the participants with low achievement
between task visibility and SL (Atoum & Farah, 2001; motivation working with a high effort coworker engaged
George, 1992; Liden, Wayne, Jaworski, & Bennett, 2004). in SL, which indicated a free-rider effect. Similarly, Liden
The role of evaluation on SL was investigated in several et al. (2004) found a positive relationship between
other studies. Harkins and Szymanski have focused on the perceived coworker performance and SL. Therefore,
concept of ‘evaluation potential’ in this field (Harkins, the studies are not conclusive in this respect.
1987; Harkins & Szymanski, 1988, 1989). Many of the previous studies did not take into account
the group cohesion. When the group is a cohesive one, it
can be expected that there will not be any relationship
1.2. Dispensability of effort
between actual SL and CSL. Additionally, if the group is
Kerr and Bruun (1983) proposed another possible cause cohesive, relationships between CSL and individual SL
of SL: dispensability of individual effort. They hypo- will probably be nonexistent. This was also mentioned by
thesized that group members exert less effort when Griffith and Vaitkus (1999). Similarly Martz and Rawlins
working collectively because they feel that their individual (2000) pointed out that group support system was found
inputs are not necessary for a high-quality group product. to be related to performance; therefore, cohesion can be
They termed this motivation loss as free-rider behavior. a factor in SL. In a recent review (Casey-Campbell &
Hogg and Vaughan (2005) explained the main difference Martens, 2009), the authors suggest that group cohesion
between SL and free-rider behavior by emphasizing the is related to performance after considering the measure-
amount of contribution to the group product. They ment issues (see also Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon,
stated that, although they may exert lower levels of 2003; Shinh & Choi, 2010 for the relationship). There-
effort in group work, social loafers do contribute to fore, group cohesion may be a factor in SL and there
the final product. Free riders, on the other hand, do not would be no relationship between perceived social CSL
contribute to the group product but still benefit from the and actual SL.
group’s success.
1.4. Individual differences
1.3. Equity in effort and expected coworker
There is considerable research that has investigated the
performance
situational factors of SL (Atoum & Farah, 2001; George,
SL is a result of motivation loss and there can be several 1992; Kidwell & Bennett, 1993; Latané et al., 1979; Liden
factors that influence individual motivation in groups. et al., 2004; Price, 1987; Williams et al., 1981, etc.). In
Besides the free-rider mechanism, ‘sucker effect’ was addition to this line of research, some studies attempted
found to be another factor in SL. An individual who to explain the causes of SL at the individual level and have
believes that his/her coworkers are loafing is inclined to focused on the influence of personal differences on
withhold effort in a group setting (Kerr, 1983). Kerr individual motivation within groups. For example, Hart
found that individuals reduce their efforts if they have a (2000) found that people with high achievement motiva-
partner who is able to contribute to the group but does tion did not engage in SL in a group work independent of
not. The important implication in this finding is that group expected coworker performance. A similar study by
members would not reduce their efforts if the failure of Hart, Karau, Stasson, and Kerr (2004) found that indi-
the partner was due to lack of ability, rather than free viduals who were low in achievement motivation engaged
riding. If individuals expect their coworkers to exert less in SL in an idea generation task when the expected
effort even though they are capable, then they also exert coworker performance was high.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011 & 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Social Loafing 303

Charbonnier, Huguet, Brauer, and Monteil (1998) recently, one of the very few studies pointed out that
found that the SL effect was significant for individuals conscientiousness was negatively related to SL (Tan &
who rated themselves as better than others. Huguet, Tan, 2008). On the other hand, Barry and Stewart (1997)
Charbonnier, and Monteil (1999), by reanalyzing the found conscientiousness to be unrelated to processes
earlier study, found that individuals high in self-uniqueness and outcomes at both individual and group levels. Ac-
engaged in SL on easy tasks and in social compensation cording to these findings, the following hypothesis is
on difficult or challenging tasks. Another individual dif- proposed:
ference factor investigated was the need for recognition
(Smith, Kerr, Markus, & Stasson, 2001). The result of this Hypothesis 1: Each individual’s conscientiousness score
study revealed that individuals with a high need for will be negatively related to the individual’s SL score.
recognition did not engage in SL on a vigilance task.
Although there are several studies that investigated the
role of personality (specifically the Big Five personality
dimensions) on individual and group performance (Bar-
1.6. Extraversion
rick & Mount, 1991; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992; Viswes- The extraversion dimension includes traits like being
varan & Ones, 2000), very few studies have been sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative, fun loving, affec-
conducted that investigated the role of personality spe- tionate, and active. Extraverts can easily communicate
cifically on SL. Bolin (2002) showed that group members’ with people, and they like being around people. Barrick
conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness were and Mount (1991) found that extraversion was a valid
negatively related to SL whereas openness to experience predictor for the two occupation groups which require
and emotional stability was not significantly related to SL. social interaction: managers and salespersons. On the
When the studies conducted in this field are consid- other hand, Salgado (1998) reported that extraversion
ered, it can easily be argued that past research has heavily did not reach generalizable and acceptable validity in
focused on situational factors that make SL more or less predicting job performance across occupations and cri-
likely. Strong evidence was found regarding the import- teria for either military or civil samples in Europe. Barrick
ance of situation in predicting SL. However, there are et al. (1998) investigated the role of member extraversion
relatively few studies examining the role of individual on team viability and found that work teams with higher
difference factors on SL. Although there are many mean levels of individual extraversion received higher
individual differences factors that may have an effect on ratings for capability to continue working together.
SL, in this research, the focus will be on the Big Five Barry and Stewart (1997) found that, at the individual
Personality Traits. level, extraverts were perceived by other group members
as having greater impact on group outcomes compared
to their introverted counterparts. Bradshaw, Stasson,
1.5. Conscientiousness
and Alexander (1999) examined the effects of shyness
The conscientiousness factor reflects how dependable, (negative pole of extraversion) on the brainstorming
hard-working, achievement-oriented, and persevering an performance of groups and individuals. They found
individual is. Several studies investigated the relationship that extraverts generated significantly more ideas than
between the conscientiousness dimension and job per- shy individuals did. In a related study, Williams and
formance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Schmidt & Hunter, Sternberg (1988) reported that a group’s average
1992). The results showed that Conscientiousness and extraversion score had a significant influence on the
Emotional Stability were valid predictors of job perform- measure of group product quality. Kichuk and Wiesner
ance for all occupations and criteria. Furthermore, (1997) also found that higher extraversion was related to
Viswesvaran and Ones (2000) suggested the presence success.
of a general factor in the model of job performance such In the light of these studies, it can be concluded that
as cognitive ability and conscientiousness, predicting task extraverted members can make significant contributions
and contextual performance. This conclusion had also to the group product (Bradshaw et al., 1999; Williams &
been suggested in a previous research by LePine, Hol- Sternberg, 1988). In group settings, extraversion is a
lenbeck, Ilgen, and Hedlund (1997), who pointed out that valuable personality dimension in the sense that it helps
decision accuracy was highest when both the leader and individuals to reveal their potential performance. How-
members were high in cognitive ability and conscientious- ever, extraverts are vulnerable to SL (Bouchard, 1972). If
ness. Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, and Mount (1998) found they are not motivated to perform at high levels, they
that teams with higher mean levels of conscientiousness could cause process loss in the group. Therefore, the
received higher supervisory ratings for team perfor- related hypothesis is:
mance. Neuman, Wagner, and Christiansen (1999) found
that the average conscientiousness level of team mem- Hypothesis 2: Each individual’s extraversion score will be
bers was positively related to team performance. Also positively related to the individual’s SL score.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

& 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011
304 Hilal Esen Ülke and Reyhan Bilgiç

1.7. Openness to experience definition implies, SL is a concept similar to obstruction-

ism. In a related study investigating the role of negative
As the term indicates, openness to experience refers to
affectivity on work place aggression, Skarlicki, Folger, and
being open to gaining experience and being willing to
Tesluk (1999) found that negative affectivity and agreeable-
participate in learning experiences. Common traits asso-
ness accounted for significant unique variance in organiza-
ciated with this factor are being imaginative, cultured,
tional retaliatory behavior beyond the variance accounted
curious, original, broadminded, intelligent, and artistically
for fairness. Therefore, it was hypothesized that:
sensitive. There are several studies investigating the
relationship between this personality dimension and job
Hypothesis 4: Each individual’s neuroticism score will be
performance at both individual and group levels. Con-
positively related to the individual’s SL score.
sidering group work context, Comadena (1984) found
openness to experience and emotional stability to be
valid predictors of individual performance in a brain- 1.9. Agreeableness
storming group. Moreover, the group’s average openness
Traits commonly associated with this dimension include
score was found to be positively related to the group’s
being courteous, flexible, trusting, good-natured, coop-
performance (Neuman et al., 1999). LePine (2003) fo-
erative, forgiving, soft-hearted, and tolerant. As the term
cused on the role of openness on team performance in
and the traits associated with this dimension indicate,
the case of an unforeseen change in task context. He
agreeableness is an important factor in group perform-
found that after an unforeseen change in the task context,
ance. There are many studies showing that this trait is
performance was superior for teams with members who
related to performance at the individual level (Hurtz &
had higher cognitive ability, achievement orientation, and
Donovan, 2000; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Tett et al.,
openness to experience with lower dependability. A
1991; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). Considering
similar finding was reported by Thoresen, Bradley, Bliese,
group work context, Kichuk and Wiesner (1997) found
and Thoresen (2004). They reported that openness to
that teams composed of a higher number of agreeable
experience might be a critical factor for performance
members were more successful than teams with fewer
when employees are required to adapt to change but less
agreeable members. Hoffman and Jones (2005) found that
important for steady state performance. When all of
collective agreeableness was significantly related to in-
these studies are considered, it can be concluded that
creased consistency in performance over time.
openness to experience is an important personality
dimension in predicting individual and group perform-
Therefore:
ance. Hence, in this study, openness to experience is
expected to be negatively related to SL.
Hypothesis 5: Each individual’s agreeableness score will be
negatively related to the individual’s SL score.
Hypothesis 3: Each individual’s openness to experience
will be negatively related to the individual’s SL.
1.10. Control variables
Task visibility or identifiablity of the effort and perceived
1.8. Neuroticism CSL are two variables that might also be related to SL as
This factor has been most frequently called Neuroticism or indicated above. There are studies that found a negative
Emotional Stability. Traits commonly associated with this relationship between task visibility and SL (Atoum &
dimension include being anxious, depressed, angry, embar- Farah, 2001; George, 1992; Liden et al., 2004). Although
rassed, emotional, worried, and insecure. Neurotic people CSL usually improved performance when the task was
are moody and have unstable emotional states. Neuroti- meaningful, at other times it increased the SL (see Mulvey
cism is related to performance negatively or positively if & Klein, 1998). Therefore, the variables that correlate
measured as emotional stability (Salgado, 1998; Tett, Jack- with the dependent variable highly should be used as
son, & Rothstein, 1991) and related to performance in a control variables.
group context (Barrick et al., 1998; Camacho & Paulus,
1995; Comadena, 1984; Kichuk & Wiesner, 1997).
2. Method
Considering studies conducted in performance literat-
ure, SL can be regarded as negative individual perform-
2.1. Participants
ance. From another perspective, it can be categorized as
obstructionism, which is one of the components of work The data for this study were collected from three
place aggression according to the taxonomy made by participating organizations functioning in the software
Baron and Neuman (1996). They defined obstructionism sector in Ankara, Turkey by selecting the teams that are
as actions designed to hinder an individual’s ability to similar to each other in terms of major variables. Data
perform his or her job (e.g. withholding effort). As the were gathered from both supervisors and subordinates

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011 & 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Social Loafing 305

of these work groups. Originally, a total of 33 supervisors 2.4. Supervisor prequestionnaire

agreed to participate and 32 of them returned their
As mentioned before, in order for the SL data gathered
supervisor forms. These 33 supervisors had a total of 184
from supervisors to be reliable, it should be assured that
subordinates. Among these, 156 subordinates returned
supervisors have the opportunity to observe their sub-
their forms. There were no missing values in supervisor
ordinates during work hours and that they have spent
forms. However, there were missing values in five of the
time working together. This dyad demographic was
subordinate forms, which were deleted from further
assessed with several questions. Moreover, supervisors
analysis, resulting in a sample size of 151.
were given a task visibility scale that measured whether
Among the 32 supervisors, 23 (72%) were males and
the individual effort of each subordinate was identifiable.
nine (28%) were females, whereas of the 151 subordin-
The team leader’s perception of task visibility scale
ates, 105 (69.5%) were males and 46 (30.5%) were
included 6 items adapted from George (1992). The
females. The age range of supervisors was 25–45, with
Cronbach’s a reliability for the original scale was .84
a mean of 32.66 (SD ¼ 5.05). For the subordinates, it was
(George, 1992) and .87 for the adapted scale.
22–52, with a mean of 28.56 (SD ¼ 4.72).
The education level of supervisors was quite high, as all
were university graduates. Eighteen (56.3%) reported 2.5. Supervisor survey form
having bachelor degrees, 14 (43.7%) reported having
master degrees. Among the subordinates, seven (4.6%) The supervisor survey form consisted of two parts: SL
of them reported being high school graduates, 93 (61.6%) scale and demographics.
reported having bachelor degrees, 51 (33.8%) reported
having masters degrees. When the total time spent 2.5.1. SL scale
working with the current group was analyzed, it ranged A scale was developed to assess the SL of each individual
from 3 months to 18 years, with a mean of 5.03 years for employee. Supervisors were asked to rate each of their
supervisors; and it ranged from 2 months to 10 years group members on the scale items. Responses were made
with a mean of 2.07 years for subordinates. The total on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
time spent working with the current supervisor ranged (strongly agree). The development of the scale included two
from 1 month to 12 years, with a mean of 2.07 years. stages. In the first stage, seven items of the scale developed
by George (1992) were adapted to Turkish. During the
adaptation process, firstly, the scale items were translated
2.2. Design and procedures into Turkish and back translated by maintaining the
Data were collected through the use of questionnaires linguistic equivalency. The Cronbach’s a reliability for the
distributed to employees and their direct supervisors. original scale was .93 (George, 1992). In the second stage,
The employee questionnaire assessed the Big Five Per- an additional nine items were developed by obtaining the
sonality dimensions (Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, information from the structured interviews held with eight
Openness to experience, Extraversion, and Neuroticism), supervisors from two different organizations. All of the
CSL, perceived task visibility, and demographics. The items were rated according to a scale measuring degree of
supervisors were given two questionnaires. The first reflecting SL in a group. The ratings were done by four
one was a prequestionnaire to measure supervisor– masters students from the Industrial and Organizational
employee interaction. The second questionnaire assessed Psychology Department. Three items were found to be
each employee’s SL and supervisor demographics. Data irrelevant and were removed. Hence, the final version of
were collected from the participating organizations during the scale included 13 items.
work hours on a voluntary basis by assuring anonymity.
2.5.2. Demographics
Supervisors were asked to indicate their age, gender,
2.3. Measures education level, tenure, total job experience, duration of
There were three survey forms used in this study. One work with their current group, duration of supervision of
was given to employees and the other two were com- the current group, duration of current group existence,
pleted by supervisors. The employee survey included number of group members, whether s/he had been a
scales for the big five personality dimensions, CSL, and supervisor for another group before, and satisfaction
task visibility. There was also a section for demographic with group.
characteristics, such as gender, age, tenure, group size,
and satisfaction with group. One of the supervisor survey
forms was a pre-questionnaire, including questions about
2.6. Employee survey form
the interaction level of the supervisor with his/her group. 2.6.1. Personality
The second form was composed of two parts; SL scale An adapted version of the Big Five Inventory with a list of
and demographics. 44 adjectives (BFI: Benet-Martı́nez & John, 1998; adapted

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

& 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011
306 Hilal Esen Ülke and Reyhan Bilgiç

by Sümer, Lajunen, & Özkan, 2005) was used to measure ableness, openness, neuroticism) are presented in Table
the big five personality traits. The participants were asked 1. There was a significant positive correlation between
to rate whether each adjective reflected their character- openness and SL (r ¼.20). The CSL was significantly and
istics or not. Responses were made on a 5-point scale negatively correlated with task visibility (r ¼ .60) and
ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. agreeableness (r ¼ .23).
Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness to A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the
Experience were measured by 9 items each, while participants from three organizations in terms of their
Extraversion and Neuroticism were measured by 8 items personality and SL scores. No significant differences were
each. Cronbach’s a reliabilities for the adapted version found between the organizations.
was at moderate levels; .66 for extraversion; .64 for
agreeableness, .75 for conscientiousness, .72 for neurotic-
ism; and .77 for openness. 3.2. Analysis of demographic variables
Before testing the hypothesized relationships, the de-
2.6.2. Perceived CSL scriptive statistics of the demographic variables were
In the current study, the 13-item scale developed to analyzed. This analysis was conducted in two parts. In
measure SL was adapted to assess individual perceptions the first part, supervisor demographics and their correla-
of CSL. Participants were asked to rate the extent to tion with SL were analyzed; and in the second part,
which their group members tend to engage in SL on a 5- individuals’ demographics and their correlation with SL
point scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) were analyzed. There were significant correlations be-
strongly agree. tween supervisor’s satisfaction with group and SL
(r ¼ .20) and between supervisor sex and SL (r ¼.21).
Female supervisors rated their subordinates higher on
2.7. Pilot study
the SL measure than male supervisors did.
As the perceived task visibility scale and the team leader’s The correlations between SL and other supervisor
task visibility scales were adapted from George’s (1992) demographics were not significant.
original scale and SL and CSL scales were semi-adapted, a In order to figure out which supervisor demographics
pilot study was conducted to test their reliabilities. After were related to SL, regression analysis was conducted
the pilot study, these scales were applied to a larger where SL was regressed on all supervisor demographics,
participant group. In the pilot study, the scales were which significantly predicted SL, R2 ¼ .17, F(11, 128) ¼
administered to a total of 53 employees from two of the 2.33, po.05. The correlation matrix and b coefficients
participating organizations. The Cronbach’s a reliabilities were analyzed for each individual variable. The signs of
were above .85 for all the scales used in the pilot study. the correlation coefficients and b weights were opposite
for the variables of sex, age, and previous group super-
visor experience. Moreover, the absolute value of the
3. Results
simple correlation coefficients of total time with current
group and total work experience were substantially
3.1. Descriptive statistics smaller than their b weights. The only variable whose
Descriptive statistics and correlations concerning the correlation coefficient and b weight were consistent in
variables of interest (i.e., SL, perceived CSL, task visibility, size and direction was satisfaction with group. This
process control, extraversion, conscientiousness, agree- variable was the potential suppressor. One way to

Table 1. Descriptive statistics concerning the variables of interest

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Social loafing 0.93

2. Perceived coworker social loafing 0.08 0.91
3. Task visibility 0.08 0.60** 0.89
4. Extraversion 0.22** 0.09 0.00 0.83
5. Agreeableness 0.09 0.23** 0.23** 0.16 0.71
6. Conscientiousness 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.19* 0.27** 0.73
7. Neuroticism 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.36** 0.23** 0.21* 0.67
8. Openness 0.20* 0.02 0.01 0.25** 0.06 0.25** 0.10 0.79
Mean 1.82 2.34 3.55 3.42 4.12 4.10 2.57 4.08
SD 0.73 0.78 0.83 0.90 0.60 0.59 0.85 0.60
Notes. *po.05. **po.01. Reliability values are on the diagonal written in bold. Scale values for the scales: Social loafing, Perceived coworker social
loafing, Task visibility, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness: 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011 & 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Social Loafing 307

Notes. *po.05. **po.01. Scale values for the scales: Social loafing and satisfaction with group: 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree; Sex: 1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female; education level: 1 ¼ primary school, 2 ¼ high
1.00
3.82
1.04
explore potential suppressor effects was to examine

12
partial correlations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). For this
reason, partial correlations were calculated by controlling

1.00
0.12
1.37
.48
satisfaction with group. After controlling the effect of

11
satisfaction with group on the relationship between SL
and all other supervisor demographics, none of the

0.22**
0.38**
1.00

9.71
6.48
correlation coefficients were significant. Compared with

10
the regression results where age, total time with current
group, total work experience, and previous group super-

0.33**
0.26**
0.23**
visor experience were significant predictors of SL. None

1.00

3.29
2.20
of these variables were significantly correlated with SL

9
after satisfaction with group was controlled.
Moreover, although the correlation between super-

0.63**

0.26**
0.41**
1.00

0.11

2.33
1.50
visor’s gender and SL was significant (see Table 2), the
partial correlation between these two variables turned

8
out to be insignificant when satisfaction with group was

0.50**
0.25**
controlled. Hence, it was concluded that satisfaction with

school, 3 ¼ university, 4 ¼ masters student, 5 ¼ masters degree; ever supervised a group before: 1 ¼ yes, 2 ¼ no. Time periods are given in years.
0.21*
1.00

0.11
0.14

4.59
3.77
group suppressed the relationship between SL and all
other supervisor demographics.

7
The descriptive statistics concerning individuals’ demo-

0.41**
0.24**

0.49**
0.56**
0.19*
graphics are presented in Table 3.

1.00

0.13

8.88
5.78
As Table 3 showed, SL was not significantly correlated

6
with any individual demographics. Furthermore, none of
the individual demographic variables significantly pre-

0.22**

0.31**
0.19*
1.00

0.14

0.02
0.04

0.14
5.32
3.11
dicted SL. To conclude, the only demographic variable
significantly related to SL was supervisor’s satisfaction
5

with group (r ¼ .20, po.05). This finding indicated that

0.22**

0.27**
.011
0.20*

0.17*

0.18*
as supervisor’s satisfaction with group increased, SL of
1.00

0.04

0.06

3.64
0.88
individuals decreased. Therefore, in hypothesis testing, in
4

order to eliminate potential leniency in supervisor rat-

ings, supervisor’s satisfaction with group was controlled.
0.28**
0.71**
0.25**
0.51**

0.30**
0.61**
0.48**
1.00
0.16

0.10

33.51
5.53
3.3. Hypothesis testing
3

0.29**

0.24**

0.44**
Before hypothesis testing, data cleaning was done using
0.21*

0.17*
0.17*
1.00

0.06

0.10

0.08
0.00

1.32
0.47
total scores. In the data cleaning phase, data were
Table 2. Descriptive statistics concerning supervisor demographics
2

checked for univariate and multivariate outliers. Hence,

hypothesis testing was done with a sample of 140 cases.
0.21*

0.20*
1.00

0.12
0.02
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.15
0.05
0.00
0.01

1.82
0.73

In order to test the relationship between personality,

task visibility, CSL and individual SL, a set of regression
1

analyses were conducted. After controlling for super-

8. Duration of supervision to the current group

visor’s satisfaction with group, big five personality dimen-

sions significantly predicted SL, R2 ¼ .14, F(5133) ¼ 2.94,
po.05. The results are presented in Table 4. The results
9. Duration of current group existence

showed that extraversion (b ¼ .21, po.01) and neurotic-

11. Ever supervised a group before

ism (b ¼ .17, po.05) significantly predicted SL. On the

6. Total time with current group

other hand, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and open-

ness were not related to SL. This finding supported
12. Satisfaction with group
7. Total work experience

Hypothesis 2.
Although the correlation between neuroticism and SL
was not significant (Table 5), the results of the regression
4. Education level
1. Social loafing

analysis revealed a significant positive relationship be-

10. Group size

tween neuroticism and SL, r ¼.17, po.01. Despite the

5. Tenure

significant positive correlation between openness and SL

3. Age
2. Sex

Mean

(r ¼.20, po.05), the relationship between these two

SD

variables turned out to be insignificant in regression

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

& 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011
308 Hilal Esen Ülke and Reyhan Bilgiç

Table 3. Descriptive statistics concerning individuals’ demographics

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Social loafing 1.00

2. Sex .13 1.00
3. Age .02 .03 1.00
4. Education level .11 .05 .08 1.00
5. Tenure .02 .05 .49 .12 1.00
6. Total work experience .00 .01 .86 .17 .60 1.00
7. Total time with current supervisor .09 .10 .34 .04 .55 .39 1.00
8. Total time with current group .02 .09 .48 .02 .49 .46 .67 1.00
9. Duration of current group existence .08 .13 .19 .04 .17 .23 .25 .47 1.00
10. Group size .01 .09 .02 .03 .07 .02 .04 .01 .32 1.00
11. Satisfaction with group .02 .12 .11 .00 .01 .10 .06 .09 .11 .00 1.00
Mean 1.82 1.31 28.39 3.45 3.43 6.15 2.06 2.01 3.92 9.56 4.01
SD .73 .47 4.37 .80 2.72 4.55 1.56 1.52 2.46 8.59 .89
Notes. *po.05. **po.01. Scale values for the variables: Social loafing and Satisfaction with group: 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree; sex:
1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female; education level: 1 ¼ primary school, 2 ¼ high school, 3 ¼ university, 4 ¼ masters student, 5 ¼ masters degree. Time periods are
given in years.

Table 4. Regression of social loafing on Big Five Personality dimensions

Variables B STB b t R R2 R2D

Step 1 .22 .05 .05**

Supervisor’s satisfaction with group .16 .06 .22 2.67**
Step 2 .38 .14 .10*
Supervisor’s satisfaction with group .12 .06 .16 .1.92
Extraversion .21 .07 .26 2.93**
Openness .14 .11 .11 1.26
Conscientiousness .03 .11 .02 0.28
Agreeableness .11 .11 .09 1.07
Neuroticism .17 .08 .19 2.12*
Notes. **po.01. *po.05.

Table 5. Partial correlations of social loafing and personality between openness and SL did not become significant
dimensions after controlling for the irrelevant variance of after controlling for extraversion. This indicated that
extraversion extraversion suppressed the correlation between open-
1 2 3 4 5 ness and SL.
To sum up, there was a significant positive relationship
1. Social loafing 1.00
2. Openness 0.13 1.00 between extraversion and SL and between neuroticism
3. Conscientiousness 0.02 0.26** 1.00 and SL, indicating support for Hypotheses 2 and 4.
4. Agreeableness 0.12 0.05 0.22** 1.00 However, since the relationship between openness and
5. Neuroticism 0.24** 0.01 0.13 0.19* 1.00 SL, agreeableness and SL and conscientiousness and SL
Notes. **po.01. *po.05. were not significant, Hypotheses 1, 3, and 5 were not
supported.

analysis. The only variable showing consistent coefficients

both in size and direction was extraversion. Therefore,
4. Discussion
extraversion was considered as a potential suppressor
and partial correlations were calculated by controlling
4.1. Results of hypothesis testing
extraversion. The results are presented in Table 5. Among the five hypotheses regarding the relationships
As the partial correlations presented in Table 5 between the Big Five personality dimensions and SL, two
indicate, after controlling the irrelevant variance of ex- of them were supported. Extraversion and Neuroticism
traversion, the correlation between neuroticism and SL were found to be significant predictors of SL consistent
became significant and increased from .14 (when extra- with previous research (e.g., Camacho & Paulus, 1995;
version was not controlled) to .24 (when extraversion Kichuk & Wiesner, 1997; Skarlicki et al., 1999). Moreover,
was controlled). This finding supports the argument that as hypothesized, a positive relationship was found be-
extraversion suppressed the relationship between neur- tween extraversion and SL. This finding supported the
oticism and SL. On the other hand, the correlation proposition that extraverted members are vulnerable to

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011 & 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Social Loafing 309

SL. Contrary to expectations; the other three hypo- transitional stage (Thoresen et al., 2004). The hypothesis
theses regarding the relationships between conscien- in this study was constructed on the idea that individuals
tiousness and SL, between agreeableness and SL, and high in openness would be willing to take on new
between openness and SL were not supported. In the responsibilities and they would accept each task in the
literature, it was consistently found that conscientious- group as a learning opportunity. Thus, they would not
ness predicts job performance, especially contextual engage in SL. In this viewpoint, there was a misleading
performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Borman & Moto- hidden assumption that participant’s jobs provided new
widlo, 1997; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1998). learning opportunities and required taking on new re-
Although SL was considered as negative job performance, sponsibilities. However, if the job is in the maintenance
no direct relationship was found between conscientious- stage or if the job is monotonous, no relationship would
ness and SL. The nature of jobs in the IT sector requires exist between openness and SL. The relationship be-
tasks and duties which are much more related to task tween these two variables may even turn out to be
performance than contextual performance. SL means positive because individuals high in this trait may look for
withholding effort and not accomplishing major duties alternative ways to learn new things in a monotonous job,
on the job. Thus, for an individual to be considered as a which may cause them to delay their major tasks. Hence,
social loafer in the IT sector would mean that s/he does there may be a positive relationship between openness
not fulfill major tasks of the job. Because conscientious- and SL in jobs that include monotonous tasks. As a result,
ness predicts contextual performance better than task job stages and job characteristics seem to be important
performance, the insignificant relationship between con- factors affecting the relationship between openness and
scientiousness and SL makes psychological sense. SL. This relationship remains to be addressed by future
Although the relationship between agreeableness and researchers in different occupational settings and con-
SL was negative, as hypothesized, it was insignificant. texts.
Agreeableness is a valid predictor of job performance SL is a concept that is generally investigated in Western
both at the individual level and at the group level (Barrick cultures (George, 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Liden et al., 2004).
et al., 1998; Hoffman & Jones, 2005; Kichuk & Wiesner, Earley (1989, 1993) conducted two cross-cultural studies
1997; Neuman & Wright, 1999; Tett et al., 1991). How- on SL in which he examined the effect of individualism–
ever, agreeableness was found to be more strongly collectivism on SL. In the first study, cultural value
related to the interpersonal facilitation component of (collectivism–individualism) was found to be related to
contextual performance than to task performance (Hurtz SL. Individualists performed less in a group setting when
& Donovan, 2000; Van Scotter & Motowidlo, 1996). In compared with working alone. On the other hand, no
the IT sector, there is high interaction between indi- loafing effect appeared for collectivists. In fact, they
viduals in the early stages of group processes. After a performed even better in a group setting than when
while, the tasks of individuals become well defined and working alone.
segmented and personal interaction decreases. In this In an extension of this study, Earley (1993) investigated
study, the participants’ average time spent working in the implications of group membership (working with in-
their current group was 2.01 years, which is a long group or out-group members) and cultural beliefs (col-
period. The reason for the insignificant relationship lectivism–individualism) on individuals’ performance. The
between agreeableness and SL can be the reduced performance of individualists was lower when working in
personal interaction among group members. On the a group setting than when working alone, independent of
other hand, agreeableness would be a valid predictor of group membership. On the other hand, collectivists
SL in the early stages of group processes, where the tasks performed better in an in-group context than in an
of group members are not well defined and there is more individual or out-group context. In a similar vein, Wagner
interaction among individuals. (1995) found main and moderator effects of individual-
Contrary to what was hypothesized, the relationship ism–collectivism on cooperation in groups. Individualism–
between openness and SL was insignificant. One possible collectivism moderated the relations between group size,
reason for this unexpected result can be explained by identifiability, and cooperation. In particular, group size
Murphy’s (1989) maintenance and transitional job stage and identifiability had greater effects on the cooperation
model. Murphy (1989) stated that ‘Transitions occur of individualists than they did on the cooperation of
when an employee is new to a job, or when the major collectivists. Aguinis and Henle (2003) discussed univer-
duties or responsibilities of a job change’ (p. 190). Murphy sals in eight major topics in the field of organizational
(1989) defined maintenance stage as a period in which all behavior: organizational development and change, organ-
major job tasks were learned and the job no longer izational culture, work teams, etc. In their review, they
presents novel or unpredictable situations. Openness to focused on the cultural differences that exist in the area of
experience was found to be a critical factor for perform- SL. The main conclusion they drew was that SL occurred
ance in jobs that require adapting to change (LePine, commonly in Western cultures, whereas it did not exist
2003; LePine, Colquitt, & Erez, 2000) and for jobs in or was even reversed in other cultures. Similarly, Panina

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

& 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011
310 Hilal Esen Ülke and Reyhan Bilgiç

and Aiello (2004) stated that ‘it appears that SL is less Another potential limitation of the study is using one
likely in collectivistic societies when tasks are interrelated data source for collecting individual’s SL scores. Although
and cohesiveness and social interaction, as well as identi- the impact of potential supervisory bias was reduced by
fication with the group, are higher’ (p.16). Considering controlling supervisor’s satisfaction with their group,
these studies, it can be concluded that cultural disposition future researchers can improve the generalizability of
(individualism–collectivism) may have an impact on SL. this study by replicating its results using multiple data
Individualists are more inclined to SL than collectivists. sources in gathering SL scores. Besides supervisor rat-
Moreover, situational factors such as group size and ings, coworker evaluations could also be used in measur-
identifiability have a greater effect on individualists than ing SL. There was a restriction of range problem in the SL
on collectivists because individualists care more about the scores gathered from supervisors. This might be a major
rewards and instrumentality of their effort to reach those problem in testing our hypotheses. Future research
rewards than collectivists do. The results also pointed out should be cautious about this problem when analyzing
that there is no relationship between actual and perceived SL in field settings using scales.
SL. Neither was the perceived SL related to any person-
ality variables. Thus, contributing to the view that if
groups are cohesive, there will not be any relationship Note
between perceived and actual SL.
1. This study was based on the first author’s masters’ thesis at
Middle East Technical University, Department of Psychology.

4.2. Strengths of the study

Despite its failure to support the majority of the hypo-
References
thesis, the current study is believed to have contributed
Aguinis, H., & Henle, C. A. (2003). The search for universals in
to the literature in general, and to Turkey in particular. cross-cultural organizational behavior. In J. Greenberg (Ed.),
Most of the studies on SL had experimental designs Organizational behavior: The state of the science (2nd ed., pp,
(Atoum & Farah, 2001; Latané et al., 1979; Williams & 373–411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Karau, 1991, etc.). However, this study was a field Atoum, A. O., & Farah, A. M. (2001). Social loafing and personal
investigation, which increases the generalizability of its involvement among Jordanian college students. The Journal of
findings. Additionally, this study has provided many con- Social Psychology, 133, 785–789.
tributions to the literature. Moreover, the task visibility Baron, R. A., & Neuman, J. (1996). Workplace violence and
scale developed by George (1992) was adapted to workplace aggression: Evidence of their relative frequency
Turkish. These three scales can be used in future studies. and potential causes. Aggressive Behavior, 2, 161–173.
Since, many SL studies were conducted in individual- Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel
istic cultures (George, 1992, 1995a, 1995b; Liden et al.,
Psychology, 44, 1–26.
2004; Lim, 2002; Murphy, Wayne, Liden, & Erdogan,
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K.
2003), this study made a valuable contribution to the (1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team
literature because it was conducted in a collectivistic processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology,
culture. It has shown that SL is a cross-cultural concept. 83, 377–391.
The SL effect was observed among participants of this Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and
study. However, the variables those are useful in predict- performance in self managed groups: The role of personality.
ing SL turned out to be different from the variables Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.
obtained from studies conducted in individualistic cul- Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003).
tures. On the other hand, personality dimensions were Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clar-
valid across different cultures (Benet-Martı́nez & John, ification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 989–1004.
1998) and therefore they had predictive validity on SL.
Benet-Martı́nez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Multitrait multimethod
analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.
4.3. Limitations and future directions Bolin, A. U. (2002). The relationships among personality,
Group processes show differences according to job process, and performance in interactive brainstorming
groups. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The
stages. The sample used in this study was in the main-
Sciences and Engineering, 63(6-B), 3063.
tenance stage. This was a limitation in testing the
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and
hypothesis on the relationship between SL and two contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selec-
personality dimensions: agreeableness and openness. tion research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109.
Future researchers should be cautious about group Bouchard, T. J. (1972). Training, motivation, and personality as
process stages in testing the relationship between the determinants of the effectiveness of brainstorming groups
Big Five Personality dimensions and SL. and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 324–331.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011 & 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Social Loafing 311

Bradshaw, S. D., Stasson, M. F., & Alexander, D. (1999). Shyness average do not engage in social loafing. Group Dynamics:
and group brainstorming: Effects on productivity and percep- Theory, Research, and Practice, 3, 118–131.
tions of performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 1, Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job
267–276. performance: The Big Five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychol-
Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social ogy, 85, 869–879.
anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Karau, S. J. (1994). Social loafing. Encyclopedia of Human Behavior,
Social Psychology, 68, 1071–1080. 4, 237–245.
Casey-Campbell, M., & Martens, M. L. (2009). Sticking it all Kerr, N. L. (1983). Motivation losses in small groups: A social
together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion– dilemma analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
performance literature. International Journal of Management 819–828.
Reviews, 11, 223–246. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member
Charbonnier, E., Huguet, P., Brauer, M., & Monteil, J. M. (1998). effort and group motivation losses free-rider effects. Journal
Social loafing and self-beliefs: People’s collective effort de- of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.
pends on the extent to which they distinguish themselves as Kichuk, S. L., & Wiesner, W. H. (1997). The Big Five personality
better than others. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 329– factors and team performance: Implications for selecting
340. successful product design teams. Journal of Engineering and
Comadena, M. E. (1984). Brainstorming groups: Ambiguity Technology Management, 14, 195–222.
tolerance, communication apprehension, task attraction, Kidwell, R. E., & Bennett, N. (1993). Employee propensity to
and individual productivity. Small Group Behavior, 15, 251–264. withhold effort: A conceptual model to intersect three
Earley, P. C. (1989). Social loafing and collectivism: A compar- avenues of research. Academy of Management Review, 18,
ison of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. 429–456.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 565–581. Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make
Earley, P. C. (1993). East meets West meets Mideast: Further light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing.
explorations of collectivistic and individualistic work groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 319–348. LePine, J. A. (2003). Team adaptation and postchange perfor-
George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived mance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’
social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Jour- cognitive ability and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology,
nal, 35, 191–202. 88, 27–39.
George, J. M. (1995a). Employee propensity to withhold effort: LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000). Adaptability to
A conceptual model to intersect three avenues of research. changing task contexts: Effects of general cognitive ability,
Academy of Management Review, 18, 429–456. conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Personnel
George, J. M. (1995b). Asymmetrical effects of rewards and Psychology, 53, 563–593.
punishments: The case of social loafing. Journal of Occupational LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. (1997).
and Organizational Psychology, 68, 327–338. Effects of individual differences on the performance of
Griffith, J., & Vaitkus, M. (1999). Relating cohesion to stress, hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g.
strain, disintegration, and performance: An organizing frame- Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 803–811.
work. Military Psychology, 11, 27–29. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004).
Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30,
of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–18. 285–304.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1988). Social loafing and self- Lim, V. K. G. (2002). The IT way of loafing on the job:
evaluation with an objective standard. Journal of Experimental Cyberloafing, neutralizing and organizational justice. Journal
Social Psychology, 24, 354–365. of Organizational Behavior, 23, 675–694.
Harkins, S. G., & Szymanski, K. (1989). Social loafing and group Martz, B., & Rawlins, C. (2000). Looking for indicators of
evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 934– high performance teams in GSS: An exploratory field study.
941. Journal of Information Technology Cases and Applications, 2,
Hart, J. W. (2000). Achievement motivation and expected co- 48–63.
worker effort on collective task performance. Dissertation Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived
Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and
60(8-B), 4300. group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Deci-
Hart, J. W., Karau, S. J., Stasson, M. F., & Kerr, N. A. (2004). sion Processes, 74, 62–87.
Achievement motivation, expected coworker performance, Murphy, K. R. (1989). Is the relationship between cognitive
and collective task motivation: Working hard or hardly ability and job performance stable over time? Human Perfor-
working? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 984–1000. mance, 2, 183–200.
Hoffman, D. A., & Jones, L. M. (2005). Leadership, collective Murphy, S. M., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Erdogan, B. (2003).
personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, Understanding social loafing: The role of justice perceptions
509–522. and exchange relationships. Human Relations, 56, 61–84.
Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2005). Social psychology (4th ed.). Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D. (1999). The
Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited. relationship between work-team personality composition
Huguet, P., Charbonnier, E., & Monteil, J. M. (1999). Productivity and the job performance of teams. Group and Organization
loss in performance groups: People who see themselves as Management, 24, 28–46.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

& 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011
312 Hilal Esen Ülke and Reyhan Bilgiç

Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. (1999). Team effectiveness: Beyond Sümer, N., Lajunen, T., & Özkan, T. (2005). Big Five personality
skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, traits as the distal predictors of road accident involvement. In
376–389. G. Underwood (Ed.), Traffic and transport psychology. Ch. 18,
Panina, D., & Aiello, J. R. (2004). Acceptance of electronic traffic and transport psychology (pp. 215–227). Oxford: Elsevier.
monitoring and its consequences in different cultural contexts: A Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics
conceptual model. Presented at the 5th Annual International (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Business Research Forum. Information technology and inter- Tan, H. H., & Tan, M. L. (2008). Organizational citizenship
national business theory and strategy development. Philadel- behavior and social loafing: The role of personality, motives,
phia, Pennsylvania. and contextual factors. The Journal of Psychology, 142, 89–108.
Plaks, J. E., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Pragmatic use of stereotyping Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality
in teamwork: Social loafing and compensation as a function of measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic
inferred partner situation fit. Journal of Personality and Social review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–743.
Psychology, 79, 962–974. Thoresen, C. J., Bradley, J. C., Bliese, P. D., & Thoresen, J. D.
Price, K. H. (1987). Decision responsibility, task responsibility, (2004). The Big Five personality traits and individual job
identifiability, and social loafing. Organizational Behavior and performance growth trajectories in maintenance and transi-
Human Decision Processes, 40, 330–345. tional job stages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 835–853.
Salgado, J. F. (1998). Big Five personality dimensions and job Van Scotter, J. R., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1996). Interpersonal
performance in army and civil occupations: A European facilitation and job dedication as separate facets of contextual
Perspective. Human Performance, 11, 271–288. performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 525–531.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development of a causal Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models
model of processes determining job performance. Current of job performance. International Journal of Selection and
Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 89–92. Assessment, 8, 216–226.
Schnake, M. E. (1991). Equity in effort: The ‘‘sucker effect’’ in co- Wagner, J. A. III. (1995). Studies of individualism–collectivism:
acting groups. Journal of Management, 17, 41–55. Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management
Shinh, Y., & Choi, J. N. (2010). What makes a group of good Journal, 38, 152–172.
citizens? The role of perceived group-level fit and critical Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a
psychological states in organizational teams. Journal of Occu- deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal
pational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 531–552. of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303–311.
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social
moderator in the relationship between fairness and retalia- compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker
tion. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 100–108. performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4,
Smith, B. N., Kerr, N. A., Markus, M. J., & Stasson, M. F. (2001). 570–581.
Individual differences in social loafing: Need for cognition as a Williams, W. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Group intelligence:
motivator in collective performance. Group Dynamics, 15, Why some groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12,
150–158. 351–377.

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 19 Number 3 September 2011 & 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.