effects of perceived social loafing, social interdependence, and group affective tone on students’...
TRANSCRIPT
REGULAR ARTICLE
Effects of Perceived Social Loafing, Social Interdependence,and Group Affective Tone on Students’ Group LearningPerformance
Chih-Ching Teng • Yu-Ping Luo
� De La Salle University 2014
Abstract This study investigates how students perceived
social loafing and social interdependence influence group
learning performance through group affective tone in
undergraduate hospitality and tourism curricula. A ques-
tionnaire survey was administered to collect data from
college students majoring hospitality and tourism man-
agement at four Taiwanese universities. Of 660 distributed
questionnaires, 634 questionnaires were returned, accoun-
ted for a 96 % response rate. To justify the aggregated
individual data to the group level, this study used the
within-group inter-rater agreement (rwg) to assess and
determine 123 valid learning groups for data analysis. The
analytical results show that group affective tone signifi-
cantly mediates the effect of social loafing and social
interdependence on group productivity, but not on group
final grades. Specific implications and suggestions are also
discussed.
Keywords Group learning performance � Social loafing �Social interdependence � Group affective tone �Hospitality and tourism education
Introduction
Group learning has recently continued to attract increasing
attention in higher education and workplaces (Guzzo &
Shea 1992; Hassanien 2006; Njie et al. 2013). Several
studies have examined the effectiveness of group learning,
and have confirmed its ability to improve overall student
performance, facilitate communication and critical think-
ing, foster socialization skills, and influence learning atti-
tude (Gerdy 1998; Gillies & Ashman 2003; Johnson &
Johnson 2000; Johnson et al. 1991). Hassanien (2006)
identified the elements of learning groups essential for
effective college student learning. First, group members
must initiate and sustain collaborative relationships over a
semester. During this period, group members must support
and motivate one another to complete course assignments
or goal-oriented tasks. Particularly in the case of hospitality
and tourism education, students majoring in hospitality and
tourism management must collaborate on culinary skill
development, discussion-group, and project activities.
Additionally, group learning opportunities can equip stu-
dents with professional skills of interest to hospitality and
tourism employers, such as creative thinking, problem-
solving, interpersonal communication, and teamwork.
Most importantly, the learning experience allows group
members to identify common goals, participate in group
discussions, and ultimately finish project reports, and thus
improve their overall course performance.
Although the incorporation of group learning into the
hospitality and tourism curriculum offers several potential
benefits, students participating in such groups may not
always have consistently good learning experiences. Pre-
vious studies have found that social loafing has been cited
as the most critical negative influence on effectiveness, and
hence the biggest contributor to group experiences (Ag-
garwal & O’Brien 2008). Since the perceived action or
inaction of fellow group members guides the behavior of
individual group members, a single social loafer can
influence overall group dynamics (Liden et al. 2004).
C.-C. Teng (&) � Y.-P. Luo
Department of Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional Management,
Fu-Jen Catholic University, 510 Chung Cheng Rd., Hsinchuang
Dist., New Taipei City 24205, Taiwan
e-mail: [email protected]
Y.-P. Luo
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Asia-Pacific Edu Res
DOI 10.1007/s40299-014-0177-2
When group members perceive others to be withholding
effort, they are more likely to reserve their own effort to
avoid being exploited (Schnake 1991). This phenomenon
then decreases the motivation of group members to achieve
their goals and eventually negatively impacts group per-
formance. Effective learning groups thus should seek to
avoid social loafing.
In contrast, social interdependence frequently occurs in
high productivity groups (King & Ganotice 2013; Tarri-
cone & Luca 2002). Johnson and Johnson (1989) claimed
that social interdependence exists when individual out-
comes are affected by the actions of themselves and others.
Members of positive social interdependence groups trust
each other, acknowledge common values, and are more
likely to develop explicit group norms that dictate indi-
vidual responsibilities and obligations. For instance, when
group members believe in maintaining group unity, they
tend to be proud of the group and committed to achieving
common goals (Bartel & Saavedra 2000). This state of
mind generates a positive affective reaction within the
group (Kidwell et al. 1997) and thus increases group pro-
ductivity (Chen et al. 2013; Staples & Webster 2008; Tsai
& Chi 2008). Given the increased importance of group
learning, the influence of social loafing and social inter-
dependence needs to be better understood to enhance group
learning performance.
Previous investigations demonstrated group affective
tone to be instrumental in improving group performance
(Chen et al. 2005). George (1990) used Attraction-Selec-
tion-Attrition processes and socialization in groups
(Schneider 1987) to elucidate group affective tone and
determine the existence of within-group agreement in
terms of group member moods, which could be linked to
group behaviors and outcomes. Weiss and Cropanzano
(1996) further applied Affective Events Theory to explain
the process of affection binding among individuals. Indi-
viduals become aroused when they encounter an emotional
event, and this arousal can be a catalyst for individual
emotional reactions (Ashkanasy 2003; Bowling et al. 2005;
Judge & Larsen 2001). That is, group members who per-
ceive either social loafing or social interdependence will
develop positive or negative emotions together with the
group interaction. This affective reaction strongly influ-
ences group behavior and performance. According to this
rationale, positive group affective tone is likely to enhance
group productivity and achievement in class learning.
While previous studies have discussed the effects of
social loafing, social interdependence and affective reac-
tion on collaborative learning, research is lacking on the
psychological process of group interaction and learning
performance. Thus, this study describes how perceived
social loafing, social interdependence, and group affective
tone influence group learning performance, and specifically
examines the mediating role of group affective tone. The
study findings are based on a questionnaire survey focused
on groups of students taking hospitality and tourism man-
agement courses. The study results can improve under-
standing of how to maximize the effectiveness of group
learning by discussing the application of social psychology
to education, thus enabling lecturers and educators to
improve student performance in class group learning.
Literature Review
The Relationship between Perceived Social Loafing
and Group Affective Tone
Social loafing denotes a psychological phenomenon that
occurs within groups, whereby individuals tend to expend
less effort when working in a group than when working
independently (Williams & Karau 1991). Aggarwal and
O’Brien (2008) described social loafing as ‘‘a behavior
pattern whereby group members perceive an individual
working in a group setting as failing to contribute his or her
fair share’’ (p. 256). In real work settings, Comer (1995)
defined perceived social loafing as describing the phe-
nomenon where group members perceive their coworkers
to be exerting less effort than themselves. In the case of
social loafing, the working motivation of group members is
hindered if they find their coworkers are not working at full
capacity (Dick et al. 2009). Still worse, social loafers
contribute less than their fair share to group efforts but reap
the benefit of the efforts of other group members because in
school learning the entire group is assigned a common
grade (Aggarwal & O’Brien 2008). Consequently, group
members can become disgruntled by the unfair work dis-
tribution that results from social loafing (Tsai & Chi 2008).
George (1990) developed the term ‘‘group affective
tone’’ and used it to refer to consistent or homogeneous
affective reactions within a group. When group affective
tone exists in a group, group members experience similar
mood states at work and may generate consistent mental
models through the social impact and the process of
drawing comparisons between group members, including
primitive emotional contagion, social influence processes,
and cooperation to perform common group tasks (George
1996). Negative group affective tone develops if social
loafing causes group members to feel bad. Specifically,
negative emotional events carry more weight with the
group than positive ones (Bowling et al. 2005). As Wil-
liams et al. (1991) indicated, social loafing is the primary
complaint among class learning groups with regard to why
students dislike group projects. Indeed, the problem of
social loafing appears to be one of the biggest challenges of
group learning (Aggarwal & O’Brien 2008). The existence
C.-C. Teng, Y.-P. Luo
123
of social loafing in group work thus causes students to
experience negative emotions that adversely influence
group affective tone. This study thus hypothesized the
following:
H1 Perceived social loafing negatively influences group
affective tone.
The Relationship between Perceived Social
Interdependence and Group Affective Tone
Social interdependence theory has become one of the most
successful and widespread practical applications of social
and educational psychology (Johnson & Johnson 2009).
Social interdependence describes the interactions between
group members whose actions influence individual goal
accomplishment (Tarricone & Luca 2002). Positive inter-
dependence exists when individuals perceive themselves as
able to achieve their goals if and only if others with whom
they are cooperatively linked also achieve their goals
(Johnson & Johnson 2008). When positive social interde-
pendence exists, group members promote the efforts of one
another and encourage others. In contrast, negative inter-
dependence exists when individuals perceive that other
competitive individuals will hinder their goal achieve-
ments. If negative social interdependence exists, group
members compete with coworkers, and discourage and
obstruct each other’s progress to achieve their goals
(Johnson et al. 1998).
Previous studies have identified that positive social
interdependence causes promotive interaction, which is
defined as individuals assisting and encouraging one
another (e.g., through mutual help and assistance, exchange
of needed resources, effective communication, trust, and
constructive management of conflict) to complete tasks
required to reach group goals (Johnson & Johnson 2008).
Bartel and Saavedra (2000) and Mudrack (1989) also
confirmed that social interdependence is distinguished by a
mental connection linking group members. Group mem-
bers who express strong affiliation with their coworkers are
more likely to interact with and care for one another, which
creates a pleasant group atmosphere (Kidwell et al. 1997),
and also enforces explicit group norms (Bartel & Saavedra
2000). In an investigation of the mechanism of salesperson
group-level work performance, Tsai and Chi (2008) con-
firmed that perceived social interdependence can boost the
shared mood of group members and thus positively influ-
ence group affective tone and work performance. The same
phenomenon occurs for group work related to school
learning. The emergence of perceived social interdepen-
dence lifts the spirits of group members, and thus enhances
group affective tone. This study thus hypothesized the
following:
H2 Perceived social interdependence positively influ-
ences group affective tone.
The Relationship between Group Affective Tone
and Group Learning Performance
Group affective tone represents consistent or homogeneous
group affective reactions (George 1990). The impact of
group affective tone on business group performance has
been widely investigated, and previous studies have con-
firmed that positive group affective tone enhances group
performance (Chen et al. 2005; George 1995), encourages
altruistic behaviors, increases group satisfaction, boosts
work commitment (Mason & Griffin 2003), reduces
employee absence or turnover intention (George 1990;
Mason & Griffin 2003), and alleviates group conflict
(George 1990). Additionally, group affective tone is gen-
erally considered to benefit class learning outcomes. Bar-
sade (2002) used the example of undergraduate students
performing a managerial decision-making task and found
an association between positive emotional contagion and
increased cooperation, reduced conflict, and perceived
performance improvement. In other words, when the class
learning group has high positive affective tone, group
members are more likely to be motivated to work, obtain
positive work experience, and thus display more coopera-
tive behavior within the group. Grawitch et al. (2003)
further proposed that induced positive moods in temporary
groups were associated with higher creativity ratings on
task performance.
Given the significant influence of group affective tone
on group performance, this study proposed that group
affective tone positively affects the group learning perfor-
mance of students. Group learning performance has been
measured in terms of group productivity and group learn-
ing achievement as both a subjective and objective per-
formance measure. Subjective group productivity can be
measured through group member observations of variables
such as the efficiency, work quality and work excellence of
the group during the learning process (Allen et al. 2004).
Meanwhile, higher learning achievement represents a large
improvement in test scores post instruction (Lu et al. 2003).
Since this study was intended to explore group learning
performance in hospitality and tourism management cour-
ses, group learning achievement is measured using final
group grades. Therefore, this study hypothesized the
following:
H3-1 Group affective tone positively influences group
productivity.
H3-2 Group affective tone positively influences group
final grades.
Students’ Group Learning Performance
123
The Relationship between Perceived Social Loafing
and Group Learning Performance
Social loafing occurs when group members consider that
their personal efforts are not recognized or their work role
is marginal (Dick et al. 2009). This psychological situation
decreases group member work motivation, and eventually
negatively impacts group performance (Rutte 2003; West
et al. 2004) and reduces productivity (Karau & Williams
1993). George (1992) indicated that social loafing is fre-
quent in low productivity groups, and this phenomenon has
been found to negatively influence group performance
(Ferrari & Psychyl 2012). Additionally, social loafing can
cause the ‘‘sucker effect,’’ whereby group members tend to
be less engaged at work when they perceive partners to be
getting a free ride from their efforts, and finally they all
become inattentive to their work (Dick et al. 2009).
Prior research observed that in the event of social
loafing, collaborative work is less effective than individual
work (Mefoh & Nwanosike 2012). In this situation, group
members tend to have lower expectations of the rewards
their goal-directed behavior will receive, and the group
thus ultimately fails to achieve its expected goals. Like-
wise, in class group learning, when social loafing is per-
ceived to occur in the group, members are likely to be less
engaged in their coursework thus reducing their collabo-
rative efforts to achieve expected goals. This phenomenon
then negatively affects group productivity, including
leading to poor efficiency, innovation, and quality of work,
and also negatively influences final group grades. Conse-
quently, this study proposed:
H4-1 Perceived social loafing negatively influences group
productivity.
H4-2 Perceived social loafing negatively influences group
final grades.
The Relationship between Social Interdependence
and Group Learning Performance
Numerous studies have confirmed that social interdepen-
dence influences group performance. When positive social
interdependence exists, group members are more willing to
promote one another’s goals and thus improving overall
group performance (Chen et al. 2013; Johnson et al. 1998).
Related studies have also highlighted that social interaction
in groups characterizes social interdependence. Experience
in positive social interaction can be crystallized into
explicit group norms, thus encouraging member identifi-
cation with and commitment to the group (Bartel & Sa-
avedra 2000). Briefly, positive social interdependence is a
prerequisite to the achievement of group goals (King &
Ganotice 2013; Tarricone & Luca 2002). Likewise,
perceived social interdependence in class can improve
student group learning performance in terms of both group
productivity and final grades. To conclude, this study
hypothesized that:
H5-1 Perceived social interdependence positively influ-
ences group productivity.
H5-2 Perceived social interdependence positively influ-
ences group final grades.
The Mediating Effect of Group Affective Tone
Given the above hypotheses, from H1 to H5, this study
reinforced that social loafing and social interdependence
strongly influence both group affective tone and group
learning performance. From the perspective of Affective
Events Theory (Weiss & Cropanzano 1996), individuals
respond emotionally to environmental events, and may
exhibit affection-driven behavior in response to emotional
stimuli. Therefore, when group members perceive social
loafing to occur in their group, their negative emotional
state reduces the overall work effort (Ferrari & Psychyl
2012). Meanwhile, when group members perceive high
social interdependence, their positive emotional state
enhances work performance (Tarricone & Luca 2002).
Accordingly, group affective tone can mediate the effects
of social loafing and social interdependence on both group
productivity and final grades. This study thus hypothesized
the following:
H6a-1 Perceived social loafing negatively influences
group productivity through group affective tone.
H6a-2 Perceived social loafing negatively influences
group final grades through group affective tone.
H6b-1 Perceived social interdependence positively influ-
ences group productivity through group affective tone.
H6b-2 Perceived social interdependence positively influ-
ences group final grades through group affective tone.
Figure 1 shows the proposed model and the hypotheses
based on the above theoretical foundation of this study.
Method
Data Collection
The study sample comprised college students studying
hospitality and tourism management. Group learning is one
of the most common educational methods used in college
curricula, and students must participate in small group
discussions, support each other and share responsibility for
C.-C. Teng, Y.-P. Luo
123
course performance. Accordingly, the learning groups that
students form for course projects are suitable units of
analysis in this study.
This study used convenience sampling to collect data via
a questionnaire survey distributed to 23 hospitality and
tourism related courses at four universities in Taiwan.
Students were issued a questionnaire dealing with their
group work in compulsory hospitality and tourism related
courses at the end of the semester. Before the survey, the
researchers obtained permission from the relevant lecturers,
and instructed the students on how to complete the ques-
tionnaire. The researchers also ensured that both students
and lecturers understood the role of learning groups in class.
A total of 660 questionnaires were distributed and 634 valid
questionnaires were retained after eliminating incomplete
questionnaires, comprising a total of 153 learning groups.
Regarding the demographic profile of the sample,
females comprised 61.8 % and males 38.2 %. Most
undergraduate students were sophomores (37.9 %) and
freshmen (33.6 %), followed by juniors (17.0 %), and
seniors (11.5 %). Most course learning groups were four-
member (39.2 %) and five-member (27.5 %), with small
numbers of groups that were three-member (19.6 %), six-
member (8.5 %), and two-member (5.2 %).
Measures
This study used four scales adopted from previous studies
for construct measurement. Two professors specialized in
organizational behavior were invited to assess the items of
each measure and provide useful suggestions. The mea-
sures were then modified to better fit the purposes of this
study.
• Perceived social loafing: This study adapted the six-
item Social Loafing Scale used by Liden et al. (2004) to
assess respondent perceptions of whether specific group
members engaged in social loafing. One of the items:
‘‘Spends less time helping other departments or
customers if other group members are present to help’’
was excluded because the current study mainly focused
on class learning groups. Finally, five items were
measured using a five-point Likert-type scale ranging
from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (= 1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’
(= 5). Example items include: ‘‘Defers responsibilities
he or she should assume to other group members,’’ and
‘‘Puts less effort into work when other group members
are around to do work.’’
• Perceived social interdependence: This study adapted
the six-item Task Interdependence Scale used by
Staples and Webster (2008) to assess respondent
perceptions of social interdependence toward their
class learning group. To better fit the study objectives,
the five items most relevant to the class learning group
represented in the study sample were used. The items
were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging
from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (= 1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’
(= 5). Example items include: ‘‘To perform well, it is
important for group members to rely on one another,’’
and ‘‘Jobs performed by different group members are
related to one another.’’
• Group affective tone: This study adopted the 10-item
Positive Affect Scale developed by Watson et al. (1988)
to assess respondent mood while participating in group
work during the past 2 weeks. The Positive Affect
Scale, as a subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS), has been confirmed to have good
reliability and validity, and can provide an independent
measure. The items were measured using a five-point
Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘very slightly or not at
all’’ (= 1) to ‘‘extremely’’ (= 5). Example items include
descriptors of emotional states, such as: ‘‘enthusiastic,’’
‘‘attentive,’’ ‘‘proud,’’ ‘‘inspired,’’ and ‘‘determined.’’
• Group learning performance: This study differentiated
two dimensions of group learning performance that can
be appraised both subjectively and objectively. The
H3-1
H1
H2
H4-1
H3-2
H4-2
H5-1
H5-2
H6a-1 H6a-2
H6b-1 H6b-2
Group affective tone
Perceived social
loafing
Perceived social
interdependence
Group learning performance
Group final grades
Group productivity
Fig. 1 The proposed model
Students’ Group Learning Performance
123
subjective performance measure includes the evalua-
tion of group productivity by the group members. This
study adapted the 11-item scale used by Allen et al.
(2004) to measure respondent self-perceptions involved
in group learning performance. However, two items,
including ‘‘adherence to budgets’’ and ‘‘gotten better
and better through their life-cycle’’, were excluded
because the respondents did not have ‘‘budgets’’ and
‘‘life-cycle experience’’ associated with their group
work. Thus, nine items were measured using a five-
point Likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘strongly dis-
agree’’ (= 1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (= 5). Example items
include: ‘‘efficiency,’’ ‘‘quality of work,’’ ‘‘quality of
innovations,’’ ‘‘adherence to schedules,’’ and ‘‘work
excellence.’’ On the other hand, the objective perfor-
mance measure includes the final group grade given by
the lecturer to offset the self-assessment bias.
Data Analysis
Since this study conducted analysis at the group level, it is
necessary to justify the aggregated individual data to the
group level. Therefore, rwg was used to assess the within-
group inter-rater agreement (James et al. 1984). When rwg
of a variable exceeds .70, representing within-group
agreement for that variable (George 1990; Klein & Koz-
lowski 2000), the aggregation of individual responses to
the group level is justifiable. In contrast, when rwg of a
variable in a group is less than .70, the group sample must
be excluded from the following analysis. The final results
revealed 123 usable learning groups (rwg ranging from .71
to .99) after eliminating 30 invalid group samples.
This study used structural equation modeling (SEM) to
test whether the proposed hypotheses reflect relationships
observed in empirical data. This study employed confir-
matory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the internal quality
of the measurement model. Additionally, path analysis was
employed to test the structural model and identify casual
relationships between measured variables.
Results
Measurement Model
Table 1 lists the means, standard deviations, and correla-
tions of variables ranging between -.15 and .64 (p \ .01),
and indicates low to medium correlations between vari-
ables. The overall quality of the measurement model was
assessed using CFA to validate the four model constructs.
To determine goodness of fit, Bagozzi and Yi (1988) pro-
posed that the standard factor loading be bounded between
.50 and .95. The acceptable threshold value for composite
reliability is above .70, while that for average variance
extracted (AVE) is above .50 (Anderson & Gerbing 1988).
Furthermore, modification indices (MI) can suggest reme-
dies to discrepancies between the proposed and estimated
models. MI exceeding 3.84 indicated that the model
required modification (Bagozzi & Yi 1988). According to
the analytical results, some fit indices of the measurement
model failed to reach the criteria of model fit, indicating the
hypothesized model needed modification.
After revising the model based on the above criteria, the
CFA results (see Table 2) demonstrated that all factor
loadings exceeded .50 (from .58 to .93) and were statisti-
cally significant (p \ .001). The AVE value for each
construct exceeded .50 (from .62 to .85), indicating good
convergent validity. The composite reliability of the con-
structs (from .91 to .94) also revealed internal consistency
among the items of each construct. Additionally, Table 1
shows that the estimated intercorrelations among all vari-
ables were less than the square roots of the AVE in each
construct. This provides support for discriminant validity
and thus reduces the potential influence of common method
variance (Hair et al. 2006; Podsakoff & Organ 1986).
Hypothesis Testing
This study performed SEM to determine the validity of the
proposed model and test the hypotheses. Because this study
used two measures to evaluate group learning performance,
namely group productivity and group final grades, each of
which (Model 1 and Model 2) was tested separately.
Group Productivity
This study used SEM to test the relationships between
variables in Model 1, using group productivity as the out-
come variable. The results of ML estimation provided
adequate fit to the data (v2 = 169.95; v2/df = 1.16;
RMSEA = .04; GFI = .88; CFI = .99; AGFI = .85)
(Bentler & Bonett 1980). Figure 2 shows the results of
hypothesis testing of Model 1. The results demonstrated
that perceived social loafing significantly affected group
affective tone, with a standardized path coefficient of -.31
(t = -3.17, p \ .01), supporting H1. Perceived social
loafing also significantly affected group productivity, with
a standardized path coefficient of -.19 (t = -2.52,
p \ .5), supporting H4-1. Briefly, perceived social loafing
significantly predicted both group affective tone and group
productivity. Furthermore, the results also demonstrated
that perceived social interdependence significantly influ-
enced group affective tone, with a standardized path
coefficient of .27 (t = 2.88, p \ .01). Social interdepen-
dence was also observed to influence group productivity,
C.-C. Teng, Y.-P. Luo
123
with a standardized path coefficient of .16 (t = 2.17,
p \ .05). Consequently, perceived social interdependence
significantly predicted both group affective tone and group
productivity, supporting H2 and H5-1. Finally, group
affective tone was confirmed to significantly influence
group productivity, and had a standardized path coefficient
of .63 (t = 6.25, p \ .001). This indicated that group
affective tone significantly predicted group productivity,
and thus H3-1 was supported.
With regard to the mediating effect of group affective
tone, the direct effect of perceived social loafing on group
productivity (-.19) was smaller than its indirect effect
(-.20), suggesting group affective tone fully mediates the
relationship between social loafing and group productivity.
Additionally, this study conducted the Sobel test to
examine the effect size of mediation. Preacher and Leo-
nardelli (2010) claimed that the mediation effect is sig-
nificant when Z value exceeds 1.96. Since the Z value of
the effect of group affective tone was 2.83, this result
supported H6a-1. Furthermore, the direct effect of perceived
social interdependence on group productivity (.16) was
smaller than the indirect effect (.17), which revealed that
group affective tone also fully mediates the relationship
between social interdependence and group productivity.
The Sobel test further showed that the Z value was 2.61,
indicating this finding supported H6b-1.
Table 1 Correlations, means, and SD of variables
Means SD 1 2 3 4
1. Perceived social loafing 3.00 .79 .88
2. Perceived social interdependence 3.77 .64 -.15 .92
3. Group affective tone 3.02 .72 -.21* .32** .74
4. Group productivity 3.48 .60 -.33** .40** .64** .79
Note: The square roots of AVE for discriminant validity are bolded along the diagonal
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01
Table 2 CFA results
Constructs and items Standardized
factor loadings
t-Value Composite
reliability
AVE
Perceived social loafing (PSL) .91 .77
PSL 1: Defers responsibilities he or she should assume to other group members .84 –
PSL 2: Puts forth less effort on the job when other group members are around
to do the work
.86 11.82***
PSL 3: Does not do his or her share of the work .92 12.55***
Perceived social interdependence (PSI) .94 .85
PSI 2: For the group to perform well, members must communicate well .93 –
PSI 3: To achieve high performance, it is important to rely on each other .91 16.78***
PSI 4: Jobs performed by different group members are related to one another .92 17.49***
Group affective tone (GAT) .89 .55
GAT 1: Interested .73 –
GAT 2: Excited .82 8.84***
GAT 3: Strong .58 6.05***
GAT 4: Enthusiastic .83 8.79***
GAT 5: Proud .68 7.15***
GAT 6: Inspired .78 8.27***
GAT 8: Determined .76 7.94***
Group productivity (GP) .91 .62
GP 1: Efficiency .84 –
GP 2: Quality of work .84 11.21***
GP 3: Quality of innovations .78 9.97***
GP 4: Adherence to schedules .74 9.33***
GP 5: Work excellence .82 10.79***
GP 8: …met or exceeded your expectations in general .67 8.15***
Students’ Group Learning Performance
123
Group Final Grades
When group final grades were the outcome variable, the
results of ML estimation of the proposed model demon-
strated adequate fit to the data (v2 = 87.22; v2/df = 1.20;
RMSEA = .04; GFI = .91; CFI = .99; AGFI = .87).
Figure 3 shows the results of hypothesis testing of Model
2, which indicated that perceived social loafing signifi-
cantly affected group affective tone, with standardized path
coefficient of -.31 (t = -3.17, p \ .01), supporting H1.
Moreover, social loafing significantly influenced group
final grades, with a standardized path coefficient of -.31
(t = -3.90, p \ .001). H4-2 thus was supported, indicating
social loafing significantly predicted group final grades.
Additionally, social interdependence was confirmed to
significantly influence group affective tone, with a stan-
dardized path coefficient of .27 (t = 2.88, p \ .01). The
same pattern holds for the effect of social interdependence
on group final grades, with a standardized path coefficient
of .59 (t = 7.68, p \ .001). These results revealed that
social interdependence significantly predicted group
affective tone and final grades, and thus H2 and H5-2 were
supported. However, the analytical results showed that
group affective tone did not significantly influence group
final grade, with a standardized path coefficient of .00
(t = .01, p [ .05). This demonstrated that group affective
tone did not predict group final grades, and thus H3-2 was
not supported. Accordingly, group affective tone is not a
significant mediator in Model 2, indicating that neither
H6a-2 nor H6b-2 was supported.
Discussion
The empirical results of this study support most of the
study hypotheses. First, perceived social loafing has been
identified negatively affecting group affective tone and
group learning performance. This finding is consistent with
previous studies (Felps et al. 2006; Karau & Williams
1993; Mefoh & Nwanosike 2012; Rutte 2003; West et al.
2004), indicating that social loafing drives group members
to develop contagious negative emotions, that can even-
tually cause poor group work outcomes. Second, this study
demonstrates that social interdependence positively influ-
ences group affective tone and group learning performance,
which reflects the findings of previous research on insur-
ance sales teams (Tsai & Chi 2008), suggesting a need to
enhance positive group interdependence that can drive
positive affective tone within the group to increase group
performance. The study findings also support related work
(Chen et al. 2013; King & Ganotice 2013; Johnson &
Johnson 1998; Tarricone & Luca 2002), demonstrating
-.31**
.16*.27**
-.19*
.63***
e20
.74
.82
.56
.83
.75
.78
.70
Group affective tone
GAT 2
GAT 3
GAT 1
GAT 4
GAT 5
GAT 8
GAT 6
e7
e13
e12
e11
e8
e9
e10
.92
.87
.84PSL 1
PSL 2
PSL 3
Perceived social
loafing
e3
e2
e1
.93
.91
.93PSI 2
PSI 3
PSI 4
Perceived social
interdependence
e4
e5
e6
e21
.69
.84
.75
.79
.84
.84
Group productivity
GP 3
GP 4
GP 5
GP 2
GP 1
GP 8
e16
e17
e19
e18
e15
e14
Fig. 2 Results of SEM of Model 1
C.-C. Teng, Y.-P. Luo
123
positive group interdependence among group members can
build strong interpersonal bonds that are essential to group
learning effectiveness, such as group productivity and
learning achievement. As Kidwell et al. (1997) indicated,
when group members share mutual reliance and trust, they
can create a strong psychological affiliation with one
another and thus create a pleasant work environment that
improves work performance and organizational citizenship
behavior.
Third, this study examines the way group affective tone
mediates the relationship between social loafing/social
interdependence and group learning performance (i.e.
group productivity and group final grades). The findings
support that group affective tone significantly mediates the
relationship between social loafing/social interdependence
and group productivity. Meanwhile, this mediating effect
indicates that group leaders or instructors can deteriorate/
enhance group productivity by generating negative/positive
group affective tone from member perceived social loafing/
social interdependence. This finding also supports those of
previous studies (Barsade 2002; Dommeyer 2007; Gra-
witch et al. 2003; Njie et al. 2013; Karau & Williams
1993), highlighting the important role of group collective
mood in mediating social loafing/social interdependence
and group learning performance. The research results thus
not only identify critical influences on group learning
performance, but also link group emotional reactions and
productivity in the context of hospitality and tourism
education.
However, group affective tone does not significantly
mediate the relationship between social loafing/social
interdependence and group final grades. One possible
explanation for this finding is that respondents are mainly
concerned with their perceptions of social loafing/social
interdependence in the group, and the strong direct rela-
tionships between social loafing/social interdependence
and group final grades thus decrease the mediating effect of
group affective tone. Moreover, the effect of group affec-
tive tone in response to the emotional state of group
members is likely to be reduced because course instructors
e20
.73
.82
.57
.83
.76
.79
.69
Group affective tone
GAT 2
GAT 3
GAT 1
GAT 4
GAT 5
GAT 8
GAT 6
e7
e13
e12
e11
e8
e9
e10
.91
.87
.84PSL 1
PSL 2
PSL 3
Perceived social
loafing
e3
e2
e1
.92
.91
.93PSI 2
PSI 3
PSI 4
Perceived social
interdependence
e4
e5
e6
e21
Group final grades
-.31**
.59***.27**
-.31***
.00
Fig. 3 Results of SEM of Model 2
Students’ Group Learning Performance
123
independently evaluated group final grades. Finally, the
measurement of group affective tone within the latest 2
weeks may also weaken the effect of group final grades,
which are used to reflect overall learning group perfor-
mance over a semester.
Conclusion
This study investigates the group learning experience of
hospitality and tourism students and increases under-
standing of how social loafing, social interdependence and
group affective tone, and their relationships influence
group learning performance. The study results show that
perceived social loafing/social interdependence negatively/
positively influences group affective tone and group
learning performance. This suggests that educational
practitioners or group leaders should focus on using social
and multi-teaching skills to promote positive social inter-
dependence within a group to help students achieve group
learning effectiveness, including both group productivity
and group final grades. To prevent social loafing, instruc-
tors should adjust final student grades according to their
effort and contribution to the group work by peer assess-
ment or observation. Additionally, group affective tone
significantly mediates the effect of social loafing/social
interdependence on group productivity, but not on group
final grades. The findings suggest that educational practi-
tioners or group leaders should attend to members’ per-
ceptions and affective responses evoked by interpersonal
interactions within the learning group to increase group
productivity. Therefore, creating a friendly, sharing, and
communicating atmosphere in each learning group that
helps fuel group member altruism and trust can enhance a
positive interpersonal interaction which benefits the effi-
ciency and quality of group work.
Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
This study has some limitations that need to be improved in
future research. First, this study used convenience sampling
and targeted hospitality and tourism undergraduate students
at four universities in Taiwan, resulting in a small sampling
frame. Future investigations could enlarge the sampling
frame to include different countries and thus engage in a
cross-cultural study of group learning effectiveness. Sec-
ond, this study focused on the effect of psychological pro-
cesses on group learning performance. Future studies could
examine the influences of individual differences, personal
characteristics, and combinations of group members on
group learning effectiveness to provide additional under-
standing of group learning antecedents and outcomes.
References
Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group
projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfac-
tion. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255–264.
Allen, K., Bergin, R., & Pickar, K. (2004). Exploring trust, group
satisfaction, and performance in geographically dispersed and
co-located university technology commercialization teams. In
Proceedings of the NCIIA 8th Annual Meeting: Education that
Works, March 18–20, 2004.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Ashkanasy, N. M. (2003). Emotions in organizations: A multi-level
perspective. Multi-Level Issues in Organization Behaviors and
Strategy, 2, 9–54.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. The Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1),
744–794.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its
influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly,
47, 644–675.
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of
work group moods. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2),
197–231.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and
goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Bowling, N. A., Beehr, T. A., Wagner, S. H., & Libkuman, T. M.
(2005). Adaptation-Level theory, opponent process theory, and
dispositions: An integrated approach to the stability of job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1044–1053.
Chen, C. T., Chen, C. F., Hu, J. L., & Wang, C. C. (2013). A study on
the influence of self-concept, social support and academic
achievement on occupational choice intention. Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0153-2.
Chen, X., Lam, S. S. K., Naumann, S. E., & Schaubroeck, J. (2005).
Group citizenship behavior: Conceptualization and preliminary
tests of its antecedents and consequences. Management and
Organization Review, 1, 273–300.
Comer, D. R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups.
Human Relations, 48(6), 647–667.
Dick, R. V., Tissington, P. A., & Hertel, G. (2009). Do many hands male
light work? How to overcome social loafing and gain motivation in
work teams. European Business Review, 21(3), 233–245.
Dommeyer, C. J. (2007). Using the diary method to deal with social
loafers on the group project: Its effects on peer evaluations,
group behavior, and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Education,
29, 175–188.
Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and
why bad apples spoil the barrel: Negative group members and
dysfunctional groups. Research in Organization Behaviors, 27,
175–222.
Ferrari, J. R., & Psychyl, T. A. (2012). ‘‘If I wait, my partner will do
it:’’ The role of conscientiousness as a mediator in the relation of
academic procrastination and perceived social loafing. North
American Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 13–24.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107–116.
George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived
social loafing in organizations. The Academy of Management
Journal, 35(1), 191–202.
George, J. M. (1995). Leader positive mood and group performance.
The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 25(9), 778–794.
C.-C. Teng, Y.-P. Luo
123
George, J. M. (1996). Group affective tone. In West, M. A. (Ed.),
Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 77–93). Wiley.
Gerdy, K. B. (1998). If Socrates only knew: Expanding law class
discourse. Chicago, IL, USA: Law School Computing.
Gillies, R. M., & Ashman, A. F. (Eds.). (2003). Cooperative learning:
The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., & Kramer, T. J. (2003). Effects of
member mood states on creative performance in temporary
workgroups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
7, 41–54.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and
intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L.
M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 269–313). CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hair, J., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hassanien, A. (2006). Student experience of group work and group
assessment in higher education. Journal of Teaching in Travel &
Tourism, 6(1), 17–39.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-
group interrater reliability with and without response bias.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and
competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning,
values, and culturally plural classrooms. London: Cassell, PLC.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, F. P. (2000). Joining together: Group
theory and group skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Social interdependence
theory and cooperative learning: The teacher’s role. In R.
M. Gillies, A. F. Ashman, & J. Terwel (Eds.), The Teacher’s
Role in Implementing Cooperative Learning in the Classroom
(pp. 9–37). New York: Springer Science ? Business Media LLC.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology
success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative
learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (1998). Cooperation in
the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative
learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. School of Educa-
tion and Human Development, George Washington University,
Washington, DC.
Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job
satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 67–98.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-
analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.
Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesive-
ness and organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel
analysis using work group and individuals. Journal of Manage-
ment, 23(6), 775–793.
King, R. B., & Ganotice, F. A. (2013). The social underpinnings of
motivation and achievement: Investigating the role of parents,
teachers, and peers on academic outcomes. Asia-Pacific Educa-
tion Researcher. doi:10.1007/s40299-013-0148-z.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso:
Critical steps in conceptualizing and conducting multilevel
research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.
Liden, R., Wayne, S., Jaworski, R., & Bennet, N. (2004). Socialloafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30(2),
285–304.
Lu, J., Yu, C. S., & Liu, C. (2003). Learning style, learning patterns,
and learning performance in a WebCT-based MIS course.
Information & Management, 40, 497–507.
Mason, C. M., & Griffin, M. A. (2003). Group task satisfaction: The
group’s shared attitudes to its task and work environment. Group
and Organization Management, 30(6), 625–652.
Mefoh, P. C., & Nwanosike, C. L. (2012). Effects of group size and
expectancy of reward on social loafing. IFE Psychologia, 20(1),
229–240.
Mudrack, P. E. (1989). Defining group cohesiveness: A legacy of
confusion? Small Group Research, 20(1), 37–49.
Njie, B., Asimiran, S., & Basri, R. (2013). An exploratory study of the
free riding debacle in a Malaysian university: Students’
perspectives. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(3),
257–262.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organiza-
tional research—Problems and prospects. Journal of Manage-
ment, 12(4), 531–544.
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2010). Calculation for the Sobel
test: An interactive calculation tool for mediation tests.
Retrieved from http://www.people.ku.edu/*preacher/sobel/
sobel.htm.
Rutte, C. G. (2003). Social loafing in teams. In M. A. West, D.
Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of
organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp.
361–378). Chichester: Wiley.
Schnake, M. (1991). Equity in effort: The ‘‘sucker effect’’ in co-acting
groups. Journal of Management, 17, 41–56.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel
Psychology, 40, 437–454.
Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust,
task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in
teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 617–640.
Tarricone, P., & Luca, J. (2002). Employees, teamwork and social
interdependence—a formula for successful business? Team
Performance Management: An International Journal, 8(3/4),
54–59.
Tsai, W. C., & Chi, N. W. (2008). Exploring antecedents, boundaries,
and individual-level consequences of group affective tone.
Organization and Management, 1(1), 1–37.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and
validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The
PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54(6), 1063–1070.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A
theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences
of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 18, 1–74.
West, M. A., Hirst, G., Richter, A., & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve
steps to heaven: successfully managing change through devel-
oping innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Orga-
nizational Psychology, 13(2), 269–299.
Williams, D. L., Beard, J. D., & Rymer, J. (1991). Team projects:
Achieving their full potential. Journal of Marketing Education,
13, 45–53.
Williams, K. D., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Social loafing and social
compensation: The effects of expectations of co-worker perfor-
mance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(4),
570–581.
Students’ Group Learning Performance
123