This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bartis, S. Articles by Harkins, S. G. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bartis, S. Articles by Harkins, S. G. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluation and Performance

A Two-Edged Knife

Northeastern University

Kate Szymanski

Northeastern University

Stephen G. Harkins

Northeastern University

Social loafing research has shown that participants working together put out less effort than participants working individually (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979), apparently a result of the fact that evaluation is not possible when outputs are pooled (Harkins & Jackson, 1985). On the other hand, research on creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1979), suggests that minimizing the expectation of evaluation facilitates performance. In the present study, treatment conditions typically used in social loafing and creativity research were incorporated in a single design. Participants were asked either to generate as many uses as possible for a common object or to generate uses that were as creative as possible. Participants were also led to believe either that their outputs could be evaluated or that their outputs would be pooled with those of others. The performance of participants given number instructions was facilitated by the prospect of evaluation. However, when asked to be creative, participants whose outputs were pooled performed better than participants whose outputs could be evaluated. These data suggest that on tasks that require creativity, conditions that are thought to lead to "loafing" can have the opposite effect.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 2, 242-251 (1988)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167288142003


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. A. Nijstad and W. Stroebe How the Group Affects the Mind: A Cognitive Model of Idea Generation in Groups Personality and Social Psychology Review, August 1, 2006; 10(3): 186 - 213. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. E. Shalley, J. Zhou, and G. R. Oldham The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? Journal of Management, December 1, 2004; 30(6): 933 - 958. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Gagne and M. Zuckerman Performance and Learning Goal Orientations as Moderators of Social Loafing and Social Facilitation Small Group Research, October 1, 1999; 30(5): 524 - 541. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. C. Roy, S. Gauvin, and M. Limayem Electronic Group Brainstorming: The Role of Feedback on Productivity Small Group Research, May 1, 1996; 27(2): 215 - 247. [Abstract]

				K. Szymanski and S. G. Harkins Self-Evaluation and Creativity Pers Soc Psychol Bull, June 1, 1992; 18(3): 259 - 265. [Abstract]

				K. L. Bettenhausen Five Years of Groups Research: What We Have Learned and What Needs to Be Addressed Journal of Management, June 1, 1991; 17(2): 345 - 381. [Abstract] [PDF]