R E G U L A R A R T I C L E
Effects of Perceived Social Loafing, Social Interdependence,
and Group Affective Tone on Students’ Group Learning
Performance
Chih-Ching Teng• Yu-Ping Luo
Published online: 12 February 2014 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 aggregaaccoun-ted 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] 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 & Luca2002). 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 & Webster2008; 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 (Ashkanasy2003; Bowling et al.2005; Judge & Larsen2001). 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 & Chi2008). 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’Brien2008). The existence
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 & Luca2002). 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 & Johnson2008). 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 & Johnson2008). 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; George1995), 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 perforperfor-mance 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.
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 (Rutte2003; 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 & Psychyl2012). 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 & Nwanosike2012). 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-avedra2000). 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.
Figure1 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
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-four-member (27.5 %), with small numbers of groups that were three-member (19.6 %), six-member (8.5 %), and two-six-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
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 dis-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, rwgwas 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 (rwgranging 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
Table1 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 & Gerbing1988). 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 & Yi1988). 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 Table2) 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, Table1
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 & Organ1986).
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). Figure2 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,
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 H3-1was 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***
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). Figure3shows 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). H4-2thus 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 H2and H5-2were 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 H3-2was not supported. Accordingly, group affective tone is not a significant mediator in Model 2, indicating that neither H6a-2 nor H6b-2was 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 & Nwanosike2012; Rutte2003; 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 & Chi2008), 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 .84 PSL 1 PSL 2 PSL 3 Perceived social loafing e3 e2 e1 .93 .91 .93 PSI 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
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 .84 PSL 1 PSL 2 PSL 3 Perceived social loafing e3 e2 e1 .92 .91 .93 PSI 2 PSI 3 PSI 4 Perceived social interdependence e4 e5 e6 e21 Group final grades -.31** .59*** .27** -.31*** .00
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.
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). Social loafing: 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.
