How many times have you heard people describe themselves as consistent, or perhaps proudly reflected on your own consistency? Statements like “I’m a good person who always helps others” or “I’m a hardworking woman who always does everything in the best possible way” represent people’s beliefs about themselves, reflecting a stable and coherent self-image. We tend to believe that our traits are fixed and that our values and principles will always guide us, no matter the situation we find ourselves in.

In reality, human behavior is influenced by a wide range of factors and changes accordingly. One of these factors is the number of people surrounding us in a given situation. The size of the group affects us more than we realize: it shapes our sense of responsibility and influences how we respond to events happening around us.

Various social-psychological phenomena describe situations in which we change our behavior according to the context, and these are influenced, among other things, by the size of the group we are part of. One such phenomenon is social loafing – our tendency, under certain circumstances, to put in less effort when working on a group task compared to the effort we would invest if the task were solely our responsibility. Additionally, the larger the group, the less effort we tend to invest.

One reason for this is that in large groups, we may feel that our effort and contribution are less appreciated, which can lower our motivation. Naturally, the nature of the group affects this phenomenon — it weakens, and may even disappear, in a cohesive group or when group identity is strong. The nature of the shared task also plays a role: for example, a complex task that group members perceive as important or feel essential to its success is less susceptible to social loafing.


In large groups, we may feel that our effort and contribution are less appreciated, which can lower our motivation. Illustration of social loafing | Wikimedia, VIVIFYCHANGECATALYST

Breaking Down Social Loafing

A study that aimed to examine the factors influencing social loafing in existing teams found that group size affects not only behavior in laboratory settings—where such behaviors are typically studied—but also in natural environments, like workplaces. The study involved 23 managers and 168 employees from two different companies. The managers participated in structured interviews in which they were asked to assess the behavior and contributions of their team members. The employees completed questionnaires assessing how visible and appreciated they felt their contributions were, whether they believed they were receiving fair compensation, to what extent social loafing characterized their teammates, and how much interaction they had with other team members during work. The study also measured team size and the level of cohesion among members.

The study identified three psychological factors that increased social loafing: when employees felt dependent on their teammates, when they felt their efforts were less visible, and when they perceived their compensation as unfair. As the researchers had expected, a connection was found between group size and social loafing—larger groups showed more of the phenomenon. In addition, high team cohesion was found to reduce social loafing. Interestingly, employees who believed their teammates were “slacking off” tended to put in more effort themselves, perhaps in an attempt to compensate for what they perceived as a lack of effort from their coworkers.

Another social-psychological phenomenon influenced by group size—and which also helps explain social loafing—is diffusion of responsibility. When a task is assigned to a group, responsibility becomes more dispersed as the group grows. In large groups, we may feel our contribution isn’t essential to success or expect someone else to take charge, leading us to act and initiate less.

These phenomena are relevant across many areas, including education and employment. Research on social loafing and diffusion of responsibility can shed light, for instance, on the optimal group size for different tasks. Indeed, studies have shown that the ideal size for most tasks is five participants.

To reduce social loafing, it’s helpful to assign specific roles, clearly define each member’s individual responsibilities, implement intermediate evaluation checkpoints, and provide personal feedback that reflects each member’s contribution and level of participation.


Studies have shown that the more bystanders there are, the less likely help will be offered. A child walks past a man sleeping on the sidewalk, Canada | Wikimedia, The Blackbird

Standing By

The bystander effect—the human tendency to be less likely to help others when additional people are present—is also influenced by group size. Studies have shown that the greater the number of bystanders, the lower the likelihood that help will be offered.

In one study examining brain activity while participants watched videos depicting a person in distress and varying numbers of witnesses, researchers found that brain areas associated with preparing to take action were less active when more bystanders appeared in the video. Meanwhile, activity in areas related to visual processing and attention increased. The researchers attributed this increase to the higher complexity of the scene and the richer visual input the participants were exposed to.

The bystander effect’s connection to group size can be explained through diffusion of responsibility: when more people are present at the scene, we tend to assume that someone else will step in to help the person in need. Another possible explanation is that when more people are around, we become more self-conscious and fear being judged by others for our actions. In ambiguous situations—when it’s unclear whether help is needed—we also tend to look to others’ reactions, using their behavior as a cue for what’s expected or appropriate. If we see that others are not reacting, we often conclude that the person isn’t really in distress and that there’s no need to intervene.

A famous case that brought attention to the bystander effect is the story of Kitty Genovese, who was attacked in 1964 outside her apartment in New York. According to a report published in a newspaper following the incident, 38 witnesses heard her screams—some even saw parts of the attack—but none tried to help or called the police. Many years later, the accuracy of that report and the witnesses’ behavior was called into question, but the case nevertheless became highly influential, sparking significant research into the phenomenon.


Raising awareness of the prevalence and impact of sexual violence may help reduce the bystander effect. A man places his hands on a woman’s shoulders and chest | Shutterstock, yamel photography

 

What Can Be Done?

An article discussing the bystander effect in cases of sexual violence offers several strategies—based on insights from community psychology research—that may help reduce the phenomenon. These include raising awareness about the prevalence and impact of sexual violence, increasing individuals’ sense of responsibility within the community, and teaching practical skills that provide bystanders with the tools they need to intervene effectively in such situations.

The researchers also emphasize the importance of creating community norms that support and encourage intervention, publicizing cases in which people helped those in distress to promote positive role models, and clarifying what constitutes an emergency in order to reduce ambiguity in such scenarios. Although the article focuses on sexual violence, these strategies can be relevant to other types of emergencies as well.

What often seem like fixed personality traits—such as “I always help others” or “I’m a hardworking woman”—are, in fact, complex characteristics that also depend on the situation. Awareness of phenomena like social loafing, diffusion of responsibility, and the bystander effect can help us become more engaged when necessary, even as part of a large group.

Recognizing the influence of group size on our sense of responsibility and effort not only helps us better understand ourselves and the world around us—it also allows us to act more thoughtfully and intentionally.