Page 2964
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Understanding Social Loafing Among Senior High School Learners:
Proposed Evidence-Based Teaching-Learning Intervention Strategies
Aleth Yvonne B. Busa, Jean F. Quijano, Renato S. Tancontian
A Research Presented to the Department of Education Division of Tacloban City Tacloban City, Leyte
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600217
Received: 12 July 2026; Accepted: 17 July 2026; Published: 25 July 2026
ABSTRACT
This mixed-methods explanatory sequential study investigated the phenomenon of social loafing among Grade
12 learners at Leyte National High School in the Philippines. Recognizing that collaborative learning is a
cornerstone of the Philippine Department of Education curriculum, this study addressed a critical gap in local
literature by exploring the extent, causes, consequences, and solutions to social loafing within this specific
institutional context. Quantitative data were collected through surveys, followed by qualitative data gathered via
in depth interviews to provide deeper explanation of the initial findings.
The findings reveal a notable self-other discrepancy, where learners rarely identify themselves as loafers but
readily recognize loafing behavior in their peers. Key causes of social loafing include the absence of individual
grading, the perception that personal input is unnecessary for group success, large group sizes, and unclear
individual accountability. Qualitative analysis uncovered additional personal factors such as laziness, lack of
interest, lack of competence, fear of judgment, and low academic ambition. Group dynamic factors include poor
communication and permissive leadership, while external factors encompass home responsibilities and
technological constraints.
Consequences of social loafing extend beyond poor academic performance to include delayed submissions,
overburdened active members experiencing stress and burnout, resentment and conflict among team members,
decreased motivation, and damaged group cohesion. Proposed solutions include establishing clear and equal
roles, implementing individual grading and peer evaluations, applying meaningful consequences for non-
contribution, fostering open communication, setting strict deadlines with monitoring, and reducing group size.
The study concludes that addressing social loafing requires structural, and relational interventions to create
equitable and productive collaborative learning environments.
INTRODUCTION
Background and Rationale
Collaborative learning is a fundamental component of the Philippine Department of Education (DepEd)
curriculum. The Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program explicitly state that the curriculum
should employ pedagogical approaches that are not only constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, differentiated,
and integrative but also collaborative in nature (DepEd Order No. 021, s. 2019). This mandate is grounded in
the belief that collaborative approaches allow learners to share ideas, thereby developing the values of
cooperation, respect, camaraderie, and tolerance. Furthermore, the MATATAG Curriculum reinforces the
alignment of basic education with global standards and competencies, including critical thinking, creativity,
communication, and collaboration (DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024).
Building on these premises, collaborative learning holds significant educational value. Not only it cultivates
creativity, communication, and social skills through shared tasks and discussion but also promotes higher-order
thinking as learners explain, argue, and defend their ideas. Effective teamwork is indeed essential to the learning
process. Working in groups helps learners develop problem-solving, communication, and critical thinking skills
Page 2965
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
while providing opportunities to learn from peers. Exposure to diverse ideas within a team enriches individual
perspectives and leads to better decisions and outcomes.
The importance of teamwork within the education system is further highlighted in DepEd Order No. 035, s.
2016. Collaborative learning activities, such as group projects, peer discussions, and cooperative learning
exercises, are encouraged not only among learners but also among teachers. Educators are mandated to engage
in collaborative learning sessions with colleagues to address shared challenges through Learning Action Cell
(LAC) sessions. This mandate is reinforced by the organization of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs),
which aim to encourage teacher collaboration through mentoring programs and team teaching to improve
instructional practice.
Despite the numerous benefits of collaborative or cooperative learning, widely regarded as one of the most
effective educational approaches, its implementation requires thoughtful and intentional design to ensure that all
group members actively participate and that learning objectives are met. A persistent challenge in group work is
the tendency for individuals to reduce their effort when performing collectively, a phenomenon known as social
loafing.
In a study by Riwoe (2022) titled "Social Loafing Behavior in Group Task Completion of University
Students," findings revealed that students experienced social loafing when working on group tasks. The study
also indicated that this behavior threatens both productivity and the quality of learning outcomes. Given these
negative effects, research on social loafing continues to stimulate further investigation and re-examination to
achieve a holistic understanding and develop effective strategic responses. Nevertheless, empirical literature
remains varied and diverse regarding the factors associated with social loafing and its impacts. Riwoe (2022)
further revealed that social loafing is often poorly addressed and remains widespread, underscoring the need for
more research in this area.
Despite the growing body of international and national research on social loafing, no study to date has
specifically investigated this phenomenon among senior high school learners at Leyte National High School
(LNHS). This gap in the local literature further justifies the present inquiry, as contextual factors, such as school
culture, class size, grading practices, and teacher facilitation styles, may uniquely shape how social loafing
manifests and how it can best be addressed within this specific institutional setting. In addition, LNHS has more
than 3,000 senior high school learners and sufficient to provide the needed information is another reason why it
was chosen as the study site.
The DepEd is mandated to provide quality basic education for all Filipino learners and must ensure that learning
outcomes are achieved while addressing all hindering factors. As stipulated in DepEd Order No. 39, s.
2016, Teaching and Learning is identified as the first theme in the DepEd Research Agenda. This order
highlights the importance of an effective teaching-learning process and implies that any aspect, component, or
factor that could adversely affect teaching and learning outcomes is a matter of grave concern that must be
examined and explored. This policy directive provides a compelling rationale for the present study, which seeks
not only to explore the factors and impacts associated with social loafing but also to investigate how these driving
factors may be mitigated or prevented. The goal is to ensure that the quality education envisioned by DepEd is
not compromised.
To achieve a comprehensive and holistic understanding of this phenomenon, a mixed-methods approach,
combining quantitative and qualitative methodologies, was deemed most appropriate. This design allows the
researchers to capture both the breadth and depth of social loafing as it manifests among senior high school
learners. By exploring all possible factors associated with social loafing, the results of this study will provide
valuable support to teachers who utilize group activities in lesson delivery. Educators may adopt evidence-based
strategies to mitigate social loafing and preserve the effectiveness of teamwork and collaboration in their
classrooms. Furthermore, this study may generate suggestions and recommendations for preventing social
loafing, grounded in the perspectives of the learners themselves.
Page 2966
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Statement of the Problem
This study aimed to explore the factors and impacts associated with social loafing among senior high school
learners of Leyte National High School (LNHS) during School Year 2025–2026. Specifically, this study sought
to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the perceived extent or prevalence of social loafing among senior high school learners at LNHS,
as reported by the learners themselves?
2. What are the perceived causes and consequences of social loafing among senior high school learners at
LNHS?
3. Why does social loafing occur among learners during collaborative or group work, from the perspective
of senior high school learners at LNHS?
4. How does social loafing affect group performance in terms of productivity, output quality, and group
dynamics?
5. What intervention strategies may be developed and proposed based on the findings to mitigate or prevent
social loafing among senior high school learners at LNHS?
Scope and Delimitations
The present study focused on exploring the factors and impacts associated with social loafing among senior high
school learners of LNHS during School Year 2025–2026. To develop a deeper understanding of this
phenomenon, a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches (explanatory mixed-methods design) was
utilized. The investigation specifically targeted the following: learners enrolled in Grade12 as respondents and
participants of the study from the Academic and Technical-Vocational-Livelihood (TVL) tracks. The
quantitative data were gathered through surveys, followed by qualitative data collected through in-depth
interviews and focus group discussions.
The present study was deliberately limited to Grade 12 learners. It did not include Grades 7–11, as social loafing
behaviors may manifest differently across developmental stages and the researcher prioritized senior high school
learners, particularly Grade 12 due to their more frequent engagement in collaborative tasks and group projects.
The study was confined exclusively to LNHS for a context-specific understanding of social loafing within a
single institutional setting before any potential replication. Thus, findings were specific to the LNHS context
and were not intended for generalization to other schools, divisions, or regions without further validation. This
delimitation was set to ensure depth over breadth, given the available time and resources.
The present study acknowledged the following limitations:
The primary data collection method relied on self-
reported surveys and interviews. Learners may have underreported or overreported their social loafing behaviors
due to social desirability bias, lack of self-awareness, or fear of consequences. The unique culture, student
demographics, and institutional practices of LNHS may limit the applicability of results elsewhere. The study
was conducted within a limited time frame (school year 2025-2026). A longer study period might have revealed
different patterns.
In the qualitative phase, the researcher's interpretations of data transcripts may have been subject to personal
bias. Although strategies such as member checking and peer debriefing were employed, complete objectivity
could not be guaranteed.
Significance of Study
To date, no investigation on social loafing has been conducted at Leyte National High School (LNHS). This gap
in local research necessitates the present study, which aims to address the phenomenon of social loafing among
senior high school learners within this specific institutional context. Accordingly, the results of this study will
contribute to the broader body of knowledge on social loafing in educational settings. More importantly, they
will provide critical, context-specific information necessary for the development of intervention strategies
designed to reduce the risks of or eliminate social loafing at LNHS.
Page 2967
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The anticipated findings are expected to hold significant value for teachers. Educators will receive evidence-
based inputs that they can directly utilize to mitigate social loafing, thereby preserving the effectiveness of
teamwork and collaborative learning in their classrooms. Furthermore, the results will also be beneficial
to school administrators. School leaders will be equipped with essential data needed to formulate and implement
institutional strategies that improve overall teaching–learning practices across the school. Ultimately, this study
supports the Department of Education's mission to promote quality basic education by fostering accountable,
productive, and equitable collaborative learning environments for all learners at LNHS.
Definition of Key Terms
Causes of social loafing. This term refers to the factors or conditions that trigger or increase the likelihood of
social loafing behavior (Oxford Reference, n.d.).
Effects of social loafing. This term refers to the consequences or outcomes resulting from social loafing
behavior, both at the individual and group levels (Oxford Reference, n.d.).
Group dynamics. This term is defined as the observable interactions, relationships, and behavioral patterns
among group members, including communication, cooperation, role distribution, conflict resolution, and mutual
accountability during collaborative tasks.
Productivity. This term refers to the efficiency with which individuals or groups convert inputs, such as time
and labor, into valuable outputs. In practice, it measures how effectively tasks are completed within a reasonable
use of time and resources. High productivity thus signifies not only completing tasks, but doing so optimally,
avoiding unnecessary waste.
Quality of Output. This term refers to the standard of the final product or service. It reflects how well the output
fulfills its intended purpose, meeting the necessary requirements and expectations set by the teachers or the class.
Senior High School Learners. This term refer to learners in Grades 11 and 12 under the Philippine K to 12
Program (DepEd, 2013), typically preparing for higher education, entrepreneurship, or skills development. The
K to 12 Program includes six years of primary education, four years of Junior High School, and two years of
Senior High School (Official Gazette, 2012).
Teaching-Learning Intervention Strategies. These terms refer to evidence-based, planned approaches derived
from participant perspectives, designed to address, reduce, or prevent social loafing in educational settings and
enhance teaching–learning experiences.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents a review of relevant concepts, ideas, and findings from various literatures that have
provided necessary information and valuable insights into the topic under investigation. The chapter is organized
into three main sections: Conceptual Literature, Conceptual Framework, and Related Studies.
Conceptual Literature
The Department of Education (DepEd) in the Philippines actively promotes collaboration in the classroom as a
key pedagogical approach. However, collaboration is not limited to learners; DepEd also emphasizes
professional collaboration among teachers to improve instruction and student outcomes. This emphasis is aligned
with the K to 12 Basic Education Program, which highlights 21st-century skills such as communication,
creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration (DepEd Order No. 021, s. 2019; DepEd Order No. 010, s. 2024).
Despite the recognized benefits of collaborative learning, group activities, if not managed effectively, can
unfortunately lead to a phenomenon where some individuals contribute less effort than they would when working
alone. This behavior is known as social loafing.
Page 2968
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Social loafing is a term used in social psychology to describe what happens when an individual puts in less effort
when their performance is judged as part of a group (Wooll, 2025). She further described it as a decrease in
effort and motivation by individuals, leading to reduced work output. The phenomenon was first identified
by Max Ringelmann, a French agricultural engineer, who studied group performance and found that groups of
people did not meet their potential, defined as the sum of the maximum output of each individual acting alone.
This finding is known as the Ringelmann Effect, which describes the inverse relationship between team size and
effort expended. Ringelmann noted that as the number of group members increased, there was a decrease in
overall performance. He attributed this decline to motivational loss, interpreting that the reduction of effort
occurs in collective tasks because group members cannot be evaluated individually (Hoffman, 2023).
Social loafing can occur not only in educational institutions but also in various settings, like business
environments, volunteer organizations, sports teams and even within virtual teams. In business, for example,
Kundu et al., (2020) conducted a study that highlights the importance of the perceived role clarity in developing
positive work attitudes and innovative behavior among employees. They found that perceived role clarity has
positive relation with intrinsic motivation, and job involvement. The results of the study suggested that
organizations should strive constantly to enhance perceptions of role clarity among employees so that they
remain motivated and involved in their jobs and exhibit innovative behavior at work. Similarly, Flournoy (2023)
states that "clearly defined roles enable individuals to understand their responsibilities and contribute effectively
to the organization's objectives," which in turn "leads to improved productivity and collaboration." He further
notes that accountability ensures individuals make informed choices and take ownership of their work. These
principles apply directly to educational settings. When learners are assigned specific, visible roles within a group,
they are more likely to feel accountable for their contributions, thereby reducing the likelihood of social loafing.
Conversely, when role clarity is absent, students may feel their efforts are unnecessary or will go unnoticed,
encouraging the very behavior this study seeks to address.
Furthermore, literature also shows that several factors are associated with social loafing. For instance, Jassawalla
et al. (2009) investigated students' perceptions of social loafing, focusing on its antecedents and consequences
in undergraduate business classroom teams. They found that student apathy and social disconnectedness were
identified as antecedents of social loafing, while taking compensatory action when team members social loafed
was identified as a consequence. The study found that when students feel indifferent about the work or detached
from their teammates, they are more likely to withdraw effort.
In a separate study, Afif et al. (2024) conducted an exploratory study on social loafing among high school
students and found that lack of contribution, excessive expectations, lack of self-awareness, and lack of self-
confidence served as backgrounds or causes of social loafing in high school students working on group
assignments.
While there are identified factors that influence social loafing behavior, there are also ways to minimize or
prevent it from occurring. According to Williams et al (1981), one factor that increases group productivity is
when group members feel that they are being evaluated individually. Increasing identifiability tends to decrease
social loafing. Furthermore, minimizing or avoiding situations in which group members exert less effort because
others will compensate for them, that is, preventing group members from free riding, reduces social loafing
because group members feel a greater sense of responsibility.
Hoffman (2023) also added that assigning separate and distinct contributions to every team member may also be
an effective strategy to avoid social loafing. Without distinct goals, groups and group members drift into social
loafing with much greater ease. Setting clear goals helps group members become more productive and decreases
social loafing. Another factor that can greatly affect the presence of social loafing is involvement in the group.
Members who feel involved and invested in the group tend to be more productive. Thus, increasing involvement
in the group can encourage team loyalty and decrease social loafing. In summary, by establishing individual
accountability, minimizing free riding, encouraging team loyalty, and assigning distinct responsibilities for each
team member, social loafing can be effectively avoided.
Page 2969
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Conceptual Framework
Figure 1. Understanding Social Loafing Leading to Evidence-based Intervention Strategies Formulation
The conceptual framework of this study, as illustrated in Figure 1, follows the Input–Process–Output (IPO)
model to systematically organize the concepts under investigation. As shown in the figure, the input stage
focuses on the issue of social loafing among senior high school learners, which serves as the central problem
and primary data source for this inquiry. These inputs include the causes and consequences of social loafing.
While in the process stage, both quantitative and qualitative data are collected and subjected to rigorous analyses
using numerical (statistical) and textual (thematic) approaches, following an explanatory mixed-methods design
where quantitative data are analyzed first, followed by qualitative data to explain and enrich the initial findings.
Based on these careful analyses, the output stage produces proposed intervention strategies designed to eliminate
or prevent social loafing behavior in collaborative learning settings. Ultimately, this investigation is conceptually
aligned with the DepEd’s mission to “promote the right of every Filipino to quality basic education” by fostering
more equitable, accountable, and effective group learning environments for senior high school students.
This study is anchored on several theories on social loafing, primarily the Collective Effort Model (CEM) and
Social Identity Theory (SIT). The CEM, proposed by Karau and Williams (2001), posits that an individual's
motivation to contribute to a group task is influenced by expectancy (belief that individual effort leads to a
desired outcome, also known as identifiability) and valence (value placed on that outcome, also known as
perceived contribution). Increasing these factors reduces social loafing and enhances productivity. Social loafing
thrives on a lack of individual accountability; when tasks are unclear, members can "hide in the crowd." High
identifiability makes contributions transparent and measurable, while high valence makes members see their role
as meaningful and essential, thereby reducing free riding. On the other hand, SIT, proposed by Tajfel and Turner
(1986), suggests that motivation is tied to group identification. When individuals experience belongingness,
purpose, self-worth, and identity within a group, they become more committed to its success and are less likely
to engage in social loafing.
Building on this work, the present study investigates social loafing among senior high school learners at Leyte
National High School to propose intervention strategies that reduce social loafing and improve collaborative
learning outcomes as envisioned by the Department of Education.
Related Studies
Results of empirical investigations on the issue of social loafing behavior remain varied and diverse, reflecting
the complexity of the phenomenon and the influence of multiple contextual, cultural, and individual factors.
This complexity explains why the results of different investigations can appear varied and even contradictory.
In a study entitled "Exploring Antecedents of Social Loafing in Students' Group Work: A Mixed-Methods
Approach," the results revealed that students' competencies, emotional relationships, and collective
identities are key determinants of social loafing behavior (Luo et al., 2021). The study concluded that three
factors emerged as the key determinants of social loafing behavior: individual factors (competencies and
emotional relationships) and cultural factors (collective identities). The students' competencies are the student's
perceived lack of skills or ability to complete the task that can lead them to withdraw effort, while the emotional
relationships to the quality of the interpersonal connections and feelings among group members that significantly
impact individual contribution levels. On the other hand, collective identities refer to the extent to which students
identify with and feel a sense of belonging to the group is a critical predictor of whether they will engage in or
avoid social loafing. It is also worth noting that the above study employed a mixed-methods approach to gain a
deeper understanding of the phenomenon, combining quantitative and qualitative analyses.
The same methodological approach was used by Tapiz et al. (2023), who employed a mixed-methods
explanatory sequential design to investigate social loafing among student-researchers. The study aimed to
determine the level of social loafing and to uncover the lived experiences of student-researchers who encountered
social loafing members while conducting an undergraduate thesis. Data collection was carried out in two phases.
Phase 1 involved quantitative data gathered via a survey of 385 randomly selected student-researchers.
Page 2970
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Descriptive analysis, using the mean as a statistical tool, indicated an overall low level of social loafing among
the participants. Phase 2 focused on qualitative data, collected through in-depth interviews and focus group
discussions with 14 key participants who were selected through purposive sampling. The findings revealed the
overall low level of social loafing among the student-researchers based on the quantitative data, which suggests
that in the specific context of thesis work, most students generally maintain their effort rather than reducing it.
However, the qualitative interviews uncovered important negative experiences among students who did
encounter social loafers. Three key themes emerged: (1) sense of regret in group selection where students
regretted choosing certain group members after experiencing their lack of contribution; (2) emotional distress,
which means that dealing with social loafers caused significant emotional strain on contributing members; and
(3) unfair distribution of tasks, which means that loafing behavior resulted in an imbalanced workload
falling on fewer group members.
Another study was conducted by Aggarwal and O'Brien (2008) on social loafing in group projects, specifically
examining structural antecedents and the effect on student satisfaction. Results revealed that a common problem
with the use of student groups is social loafing. The study also found that the incidence of social loafing increases
with the scope of the project and the size of the student group assigned to the project. Importantly,
having multiple peer evaluations during the project was found to reduce social loafing. In short, the results
revealed that group size and project scope as key predictors while peer evaluation as solution.
Liden et al. (2004) conducted a field investigation on social loafing. The study revealed that, at the individual
level, increases in task interdependence and decreases in task visibility and distributive justice were associated
with a greater occurrence of social loafing. At the group level, increased group size and
decreased cohesiveness were also related to increased levels of social loafing. The study results further indicated
that students' competencies, emotional relationships, and collective identities are key determinants of social
loafing behavior, consistent with the findings of Luo et al. (2021).
Furthermore, North et al. (2000) conducted a study on social loafing in a cooperative classroom task and found
that individuals working within smaller groups were more productive than those working in larger groups. This
finding indicates that group size is a predictor of social loafing.
From the reviewed related studies, it appears that the most appropriate method for investigating social loafing,
particularly when the aim is to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon, is a combination of quantitative
and qualitative methods. It is on this basis that the present study utilize an explanatory mixed-methods sequential
design, as this approach allows researchers to gain a broader and more holistic understanding of social loafing,
something that neither a purely quantitative nor a purely qualitative study could provide on its own.
Furthermore, because the present study considers the possibility that social loafing is influenced by multiple
factors (e.g., contextual, relational, and individual, as presented in the reviewed literature), a mixed-methods
approach is believed to be perfectly suited to addressing this complexity. This present study utilizes quantitative
analysis to identify the factors and impacts of social loafing and then employs qualitative inquiry to explore
the how and why through the individual experiences of participants that influence their behavior in a particular
setting. Moreover, the qualitative data collected from in-depth interview strengthen the quantitative findings by
offering richer interpretation and validation.
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents a detailed discussion of the methods employed to answer the research questions of this
study. The chapter includes the following sections: research design, research environment, respondents and
participants of the study, data collection procedures, research instruments, validation of instruments, ethical
considerations, and plan for data analysis. The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis for quantitative
data and thematic analysis with in vivo coding for qualitative data.
Page 2971
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Research Design
This study utilized an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. In this approach, quantitative data were
gathered and analyzed in the initial phase, followed by the collection and analysis of qualitative data in the
subsequent phase. The results from both phases were then integrated to produce a fuller interpretation.
Accordingly, the data collection and analysis procedures were divided into two phases. In Phase 1, quantitative
data were collected using a survey questionnaire that measured the prevalence of social loafing, its associated
factors, and its impacts. The collected data were then subjected to statistical analysis. In Phase 2, the results of
the statistical analysis from Phase 1 served as the basis for in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with
selected participants. The qualitative data gathered were analyzed using thematic analysis employing in vivo
coding. Finally, the findings from both phases were synthesized to yield integrated interpretations.
This design was chosen because it allowed the researchers to first identify broad trends and patterns
quantitatively and then explore the deeper reasons and contextual explanations qualitatively (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2018).
Research Environment
This study was conducted at Leyte National High School (LNHS), formerly a provincial high school of Leyte
established in 1905, located at Gonzaga Avenue, Tacloban City, Leyte, Philippines. The researchers are senior
high school teachers at the said school, which provided accessibility and contextual familiarity.
Since 2016, LNHS has been classified as an Integrated Senior High School. For School Year 2024–2025, LNHS
had an estimated enrollment of 10,000 learners across both junior and senior high school levels. Under the senior
high school program, LNHS offers two main tracks: (1) Academic Track with the following strands,
Accountancy, Business and Management (ABM), General Academic (GA), Humanities and Social Sciences
(HUMSS), and Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM); Technical-Vocational-Livelihood
(TVL) Track with Information and Communications Technology (ICT); Home Economics (HE) strands. As of
the second semester of School Year 2024–2025, based on the Learners' Information System (LIS), LNHS had a
total of 3,637 senior high school learners (Department of Education, 2025). The data was accessed thru
https://lis.deped.gov.ph.
Respondents and Participants of the Study
The respondents and participants of this study were selected in two phases, consistent with the explanatory
sequential mixed methods design. In Phase 1, the respondents were randomly selected from the population of
senior high school learners enrolled during the second semester of School Year 2025–2026. The sample size was
determined using appropriate sampling formulas to ensure representativeness. While, in Phase 2, the participants
were Grade 12 senior high school learners who were identified and selected based on predetermined criteria,
including: (a) self-reported experience or observation of social loafing in group work, (b) willingness to
participate in in-depth interview/focus group discussions, and (c) availability during the data collection period.
Purposive sampling was employed to select participants who could provide rich, relevant, and detailed
information about the phenomenon under investigation.
Data Collection
To gain an in-depth understanding of the issue under investigation, a combination of quantitative and qualitative
approaches, known as the mixed-methods explanatory sequential design, was employed. This method was also
used by Tapiz et al. (2022) in their investigation of social loafing among student-researchers.
The data collection procedures were carried out as follows: Phase 1, a quantitative data collection was
administered using a survey questionnaire to the randomly selected respondents. The questionnaire gathered data
on the perceived prevalence or extent of social loafing, the factors associated with social loafing, and the impacts
of social loafing. The quantitative data collected were then subjected to statistical analysis. The results of this
Page 2972
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
analysis provided input for the second phase of data collection. Phase 2, a qualitative data collection was
conducted with selected participants through in-depth interview and focus group discussions based on the results
of Phase 1. These qualitative methods allowed the researchers to explore the deeper, contextual, and experiential
dimensions of social loafing. The interview questions focused on the why and how of social loafing, including:
Why does social loafing occur when learners work together? How does social loafing affect group performance?
How can social loafing be prevented from occurring?
With this sequential approach, the study achieved more robust, comprehensive, and reliable results than either a
purely quantitative or purely qualitative design could have provided on its own.
Survey Questionnaire (Phase 1). A structured survey questionnaire was developed to collect quantitative data
on the following: the extent or prevalence of social loafing; the factors associated with social loafing; and the
consequences of social loafing. The questionnaire used a 5-point Likert scale for responses. The scale and its
corresponding interpretation are presented in the Plan for Data Analysis section.
Interview Guide (Phase 2). A semi-structured interview guide was developed to facilitate in-depth interviews
and focus group discussions. The guide was formed through the results of the Phase 1 quantitative analysis and
by relevant literature. Questions were designed to elicit detailed narratives and explanations regarding the
participants' experiences with social loafing.
Validation of Research Instruments
To ensure content validity and reliability, the instruments (survey questionnaire and interview guide) were
presented to and reviewed by a panel of experts. The panel consisted of experienced researchers, methodologists,
and educators familiar with mixed-methods research and social loafing as a construct.
The suggestions and recommendations provided by the panel were carefully considered and incorporated into
the final versions of the instruments prior to data collection. Additionally, a pilot test was conducted with a small
group of senior high school learners (not included in the actual sample) to check for clarity, readability, and
internal consistency.
Ethical Considerations
Understanding and adhering to ethical standards in research was a vital consideration throughout this study. The
following ethical protocols were observed: All information obtained from related materials, studies, and sources
were properly cited and recognized; Collected data were properly treated and organized to avoid
misinterpretation and personal bias; The names of participants were not revealed. Pseudonyms and codes were
used to remove personal identifiers. All data shared by participants were treated with the strictest confidentiality;
Prior to participation, all respondents and participants were informed of the purpose of the study, their voluntary
participation, and their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Written informed consent was
obtained; All individuals involved in this study were treated with utmost respect. Their time, perspectives, and
experiences were valued and acknowledged; All data (hard copies and digital files) were stored securely and
will be destroyed after a specified retention period as per institutional guidelines.
Plan for Data Analysis
The data analysis plan was structured to address each specific research question using appropriate quantitative
or qualitative techniques.
To answer the first research question on the perceived extent or prevalence of social loafing among senior high
school learners, descriptive statistics (mean scores) were computed. The following interpretation scheme was
utilized:
Mean Ranges Qualitative Interpretation Meaning
4.20 – 5.00 Always happening Very serious problem
Page 2973
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
3.40 – 4.19 Often happening Serious problem
2.60 – 3.39 Sometimes happening Moderate problem
1.80 – 2.59 Rarely happening Minor problem
1.00 – 1.79 Never happening Not at all a problem
To answer the second research question on the perceived causes (factors) and consequences of social loafing,
descriptive statistics (mean scores) were also computed. The following interpretation scheme was utilized:
Mean Ranges Qualitative Interpretation Meaning
4.20 – 5.00 Strongly agree Overwhelming consensus
3.40 – 4.19 Agree General consensus
2.60 – 3.39 Neutral Mixed opinions
1.80 – 2.59 Disagree Not relevant by the majority
1.00 – 1.79 Strongly disagree Strong rejection
To address the third and fourth research questions which explore the reasons why social loafing occurs and how
it affects group performance, qualitative data were collected. Specifically, Phase 2 employed in-depth interviews
and focus group discussions with 20 key participants selected through purposive sampling from the larger sample
of 315 learners. The following analytical steps were adapted from Colaizzi's descriptive phenomenological
method (Morrow et al., 2015):
a. Familiarization of the collected by reading through all the participants accounts
b. Identifying significant responses
c. Giving or formulate meaning that relevant to the studied phenomenon
d. Clustering themes that are common across all accounts
e. Developing an exhaustive description
f. Producing the fundamental structure that captures the phenomenon investigated
g. Seeking verification of the fundamental structure
To answer the fifth research question on the intervention strategies that may be developed and proposed, the
inputs and results from both the quantitative and qualitative phases served as the primary basis. Specifically: the
quantitative findings identified the most prevalent factors and impacts; and the qualitative findings provided
contextual understanding and participant-suggested solutions. These integrated results informed the formulation
of evidence-based intervention strategies designed to mitigate or prevent social loafing at Leyte National High
School.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the results and discussion of the study, organized according to the five research questions.
Quantitative findings from the survey of 315 Grade 12 learners of LNHS are reported first, followed by
qualitative themes drawn from interviews and focus group discussions with 20 participants. The chapter
concludes with an integration of findings, highlighting key insights on the extent, causes, and effects of social
loafing on group performance while verbatim quotations with researchers’ interpretations derived from pattern
analysis for qualitative data.
Research Question 1. What is the perceived extent or prevalence of social loafing among senior high school
learners at LNHS, as reported by the learners themselves?
Page 2974
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The initial phase of the investigation focused on quantifying the occurrence of social loafing among Grade 12
learners at LNHS. Addressing this question first is critical before attempting to identify causes, consequences,
or solutions, school administrators and teachers must understand whether social loafing is a minor, isolated
behavior or a widespread systemic issue that demands immediate attention. The perceived extent of social loafing
was measured using ten behavioral indicators, grouped into two categories: learners’ self-perceptions (items 1–
5) and their perceptions of loafing in others (items 6–10) as shown in the table.
Table 1 presents the mean scores and corresponding interpretations for ten behavioral statements measuring the
extent of social loafing among Grade 12 learners of LNHS. The interpretation scale used is a Likert scale ranges:
1.00-1.80 (never happening); 1.81-2.60 (rarely happening); 2.61-3.40 (sometimes happening); 3.41-4.20 (often
happening); and 4.21-5.00 (always happening).
As may be seen in Table 1, learners rated themselves low across all five self-perception loafing items, with mean
scores x
=1.69 - x
=2.54, suggesting that behaviors such as failing to contribute equally, relying on others, exerting
minimal effort, participating passively, and neglecting their share of work were rarely happening according to
their own accounts. On the other hand, when learners rated the behavior of others (behavioral statements 6-10),
the scores shifted dramatically toward frequent loafing. These are all in the “Often happening” range, except
item 9 (“Workload not distributed equally” – x
=2.80, Sometimes happening). The high mean scores (x
=3.49–
x
=3.87) indicate that social loafing is perceived as a common and recurring problem. Results show that learners
consistently reported that they have witnessed non-contributing members in their groups, at least one person did
little to no work, some members consistently avoid tasks, and/or only a few people ended up doing most of the
work.
Table 1
The perceived prevalence of social loafing as reported by G12 learners
Num
Behavioral statements
Mean
score
Interpretation
1
In group projects, I did not contribute equally to group
tasks.
1.91
Rarely happening
2
I relied on others to do more of the tasks in a group project.
2.54
Rarely happening
3
I did not try as hard as I could in my group.
1.87
Rarely happening
4
I did not actively participate in the group discussion and
shared my ideas.
2.10
Rarely happening
5
I did not do my share in my group.
1.85
Rarely happening
Average
2.05
Rarely happening
6
In group tasks, I notice some members contribute
significantly less than they would if working individually.
3.49
Often happening
7
I have frequently worked in groups where at least one
person did little to no work.
3.51
Often happening
8
I have noticed specific team members consistently avoiding
tasks or responsibilities.
3.49
Often happening
9
It feels like the workload is not distributed equally among
all team members.
2.80
Sometimes happening
10
A few people in the team end up doing most of the work to
meet the deadline.
3.87
Often happening
Average
3.43
Often happening
Page 2975
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Though the data reveals strong evidence of widespread social loafing, there is seemingly a disconnect between
self-perception and observed reality. When respondents rated about their own behavior, they overwhelmingly
portrayed themselves as hardworking contributors, but when they rated the behavior of others, the scores shifted
toward frequent loafing, which could mean that social loafing occurs to a pervasive and systemic extent in this
educational context. While individual students rarely identify themselves as loafers, the overwhelming majority
report regularly experiencing social loafing in their groups, with significant negative consequences on output
quality, timeliness, and group dynamics.
Frequency of occurrence, as may be seen in Table 1, indicates the quantitative evidence that social loafing is not
an occasional or isolated issue. In fact, the observed loafing in others is high. The consistently high mean scores
(x
=3.49– x
=3.87) indicate that it is is perceived as a common and recurring problem, and therefore it would
mean a serious problem. Though the workload distribution is inequitable only “sometimes” (x
=2.80). Learners
consistently report that they have witnessed non-contributing members in their groups.
Clearly, learners recognize social loafing happening in their groups, but they attribute it to others, not themselves.
In short, learners reported that they “rarely” loaf, but others “often” loaf, which is a classic self-serving bias
where learners excuse their own minimal contributions by genuinely believing that they contribute fully while
readily identifying loafing in peers. These findings suggest that there is either a genuine lack of self-awareness
or a reluctance to self-report negatively, but the learners recognized that social loafing is a common problem in
group projects from their point of view. However, there is a possible self-perception bias where learners attribute
loafing to others but not to themselves, which may hinder personal responsibility. Moreover, the highest mean
score (x
=3.87) – “A few people do most of the work” – suggests uneven participation is the most observable and
frustrating aspect of group work for these learners. This finding suggests that that educators should explicitly
reinforce collaboration, individual accountability, and peer evaluation to reduce loafing. Lastly, Consistent with
the explanatory sequential design, the self-other discrepancy identified in the quantitative phase became a key
input for the qualitative investigation, which sought to further explain the phenomenon.
The Self-Other discrepancy on the prevalence of social loafing: Understanding the gap through
Participants’ shared insights.
Beyond numerical ratings, the prevalence of social loafing among Grade 12 learners is best understood through
their own words. Analysis of open-ended responses revealed that learners not only acknowledge social loafing
as a common occurrence but also offer rich, contextual explanations for why it happens although they often
attribute it more readily to their peers than to themselves.
The quantitative survey of G12 learners revealed the following mean scores related to the prevalence of social
loafing: the average self-reported loafing (from items 1–5) is x
=2.05, which interpreted as rarely happening and
is considered as a minor problem. However, for other-reported loafing, an average from items 6–10 is x
=3.43
with often happening interpretation, which is considered as a serious problem. With a wide gap of 1.37, these
results indicate that the prevalence of self-reported loafing appears a minor problem, while perceived prevalence
of others' loafing appears a serious problem.
To explain the quantitative findings, qualitative data from the verbatim responses of 20 participants were
analyzed. The qualitative data served to clarify the discrepancy between self and other reports. The
explanations from participants helped clarify the self-other discrepancy. When asked about social loafing, most
participants reported from their perspective that they loaf yet only sometimes. For instance, Participant 1 (P1)
answered, "sometimes I loaf" but “I often experience that others are lazy and do not participate". While P10
said, “when I am not interested in the group activity, I rely on others to do the work”. P16 added that “in groups
with high numbers, I tend to be complacent”. P2 also reported that “when I don’t know how to do the assigned
task, I expect the leader to do the work”. Furthermore, Participants 5, 7 and 11 agreed that “sometimes they feel
lazy” and that “they hope they get carried by the smartest people in the group”, while others admit that they
rarely loaf, and it happened when they are not interested in the topic, they are afraid of being judged or criticized,
and when they expect the leader to do all the work.
Page 2976
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The responses indicate that learners are reluctant to self-identify as loafers. Rather than labeling themselves as
such, they attribute their own occasional non-contribution to specific situational circumstances. Although most
participants did not explicitly admit to being loafers or to reducing their effort in group projects, they conceded
that they sometimes reduce their efforts. Thus, they implicitly maintained a self-image as responsible learners
who compensate for the failures of others.
The discrepancy between self-report and peer-report suggests a self-serving bias: learners attribute their own
low effort to external circumstances while attributing similar behavior in teammates to internal traits such as
laziness or lack of knowledge. Participants view their own loafing as temporary and excusable but see others'
loafing as blameworthy, applying a lenient standard to themselves and a critical standard to teammates.
This pattern aligns with attribution theory, which holds that people attribute others' negative behaviors to internal
causes and their own to external causes. Most participants reported that social loafing resulted from external
factors: P1 relied on the leader because he did not understand the task; P10 lacked interest and relied on others;
P16 became complacent due to large group size. Conversely, Participants 1, 5, 7, and 11 attributed others' loafing
to laziness which is an internal factor.
Thus, most participants perceive their own loafing as external, temporary, and uncontrollable, feeling justified
in excusing themselves. This suggests that low self-report scores reflect not low actual prevalence but rather low
self-awareness or reluctance to self-identify as a loafer.
Research Question 2. What are the perceived causes and consequences of social loafing among senior high
school learners at LNHS?
The second research question investigates the factors and consequences related to social loafing. As shown in
Table 2A, ten indicators were rated by learners using a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly
agree). These items are grouped into two distinct categories: the first five items (1–5) represent self-reported
personal factors explaining why the respondent might engage in social loafing, whereas the remaining five items
(6–10) capture observational factors regarding why other team members do loaf.
Table 2A
Perceived causes of social loafing among senior high school learners
Num
Indicators
Mean
Score
Interpretation
1
I feel less motivated to contribute when the group task feels
boring or unimportant.
2.80
neutral
2
I reduce my effort because I do not want to be the person
doing all the work while others do nothing.
2.84
neutral
3
I feel that if the group fails, the blame is shared, so my
personal accountability feels lower.
3.06
neutral
4
I feel like my specific input is not necessary for success
when working in a large group.
2.69
neutral
5
When the group project is not graded individually, I tend to
work less on it.
2.70
neutral
average
2.81
neutral
6
Team members tend to reduce effort when the task is less
engaging.
3.28
neutral
Page 2977
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
7
Team members tend to exert less effort when working in
large groups compared to smaller groups.
3.42
agree
8
Team members tend to contribute less when individual
performance is not graded individually or evaluated by co-
members.
3.53
agree
9
Team members tend to reduce effort when they feel like
their specific input is not necessary for success.
3.50
agree
10
Team members tend to reduce effort when the task has less
clear individual accountability.
3.42
agree
average
3.43
agree
Notably, all self-focused items (1–5) fall under neutral interpretation, while four out of five team-focused
items (7–10) fall under agree. For items 1–5, learners were asked to reflect on their own behavior. The mean
scores are neutral (x
=2.69– x
=3.06), indicating that there are mixed opinions among learners regarding self-
reported personal factors explaining why the respondents might engage in social loafing. This could be due to
several factors such as being reluctant to admit their reduced efforts as deduced in the previous section; or they
may not recognize their own reduced effort; or they may feel they contributed fairly, though not optimally. This
result is consistent with Table 1 where learners reported that they rarely loaf with the average mean score of 2.05
but others often do (x
=3.43).
On the other hand, as may be seen in Table 2A, there is a high recognition of social loafing in others (items 6–
10). Most means are above x
=3.30 (agree), especially item 8 (x
=3.53 – individual performance not evaluated)
and item 9 (x
=3.50 – input unnecessary). These results suggest that learners see loafing more clearly in peers
than in themselves; large group size, lack of individual grading, and unclear accountability genuinely promote
loafing; item 6 (less engaging task) is neutral though (x
=3.28), still close to agree, showing some effect.
The data revealed that the key drivers of social loafing (with the highest means) were items 8, no individual
evaluation (x
=3.53) and 9, perceived unnecessary input (x
=3.50) where these factors indicate strong loafing.
While items 7 and 10, large group size (x
=3.42) and unclear accountability (x
=3.42) respectively indicate
moderate agreement. These results align with classic social loafing theory (Karau & Williams, 1993): Loafing
increases when evaluation and task meaningfulness are low, and also when individuals feel invisible or
unaccountable, effort drops. While items 7 and 9 show that learners perceive large groups and feeling
unnecessary as loafing triggers. This is consistent with Ringelmann’s (1913) rope-pulling experiments that as
group size increases, individual effort decreases.
The pattern reveals that G12 learners do not social loaf primarily due to internal motivational issues, but rather
due to perceived structural and evaluative gaps in group work design, in which they believed that social loafing
is driven not by task boredom, but by lack of individual grading, absence of performance evaluation, large group
size, and unclear personal accountability. Thus, to reduce social loafing, educators should grade individual
contributions within group tasks (e.g., peer assessment, individual write-ups), keep groups small (3–4 members)
to increase visibility, clarify individual roles and accountability before group work begins and avoid over-
reliance on ungraded or purely collective tasks, as learners openly admit to reducing effort under those
conditions.
Tables 1 and 2A are complementary. Table 1 establishes that social loafing is a real and frequent problem,
especially as perceived in others while Table 2A provides the causal mechanisms. The self-other
discrepancy appears consistently in both tables, reinforcing that learners are willing to report loafing in peers but
not in themselves. For example, in Table 1, learners say they rarely loaf (x
=2.05) but others often do (x
=3.43)
while in Table 2A, learners are neutral about loafing themselves (x
=2.81) but agree others loaf due to several
factors (x
=3.43). Both tables show highest agreement/occurrence for items related to accountability and
workload distribution and lowest scores for items involving personal admission of reduced effort.
Page 2978
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
To gain an in-depth explanation of the quantitative results, the findings in Table 2A were further explored
through interviews with selected participants. The following statements, which received general consensus from
respondents emerged: Individual performance is neither graded individually nor evaluated by co-members (x
=
3.53); Learners feel that their specific input is not necessary for group success (x
= 3.50); The task lacks clear
individual accountability (x
= 3.42); and Learners exert less effort when working in large groups compared to
smaller groups (x
= 3.42).
Four Key Drivers of Social Loafing with General Consensus: Deepening Understanding through
Participants' Lived experiences.
From the data transcripts, Participant 7 (P07) confirmed that the lack of individual grading is a significant factor
contributing to social loafing. As P07 explained, “in my experience, one of the reasons that a member has less
contribution is that sometimes it is not graded individually.” Similarly, P18 reported that “if graded by group,
some members rely on others, especially when they see that a specific person has the potential to finish the task
independently.” These statements illustrate that when group projects are assessed collectively rather than
individually, some members may take the opportunity to hide within the group and contribute less. This finding
aligns with Hoffman’s (2023) observation that reduced effort occurs in collective tasks because individual
contributions cannot be evaluated. To counteract this, Hoffman suggested that establishing individual
accountability can effectively prevent social loafing.
Participants consistently reported that social loafing arises when individuals feel their specific input is
unnecessary for the group’s success. P09 revealed, "Some members don't care because they know that someone
will 'act' sooner or later and do all the job." Similarly, P15 added, "Some members feel participation is not
necessary since other members tend to do all the work." Supporting this, P08 explained, "It is because they think
that their opinions are not needed." P10 expressed a comparable experience: "Maybe because they feel like they
don't really need to exert effort and just rely on their leaders." P18 also shared that members "hope they get
carried by the smartest people in the group." These findings are consistent with Hoffman’s concept of free
riding, which posits that social loafing occurs when individuals believe their contribution is not critical or that
they can benefit regardless of their effort, expecting others to compensate for them. This finding also echoes the
study conducted by Jassawalla et al. (2009) that one of the factors causing social loafing was identified as social
disconnectedness (feeling unnecessary), that is when one detached form their teammates, one is more likely to
withdraw effort.
When individual accountability within a task is less clear, members tend to contribute less. As P16 explained,
"they are not fully aware of what they are going to do even though they are already assigned or given tasks for
them." Similarly, P03 reported that due to a "lack of responsibility and motivation, some members rely on others
to finish the task." P09 added, "I feel like when members aren't sure what’s expected of them, they might not
contribute as much." These findings indicate that unclear roles are a significant contributor to social loafing.
This aligns with Flournoy (2023) who emphasized that clearly defined roles enable individuals to understand
their responsibilities and contribute effectively to the organization's objectives. This leads to improved
productivity and collaboration within teams and departments.
Participants consistently identified group size as a significant factor influencing social loafing. P16 reported that
"most of the group members do not contribute when they are many in their group." Similarly, P03 stated that
“in groups with high numbers, members tend to be complacent.” P05 echoed this, noting that “most of the group
members do not contribute when they are many in their group.” These responses suggest that larger groups
diminish individual accountability, making it easier for members to disengage or free-ride. This finding aligns
with Liden et al. (2004), who found that at the group level, increased group size is associated with higher levels
of social loafing.
Based on the quantitative and qualitative findings, it can be concluded that social loafing is driven by four key
factors: the absence of individual grading, the perception that one’s input is unnecessary, unclear role
accountability, and large group size. Participants consistently reported that when contributions are not personally
evaluated or seen as critical, members are more likely to disengage and rely on others. Unclear roles further
enable loafing by allowing members to claim ignorance of their responsibilities, while larger groups dilute
Page 2979
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
individual accountability and make it easier to hide. These qualitative insights align with existing literature,
highlighting the need for structured role clarity, equitable task distribution, and mechanisms for individual
evaluation to reduce social loafing in group work.
The data presented in Table 2B summarize the perceptions of G12 learners regarding the impacts of social
loafing on group work. It includes five indicators, each rated by learners on a five-point scale (1 = strongly
disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree).
Table 2B
Perceived consequences of social loafing as reported by G12 learners
Num
Indicators
Mean
Score
Interpretation
1
The final output of our group is often lower in quality due to
lack of full participation.
3.48
agree
2
Social loafing leads to resentment and arguments among
team members.
3.50
agree
3
High-performing members feel overwhelmed or stressed
because they must compensate for "loafers."
3.69
agree
4
Seeing others slack off decreases my own enthusiasm and
motivation for the project.
3.38
neutral
5
Projects take longer to complete because of members who
fail to meet their individual deadlines.
3.92
agree
average
3.59
agree
The results consistently show that social loafing negatively affects group outcomes in terms of both product
quality (x
= 3.48) and process efficiency, particularly with respect to time (x
= 3.92). Beyond task performance,
it also harms group dynamics, as evidenced by increased resentment and arguments among members (x
= 3.50),
as well as a greater burden on diligent members (x
= 3.69).
Interestingly, while social loafing clearly leads to negative emotional and relational consequences (items 2 and
3), its effect on personal motivation is less uniform (item 4). This suggests that some learners are more resilient
or intrinsically motivated, continuing to engage regardless of their peers' behavior. The strongest finding (x
=
3.92) relates to deadlines and project duration, implying that the most tangible and widely experienced
consequence of social loafing is delay, not merely reduced quality.
The quantitative findings presented in Table 2B further demonstrate that social loafing extends beyond individual
failings, negatively impacting both academic outcomes and the well-being of learners who actively contribute.
Low-quality outputs and missed deadlines, for instance, often lead to poor grades and increased frustration. To
gain a richer understanding of these consequences, the researchers conducted in-depth interviews and focus
group discussions with selected participants.
Understanding the consequences of social loafing through the lived experiences of Grade 12 learners.
Time delays emerged as both the highest-ranked consequence in the quantitative findings (x
= 3.92) and a
frequently cited theme in the qualitative interviews. Participants consistently described how social loafing
prolongs task completion. P14 explained, "It takes longer to finish the task because of members who fail to
contribute," while P05 similarly observed, "The task takes longer to complete." Beyond simple delays,
participants reported cascading negative effects. P07 noted the chain reaction of "late submissions, other
members overworking," and P08 added that "because of lack of contribution, submissions might be delayed."
Page 2980
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Collectively, these accounts suggest that individual missed deadlines accumulate into group-level delays, which
in turn produce rushed work, last-minute cramming, and heightened stress, further eroding output quality.
Emotional and physical exhaustion of high-performing members is ranked second among consequences (x
=
3.69). The stress and overwhelm experienced by high-contributing members were a dominant theme in the
qualitative data. Participants consistently reported that compensating for loafers exacted a significant toll. P03
described the experience as "very exhausting," while P14 distinguished between workload and social stressors:
"I feel tired not because of the workload but because of the members making it more stressful." P07 noted that
active members "end up doing all the work, leading to stress," and P19 highlighted the disproportionate burden
on leaders, stating, "All the works that this member did not do go to the leaders, making the leaders feel pressured
and burned out." Beyond exhaustion, participants also voiced a sense of unfairness, with P04 observing, "Some
people end up picking up the slack, which isn't fair." Taken together, high-performing learners experience not
only increased workload but also emotional and physical exhaustion, perceived inequity, and burnout, all directly
attributable to compensating for loafers.
Social loafing leading to resentment and arguments among team members ranked third among the identified
consequences. Multiple participants explicitly confirmed conflict and resentment as direct outcomes of social
loafing. P16 stated, "It leads to resentments and arguments among the group." P06 noted, "It created conflict
between members." P08 explained, "Arguments and small fights tend to become a big deal." P19 reported, "It
caused unfair workload, stress, and conflict." P13 added, "Resentment, blaming, shifting priorities." Thus,
emotional and relational consequences are common. Learners report that unequal contribution not only affects
grades but also damages group cohesion and generates lasting interpersonal conflict.
Lower quality of final output is ranked fourth among consequences. Reduced output quality due to incomplete
participation was also consistently reported by participants. P09 explained the causal link directly: "When some
members don't put their weight, the overall output and quality of work suffer." Similarly, P03 attributed low
quality to "lack of teamwork," while P07 simply stated that social loafing "reduces the quality of the
performance." P05 reported "low quality work / performance," and P17 described the outcome of minimal
participation: "Our project is not good since only few people are participating." Across these accounts, learners
consistently perceive incomplete participation as a direct cause of poor-quality outputs, which they characterize
using terms such as "low quality," "not good," or "less effective."
In conclusion, the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings confirms that social loafing produces both
tangible and relational consequences that extend well beyond individual performance. The most frequently
reported consequence is time delay, which precipitates rushed work and elevated stress. Closely following is the
unfair burden shouldered by high-performing members, resulting in emotional and physical exhaustion. Social
loafing further erodes group cohesion, generating resentment, arguments, and enduring interpersonal conflict.
Finally, incomplete participation directly compromises the quality of group outputs, which learners consistently
characterize as "low quality" or "not good." Collectively, these findings demonstrate that social loafing
undermines not only academic outcomes but also the well-being and interpersonal dynamics of learner teams.
Research Question 3. Why does social loafing occur among learners during collaborative or group work from
the perspective of senior high school learners at LNHS?
The third research question sought to explore the reasons for social loafing among Grade 12 learners through in-
depth interviews, aiming to uncover additional factors not captured in Table 2A. While the survey identified
several key reasons, the interviews allowed participants to elaborate on experiences and perspectives that may
not have been reflected in the quantitative data. Table 3 revealed the results of analyses from the interview
transcripts.
Page 2981
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Table 3
Qualitative Findings: Perceived Reasons for Social Loafing as Reported by Grade 12 Learners
Global
Theme
Theme
Verbatim Responses
Internal factors
Laziness
Most participants mentioned “because they are lazy” as a factor associated
with social loafing (1,3,7,11,12,13). While some participants noted that
others were “lazy because don’t know what to do” (P02). Others said,
“they are lazy and doesn’t care about their grades” (P05) “they’re lazy and
always making up excuses” (P20).
Lack of interest in the
topic or task, Lack of
knowledge/ skill
Several participants mentioned that others are “not interested in the group
activity” (P02, P08, P09,). Others added that “they are bored and didn’t
know what to do” (P20). They also mentioned that they are “uninterested
with the topic and lack of enthusiasm” (P04, P05) “because it isn’t
exciting” (P14). They admitted that they are “less motivated when the topic
is boring” (P17) and “not inspired to work” (P18)
low academic
ambition
Participants mentioned that “don’t care about their grades” (P05, P08);
“already satisfied with getting a low grade like 75” (P03); “low
accountability” (P04); “lack of responsibility” (P13, P14); “they avoid
responsibilities” (P19); “they are not responsible for the task assigned”
(P16)
Fear of judgment,
shyness, or low
confidence
Participants mentioned “feeling a bit shy or unsure about sharing their
thoughts” (P04); “fear of being judged or criticized by others” (P09);
“shyness” (P12, P16, P18); “insecurity on how they will contribute” (P08);
“they doubt themselves that can’t do their part” (P17); “lack of
confidence” (P14); “they think that their opinions are not needed” (P11)
Feeling not part of the
group
Participants mentioned that "because they feel not belong to the group or
lack of motivation" (P06); "because they're not considered in the group
that is why they feel they don’t belong to the group, and others see them as
naïve" (P11); "maybe because they don't feel included in the group" (P02).
Group Dynamic Factors
Poor group
communication
Several participants mentioned that “not seeing GC”(P10); “by not seeing
the chats or messages” (P12); “other not reaching out to the group”
(P18); “busy doing cellphone and not using the GCs” (P16); “some of
them do not read or seen on the GC” (P11); “distractions from other
things or not paying or reading group GCs” (P08)
Leader behavior that
tolerates non-
participation
Some participants mentioned that “friends with leader” (P07); “they can
do less work because they are friends with the assigned leaders” (P03);
“leaders sometimes tolerate their dependent behavior” (P05); “group
leader is not strict” (P15); “some leaders didn’t ask for their opinion”
(P19)
External
factors
Home
responsibilities/chores
Participants mentioned that “busy doing chores or emergencies” (P14);
“get sick or family problem” (P13); “cannot access the internet” (P09);
“no load, wifi, phone” (P10);
The in-depth interviews revealed that social loafing among Grade 12 learners is driven by a complex mix of
internal, relational, and external factors. These qualitative findings extend beyond the survey results in Table
2A, which focused on role clarity, group size, individual grading and individual accountability. The interviews
uncovered new reasons such as laziness, lack of interest, fear of judgment, poor communication, permissive
Page 2982
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
leadership, and external home responsibilities. These reasons are categorized into internal factors, relational
factors and external factors.
The findings indicate that social loafing among Grade 12 learners is multidimensional, arising from an interplay
of individual dispositions, relational dynamics, and external constraints.
Participants consistently attribute social loafing to five internal factors. Laziness is the most frequently cited
reason, often linked to indifference about grades or task clarity. Participants noted that some group members are
“lazy because don’t know what to do” (P02), while others stated, “they’re lazy and always making up excuses”
(P20). Lack of interest in the topic leads to boredom, low motivation, and disengagement. One participant
explained, “they are bored and didn’t know what to do” (P20), and another admitted, “less motivated when the
topic is boring” (P17). Low academic ambition manifests as minimal responsibility, satisfaction with low grades,
and avoidance of accountability. For example, a participant shared being “already satisfied with getting a low
grade like 75” (P03), while others mentioned “low accountability” (P04) and “they avoid responsibilities”
(P19). Fear of judgment, shyness, or low confidence inhibits participation due to self-doubt, insecurity, or fear
of criticism. Participants described “fear of being judged or criticized by others” (P09), “shyness” (P12), and
“they doubt themselves that can’t do their part” (P17). Finally, feeling not part of the group reduces
belongingness and motivation, leading to withdrawal from collaborative efforts. As one participant stated, “they
don’t feel included in the group” (P02), and another explained, “because they feel not belong to the group or
lack of motivation” (P06). These findings suggest that addressing social loafing requires not only task
restructuring but also interventions targeting individual motivation, confidence-building, inclusive group
dynamics, and clarity of roles to enhance personal accountability and engagement. The low or lack of self-
confidence is consistent with previous research by Afif et al. (2024) which concluded that students who doubt
their own abilities may withdraw effort, assuming others are better equipped to complete the work. Furthermore,
the finding on “not feeling part of the group” is aligned with the work of Tajfel and Turner (1986) which states
that loafing occurs when group membership is psychologically irrelevant or unvalued. On the other hand, when
one of the participants mentioned that “they didn’t know what to do” (P20), this suggests that lack of
knowledge/skill can lead to social loafing. This finding aligns with the work of Luo et al., 2021 which found that
individual factors like competencies (perceived lack of skills and abilities) can lead the members to withdraw
effort.
Poor communication and lenient leadership emerged as critical group-level drivers of social loafing. Regarding
communication, participants described breakdowns in information sharing: not seeing group chats (P10), failing
to read or respond to messages (P12), cellphone distractions (P16), and a general lack of reaching out (8, 11).
These gaps create task and deadline ambiguity, making disengagement easier and less detectable. Regarding
leadership, participants noted that leaders who tolerate non-participation whether by favoring friends (3, 7),
failing to solicit opinions (P19), or accepting dependent behavior (P5), inadvertently signal that low effort is
acceptable. Together, these dynamics indicate that social loafing is not solely an individual failing but is often
enabled or even encouraged by weak communication structures and permissive leadership styles that fail to hold
all members accountable.
External factors, particularly those rooted in students' home environments and resource limitations, represent
another significant driver of social loafing. Participants frequently cited home responsibilities and chores
(household duties, emergencies, illness, family problems) as direct barriers to meaningful contribution. Beyond
domestic obligations, technological and economic constraints emerged as critical impediments, including lack
of internet access, insufficient mobile data, unreliable Wi-Fi, or absence of a functioning phone.
Table 3 further reveals that not all social loafing is voluntary. There are instances that some learners want to
contribute but cannot be due to psychological barriers (shyness, fear of judgment, feeling of being not part of
the group) or structural barriers (no internet, family emergencies). These findings are completely absent from
Table 2A. These external circumstances often operate beyond the individual's control, suggesting that apparent
non-participation may reflect genuine structural barriers rather than voluntary disengagement. Thus, addressing
social loafing requires not only individual or group-level interventions but also institutional awareness of, and
accommodation for, the unequal external realities that shape learners’ capacity to participate equally in
collaborative tasks.
Page 2983
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
These findings suggest that addressing social loafing requires more than simply holding learners accountable.
Educators and group leaders should (1) build psychological safety to reduce fear of judgment, (2) design
engaging and relevant tasks to spark interest, (3) establish clear communication protocols and monitor group
chats, (4) train leaders to actively invite input and address non-participation, and (5) accommodate external
constraints by offering flexible deadlines, offline alternatives, and equitable task distribution. Without
recognizing the structural and psychological dimensions of social loafing, interventions that focus solely on
individual responsibility may unfairly penalize students facing legitimate barriers.
The qualitative findings are consistent with the quantitative results, that is learners do not see themselves as
loafing due to internal factors, but they readily attribute others' loafing to internal factors such as laziness, lack
of interest in the subject/topic, low ambition, et cetera. This implies a classic attribution bias wherein individuals
tend to attribute their own behaviors to external, situational factors while attributing the same behaviors in others
to internal, dispositional factors.
While Table 2A, on the quantitative data, highlights task design, accountability, individual grading, unnecessary
input for group success, and group size as key causes of loafing among peers, qualitative data, however,
emphasize group processes laziness, lack of interest, low academic ambition, fear of judgement, social anxiety,
motivation loss, communication breakdowns, leader tolerance and home responsibilities as significant factors
for social loafing. This suggests that the quantitative survey was limited by its pre-determined items. The
qualitative phase (Table 3) was essential for discovering unanticipated causes that were not included in the
original survey. This confirms the value of the explanatory sequential mixed methods design: qualitative data
explained and expanded upon quantitative findings. In Table 3, learners acknowledge that others loaf due to
boredom or lack of interest, but they do not strongly endorse this for themselves. This again reflects self-serving
attribution, externalizing the cause of loafing to others' dispositions while remaining neutral about one's own.
The most striking finding from comparing the two tables is the consistent discrepancy between how learners
explain their own behavior versus others' behavior.
Taken together, Tables 2A and 3 reveal that social loafing is fundamentally multi-causal. Effective interventions,
therefore, must be holistic, addressing the interplay of internal, group dynamic, and external factors rather than
any single cause in isolation.
Research Question 4: How does social loafing affect group performance in terms of productivity, output
quality, and group dynamics?
The quantitative findings (presented in Table 2B) provided a ranked order of consequences, while qualitative
data from interviews and focus group discussions (summarized in Table 4) offered deeper explanatory context.
Together, these findings illuminate the multidimensional impact of social loafing on group performance.
Table 4
The manner in which social loafing affects productivity, outputs quality, and group dynamics
Global theme
Theme
Verbatim responses
Productivity
(Tasks)
Delayed
Submissions /
Time Inefficiency
Most participants consistently mentioned that social loafing
“causes delay and affects the work” (P20); “delays the time to
submit the task” (P15); “takes a long time to finish the
activities” (P04); “slows the process of making the project”
(P08); “made our group slower and less productive” (P10);
“sometimes we failed to meet the deadline” (P16); “sometimes
leading to late submission” (P11); “we cannot pass our activity
on time” (P01); “rush for the deadline” (P02)
Quality of
Outputs
Lower Quality of
Output
Participants mentioned that social loafing results to “low quality
of work and did reach the expectation” (P15); “the project is
not that quality” (P14); “ugly output” (P20); “bad quality of
Page 2984
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
the output” (P09); “bad output, slow work, and uncoordinated”
(P06); “less result regarding with the quality of our work”
(P01)
Lower Grades /
Poor Academic
Performance
Participants mentioned that social loafing results to “failing
grade or score” (P10); “low performance grade from teachers”
(P06). Suffice it to say that loafing “will decrease your grade”
(P02); “affects our score on activity” (P03); “can affect our
grades” (P12); “will downgrade us because of the one
member” (P11); “made our score low” (P14); “can make our
grades low” (P08)
Relational/
Group
Dynamics
Conflict,
Resentment, and
Arguments
Participants mentioned that social loafing does not only “lower
performance but also creates conflict” (P20); and it also results
to “arguments” (P12); “chaos” (P06); “hardships, specifically
misunderstanding and inequality of task” (P07); “failing
grades that lead group to chaos” (P10); “having conflict and
misunderstanding” (P05); “misunderstanding in our group
performance” (P11);
Negative
Emotional Impact
(Stress, Burnout,
Pressure)
Participants mentioned that “the person who exerts so much
effort getting sick because of it” (P05); “burnout or delays”
(P17); “stress, cramming… can cause conflict” (P13); “burnout,
stress and probability of feeling like a ‘failure’” (P19); “maybe
they feel pressure or overwhelmed” (P18); "Some people end up
picking up the slack, which isn't fair." (P04)
Unfair Workload /
Overburdening
Active Members
Participants mentioned that “some members might feel
overburdened” (P11); “people end up picking up the slack which
isn’t fair” (P04); “members actually try end up doing all the
work leading to stress” (P07); “all the works that this member
did not do goes all to the leaders, making the leaders feel
pressured and burned out” (P19); “caused unfair workload,
stress, and conflict” (P04); “creates unfair workload
distribution” (P09); “other members will have to do extra work”
(P15)
Decreased
Motivation and
Enthusiasm
Participants mentioned that “seeing others slack off decreases
own enthusiasm and motivation” (P01); “demotivation, lack of
enthusiasm” (P08); “discouragement” (P03); “the whole group
will be less motivated” (P07); “decrease of motivation for doing
the performance” (P13); “it decreases the participation of other
members” (P10)
Negative Effects
on Collaboration /
Team Dynamics
Participants mentioned that “lack of cooperation” (P02); “it
affects the groups output and team dynamics” (P04); “dynamic
destroyed” (P08); “lack of participation, assign task, and
members not always active” (P06); “not participation,
cooperation, and access” (P16); “it don’t have cooperation”
(P07); “less hands to assist and less cooperation” (P05); “lack
of communication, unclear goal, messy task” (P12); “not
unified ideas” (P15); “split the group and foster a lack of
cohesion” (P17)
While the previous sections (Table 2B) have identified the effects of social loafing including time delays,
emotional and physical exhaustion, resentment and arguments among team members and lower quality of final
Page 2985
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
output, this section focuses specifically on the three interrelated domains: productivity (time delays), quality
(final output), group dynamic (exhaustion and conflicts) and other effects drawn directly from the verbatim
accounts of Grade 12 learners at Leyte National High School.
Productivity, the first domain, refers to the efficiency with which groups complete their tasks. Participants
consistently reported that social loafing undermined productivity by causing delays and slowing down group
work. For instance, several participants noted that loafing “causes delay and affects the work” (P20), “delays
the time to submit the task” (P15), “takes a long time to finish the activities” (P04), and “slows the process of
making the project” (P08). These statements suggest that loafing does not merely reduce individual effort but
actively disrupts workflow continuity, leading to a cascading effect on group timelines. Furthermore, the impact
of loafing extended beyond simple slowdowns to jeopardize timely task completion. One participant explicitly
stated that loafing “made our group slower and less productive” and forced the team to “rush for the deadline”
(P02, supported by P10). Another recalled that “sometimes we failed to meet the deadline” (P16), while others
mentioned “sometimes leading to late submission” (P11) and that “we cannot pass our activity on time” (P01).
These accounts do not only confirm the findings in Table 2B but also indicate that social loafing transforms the
group’s experience from one of planned, steady progress to one of reactive, last-minute scrambling. The repeated
mentioned of deadline failures and rushed work suggest that productivity loss is not just quantitative but
qualitative, compromising the group’s ability to plan, coordinate, and deliver reliably. In conclusion, within the
domain of productivity, social loafing consistently and negatively affects group efficiency by introducing delays,
prolonging task duration, and increasing the risk of missed deadlines. These findings highlight that productivity
is not solely a matter of individual output but is highly sensitive to the equitable distribution of effort among
members. When loafing occurs, the remaining members must compensate, often under time pressure, which
erodes both the pace and the predictability of group outcomes.
The second domain, quality of outputs, captures the standard of the final product. Learners overwhelmingly cited
lower quality, missing contributions, and unmet expectations as direct consequences of social loafing, a finding
consistently supported by respondents, as shown in Table 2B. Participants described the effects in varied but
converging terms: "low quality of work and did not reach the expectation" (P15), "the project is not that quality"
(P14), "ugly output" (P20), "bad quality of the output" (P09), and "less result regarding the quality of our work"
(P01). One participant further linked quality deficits to process breakdowns, mentioning “bad output, slow work,
and uncoordinated” (P06). Participants’ use of strongly negative descriptors like “low,” “ugly,” “bad” indicate
that social loafing produces outputs far below group standards, not merely mediocre ones. Quality loss stems
from fragmented workflows and uneven participation (P06), which eliminate opportunities for peer review and
collective refinement. Even if remaining members work harder, the absence of full engagement results in deficits
in completeness and coherence.
Beyond the effects listed in Table 2B, social loafing leads to lower grades or poor academic performance.
Participants' accounts reveal a clear causal chain: loafing first reduces productivity (delays, inefficiency), which
then degrades output quality (poor, incomplete, or substandard work). Since grades reflect both timeliness and
excellence, groups suffering from both deficits are predictably penalized, late submissions incur deductions, and
low-quality work fails rubric criteria. Together, these failures compound, leaving groups submitting work that
is both late and academically weak. Social loafing directly predicts poor academic performance because it
undermines the two pillars of grading, that is timeliness and excellence. Consequently, low grades reflect not
just individual ability but the breakdown of collective responsibility. Addressing loafing is therefore essential
not only for fair collaboration but also for protecting measurable learning outcomes.
The third domain, relational and group dynamics, captures interpersonal functioning within the group.
Participants reported conflict, resentment, unfair workload distribution, overburdened active members, stress,
burnout, decreased motivation, and erosion of team cohesion. Their own words, organized thematically, offer an
unfiltered view of how social loafing harms both learning experiences and personal well-being. Participants
consistently reported that social loafing triggers interpersonal turmoil, including "conflict" (P15), "arguments"
(P12), "chaos" (P06), and "misunderstanding and inequality of task" (P07). P10 noted that "failing grades lead
the group to chaos." These repeated references to misunderstandings suggest that unequal participation erodes
trust and fuels blame cycles. Additionally, active members suffer tangible harm: one participant reported getting
"sick because of it" (P05), while others cited "burnout" (P15, P17), "stress" (P13, P15), and "pressured or
Page 2986
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
overwhelmed" (P18). P15 described "burnout, stress and probability of feeling like a failure", revealing that
loafing causes conscientious members to internalize group failure as personal inadequacy. P04 captured the core
injustice: "Some people end up picking up the slack, which isn't fair." The findings on unfair workload
distribution and overburdened active members are in line with the finding of Tapiz et al. (2023) which states that
students, who did encounter social loafers, have negative experiences that include emotional distress and unfair
distribution of tasks.
Thus, social loafing is not merely an academic problem, it is also a relational and emotional hazard. Conflict
replaces collaboration, while active members suffer stress, burnout, illness, and feelings of failure. Even if the
group produces acceptable work, hidden costs like broken trust, unequal burden, and psychological distress
persist. Addressing loafing is therefore essential not only for fairness and grades but for preserving mental health
and collaborative integrity.
In summary, productivity suffers through delayed submissions, missed deadlines, and rushed work. Output
quality declines not only in tangible "ugly output" but also failure to meet expectations. Both (productivity and
output quality) result to lower grades. Most damagingly, group dynamics unravel: active members experience
unfair workload, emotional exhaustion, burnout, and even physical illness; teams fracture into resentment,
arguments, and chaos; collaboration erodes as motivation spreads downward and group cohesion is "destroyed."
Together, the Tables 2B and 4 demonstrate that social loafing is not merely a productivity problem but a
relational and emotional one. Thus, effective interventions must address not only task design and accountability
(to reduce delays and improve quality) but also group dynamics (to protect high-performing members, prevent
conflict, and rebuild damaged team cohesion). The qualitative discovery of physical health consequences and
cascading relational damage suggests that the true cost of social loafing may be higher than quantitative rankings
alone reveal.
Social loafing produces a multifaceted harm that extends beyond productivity and quality to include unfair
workload distribution, emotional distress, interpersonal conflict, decreased motivation, and systemic
collaboration breakdown. While quantitative findings (Table 2B) reliably confirm some effects such as delays,
lower quality, overburdening, and conflict, they underestimate motivational loss and miss entirely the domains
of grade penalties and collaboration erosion. The qualitative data (Table 4) therefore serves not merely as
illustrative support but as a critical corrective, revealing the full human and academic cost of social loafing.
Addressing social loafing requires interventions that target not only task efficiency but also team cohesion,
psychological safety, and equitable workload distribution, areas that quantitative surveys alone may overlook.
Research Question 5: What intervention strategies may be developed and proposed based on the findings to
mitigate or prevent social loafing among senior high school learners at LNHS?
The findings of this study have clearly established that social loafing is a pervasive and multidimensional
problem affecting Grade 12 learners at Leyte National High School. It arises from a complex interplay of
personal factors (laziness, lack of interest, fear of judgment, low academic ambition), group dynamic factors
(poor communication, permissive leadership), and external factors (home responsibilities, technological
constraints). The consequences extend beyond lower grades to include time inefficiency, unfair workload
burdens, emotional distress, interpersonal conflict, and damaged team cohesion.
Table 5
Proposed intervention strategies to mitigate or prevent social loafing: participants’ voices
Theme
Verbatim responses
Assign Clear, Equal,
and Specific Tasks
(Role Clarity)
Participants mentioned that “divide the task equally so that each one of us
contribute” (P04); “assigning clear roles, setting deadlines and monitoring
individual contributions” (P07); “assign clear roles and responsibilities to each
member so everyone is accountable” (P08); “give each member a task” (P18);
“proper distribution of tasks and allowing each member to share their ideas” (P10);
“distribute tasks equally” (P11); “define clear, specific role: assign specific tasks to
Page 2987
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
each team member” (P15); “equal division of the task” (P16); “assign a leader to
lead the group and contribute tasks fairly” (P12)
Individual Grading /
Evaluating
Contributions
Separately
Participants mentioned that “individual grading even if in a group” (P02); “less
members, and individual grading” (P03); “grade individually and as a group for
50% only” (P07); “grade both by group or individual” (P09); “graded individually
even in groupworks” (P10); “grade each member individually based on their
contribution” (P14); “individual grading” (P15); “the activity where members of the
group will rate the performance of its members” (P05); “confidential evaluation”
(P11)
Removal /
Exclusion from the
Group
Participants mentioned that “tell them that they will be removed from the group”
(P19); “removal from the group” (P02); “elimination to those who will not
contribute” (P20); “eliminate the member with little to no contribute” (P05);
“remove them from the group so they'll learn from the consequences” (P16); “not
listing their names” (P10); “removed that member” (P08); “remove then if they don’t
participate” (P12); “if the person did not contribute they can be removed in the
group” (P13); “remove members who lacks accountability” (P18); “remove loafers
in the group” (P17)
Motivation,
Encouragement, and
Positive
Reinforcement
Participants mentioned that “do my best to motivate them to do their best” (P01);
“giving them motivation or guiding them on what to do” (P17); “encourage them to
participate in the group” (P05); “give them motivation or talk to them that they need
to cooperate” (P09); “encouraging everyone to participate and communicate
effectively” (P04); “make them feel they are part of the group” (P20); “encourage
those type of person” (P10); “encouraging the members to participate well” (P07);
“by motivating them” (P12); “encouraging team members” (P13); “make them
comfortable to open up with their ideas/opinions” (P15); “making it more engaging,
letting them feel part of the group” (P03)
Improved
Communication and
Open Dialogue
Participants mentioned that “communicate to everyone especially with co-members
because if conflict or misunderstanding is present, less work will be done” (P02);
“improving communication among the group to help prevent arguments” (P03); “talk
to the group members honestly” (P04); “talking to them personally” (P05);
“socialize properly” (P06); “communication” (P07); “by engaging with each other
and share ideas” (P14); “talk to the member who doesn’t contribute and ask why
they don’t want to participate” (P12)
Setting Deadlines,
Monitoring, and
Strict Follow-Up
Participants mentioned that “set strict deadlines of submission and if they fail, report
immediately to the advisors” (P06); “consistently monitoring each member’s task
and evaluating its quality” (P02); “set clear boundaries and constantly remind
everyone their roles” (P20); “set individual deadlines and monitor each member’s
contribution regularly” (P17); “properly assessing the task and monitoring each
member’s participation” (P08); “assign task and set deadline with punishment when
not met punctually” (P14); “each member will be given time only to do their task so
they can pass on time; if not, consequences” (P16)
Reducing Group
Size
Participants mentioned that “less members” (P03); “less member and individual
grading” (P14); “with large groups like more than 8, some members become
dependent” (P19);
Given these realities, effective intervention requires a multi-pronged approach. No single strategy, whether
punitive or supportive, can fully address the problem on its own. Fortunately, the participants themselves offered
a rich array of practical, learner-generated solutions grounded in their direct experiences with social loafing.
These proposed strategies range from structural reforms such as role clarity and individual grading to relational
approaches including positive reinforcement and open dialogue, as well as task design improvements that make
group work more engaging and meaningful. The following intervention strategies are organized thematically
Page 2988
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
based on the verbatim responses of the participants. These evidence-based recommendations are intended to
guide educators, group leaders, and school administrators in creating more equitable, accountable, and
productive collaborative learning environments at LNHS and beyond.
The most frequently suggested strategy is to assign clear, equal, and specific tasks (role clarity). Participants
believe that when every person has a clearly defined, equally weighted task, loafing decreases because
accountability becomes visible. Role clarity removes the ambiguity that allows loafers to hide. When tasks are
specific and evenly distributed, members cannot claim they “didn’t know what to do.” This also addresses the
unfair workload problem by ensuring no single person carries the group. Participants consistently emphasized
that role clarity is a primary solution to social loafing. Suggestions such as "divide the task equally so that each
one of us contribute" (P04) and "assign clear roles and responsibilities to each member so everyone is
accountable" (P08) reflect a shared understanding that ambiguity enables withdrawal. The recurrence of terms
like "equal," "clear," "specific," and "accountable" across multiple participants (7, 10, 11, 15, 16) indicates
strong consensus on the importance of structured task allocation. These findings suggest that social loafing is
not merely a product of lazy individuals but also a structural failure of group organization. When tasks are vague
or unevenly distributed, non-contribution becomes both permissible and invisible. Conversely, clear, equal, and
specific roles transform group work from a collective blur into a set of individual responsibilities, making
withdrawal noticeable. Therefore, without such structural clarity, groups remain vulnerable to the very ambiguity
that enables social loafing to thrive. This result corroborates the conclusions of Kundu et al., (2020) that
perceived role clarity has positive relation with intrinsic motivation, job involvement, and innovative behavior
at work. A similar pattern was reported by Flournoy (2023) in his study, which he found that role clarity leads
to improved productivity and collaboration.
Participants frequently proposed individual grading or evaluating individual contributions separately as a
solution to social loafing, with multiple members explicitly stating preferences for being "graded individually
even if in a group" (P02, P10) and simply "individual grading" (P15). One participant suggested a hybrid model:
"grade individually and as a group for 50% only" (P07), while another echoed "grade both by group or
individual" (P09). Beyond instructor-assigned grades, participants also recommended peer-driven accountability
through "the activity where members of the group will rate the performance of its members" (P05) and
"confidential evaluation" (P11), suggesting that anonymous peer assessment could surface honest feedback
about individual contributions. Participants overwhelmingly view individual grading and separate contribution
evaluation as essential mechanisms for reducing social loafing. Whether through teacher-assigned individual
grades, confidential peer ratings, or a hybrid group-individual model, the core principle remains consistent: each
member's effort must be recognized and rewarded independently. Without such individual accountability, groups
risk perpetuating the very unfairness that fuels resentment, burnout, and declining motivation. Implementing
individual grading, particularly combined with peer evaluation, appears to be one of the most directly actionable
solutions from the participants' perspective. This finding aligns with the work of Williams et al (1981) which
demonstrated that when individuals believe their individual output can be identified, they are less likely to reduce
their effort when working in a group, effectively deterring the social loafing effect. Thus, identifiability through
individual grading is a key factor that can moderate social loafing in teams. Similarly, Aggarwal and O'Brien
(2008) corroborate the findings that peer evaluation is a perceived solution to social loafing.
Participants frequently endorsed removal or exclusion from the group as a legitimate consequence for non-
contributing members. This reflects frustration and a desire for clear consequences. Removal is a last-resort
strategy. Multiple participants stated simply "removal from the group" (P02) or "elimination to those who will
not contribute" (P20), while others specified "eliminate the member with little to no contribute" (P05) and
"remove loafers in the group" (P17). Beyond mere removal, some participants framed the consequence as a
corrective measure, noting "remove them from the group so they'll learn from the consequences" (P16) and "I
will remove members who lacks accountability" (P18). A practical variation included "not listing their names"
(P10), effectively excluding the non-contributor from credit without formal removal. Others emphasized
conditional removal, stating "remove them if they don't participate" (P12) and "if the person did not contribute,
they can be removed in the group" (P13), suggesting that prior warning or failed participation triggers the
consequence. The data reveals that participants view removal not merely as punishment but as both a protective
mechanism for active members and a learning opportunity for loafers. The statement "so they'll learn from the
Page 2989
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
consequences" (16) indicates an educational intent, implying that experiencing natural consequences may
reshape future behavior. The conditional phrasing across multiple responses from participants (12, 13, 18)
suggests that participants envision a fair process, removal follows non-contribution rather than being arbitrary.
Interestingly, "not listing their names" (P10) offers a less confrontational alternative to outright expulsion,
allowing groups to withhold credit while avoiding direct removal. These findings suggest that participants see
removal as a last-resort consequence that restores fairness to the group. When social loafing persists despite
other interventions, exclusion rebalances the workload by reducing the group size to only contributing members.
The threat of removal may also function as a deterrent, motivating marginal members to engage. Participants
who advocate removal likely assume instructor support for such actions, which may not always exist. The
educational framing, "learn from the consequences", implies that participants are hoping loafers develop
accountability through direct experience.
Many participants prefer positive approaches such as motivation, inclusion, and emotional support, over
punishment. This strategy addresses the root causes of loafing: lack of confidence, shyness, or feeling
disconnected. When members feel valued and understood, they are more likely to contribute. However, this
requires emotional labor from leaders and may not work for chronic loafers. From the data transcripts, one
participant expressed a personal commitment, stating "I will do my best to motivate them to do their best" (P01),
while others suggested "giving them motivation or guiding them on what to do" (P17) and "encourage them to
participate in the group" (P05). Several participants emphasized the relational aspect of encouragement, noting
the importance of "making it more engaging, letting them feel part of the group" (P03) and "make them feel they
are part of the group" (P20). Beyond mere motivation, participants also recognized the need for psychological
safety, suggesting "make them comfortable to open up with their ideas/opinions" (P15) and "encouraging
everyone to participate and communicate effectively" (4). The recurring phrase "encourage them" across
multiple responses of participants (5, 9, 10, 13, 17) reflects a shared belief that positive reinforcement can
transform reluctant members into active contributors.
The phrase "let them feel they are part of the group" (P05, P09) appears twice, indicating that social belonging
is perceived as a prerequisite for voluntary contribution when members feel excluded, they are more likely to
withdraw. The above findings suggest that participants view social loafing not solely as a character flaw but
sometimes as a response to feeling disconnected, unsupported, or unsure of expectations. Motivation and positive
reinforcement address the underlying emotional and social barriers to participation. Encouragement reduces fear
of judgment (identified earlier as a personal factor) by creating a safe environment where members feel
comfortable sharing ideas. Making members feel included directly counters the "lack of personal connection"
and "low task engagement" previously cited as reasons for withdrawal. Importantly, participants advocating
encouragement are not excusing loafing; rather, they recognize that punitive measures alone may fail with
members who are disengaged due to low confidence, confusion, or perceived exclusion.
Improved communication and open dialogue are seen as preventive measures. It resolves misunderstandings,
builds trust, and allows early intervention. Many loafing behaviors stem from unclear expectations, social
anxiety, or unspoken resentment. Regular, honest communication can surface these issues before they become
problems. This strategy is low-cost but requires psychological safety within the group. Participants consistently
identified improved communication and open dialogue as essential strategies for addressing social loafing. One
participant articulated a clear causal link, stating "communicate to everyone especially with co-members because
if conflict or misunderstanding is present, less work will be done" (P02). Others emphasized preventive
communication, suggesting "improving communication among the group to help prevent arguments" (P03) and
"talk to the group members honestly" (P04). Multiple participants advocated for direct, interpersonal approaches,
including "talking to them personally" (P05), "socialize properly" (P06), and simply "communication" (P07).
Notably, one participant proposed a non-confrontational inquiry: "talk to the member who doesn't contribute and
ask why they don't want to participate" (12), suggesting curiosity rather than accusation. Another highlighted
the generative function of communication, stating "by engaging with each other and share ideas" (14). These
findings suggest that poor communication is not merely a symptom of social loafing but a root cause. When
groups fail to establish open dialogue, misunderstandings multiply, conflicts remain unresolved, and non-
contributing members face no social pressure to change. Conversely, honest, personal communication creates
pathways for addressing loafing early and constructively. Furthermore, Participants view improved
Page 2990
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
communication and open dialogue as foundational solutions to social loafing. Effective communication prevents
conflict before it starts, enables honest problem-solving when issues arise, and builds the relational cohesion that
motivates voluntary participation. The most productive approach appears to be non-accusatory inquiry, asking
why a member is not contributing, rather than immediate punishment. Without open dialogue, groups remain
trapped in cycles of misunderstanding, resentment, and withdrawal.
Setting deadlines, monitoring, and strict follow-up create structure and urgency. Loafers often exploit the
absence of visible progress tracking and firm deadlines. This shifts group work from trust-based to
accountability-based. Participants strongly endorsed the use of deadlines, monitoring, and structured follow-up
as practical mechanisms for reducing social loafing. One participant proposed a formal escalation process,
suggesting "set strict deadlines of submission and if they fail, report immediately to the advisors" (P06). Others
emphasized ongoing oversight, including "consistently monitoring each member's task and evaluating its
quality" (P02) and "properly assessing the task and monitoring each member's participation" (P08). The
combination of deadlines with accountability appeared frequently, such as "set individual deadlines and monitor
each member's contribution regularly" (P17) and "set clear boundaries and constantly remind everyone their
roles" (P20). Several participants linked deadlines to punitive consequences, stating "assign task and set deadline
with punishment when not met punctually" (P14) and "each member will be given time only to do their task so
they can pass on time; if not, consequences" (P16). These findings suggest that participants view lax deadlines
and absent monitoring as enabling conditions for social loafing. When groups set vague timelines or fail to check
in, non-contributors can hide indefinitely. Conversely, strict deadlines and regular monitoring remove the
ambiguity that allows loafing to thrive. The emphasis on "individual deadlines" (P17) is particularly significant.
Participants view setting strict deadlines, consistent monitoring, and firm follow-up as essential structural
solutions to social loafing. Deadlines create visibility, monitoring ensures ongoing accountability, and
consequences provide meaningful deterrents.
A smaller but significant set of responses suggests avoiding the problem by reducing the size of collaborative
work groups. One participant simply stated, "less members" (P03), implying that smaller groups may naturally
reduce opportunities for social loafing. Participant P14 emphasized "less member and individual grading,"
suggesting that reducing group size alone is insufficient and that individual grading is a necessary accompanying
measure. This implies that shared grading in larger groups is perceived as fundamentally unfair. P19 further
reported that larger groups, specifically those with more than eight members, can lead to dependency, wherein
some members exert minimal effort while receiving the same grade as active contributors. This suggests that
when groups are large, members feel they can hide, rely on others, or become complacent because individual
contributions are less visible. These perceptions align with social psychology research (Ringelmann, 1913),
which consistently demonstrates that as the number of group members increases, the overall performance
decreases. In addition, Aggarwal and O'Brien (2008) also support that findings that the size of the student
group assigned to the project and its scope are key predictors to social loafing. North et al. (2000) also confirmed
that individuals working within smaller groups were more productive than those working in larger groups.
Participants' proposed solutions suggest that effective intervention must be multifaceted, which means that no
single strategy, whether positive reinforcement alone or strict monitoring alone, fully addresses the problem.
Instead, the most effective strategy is likely to combine structural solutions (clear roles, individual deadlines,
monitoring, individual grading) with relational solutions (open dialogue, encouragement, psychological safety,
inclusion). For persistent cases, consequential solutions (removal, reporting to advisors, punishment for missed
deadlines) provide necessary accountability.
Ultimately, participants' voices reveal a consistent truth: social loafing thrives in ambiguity, tolerates in silence,
and worsens under unfair grading. It diminishes when roles are clear, contributions are visible, communication
is open, and all members feel both accountable and valued. Educators and group leaders who address social
loafing must therefore attend not only to "lazy" individuals but also to the structural, relational, and other tasks
and group dynamics-related problems.
Page 2991
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a synthesis of the key findings derived from the quantitative and qualitative responses
regarding the causes, consequences, and solutions to social loafing in group work.
Recognizing that collaborative learning is a cornerstone of the Philippine Department of Education curriculum,
this study addressed a critical gap in local literature by exploring the extent, causes, consequences, and solutions
to social loafing within this specific institutional context.
This present study is sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the perceived extent or prevalence of social loafing among senior high school learners at LNHS,
as reported by the learners themselves?
2. What are the perceived causes and consequences of social loafing among senior high school learners at
LNHS?
3. Why does social loafing occur among learners during collaborative or group work, from the perspective
of senior high school learners at LNHS?
4. How does social loafing affect group performance in terms of productivity, output quality, and group
dynamics?
5. What intervention strategies may be developed and proposed based on the findings to mitigate or prevent
social loafing among senior high school learners at LNHS?
This study employed a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design to investigate social loafing among Grade
12 learners at Leyte National High School. Quantitative data were first collected through surveys from randomly
selected respondents. Subsequently, qualitative data were gathered through in-depth interviews with participants
purposely selected based on predetermined criteria, allowing for a deeper explanation of the initial quantitative
findings. Descriptive statistics were employed to analyze the quantitative data, while thematic analysis with in
vivo coding was applied to the qualitative data.
Summary of Major Findings
Following the analyses, the following major findings emerged from the quantitative and qualitative data:
1. Prevalence and Self-Other Discrepancy. Both quantitative and qualitative data recognized that social loafing
is a serious problem among senior high school learners. Additionally, both data sources confirmed the presence
of a self-other discrepancy in how learners perceive the prevalence and causes of social loafing. Specifically,
learners tend to attribute loafing to others while portraying themselves as actively contributing. In other words,
learners believe that others loaf while they themselves are doing their best.
2. Causes and Consequences. Both quantitative and qualitative data agreed on several structural factors
contributing to social loafing: when individual performance is not graded individually or evaluated by co-
members; when members feel that their specific input is not necessary for success; when working in large groups
compared to smaller groups; and when the task has less clear individual accountability. However, the qualitative
data expanded upon these findings by discovering additional factors not captured in the quantitative survey,
including laziness, lack of interest in the topic or task, fear of judgment, shyness, or low confidence, poor group
communication, permissive or lenient leadership, and external home responsibilities and technological
constraints. Both quantitative and qualitative data agreed on the major consequences associated with social
loafing, which fall into three categories: productivity-related, output quality-related, and group dynamics-related
effects.
3. Categorization of Causal Factors. Participants reported that social loafing is driven by three broad categories
of factors: Personal/Internal Factors which include laziness, lack of interest, fear of judgment, lack of knowledge
or understanding, low academic ambition; Relational/Group Dynamic Factors include poor group
communication, leader tolerance of non-participation, favoritism; External Factors include home
Page 2992
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
responsibilities (chores, emergencies, illness), technological constraints (lack of internet, no mobile data, no
functioning phone).
4. Consequences of Social Loafing. The consequences of social loafing are organized into three thematic areas:
Low Productivity such as delayed submissions, time inefficiency, cascading delays, rushed work, constant
time pressure, missed deadlines; Poor Output Quality includes lower quality and coherence, incomplete
integration, missing contributions, unmet expectations, lower grades; Poor Relations and Group Dynamics
include unfair workload and overburdening of active members, stress, burnout, pressure, conflict, resentment and
arguments, decreased motivation and enthusiasm, negative effects on collaboration and team cohesion.
5. Proposed Intervention Strategies. From the voices of the participants,, the following intervention strategies
are proposed to mitigate or prevent social loafing: stablish role clarity, implement individual grading, clarify
individual accountability, reduce group size where possible, apply appropriate consequences for non-
participation, use positive reinforcement for active contribution, improve group communication channels,
conduct regular monitoring and follow-up on individual contributions, and provide clear expectations and
deadlines.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are drawn from the findings of the study:
1. Social loafing is not only a prevalent issue among senior high school learners but is also perceived
through a biased lens: learners consistently recognize loafing in others while denying it in themselves.
This self-other discrepancy suggests that interventions must first address learners' lack of self-awareness
regarding their own loafing behaviors before meaningful behavioral change can occur.
2. While structural factors such as ungraded individual performance and large group sizes are widely
recognized causes of social loafing, the qualitative findings reveal a more complex picture. Additional
personal, relational, and external factors, including laziness, fear of judgment, poor communication, and
home responsibilities, play an equally critical role. Therefore, effective interventions must go beyond
altering group structures and address the individual and environmental contexts in which learners operate.
3. Social loafing is driven by three distinct yet interconnected categories of factors: personal/internal,
relational/group dynamic, and external. This tripartite framework indicates that no single cause
dominates; rather, loafing emerges from an interaction between a learner's disposition, the quality of
group interactions, and external life circumstances. Prevention strategies must therefore be
multidimensional and tailored to each category.
4. The consequences of social loafing extend far beyond reduced productivity to include tangible declines
in output quality and significant damage to group relationships. Notably, the overburdening of active
members leads to stress, resentment, and decreased team cohesion, suggesting that social loafing not only
harms academic outcomes but also undermines the collaborative learning environment essential for
learners’ development.
5. Participants themselves advocate for a structured, accountability-driven approach to mitigating social
loafing, emphasizing role clarity, individual grading, reduced group sizes, and consistent monitoring.
The absence of punitive-only measures and the inclusion of positive reinforcement and improved
communication channels suggest that learners prefer fair, transparent, and supportive systems over purely
disciplinary actions. Implementing these participant-derived strategies may yield higher acceptance and
effectiveness than externally imposed solutions.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and conclusions, the following are recommended:
1. Given that learners attribute loafing to others but not to themselves, it is recommended that teachers
implement structured self-reflection where learners rate their own contributions alongside peer
assessments. Interventions focused solely on monitoring peers will be ineffective without first correcting
this perceptual bias.
Page 2993
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
2. While it is recommended that teachers continue to use individual grading, smaller groups, and clear
accountability measures, these structural interventions alone are insufficient. The school should also
establish support systems addressing personal factors and external factors.
3. It is recommended to adopt a three-directional intervention strategy targeting each category of causal
factors simultaneously: personal/internal factors, relational/group dynamic factors, and external factors.
4. It is also recommended that teachers implement regular individual check-ins and peer evaluations at the
midpoint of group projects. When inequities are detected, teachers should intervene by reallocating tasks
or providing targeted support to underperforming members.
5. It is therefore recommended that the school/teachers adopt the strategies proposed by the participants
(Table 5) as a formal social loafing prevention policy.
Additionally, it is recommended to pilot the above strategies in one grade level or subject area over one academic
term, with pre- and post-intervention measurements of social loafing prevalence, self-other discrepancy scores,
and group project outcomes. The results of this pilot should inform school-wide policy on group work design
and accountability structures. Finally, future researchers may further investigate the effectiveness of combined
interventions and explore the loafing experience from various perspectives for more in-depth results.
REFERENCE
1. Afif, N., Alwi, M. A., & Firdaus, F. (2024). Social Loafing: an Exploratory Study on High-School
Students. Jurnal Nalar Pendidikan, 12(1), 35-41.
2. DepEd Order No. 021, s. 2019. Policy Guidelines on the K to 12 Basic Education Program.
https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/DO_s2019 _021.pdf.
3. DepEd ORDER No. 010, s. 2024. Policy Guidelines on the Implementation of the МАTATAG
Curriculum. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/DO_s2024_010.pdf
4. DepEd ORDER No. 35, s. 2016. The Learning Action Cell as a K To 12 Basic Education Program
School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy for the Improvement of Teaching and
Learning. https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DO_s2016_035.pdf
5. Gabelica, C., De Maeyer, S., & Schippers, M. C. (2022). Taking a free ride: How team learning affects
social loafing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 114(4), 716.
6. Hoffman, R. (2023). Social Loafing in Psychology: Definition, Examples & Theory. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/social-loafing.html
7. Jassawalla, A., Sashittal, H., & Sashittal, A. (2009). Students' perceptions of social loafing: Its
antecedents and consequences in undergraduate business classroom teams. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 8(1), 42-54.
8. Flournoy, M. S., IV. (2023, May 26). Navigating the path to success: The power of role clarity and
accountability in higher education administration. LinkedIn.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/navigating-path-success-power-role-clarity-higher-milton-s-
9. Kundu SC, Kumar S, Lata K (2020), "Effects of perceived role clarity on innovative work behavior: a
multiple mediation model". RAUSP Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 4 pp. 457–472,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUS Kundu SC, Kumar S, Lata K (2020), "Effects of perceived role clarity
on innovative work behavior: a multiple mediation model". RAUSP Management Journal, Vol. 55 No.
4 pp. 457–472, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/RAUSP-04-2019-0056P-04-2019-0056
10. Latané, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light work: The causes and
consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822–832.
11. Luo, Z., Marnburg, E., Øgaard, T., & Okumus, F. (2021). Exploring antecedents of social loafing in
students’ group work: A mixed-methods approach. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism
Education, 28, 100314.
12. North, A. C., Linley, P. A., & Hargreaves, D. J. (2000). Social loafing in a co-operative classroom
task. Educational Psychology, 20(4), 389-392.
13. Riwoe, C. E., Lerik, M. D. C., & Benu, J. M. (2022). Social Loafing Behavior in Group Task Completion
of University Student. Journal of Health and Behavioral Science, 4(3), 460-468.
14. Simms, A., & Nichols, T. (2014). Social loafing: A review of the literature. Journal of Management,
15(1), 58-67.
Page 2994
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
15. Supakong, P., Jarunratanakul, P. (2025). Can lone wolf tendencies be a good team player?: The mediating
role of teamwork behavior with task self-efficacy and role clarity as moderators Kasetsart Journal of
Social Sciences, 46(2). https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2025.46.2.37
16. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel &
W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
17. Tapiz, L. N., Opeña, H. F., Saclot, J. E., & Sadane, J. (2023). Investigating Social Loafing among
Student-Researchers: A Mixed-Methods Inquiry. The Pendulum, 17(1), 85-128.
18. Tien, D. N., & Dung, P. T. T. (2022). The influence of perceived social loafing on knowledge sharing
intentions among college students. Образование и наука, 24(5), 41-63.
19. Ulayya, S. C. (2024). The Role of Academic Self-efficacy and Social Loafing in Groups among
Undergraduate Students.
20. Wooll, M. (2025, January 21). The new free rider: How to keep social loafing from ruining your teams.
The new free rider: How to keep social loafing from ruining your teams.
https://www.betterup.com/blog/social-loafing
