Exploring the Effect of Distance: An Experimental Investigation of Virtual Collaboration, Social Loafing, and Group Decisions
Abstract
Contemporary businesses are rapidly embracing virtual collaboration as a flexible, cheaper, and more efficient method for conducting group work. Past research has shown, however, that virtual groups operate quite differently than face-to-face groups. In this study, Social Impact Theory provides a framework to investigate whether virtual collaboration heightens social loafing—the tendency for individuals to contribute less than full effort to a group. The theory predicts that member distance, inherent in virtual collaboration, increases the propensity of group members to loaf, and decreases group performance. Two hundred seventy-nine participants assigned to face-to-face or virtual groups completed a business resources allocation task. Results suggest that virtual collaboration negatively affects group performance and that social loafing behavior may partially explain this result. The findings imply that organizations should carefully consider whether virtual collaboration can be seamlessly substituted for face-to-face group interaction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Because virtual teams depend on technology, members can withdraw when their disengagement is unnoticed, owing to reduced social pressure.
“In addition to this, in situations where disengagement is not apparent, virtual team's reliance on technology to communicate allows team members to disengage from the team due to decreased social impact [16].”
From Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review (2020) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
The psychology of social impact
Latané, B. (1981) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.36.4.343 · Cited by 2,864 · see citing works
Social loafing: a meta-analytic review and theoretical integration.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681 · Cited by 2,196 · see citing works
EXTRINSIC AND INTRINSIC ORIGINS OF PERCEIVED SOCIAL LOAFING IN ORGANIZATIONS.
George, J. M. (1992) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256478 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020) · SN Applied Sciences · doi:10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5 · Cited by 633 · see citing works
Peñarroja, V., Orengo, V., & Zornoza, A. (2017) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.12449 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Blaskovich, J. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Nebraska at Omaha (US)
- Corresponding author
- Blaskovich, Jennifer L.
- Venue
- Journal of Information Systems
- Publisher
- American Accounting Association
- Published
- 2008-03-01
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-46
- ISSN
- 0888-7985 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-7959
- OpenAlex
- W2077688973
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 6.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Keywords
- remote collaboration, social loafing, group decision making, social impact theory, group performance
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review