Abstract: Free riding involves the tendency for individual effort to decrease as group size increases. Free riding can be prevented if the task is challenging and important, individuals are held accountable for results, and group members expect everyone to work hard. A structured approach to group decision-making can reduce free riding by increasing personal effort and accountability.

INTRODUCTION

     Accounting programs across the country are being challenged by the Accounting Education Change Commission (AECC) to reevaluate and modify courses in order to meet the demands of the changing accounting environment. Specifically, in "Objectives of Education for Accountants: Position Statement Number One," the AECC suggested that students learn best by working in groups, and the AECC's "Position Statement Two" places priority on interaction among students. Current pedagogical research supports the AECC's perspective on group work in terms of cooperative learning, (Ciccotello, et al. 1997; Lindquist and Abraham 1996). Cooperative learning can be used to enhance student learning, performance, and retention (Peek, et al. 1995; Sullivan 1996), which can be interpreted as addressing, at least partially, the goals and concerns of the AECC. However, the benefits of cooperative learning need to be balanced against the costs of free riding, which is a decrease in individual effort as group size increases (Kidewell and Bennett 1993; Karau and Williams 1993).

FREE RIDING

     Latane, et el. (1979) discuss how group performance is less than the sum of the individual parts due to free riding. In a rope-pulling exercise, three people pulling together could achieve only two and a half times the average individual rate. Eight people pulling achieved less than four times the individual rate. This tendency for individual effort to decline as group size increases is called free riding.

THEORY AND RESEARCH

     Among the theoretical explanations for the free riding effect are: (1) equity of effort ("Everyone else is goofing off, so why shouldn't l?"); (2) loss of personal accountability ("I'm lost in the crowd, so who cares?"); (3) motivational loss due to sharing of rewards ("Why should I work harder than the others when everyone gets the same reward?"); and (4) coordination loss as more people perform the task ("We're getting in each other's way.").

     Laboratory studies refine these theories by identifying situational factors that moderate the free riding effect. Free riding occurred when: (1) the task was perceived to be unimportant, simple or not interesting (George 1992); (2) group members thought their individual output was not identifiable (Williams, et al. 1981); or (3) group members expected their co-workers to loaf (Jackson and Harkins 1985). On the other hand, free riding did not occur when group members expected to be evaluated (Harkins and Szymanski 1989). These findings demonstrate that free riding is not an inevitable part of group effort.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATION

     Instructors can curb the free riding threat to group effectiveness by making sure that the task is challenging and perceived as important. Additionally, it is a good idea to hold group members personally accountable for identifiable portions of the group's task.

REFERENCES

Accounting Education Change Commission. "Position and Issue Statements of the Accounting Education Change Commission." Accounting Education Series. Sarasota, Florida: American Accounting Association:1996.

Ciccotello, C., R. D'Amico, and T. Grant. "An Empirical Examination of Cooperative Learning and Student Performance in Managerial Accounting." Accounting Education (1997): 1­7.

Harkins, S. and K. Szymamski. "Social Loafing and Group Evaluations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1989): 934­941.

Jackson, J., and S. Harkins. "Equity in Effort: An Explanation of the Social Loafing Effect." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1985): 1199­1206.

Karau, S., and K. Williams. "Social Loafing: Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1993): 681­706.

Kidwell, R., and N. Bennett. "Employee Propensity to Withhold Effort: A Conceptual Model to Intersect Three Avenues of Research." Academy of Management Review (1993): 429­456.

Lingquist, T. and R. Abraham. "Whitepeak Corporation: A Case Analysis of Jigsaw 11 Application of Cooperative Learning." Accounting Education (1996): 113­125.

Peek, L., C. Winking, and G. Peek. "Cooperative Learning Activities: Managerial Accounting." Issues in Accounting Education (1995): 111­125.

Sullivan, E. "Teaching Financial Statement Analysis: A Cooperative Learning Approach." Journal of Accounting Education (1996): 107­111.

Williams, K., S. Harkins, and B. Latane. "Identifiability as a Deterrent to Social Loafing: Two Cheering Experiments." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1981): 303­311.