583-1470-1-RV Done Layout International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education Volume 06 Number 02 2022 ISSN: Print 2620-5750 – Online 2620-5769 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24036/00583za0002 Received November 29th, 2022; Revised December 3rd, 2022; Accepted December 27th, 2022 213 http://ppsfip.ppj.unp.ac.id IJRiCE Achievement goal orientation and cohesivity reduce social loafing tendency among undergraduate students Rozi Sastra Purna1*, Liliyana Sari1, Fitri Angraini1, Rani Armalita1, Siska Oktari1 1 Department of Psychology, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia *Corresponding author, e-mail: rozisastrapurna@med.unand.ac.id Abstract Working in a group setting is commonly implemented in higher education as part of student-centered learning. However, the social loafing phenomenon has been reported to disrupt the performance of university students in group assignments. The current study aims to examine the influence of achievement goal orientation and cohesivity on social loafing among undergraduate students. A total of 377 undergraduate students (70.8% females) in Indonesia was recruited through cluster random sampling. All respondents answered three questionnaires, namely Social Loafing, Achievement Goal Orientation, and Cohesivity Scales. Partial Least Squares Path Modeling (PLS-PM) was used to analyze the correlations among variables that were built into the research model. The results showed that both achievement goal orientation and cohesivity had a significant negative effect on social loafing. In addition, cohesivity was reported to partially mediate the effect of achievement goal orientation on social loafing. It was also revealed that the research model was a fairly high model fit to explain the relations among variables in the study. These findings suggest that both achievement goal orientation and group cohesivity could reduce social loafing tendency during group tasks among university students. Keywords: Achievement Goal Orientation, Cohesivity, Social Loafing, Group, University Students. How to Cite: Purna, R.S., Sari, L., Angraini, F., Armalita, R & Oktari S. (2022). Achievement goal orientation and cohesivity reduce social loafing tendency among undergraduate students. International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, 6 (2), pp.213-224, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24036/00583za0002 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons 4.0 Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. ©2022 by Author. Introduction One of the active learning methods generally delivered in higher education is group assignments or team- based projects which are believed to be advantageous for students in terms of improving social skills and providing practical benefits (Goo, 2011). This approach would also offer a higher learning quality and cover a more significant number of topics without having to employ an excessive amount of individual effort (Lerner, 1995). Kenrick et al. (2010) state that cooperating in groups is likely to be more effective than working as an individual because people would feel responsible to contribute to the task through discussion. In addition, the workload can be distributed among group members which means that a common goal is likely to be achieved more effectively by working in a group. However, group assignments may not be effective if the group members are hesitant t cooperate. Previous studies have found that working in groups can lead to social loafing phenomenon (Karau & Williams, 1993; Tosuntaş, 2020). Social loafing is defined as the tendency of individuals to exert less effort when individuals are required to work collectively in a group to achieve common objectives (Myers, 2012). Social loafing has been reported as one of the most significant sources of dissatisfaction in group assignments (Hall & Buzwell, 2012). When a person does social loafing, the negative consequences may not only have an impact on the group but also the individuals because that person would lose the opportunities to improve their own soft skills (Schnake in Liden et al., 2004). Thus, it is important to explore the antecedents of social loafing because of its negative impacts on group performance in the learning context. One of the variables reported to predict social loafing is achievement goal orientation. Hoigaard & Ommundsen (2007) found that there was a relationship between the dimensions of achievement goal International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Vol 6 No 2 2022 214 (Achievement Goal Orientation and Cohesivity Reduce Social Loafing Tendency …) orientation and social loafing among soccer players Other studies have also found the influence of achievement goal orientation on academic engagement (Alonso et al., 2022). Furthermore, Liden et al. (2004) suggested that social loafing may decrease if group members develop effective communication to discuss the common goals. Achievement goal orientation consists of four types including mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The mastery approach strives to do better than the previous achievements and associated with internal locus of control (Akin, 2008a) and compassion (Akin, 2010). Students of this type show effective adaptation and well-being. To illustrate, they tend to have low anxiety but high academic achievement and involvement (Daniels et al., 2008; Gonçalves et al., 2017; Tuominen-Soini et al., 2008, 2012). Meanwhile, students with the mastery avoidance type will reject failure in mastering a certain job task and developing individual skills. These individuals would get away from previous bad actions, and they focus on understanding, self-improvement, and high mastery goals (Schwinger et al., 2016). Adolescent students often mention mastery of goals as the reason for learning (Lee & Bong, 2016). Another type which is the performance approach contributes to regulating normative thinking that has a positive valence which is about better performance than the performance of others in achieving success (Akin, 2008b). In contrast, individuals with a performance-avoidance type would dismiss failures which means that their concern about performance may increase their vulnerability to emotional pressure, such as anxiety, stress, and fatigue (Daniels et al., 2008; Tuominen-Soini et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2016). To investigate the tendency of social loafing among undergraduate students, it is important to understand which types of achievement goal orientation would influence students’ behavior in the learning context. In addition to achievement goal orientation, another key factor reported to deter or eliminate social loafing is the role of group cohesiveness which is fundamental to group functioning. Cohesivity is seen by the presence of high desire or a positive assessment of the group through intense communication, mutual trust, and mutual help (Karau & Hart, 1998). It emphasizes the degree to which all members consider the group as valuable which leads to higher group productivity. In other words, people in a highly cohesive group would be less likely to engage in social loafing because they are willing to invest individual efforts to satisfy the expectations and objectives of the valuable group members (Carron & Hauseblas, 1998). The impact of group cohesiveness on positive group outcomes such as productivity, job satisfaction, well- being has been reported in previous studies (Li et al., 2014; McLeod & von Treuer, 2013). Some past studies have also found that task cohesion significantly reduced social loafing (Karau & Hart, 1998; Lam, 2015). Similarly, few studies in Indonesia also reported a significant effect of group cohesiveness on social loafing using different instruments (Anggraeni &Alfian, 2015; Paksi et al., 2020). These findings indicate that the presence of group cohesiveness would improve the participation and commitment of the group members in completing the task, so they tend to be more active and productive in the discussion. Despite previous studies, the current study would attempt to measure cohesivity through four aspects based on Forsyth (2010) including social cohesion defined as the attraction of members toward each other and to the group as a whole, task cohesion which refers to the capacity to succeed as a coordinated unit and as part of the group, perceptual cohesion which refers to the individual’s perception that he or she is part of the group in which all members form the whole group, and emotional cohesion which is the emotional intensity of individuals when they are in the group. A number of past studies have examined some predictors of social loafing in educational settings. However, no studies have yet explored the causal relationship between the three variables in the research model. Thus, the current research was conducted to better understand the relationship between achievement goal orientation, cohesivity, and the tendency of social loafing. Following the above explanation, the study proposed four hypotheses as follows: H1: Achievement goal orientation had a significant influence on cohesivity. H2: Achievement goal orientation negatively influenced social loafing. H3: Cohesivity negatively influenced social loafing. H4: The relationship between achievement goal orientation and social loafing was mediated by cohesivity. The relations among variables in the study are shown in Figure 1. Rozi Sastra Purna, dkk 215 International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Open Access Journal: http://ppsfip.ppj.unp.ac.id Figure 1. Hypothetical Model Method Participants The population in this research were active undergraduate students in Andalas University located in the city of Padang, Indonesia. A total of 377 participants were recruited using the online platforms. Cluster random sampling was used to select participants where the cluster represented 15 faculties in the university. The majority of participants were female (70.8%) ranging from 17 to 23 years old. Nearly a half proportion of participants were currently in the third or fourth semester (42.4%), followed by fifth and sixth semester (25.5%). In addition, most participants have a GPA of 3 or more (91.5%). All participants signed an online informed consent before participating in the study. Measures Data were collected through online questionnaires delivered to the students through Google Form. Three questionnaires with a Likert model scale were used in the study constructed by researchers based on the theory of each variable. Social Loafing Scale. The social loafing scale consisted of 32 items based on the theory of Myers (2012) consisting of five aspects, such as: (1) decreased individual motivation to be involved in group activities; (2) passive attitude of members in the group (e.g. “I prefer to be passive and let the work done by other members in the group”); (3) widening of responsibilities (e.g. “When I become a group member, I do not feel the need to actively help other group members”); (4) shifting responsibility to fellow members known as free riders (e.g. “I do not have to bother completing all my tasks because other members would help me”); and (5) decreased awareness of evaluations from other people (e.g. “I do not care when group members advise me about my work”). The reliability of this scale using Alpha Cronbach was 0.946. Achievement Goal Orientation Scale. This scale was used to measure the achievement goal orientation of students from the theory of Elliot & McGregor (2001). It is a 29-item scale rated from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree. The scale consisted of four types of achievement goal orientation, such as mastery approach (e.g. “I am determined to reach my goals”), mastery avoidance (e.g. “I always study to prepare for exams so that my test scores are good”), performance approach (e.g. “I will compete with my friends to be the best”), and performance avoidance (e.g. “My lecturer often scolds me because my scores are bad which makes me even lazier”). It yielded a reliability coefficient of 0.938. Cohesivity Scale. This 23-item scale was used to measure the level of cohesivity according to the theory of Forsyth (2010). This scale measured four aspects of cohesivity, including social cohesion, task cohesion, perceived cohesion, and emotional cohesion. An example of the item was “We always collaborate when working on group assignments”. Each item was rated from (1) strongly disagree to (4) strongly agree. The reliability of the instrument was 0.955. International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Vol 6 No 2 2022 216 (Achievement Goal Orientation and Cohesivity Reduce Social Loafing Tendency …) Data analysis Data analysis techniques used the partial least squares path modeling (PLS-PM). The analysis tool used to test the hypothesis was the software of SmartPLS version 3.2.7 to study the multivariate relationship among the observed and latent variables, which are included in the structural equation modeling. Thus, this research was conducted to test the theoretical model of social loafing empirically. Result and Discussion Examination of Linearity Assumptions Before further evaluation, it was necessary to examine the linearity assumption. The results showed that the relationship between variables in this study was linear. As seen in Table 1, all pathways fulfilled the linearity assumption in which the results of the F test in the linearity section were significant (p < 0.05). Table 1. Examination of Linearity Assumptions From To Linearity Deviation from Linearity Explanation F P F P Achievement Goal Orientation Cohesivity 183.10 0.000 1.961 0.000 Linear Achievement Goal Orientation Social Loafing 128.19 0.000 0.717 0.930 Linear Cohesivity Social Loafing 183.34 0.000 1.290 0.125 Linear Validity and Reliability of Constructs A good measurement model should have a sufficient level of reliability. As shown in Table 2, the measurement models in this study had high reliability. Table 2. Results of Convergent Validity Construct/Dimension Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient Composite reliability AVE Communality Construct Cohesivity 0.837 0.891 0.676 0.676 Social Loafing 0.876 0.915 0.729 0.729 Achievement Goal Orientation • Mastery Approach 0.638 0.802 0.585 0.585 • Mastery Avoidance 0.846 0.897 0.687 0.687 • Performance Approach 0.781 0.901 0.820 0.820 • Performance Avoidance 0.613 0.838 0.721 0.721 In addition to the convergent validity, a measurement model must have discriminant validity. As shown in Table 2, cohesivity had an AVE coefficient of 0.676, while the AVE root was 0.822 (see Table 3). The correlation coefficient of cohesivity with other constructs ranged from 0.444 to 0.577 which depicted a good discriminant validity. Table 3 presents the calculation of the AVE root of constructs and the correlation value between the constructs. The results showed that the root AVE value of the variable was higher than the correlation value between variables which means that the measurement model of this research has fulfilled the discriminant validity. Rozi Sastra Purna, dkk 217 International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Open Access Journal: http://ppsfip.ppj.unp.ac.id Table 3. Results of Discriminant Validity Construct/Dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cohesivity (1) (0.822) Social Loafing (2) -0.577 (0.854) Mastery Approach (3) 0.444 -0.437 (0.765) Mastery Avoidance (4) 0.488 -0.465 0.728 (0.829) Performance Approach (5) 0.448 -0.398 0.529 0.578 (0.906) Performance Avoidance (6) 0.460 -0.382 0.555 0.580 0.542 (0.849) Note: The coefficient on the diagonal part is the root of AVE; The coefficient outside the diagonal is the correlation coefficient between the constructs; AVE = Average Variance Extracted. Correlation Matrix of Latent Variables The three variables in the model had correlation coefficients in the range of 0.512 to 0.577 as shown in Table 4. The correlation coefficient in the relationship between variables was significant because the critical value of 377 participants was 0.101. The correlation coefficient between achievement goal orientation and social loafing with -0.512 explained that there was a negative correlation between these two variables. In other words, social loafing will decrease if university students have a strong achievement goal orientation. In addition, the coefficient of social loafing explained by cohesivity was also relatively high, which was -0.577. Table 4. Correlation Matrix Between Variables Achievement Goal Orientation Cohesivity Social Loafing Achievement Goal Orientation 1.000 Cohesivity 0.551 1.000 Social Loafing -0.512 -0.577 1.000 In the hypothetical model, cohesivity acted as a mediator in the relations between achievement goal orientation and social loafing. The assumption of cohesivity as a mediator was quite strong because the correlation coefficient between achievement goal orientation and cohesivity was 0.551. Structural Model Testing (Inner Model) The hypothetical model was calculated by using SmartPLS to determine the significance of the path coefficient in the model or its significance for the hypothesis support (Ghozali, 2008; Hartono & Abdillah, 2009). The path coefficient is considered significant if the p-value is less than 0.05. The summary of the inner model results was described in Table 5. According to Table 5, there are some information obtained from the analysis results. First, the path coefficient from the achievement goal orientation to social loafing decreased to -0.278, whereas the path coefficient on the relationship of achievement goal orientation to social loafing was -0.512 without cohesivity mediation (see Table 4). The decrease in path coefficient was because cohesivity acted as a mediator in the relationship between these two variables. Second, the path coefficient from cohesivity to social loafing was stronger than the path coefficient from the achievement goal orientation to social loafing. This finding explained that the role of cohesivity to reduce social loafing was better. As shown in Figure 1, four hypotheses will be tested in the current study. According to Table 5, Hypothesis 1 was supported as the results showed that achievement goal orientation had a significant and positive effect on cohesivity (B = 0.551, t = 14.682, p < 0.05). Similarly, the finding also supported Hypothesis 2 as achievement goal orientation had a significant negative influence on social loafing (B = -0.278, t = 6.252, p < 0.05). In line with Hypothesis 3, the results showed that cohesivity significantly and negatively influenced social loafing (B = -0.424, t = 9.202, p < 0.05). One interesting finding from the study was that the results of the loading factor test on all dimensions of achievement goal orientation were significant (p < 0.05). However, the strongest achievement goal orientation was found in mastery avoidance (B = 0.463). International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Vol 6 No 2 2022 218 (Achievement Goal Orientation and Cohesivity Reduce Social Loafing Tendency …) Table 5. Results of the Path Coefficient on the Inner Model Relationship Path Coefficient Standard Deviation t-statistics p Between Variables Achievement Goal Orientation à Cohesivity 0.551 0.038 14.682 0.000 Achievement Goal Orientation à Social Loafing -0.278 0.044 6.252 0.000 Cohesivity à Social Loafing -0.424 0.046 9.202 0.000 Dimensions of Achievement Goal Orientation Mastery-Approach à Achievement Goal Orientation 0.277 0.012 22.418 0.000 Mastery-Avoidance àAchievement Goal Orientation 0.463 0.013 34.899 0.000 Performance-Approach à Achievement Goal Orientation 0.236 0.011 21.841 0.000 Performance-Avoidance à Achievement Goal Orientation 0.207 0.010 20.880 0.000 The model also depicted an indirect influence due to the mediation of cohesivity. According to the Sobel test shown in Table 6, the indirect influence of achievement goal orientation on social loafing through cohesivity had a negative coefficient of -0.234. This finding indicated Hypothesis 4 was supported which means that cohesivity mediated the influence of achievement goal orientation on social loafing. Based on the Variance Account For (VAF) value of 45.7%, cohesivity played a partial mediation indicating that both achievement goal orientation and cohesivity could influence social loafing, but the outcomes will be higher if university students have higher cohesivity. Table 6. Direct and Indirect Influence, Total and its Nature of Mediation Relationship Direct Indirect Total t- statistics Variance Account For (VAF) Achievement Goal Orientation à Cohesivity 0.551 - 0.573 14.682 - Cohesivity à Social Loafing -0.424 - -0.424 9.202 - Achievement Goal Orientation à Social Loafing - Through Cohesivity -0.278 -0.234 -0.512 7.748 0.457 Figure 2. Path Analysis Results Mastery Approach Mastery Avoidance Performance Approach Performance Avoidance Achievement Goal Orientation Cohesion Social Loafing -0.424 (0.000) Rozi Sastra Purna, dkk 219 International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Open Access Journal: http://ppsfip.ppj.unp.ac.id Model Fit The model fit can be assessed from several indicators such as the coefficient of determination (Rm2), the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and the f2 value. The coefficient of determination of the model was calculated using all coefficients of determination (R2) that existed in the model. Based on Table 7, the R2 value for cohesivity was 0.304 indicating that the achievement goal orientation contributed 30.4% to the variation of cohesivity among university students, while the rest was explained by other variables. Meanwhile, the R2 value for social loafing was 0.413 which indicates that the variation of social loafing explained by the achievement goal orientation and cohesivity was 38.7%, while the rest was explained by other variables. Table 7. The Coefficient of R-Square Dependent Variable R2 Cohesivity 0.304 Social Loafing 0.387 The model showed two determination coefficients of more than 0.20 which indicated the fit of the model was classified as fairly good. The first way to calculate the model fit using the formula of Rm2 showed 0.573 indicating that this research model had a fairly high model fit. The model contributed 57.3% to explain the structural relationship of the three variables, whereas the remaining percentage was explained by other variables that were not involved in the model. Another way to assess the model fit was by using the goodness of fit index (GFI) as seen in Table 8. The goodness of fit index is defined as the root of the communality mean and the mean of R2 for all endogenous constructs (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). Table 8. The Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Variable Communality R2 Dimension of Achievement Goal Orientation • Mastery Approach 0.585 - • Mastery Avoidance 0.687 - • Performance Approach 0.820 - • Performance Avoidance 0.721 - Cohesivity 0.676 0.304 Social Loafing 0.729 0.387 Total 4.218 0.691 Average/Mean 0.703 0.303 Index Goodness of Fit (GF) 0.493 The two previous results related to the model fit emphasize the general assessment of the model. Furthermore, the fit of the model can be analyzed by calculating the value of f2 which is the impact of endogenous variables if one of the paths is omitted. As there were three paths in the hypothetical model, three f2 values were calculated. Table 9 presents the results of calculating the f2 value for each path. Table 9. The f2 values for the model sensitivity Variable Achievement Goal Orientation Cohesivity Social Loafing Achievement Goal Orientation - 0.436 0.088 Cohesivity - - 0.204 Social Loafing - - - International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Vol 6 No 2 2022 220 (Achievement Goal Orientation and Cohesivity Reduce Social Loafing Tendency …) According to Table 9, all f2 values were more than 0.02 in the model which means that none of the paths in the model were omitted. The calculation of the model suitability with f2 proved that the proposed model had a good level of fit model. Discussion The objective of this study was to test the research model and investigate whether achievement goal orientation and cohesivity predicted social loafing among university students. Although the existing literature has reported some predictors of social loafing in educational settings (Karau & William, 1993), it is necessary to build a model to better understand the phenomenon underlying social loafing among university students. According to the analysis, the research model had a fairly high model fit which contributed 57.3% to explain the structural relationship among the three variables. Each hypothesis will be discussed in more detail. The Influence of Achievement Goal Orientation on Social Loafing The analysis results supported the hypothesis that the achievement goal orientation and all its dimensions had a significant negative influence on social loafing. Students who have higher achievement goal orientation were less likely to perform social loafing. In more detail, the first type which is the mastery approach has aspects of interest and involvement in high tasks. Thus, people with this type have a desire and interest in both individual and group tasks. As reported by Hoigaard & Ommundsen (2007), undergraduate students who have a mastery approach can minimize the tendency of social loafing as it is related to adaptive motivation variables, such as academic locus of control, and self-compassion (Akin, 2010). In addition, the mastery approach relates to the tasks involvement influenced by task attraction which produces an internal pressure to be productive and can contribute to groups, so it can minimize the social loafing behavior (Simms & Nichols, 2014). Undergraduate students who adopt a mastery approach orientation usually focus on developing their competencies related to assignments and will show positive behavior, such as a high task engagement, independent learning, and high responsibility to their assignments (Pekrun et al., 2006). Meanwhile, the type of mastery avoidance among undergraduate students was classified high. Avoidance is defined as the motive of students or undergraduate students in learning to avoid failure with a behavior that is less adaptive than the mastery approach (Linnenbrink, 2005). However, one important aspect of this type is avoiding bad deeds that have been done previously which shows that undergraduate students of this type would try to avoid the tendency to social loafing when completing the group assignments. The third type which is the performance approach was reported to be high in the research participants. Undergraduate students with this type focus on displaying the competencies that they have while doing group assignments (Linnenbrink, 2005). Therefore, they have a low social loafing tendency. Moreover, students with the performance approach tend to show quite adaptive patterns in learning shown by good intrinsic task motivation because they want to show their competencies (Janke et al., 2016). In other words, they want to complete the tasks, either individually or in groups to achieve a good performance. Finally, the performance avoidance type is more often found in ineffective groups (Kim et al., 2012). When individuals and groups have a high level of performance avoidance, the higher the appearance of social loafing behavior in the group that can be seen. When the groups focus on the performance goals (we want to do a task better than other groups) instead of mastery goals (we want to learn to complete this task better than before together), they show more of being social loafers and show a better minimal contribution to the group. Undergraduate students with this type tend to show maladaptive behavior in the learning process related to low intrinsic motivation, high anxiety, and low desire for achievement. The Influence of Achievement Goal Orientation on Cohesivity Based on the results, achievement goal orientation positively predicted cohesivity. This is also supported by one type of achievement goal orientation, which is the mastery approach characterized by having task attraction and task engagement during the learning process. This is in line with a study by Summers & Svinicki (2007) who found that undergraduate students with the mastery goal orientation in study groups reported positive behaviors in learning experiences, including a good sense of group, good task engagement, and independent learning to find answers when facing disagreements with fellow group members. Besides, when students have group goals that they want to achieve, each group member commonly has a desire to contribute Rozi Sastra Purna, dkk 221 International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Open Access Journal: http://ppsfip.ppj.unp.ac.id to the group. This shows that students with a mastery approach have the potential to have task-oriented solidarity with fellow group members in completing the group goals. The Influence of Cohesivity on Social Loafing The research results also reported that cohesivity had a significant influence on social loafing. In line with Paksi et al. (2020), there was a significant relationship between cohesivity and achievement motivation with social loafing among undergraduate students at the State Undergraduate of Padang. The negative relationship between the three variables indicated that the lower the cohesivity and achievement motivation would result in a higher level of social loafing, and vice versa. Besides, Anggraeni & Alfian (2015) found that cohesivity was a very important variable to minimize or eliminate social loafing in group assignments among students. The effective contribution provided by cohesivity to social laziness was 41% (Krisnasari & Purnomo, 2017). Lam (2015) also reported that communication and cohesion in group assignments significantly reduced social laziness (53%). Hoigaard et al. (2006) stated that the high level of cohesivity unites students to work together in groups and prevents the emergence of social laziness. It can be said that the united groups will support each other. Based on the results, the cohesivity of undergraduate students in the research was considered high characterized by having an interest and enthusiasm for doing group learning in class, have good interactions among fellow members, have feelings of similarity with all group members, and have a passion for achieving group goals (Forsyth, 2010). The level of cohesivity of undergraduate students can be seen by its aspects, in which the highest aspect was doing the task (task cohesion) compared to other aspects. This shows that undergraduate students have high cooperation to achieve group goals which are in the learning process and doing group assignments (Walgito, 2010). The Indirect Influence Achievement Goal on Social Loafing through Cohesivity The results found that cohesivity mediated the influence of achievement goal orientation on social loafing. This is in line with several previous studies which showed that cohesivity can be a mediator on social loafing (Lam, 2015; Ryanta & Suryanto, 2015). Based on the results of the PLS-SEM model, the addition of cohesivity as a mediating variable provided an additional contribution as an explanation for social loafing. The coefficient of determination on social loafing was 38.7% (see Table 7). The contribution of cohesivity in groups to reduce social loafing has long been explained in social psychology studies (Baron & Byrne, 2004). This is because cohesivity is needed in reducing social loafing in doing group tasks. Cohesivity is seen by the presence of high desire or a positive assessment of the group, which leads to intense communication and mutual trust and also mutual help (Karau & Hart, 1998). According to Krisnasari & Purnomo (2017), cohesivity will only be able to contribute to reducing social loafing if the activities in the group require collaboration with all group members. However, when there is one student who feels disappointed because of the laziness of the other members, it will cause disappointment and lead to internal conflict. Social loafing is vulnerable in the context of education, especially among undergraduate students because each group assignment in education requires much effort, is rarely supervised by lecturers, and is only evaluated occasionally (Fitriana & Saloom, 2018). When a person cannot evaluate their efforts, then the responsibility is transferred to the entire fellow group (Harkins & Jackson, 2014; Kerr & Bruun, 1981). However, when the social facilitation experiment was conducted, it increased the exposure to evaluation. When they become the center of attention, people consciously monitor their behavior (Mullen & Baumeister, 1987). Therefore, the presence of other people causes individual efforts to be evaluated which will raise anxiety, so the arousal appears and becomes social facilitation. However, if the presence of other people causes individual efforts to be collected and not evaluated, this means that there is no anxiety about evaluation and causes social laziness. To avoid these problems, clear goals or aims are needed because undergraduate students who have clear goals are able to minimize the emergence of social loafing. Furthermore, research conducted by Liden et al. (2004) reported the possibility of decreasing social loafing behavior through effective communication with group members regarding the goals that the group wants to achieve. Limitations The present study has two limitations that should be considered for future study. First, self-report questionnaires were employed for data collection which has a risk of social desirability, particularly regarding International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Vol 6 No 2 2022 222 (Achievement Goal Orientation and Cohesivity Reduce Social Loafing Tendency …) social loafing tendency. Therefore, integrating qualitative measures such as observation or structured interviews or using an experimental design in addition to quantitative data would be recommended for future research. Secondly, as the current research focused on two predictors in the model, it is suggested to investigate other predictors to be added into the model which also contribute to the occurrence of social loafing among university students. Conclusion The current study aimed to investigate the influence of achievement goal orientation and cohesivity on social loafing among university students. The results showed that achievement goal orientation had a significant positive effect on cohesivity. In addition, both achievement goal orientation and cohesivity had a significant negative influence on social loafing. One interesting finding from the study was that the mastery avoidance type was the strongest predictor of social loafing compared to the other types of achievement goal orientation. In addition, the results reported that cohesivity played a partial mediating role in the relations between achievement goal orientation and social loafing. While achievement goal orientation contributed 30.4% to cohesivity, both achievement goal orientation and cohesivity contributed 38.7% to social loafing. It can also be concluded that the research model had a fairly high model fit to explain the relationships among variables investigated in the study. Acknowledgment We would like to acknowledge the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Andalas for providing financial assistance and support for this research. References Akin, A. (2008a). Self-compassion and Achievement Goals: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 1–15. Akin, A. (2008b). Self-efficacy, achievement goals, and depression, anxiety, and stress: A structural equation modeling. World Applied Sciences Journal, 3 (5), 725–732. Akin, A. (2010). Achievement goals and academic locus of control: Structural equation modeling. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 38, 1–18. Anggraeni, F., & Alfian, I. (2015). Hubungan kohesivitas dan social loafing dalam pengerjaan tugas berkelompok pada mahasiswa psikologi Universitas Airlangga. Jurnal Psikologi Kepribadian dan Sosial, 4(2), 81–87. Baron, R.A. and Byrne, D. (2004). Psikologi Sosial. Jakarta: Erlangga. Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Eys, M. A. (2005). Group dynamics in sport. Fitness Information Technology. Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., Stupnisky, R. H., Perry, R. P., Newall, N. E., & Pekrun, R. (2008). Individual differences in achievement goals: A longitudinal study of cognitive, emotional, and achievement outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33 (4), 584–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.002. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501. Fitriana, H., & Saloom, G. (2018). Prediktor Social Loafing dalam Konteks Pengerjaan Tugas Kelompok pada Mahasiswa. INSAN Jurnal Psikologi dan Kesehatan Mental, 3(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.20473/jpkm.v3i12018.13-22. Forsyth, D. (2010). Group Dynamics. New York: Cole-Wadsworth. Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W, R. (2003). Educational Research and Introduction. Pearson Education, Inc. Ghozali, I. (2008). Structural equation modeling. Semarang: Universitas Diponegoro. Gonçalves, T., Niemivirta, M., & Lemos, M. S. (2017). Identification of students’ multiple achievements and social goal profiles and analysis of their stability and adaptability. Learning and Individual Differences, 54, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.01.019. Goo, A. B. (2011). Team-based Learning and Social Loafing in Higher Education. University of Tennessee Honors Thesis Projects. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1423. Rozi Sastra Purna, dkk 223 International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Open Access Journal: http://ppsfip.ppj.unp.ac.id Hair Jr, J. F., William, C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis Joseph F. Hair Jr. William C. New Jersey: Pearson. Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2012). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as a reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 37-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467123. Harkins, S. G., & Jackson, J. M. (2014). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167285114011. Hartono, J., & Abdillah, W. (2009). Konsep & aplikasi PLS (Partial Least Square) untuk penelitian empiris. Yogyakarta: BPFE. Hoigaard, R., & Ommundsen, Y. (2007). Perceived social loafing and anticipated effort reduction among young football (soccer) players: An achievement goal perspective. 857–875. Hoigaard, R., Tofteland, I., & Ommundsen, Y. (2006). 4 The Effect of Team Cohesion on Social Loafing in Relay Teams. International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 18 (1), 59–73. Janke, S., Nitsche, S., Praetorius, A. K., Benning, K., Fasching, M., Dresel, M., & Dickhäuser, O. (2016). Deconstructing performance goal orientations: The merit of a dimensional approach. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.013. Karau, S. J., & Hart, J. W. (1998). Group cohesiveness and social loafing: Effects of a social interaction manipulation on individual motivation within groups. Group Dynamics, 2 (3), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.2.3.185. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (4), 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681. Kenrick, D. T., Neuberg, S. T., & Cialdini, R. B. (2010). Social Psychology. USA: Person Education, Inc. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Alternative Explanations for the Social Loafing Effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7 (2), 224–231. Kim, J. I., Kim, M., & Svinicki, M. D. (2012). Situating students' motivation in cooperative learning contexts: Proposing different levels of goal orientations. Journal of Experimental Education, 80 (4), 352–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2011.625996. Krisnasari, E. S. D., & Purnomo, J. T. (2017). Hubungan Kohesivitas Dengan Kemalasan Sosial Pada Mahasiwa The Relationship Between Cohesiveness and Social Loafing On Undergraduate Student. Jurnal Psikologi, 13 (1), 13–21. Lam, C. (2015). The role of communication and cohesion in reducing social loafing in group projects. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 78 (4), 454–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490615596417. Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2016). In their own words: Reasons underlying the achievement striving of students in schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108 (2), 274–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000048. Li, A., Early, S. F., Mahrer, N. E., Klaristenfeld, J. L., & Gold, J. I. (2014). Group cohesion and organizational commitment: protective factors for nurse residents' job satisfaction, compassion fatigue, compassion satisfaction, and burnout. Journal of Professional Nursing, 30 (1), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2013.04.004. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2004). Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30 (2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2003.02.002, Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.197 McLeod, J., & Von Treuer, K. (2013). Towards a cohesive theory of cohesion. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 3(12), 1-11. Mullen, B., & Baumeister, R. (1987). Group effects on self-attention and performance: Social loafing, social facilitation, and social impairment. Review of personality and social psychology, 9, 189–206. Myers, D. G. (2012). Psikologi Sosial (Kesepuluh). Jakarta: Salemba Humanika. International Journal of Research in Counseling and Education, Vol 6 No 2 2022 224 (Achievement Goal Orientation and Cohesivity Reduce Social Loafing Tendency …) Paksi, H., Okfrima, R., & Mariana, R. (2020). Hubungan Antara Kohesivitas Dan Motivasi Berprestasi Dengan Kemalasan Sosial (Social Loafing) Pada Mahasiswa Jurusan Psikologi Universitas Negeri Padang. Psyche 165 Journal, 13 (1), 53–59. Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (3), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.583. Ryanta, A. A., & Suryanto. (2015). Pengaruh Kualitas Komunikasi Terhadap Social Loafing Pada Penguasan Berkelompok Mahasiswa Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Airlangga Dengan Kohesivitas Kelompok Sebagai Variabel Mediator. 485(2006). Sanchez, G. (2013). PLS Path Modeling with R. Berkeley: Trowchez Editions, 383, 2013. Schwinger, M., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2016). Achievement goal profiles in elementary school: Antecedents, consequences, and longitudinal trajectories. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 46, 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.05.006. Simms, A., & Nichols, T. (2014). Social Loafing: A Review of the Literature. 15(1), 58–67. Summers, J. J., & Svinicki, M. D. (2007). Investigating classroom community in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 17 (1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.01.006. Tapola, A., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). The role of achievement goal orientations in students’ perceptions of and preferences for classroom environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78 (2), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X205272. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V. E., Chatelin, Y. M., & Lauro, C. (2005). PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 48 (1), 159–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2004.03.005. Tosuntas, S. B. (2020). Diffusion of responsibility in group work: Social loafing. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(3). 344-358. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2020465073. Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2008). Achievement goal orientations and subjective well-being: A person-centred analysis. Learning and Instruction, 18 (3), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.05.003. Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2011). Stability and change in achievement goal orientations: A person-centered approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36 (2), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.002. Tuominen-Soini, H., Salmela-Aro, K., & Niemivirta, M. (2012). Achievement goal orientations and academic well-being across the transition to upper secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22 (3), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.01.002. Zhang, Y., Watermann, R., & Daniel, A. (2016). Are multiple goals in elementary students beneficial for their school achievement? A latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 100–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.023.