Final answer:
It is true that enforcing anonymity can be counterproductive where social loafing is concerned. Visibility of individual performance decreases social loafing by increasing accountability. Task complexity and group size also play roles in influencing social loafing in student work groups.
Step-by-step explanation:
True, enforcing anonymity in a group setting where social loafing is a major cause would indeed be counterproductive. Social loafing describes the phenomenon where individuals exert less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when they work alone. To decrease social loafing, making an individual's contributions visible is recommended. This is because when individual performance is observable, there is greater personal accountability, which typically leads to increased effort and contribution from each group member.
Research has shown that group size and task complexity can influence social loafing. Smaller groups or tasks that are perceived as difficult or important can mitigate social loafing since individuals believe their efforts are essential for the group's success. On the other hand, in larger groups or with simple tasks, individuals may feel that their efforts are less significant and, therefore, are more likely to engage in social loafing.
Strategies such as assigning specific roles, encouraging peer evaluation, and ensuring recognition of individual contributions can be effective in reducing social loafing in student work groups and promoting collective action.