More specifically, the hypothesis states that if a group member is perceived to perform insufficiently either due to trust, reliability, or direct knowledge, or if an individual perceives a task or product as personally meaningful, then an individual may contribute more towards the collective product in order to avoid an inadequate performance.
The second experiment was necessary to manipulate expectations of coworker's productivity to rule out individual differences as a factor.
This was a two-by-two experiment in which coworker effort, either high or low, was crossed with work condition, group or individual; and the results showed support for the social compensation hypothesis.
When the experimenter momentarily left the room to retrieve a "forgotten stopwatch," a confederate said to the other participants that he thought the experiment was interesting, and that he was either going to work hard on the task or was not planning on working hard based on condition.
Participants were willing to compensate for an underperforming coworker to avoid a negative group product due to perceived personal significance.
In the first meaningfulness condition, a female undergraduate displaying an unprofessional demeanor, conducted the experiment.
Participants worked harder and expended greater effort (i.e., social compensation) when they believed their partner belonged to a group that was stereotypically ineffective at the task given (i.e., a poor partner-situation fit).
Conversely, participants did not work as hard and expended less effort (i.e., social loafing) when they believed that their partner belonged to a group that was stereotypically effective at the task given (i.e., good partner-situation fit).
However, it is unclear whether this social compensation was due to enhancing popularity or feeling more comfortable expressing oneself online.