Diffusion of responsibility

Psychology
History · Subfields
Basic science
Abnormal · Biological Cognitive · Comparative Cultural · Differential Developmental · Evolutionary Experimental · Mathematical Personality · Positive Social
Applied science
Applied behavior analysis Clinical · Community Consumer · Educational · Health Industrial and organizational Legal · Military Occupational health · Political Religion · School · Sport
Lists
Disciplines · Organizations Outline · Psychologists Psychotherapies · Publications Research methods · Theories Timeline · Topics
Portal
v · d · e

For other types of responsibility, see Responsibility (disambiguation).

Diffusion of responsibility is a social psychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for an action or inaction when others are present. Considered a form of attribution, the person assumes that either others are responsible or have already taken action.^[1] This tends to occur in groups of people above a certain critical size when responsibility is not explicitly assigned. The phenomenon rarely occurs when the person is alone and increases with group of three or more. ^{[2] [3]}

Conditions of Diffusion

Diffusion of responsibility occurs under both prosocial and antisocial conditions. In prosocial situations, people can either help or not help someone in need. The murder of Kitty Genovese inspired social psychologists to study why people failed to intervene. The likelihood of a person offering help is decreased as the number of bystander increases is known as the bystander effect. In antisocial situations, negative behaviors are more likely to be carried out when the person is in a group of similarly motivated individuals. The antisocial behavior is driven by the deindividuating effects of group membership and the diffusion of feelings of personal responsibility for the consequences.^[4] Diffusion of responsibility is a causal factor to many crowd behavior as well as risk taking in groups. ^[5][6]

Diffusion of responsibility can manifest itself:

• in a group of people who, through action or inaction, allow events to occur which they would never allow if they were alone. Examples include groupthink and the bystander effect.
• in a group of people working on a task that loses motivation because people feel less responsible and hide their lack of effort in the group (social loafing).
• in hierarchical organizations, such as when underlings claim that they were just following orders and supervisors claim that they were just issuing directives and not doing the deeds.

Helping Research

Social psychologists explained that the lack of response to help was not due to apathy or indifference but rather the presence of other people. This is based on two basic principles: the bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility. The classic psychological experiment by John Darley and Bibb Latané in 1968 first demonstrated that whether a person would help or intervene in an emergency situation depends on the number of bystanders. ^[2] The effect of group size significantly influenced the likelihood of helping behavior in a staged emergency: 85% responded when participants thought they were alone, 62% when participants were with one other person, and 31% when there were four other bystanders. In ambiguous situations, the individual’s appraisal of the situation and subsequent action or inaction will largely depend on the reactions of other people.^[7] Another bystander’s interpretation of an emergency situation influences our perception of the incident and helping behavior. ^[8] In one study, diffusion of responsibility does not occur if another bystander is perceived as not being able to help. ^[9] Thus, the presence of bystanders affect individual helping behavior by processes of social influence and diffusion of responsibility.

Decision-Making Process

Researchers have identified five decision points that a bystander will encounter: ^[1][7]

• Noticing – Realizing that there is a situation that might be an emergency
• Defining an Emergency – Interpreting the cues as signaling an emergency
• Taking Responsibility – Personally assuming the responsibility to act
• Planning a Course of Action – Deciding how to help and what skills might be needed
• Taking Action – Actually helping

Examples of Factors Influencing Decision

• Seeing smoke start filling a room (Noticing)
• Smoke is associated with fire, and people may be in danger (Defining an emergency)
• A single bystander is much more likely to act than when others are present (Taking responsibility)^[10]
• People who feel they have the necessary skills to help are more likely to help (Planning a course of action)
• Cost of helping (e.g., danger to self) must not outweigh the rewards of helping (Taking action)
• In the event that one bystander takes responsibility for the situation and takes any specific form of action, other bystanders are more likely to follow course. Thus potentially forming Herd Mentality. (Taking action)

Examples

• Kitty Genovese, a New York woman, was stabbed to death near her apartment. The initial reports of inaction by witnesses prompted research into possible reasons for that, which helped develop the concepts of diffusion of responsibility and bystander effect.
• In a firing squad, one or more of the shooters may be randomly issued a weapon containing a blank cartridge rather than a bullet. This allows each of the members of the firing squad to believe that he did not fire a fatal shot.
• In some electric chairs there are many switches, only one of which is connected. The executioners may then choose to believe that they pulled a non-functional switch.

Legal uses

The third definition of diffusion of responsibility was famously used as a legal defense by many of the Nazis being tried at Nuremberg and later the perpetrators of the My Lai massacre. It has also been used with varying degrees of success in other situations.

See also

• Milgram experiment
• Design by committee
• Somebody Else's Problem
• Tragedy of the commons
• Nuremberg Defense
• Political gridlock under the presidential system

References

1. ^ ^{a b} Ciccarelii, S. K. & White, J. N. (2009). Psychology (2nd Ed.) New Jersey: Pearson Education.
2. ^ ^{a b} Darley J. M. & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383.
3. ^ Leary, M. R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Attributions of responsibility for collective endeavors. Review of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 167-188.
4. ^ Mathes, E. W. & Kahn, A. (1975). Diffusion of responsibility and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 881-886.
5. ^ Wallach, M. A., Kogan, N., & Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 263-274.
6. ^ Le Bon, G. (1995, 1895). The crowd: A study of the popular mind. London: Transaction.
7. ^ ^{a b} Latané, B. & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.
8. ^ Bickman, L. (1975). Social influence and diffusion of responsibility in an emergency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 438-445.
9. ^ Bickman, L. (1971). The effect of another bystander’s ability to help on bystander intervention in an emergency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 367-379.
10. ^ Latané, B. & Darley, J. M. (1969). Bystander apathy. American Scientist, 57, 244-268.

External links

• Greater Good Magazine article examines how to overcome the bystander effect