Editing Diffusion of responsibility (section)

== Consequences ==
===Groupthink===
[[Groupthink]] occurs when each of the individuals composing a group desires and cares more about reaching consensus and total agreement than critically examining, understanding, and utilising information.<ref name="Hollingshead">{{cite book |doi=10.4135/9781483328935.n2 |ssrn=1802080 |chapter=A Look at Groups from the Functional Perspective |title=Theories of Small Groups: Interdisciplinary Perspectives |year=2005 |last1=Hollingshead |first1=Andrea B. |last2=Wittenbaum |first2=Gwen M. |last3=Paulus |first3=Paul B. |last4=Hirokawa |first4=Randy Y. |last5=Ancona |first5=Deborah G. |last6=Peterson |first6=Randall S. |last7=Jehn |first7=Karen A. |last8=Yoon |first8=Kay |pages=21–62 |isbn=978-0-7619-3076-1 }}</ref>

Engaging in groupthink seeks to avoid any possible conflict or disagreement when making any decisions or actions, preferring compromises that may not be thought through to well-thought out arguments that do not receive unanimous approval from the group. Thus, groupthink cannot lead to the best decisions or solutions. Groupthink occurs when the group members are familiar with each other and seek each other's approval, especially in stressful situations. The diffusion of responsibility contributes to groupthink as when the diffusion of responsibility is occurring within a group, each group member feels less of a responsibility to express his or her own opinions or ideas, which leads to groupthink. Thus, when diffusion of responsibility occurs within groups, groupthink is also much more likely to occur.<ref name="Hollingshead"/>

===Social loafing===
[[Social loafing]] is the tendency for individuals to expend less effort when working collectively than when working individually.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Karau | first1 = S. | last2 = Williams | first2 = K. | s2cid = 12694148 | year = 1993 | title = Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 65 | issue = 4| pages = 681–706 | doi=10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.681}}</ref> [[Social impact theory]] considers the extent to which individuals can be viewed as either sources or targets of social influence. When individuals work collectively, the demands of an outside source of social influence (e.g., an experimenter or one's boss) are diffused across multiple targets (i.e., diffusion of responsibility across all of the group members), leading to decreased levels of effort. On individual tasks, no such diffusion takes place, and individuals work hard, as there is no diffusion of responsibility. The division of social influence is thought to be a function of the strength, immediacy, and number of sources and targets present, and is predicted to follow an inverse power function specifying that each additional group member will have less influence as group size increases. Diffusion of responsibility is a direct cause of social loafing, as when diffusion of responsibility is occurring within a group, group members do not feel as responsible for their actions (or lack of action) and are much more likely to engage in social loafing.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Karau | first1 = S. J. | last2 = Williams | first2 = K. D. | year = 1995 | title = Social loafing: Research findings, implications, and future directions | journal = Current Directions in Psychological Science | volume = 4 | issue = 5| pages = 134–140 | doi=10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772570| s2cid = 143679359 }}</ref>

===[[Helping behavior]]===
Social psychological  experiments have demonstrated that individuals' failure to assist others in emergencies is not due to [[apathy]] or indifference, but rather to the presence of other people.<ref name="Latané Nida" /> This is explained by both [[bystander effect]] and diffusion of responsibility. In 1968 and a series of experiments that followed, [[John M. Darley|John Darley]] and [[Bibb Latané]] demonstrated that an individual's choice to help or intervene when there is an emergency depends on the number of bystanders.<ref name="Darley J"/> Group size significantly influenced the likelihood of helping behavior in a staged emergency: 85% of participants responded with intervention when alone, 62% of participants took action when with one other person, and only 31% did when there were four other bystanders. Other studies have replicated the phenomenon, including reports from real emergencies such as calling an ambulance for overdose patients and offering [[CPR]] after cardiac arrest.<ref name="Tobin">{{cite journal | last1 = Tobin | first1 = K. E. | last2 = Davey | first2 = M. A. | last3 = Latkin | first3 = C. A. | year = 2005 | title = Calling emergency medical services during drug overdose: An examination of individual, social and setting correlates | journal = Addiction | volume = 100 | issue = 3| pages = 397–404 | doi=10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00975.x| pmid = 15733253 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref name="Vaillancourt">{{cite journal | last1 = Vaillancourt | first1 = C. | last2 = Stiell | first2 = I. G. | last3 = Wells | first3 = G. A. | year = 2008 | title = Understanding and improving low bystander CPR rates: A systematic review of the literature | journal = Journal of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians | volume = 10 | issue = 1| pages = 51–65 | doi=10.1017/s1481803500010010| pmid = 18226319 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref name="Tiegen">{{cite journal | last1 = Tiegen | first1 = K. H. | last2 = Brun | first2 = W. | year = 2011 | title = Responsibility is divisible by two, but not three or four: Judgments of responsibility in dyads and groups | journal = Social Cognition | volume = 29 | pages = 15–42 | doi=10.1521/soco.2011.29.1.15}}</ref>

In ambiguous situations, the individual's appraisal of the situation and subsequent action or inaction largely depends on the reactions of other people.<ref name="Latané B">{{cite journal | last1 = Latané | first1 = B. | last2 = Darley | first2 = J. M. | s2cid = 28550502 | year = 1968 | title = Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 10 | issue = 3| pages = 215–221 | doi=10.1037/h0026570| pmid = 5704479 }}</ref> Other bystanders' interpretation of an emergency influences perception of the incident and helping behavior.<ref name="Bickman L">{{cite journal | last1 = Bickman | first1 = L | year = 1975 | title = Social influence and diffusion of responsibility in an emergency | journal = Journal of Experimental Social Psychology | volume = 8 | issue = 5| pages = 438–445 | doi=10.1016/0022-1031(72)90069-8}}</ref> In one study, diffusion of responsibility does not occur if another bystander is perceived as being unable to help.<ref name="Bickman L2">{{cite journal | last1 = Bickman | first1 = L | year = 1971 | title = The effect of another bystander's ability to help on bystander intervention in an emergency | journal = Journal of Experimental Social Psychology | volume = 7 | issue = 3| pages = 367–379 | doi=10.1016/0022-1031(71)90035-7}}</ref>

Group psychology can also influence behaviour positively; in the event that one bystander takes responsibility for the situation and takes specific action, other bystanders are more likely to follow course. This is a positive example of the usually-pejorative [[herd mentality]]. Thus, the presence of bystanders affects individual [[helping behaviour]] by processes of [[social influence]] and diffusion of responsibility.

=== Moral disengagement ===
Diffusion of responsibility can negatively affect personal morals. With diffusion of responsibility, it has been found that people feel less accountable for their work. This lack of accountability can be because labour is divided amongst members in a group and so no one member feels an overwhelming amount of responsibility for their organisation or their overall project. It has been found that many members get narrowed into focusing on their individual work, that they eventually forget about any moral aspects. Purely focusing on the functional aspects of their jobs is a result of division of labour, which is a mechanism for diffusion of responsibility.<ref name=Bandura1999/> This can be highly concerning for organisations since division of labour is a common practice amongst many.

[[Moral disengagement]] is likely to be particularly important in organisations because bureaucratic structures and the division of labour seem to lend themselves to moral disengagement mechanisms such as the diffusion and displacement of responsibility.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bandura |first1=Albert |title=Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory |title-link=Social Foundations of Thought and Action |date=1986 |publisher=Prentice-Hall |isbn=978-0-13-815614-5 }}{{page needed|date=January 2023}}</ref> Euphemistic labelling is also common in organisations, such as when managers refer to layoffs as “rightsizing.” Also, with victims out of sight, [[globalization]] makes it easier to ignore or distort the harmful consequences of business actions. Thus, moral disengagement seems highly relevant to understanding unethical behaviour in 21st century organizations.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Detert |first1=James R. |last2=Treviño |first2=Linda Klebe |last3=Sweitzer |first3=Vicki L. |title=Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. |journal=Journal of Applied Psychology |date=2008 |volume=93 |issue=2 |pages=374–391 |doi=10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374 |pmid=18361639 }}</ref>

===Risk-taking behaviour===
The risky-shift effect (see [[groupshift]]) is the increased likelihood for a group to support or partake in a risky decision or action. Larger groups permit a wider responsibility diffusion than the groups of two or three. As group size increases, the likelihood also increases that the group contains at least one highly risky and influential member who would be able to win over all the others. This demonstrates how larger group size and the increased riskiness of one person can cause the diffusion of responsibility from all group members to only the decisive, risk-taking member.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bateson |first1=Nicholas |title=Familiarization, group discussion, and risk taking |journal=Journal of Experimental Social Psychology |date=April 1966 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=119–129 |doi=10.1016/0022-1031(66)90073-4 }}</ref> From the group-processes standpoint, then, the risky-shift effect becomes stronger as the groups grow larger. And it has been proved by various studies that the risky-shift effect is more pronounced the larger the size of the group.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Teger | first1 = Allan I. | last2 = Pruitt | first2 = Dean G. | year = 1967 | title = Components of group risk taking | journal = Journal of Experimental Social Psychology | volume = 3 | issue = 2| pages = 189–205 | doi = 10.1016/0022-1031(67)90022-4 }}</ref>

In risk-taking literature, diffusion of responsibility occurs when individual members of a group feel less personal responsibility for potential failure in the pursuit of risky options than if acting alone.<ref name="Wallach M 2">{{cite journal | last1 = Wallach | first1 = M. A. | last2 = Kogan | first2 = N. | last3 = Bem | first3 = D. J. | year = 1962 | title = Group influence on individual risk taking | url =https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/108371/1/ets200112.pdf | journal = Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology | volume = 65 | issue = 2| pages = 75–86 | doi=10.1037/h0044376| pmid = 14004673 | hdl = 2027.42/108371 | hdl-access = free }}</ref><ref name="Mynatt C">{{cite journal | last1 = Mynatt | first1 = C. | last2 = Sherman | first2 = S. J. | year = 1975 | title = Responsibility attribution in groups and individuals: a direct test of the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 32 | issue = 6| pages = 1111–1118 | doi=10.1037/0022-3514.32.6.1111}}</ref>

Such [[risky shift]] is a stable phenomenon that has been shown in experiments involving group discussion and consensus. For example, a study using risks and payoffs based on monetary gain and loss for problem-solving performance found a greater percentage of shift—hence, increased risk taking in [[group decision making]].<ref name="Wallach M 1" />

Other research suggests that risky shifts can also be attributed to [[group polarization]], majority rules, interpersonal comparisons, [[informational influence]], and familiarisation.<ref name="Myers D">{{cite journal | last1 = Myers | first1 = D. G. | last2 = Lamm | first2 = H. | s2cid = 37390941 | year = 1976 | title = The group polarisation phenomenon | journal = Psychological Bulletin | volume = 83 | issue = 4| pages = 602–627 | doi=10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.602}}</ref><ref name="Bateson N">{{cite journal | last1 = Bateson | first1 = N | year = 1966 | title = Familiarization, group discussion, and risk taking | journal = Journal of Experimental Social Psychology | volume = 2 | issue = 2| pages = 119–129 | doi=10.1016/0022-1031(66)90073-4}}</ref> Like diffusion of responsibility in emergency situations, the larger the size of the group during conditions of discussion and information exchange, the greater the risky shift.<ref name="Teger A">{{cite journal | last1 = Teger | first1 = A. I. | last2 = Pruitt | first2 = D. G. | year = 1967 | title = Components of group risk taking | journal = Journal of Experimental Social Psychology | volume = 3 | issue = 2| pages = 189–205 | doi=10.1016/0022-1031(67)90022-4}}</ref>

=== Bystander effect ===

Rising from the unfortunate case of [[Murder of Kitty Genovese|Catherine ''"''Kitty" Genovese]], the bystander effect is a psychological notion that came to light in the 1960s. Catherine Genovese's case seems to cast a predominantly daunting light on human behavior. The event highlights the lessening of the likelihood of a person taking immediate action in a certain situation while part of a group or around other people.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Gallo |first1=Marcia M. |title='No One Helped': Kitty Genovese, New York City, and the Myth of Urban Apathy |date=2015 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-0-8014-5589-6 }}{{page needed|date=January 2023}}</ref>

Darley and Latané (1968) performed a study that viewed whether the presence of other bystanders would affect the likelihood and speed of which the subjects would respond to hearing another subject (a confederate) having a seizure. The subjects either believed they were in a two-person group, three-person group, or a six-person group.  The researchers concluded that subjects were less likely to help the greater the number of bystanders, demonstrating the [[bystander effect]].<ref name="darley crisis">{{cite journal |last1=Darley |first1=John M. |last2=Latane |first2=Bibb |title=When will people help in a crisis? |journal=Psychology Today |date=1968 |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=54–57, 70–71 |doi=10.1037/E400142009-006 |s2cid=56994921 }}</ref><ref name="Barron Yechiam 2002"/>

The bystander effect<ref name="Darley J">{{cite journal | last1 = Darley | first1 = J. M. | last2 = Latané | first2 = B. | s2cid = 9665680 | year = 1968 | title = Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 8 | issue = 4, Pt.1| pages = 377–383 | doi=10.1037/h0025589| pmid = 5645600 }}</ref> is a specific type of diffusion of responsibility—when people's responses to certain situations depend on the presence of others. The bystander effect occurs when multiple individuals are watching a situation unfold but do not intervene (or delay or hesitate to intervene) because they know that someone else could intervene, and they feel less responsibility to do so.<ref name="Darley J"/> This is directly caused by the diffusion of responsibility, as it is shown that individuals are much less likely to intervene in a situation when he or she knows others are watching; thus, the responsibility for helping is spread among the group of bystanders, and each bystander does not feel a strong responsibility to do so, so no one helps.<ref name="Darley J"/>

However, it has been shown that people's responses and levels of aid can change depending on the type of situation (emergencies versus non-emergencies) as well.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Fischer|first=Peter|date=2011|title=The Bystander-Effect: A Meta-Analytic Review on Bystander Intervention in Dangerous and Non-dangerous Emergencies|journal = Psychological Bulletin|volume=137|issue=4|pages=517–537|doi=10.1037/a0023304|pmid=21534650}}</ref>