Writing Sample

Diffusion of Responsibility

Kira Hudson

Psychology 1010, Section 45

Professor Crosetti

Noverber 11^th, 2008

Diffusion of Responsibility 1

Diffusion of Responsibility

Since the study of behavior and the brain began, researchers have frequently investigated the link between thought and behavior. One area frequently studied is the concept knows as diffusion of responsibility, not only present in nonemergency situations but several other settings as well. Diffusion of responsibility is defined as a pattern of behavior which occurs frequently in groups but much less frequently alone; the decreased sense of personal responsibility and accountability leads to actions as a group that might not be performed when alone (Freeman, Walker, Borden and Latane, 1975). From this concept, several possible research questions emerge, namely:

1. Why do individuals respond the way they do in situations, even ones which are not emergencies?

2. Does antisocial behavior occur in groups as a result of the diffusion of responsibility?

3. How does diffusion of responsibility cause group behavior to grow more extreme and escalate into something dangerous?

In this paper we will investigate these questions and address some basic principles regarding the diffusion of responsibility.

Diffusion of Responsibility 2

How Individuals Respond In Non-Emergency Situations

One study conducted by Freeman, Walker, Borden and Latane (1975) investigated how the diffusion of responsibility would affect small groups outside of emergency situations. The study measured how participants would tip in a restaurant based on the size of the group; the study results indicated that people who ate out in smaller groups would each leave a smaller tip because they feel the waiters attention is divided among guests and the tip should be as well. The study continues to say that waiters who served a single person got, on average, a nineteen percent tip while waiters who served larger groups only received about a fourteen percent tip. In comparison both Elman and Snyder (1976) hypothesized that rather than diffusion of responsibility this behavior may be caused by something else. The cause they suggested was rather the principle of equity. If the amount of the bill were to be a representation of the effort and time put in by the waiter, then the study suggests that tip percentages will lower to fifteen. More simply, the idea suggests that the larger the bill the more the tip percentage will go down, simply because the customers feel they aren’t getting complete attention.

Antisocial Behavior and Groups Resulting From The Diffusion of Responsibility

As suggested by Jellison and Riskind (1970), cautious behavior is not as socially accepted as risky behavior is, especially in group situations. Researchers believed that individuals would be more willing to participate in antisocial behavior if others were doing it or if they felt that was what will make them better fit in. The study further suggest that groups with

Diffusion of Responsibility 3

a strong need for revenge would be willing to take more extreme forms of actions than individuals or smaller groups with the same feelings. Jellison and Riskind conclude that this is because of the diffusion of responsibility in the group situation compared to the lack of diffusion in the individual; furthermore it was discovered that groups who did engage in extreme behavior wouldn’t feel as responsible for any of their actions. In contrast, Brown (1965) claimed that a certain type of behavior is more desirable and it is human nature to compete to have the strongest type of that emotion; therefore, a group will show more of a behavior than an individual. If groups were able to speak to one another the extreme feelings would increase because each individual would point out something another had done wrong to evoke such a response. Brown also showed that if people got something taken away (such as money) or if they felt they were being treated unfairly their desire for revenge would increase. Inversely, isolated individuals or groups that were unable to talk to each other still had the feelings but they were not as strong.

Diffusion of Responsibility and Escalation Tendencies

Weick (1964) and Staw (1974), in studies of management and team dynamics both indicated that management or administrators will make a negative incident seem better to diffuse responsibility off themselves so they don’t have to change any of their plans. One they grow past their mistakes, their personal dedication to the issue tends to escalate or increase; this concept is defined as an escalation tendency of behavior. Ross and Staw (1978) showed that the management wanting to regain losses demonstrated a short feelings of negative responsibility for a failed outcome. Staw (1980) points out that because people are competitive they want to show that their pervious failures can still pay off, once again causing escalations of commitment tendencies. Researchers have shown that escalation tendencies will decrease if at the beginning of a project the group works together; this will lessen the diffusion of responsibility and the blame for a failed outcome as the failure cannot be blamed on one person as responsibility is shared. Groups of people will feel less responsible for failure while individuals feel m ore at blame although both exercise the same amount of commitment toward the goal. Leatherwood and Conlon (1987) did studies to show that if a administrator can blame another person for failure on a project that had already been decided that the blamed individuals level of persistence will change. The two believed that the commitment level of a manager would slowly decrease the more that they passed the blame onto another person whereas if they accepted the blame for themselves their level of commitment to make every project that followed better would continue to increase and in turn their projects would succeed more frequently.

Although researchers and psychologists have a long way to go before we will ever completely understand the human brain, we are now able to see the processes that go into creating behavior, including the diffusion of responsibility. Much has been learned from the research conducted so far; not only are we more aware that in emergency or nonemergency situations that occur in large groups less people are likely to help but also that antisocial and extreme behavior will happen when people communicate or feel they are being treated unfairly. Similarly, research has shown that in negative situations where things may go wrong, people will blame others or try and make the negative things seem a bit more positive. As human beings we are competitive, unwilling to accept responsibility and easily overtaken by our own emotions. By understanding this, we can better understand ourselves and those around us in a more meaningful way.

References

Brown, R. (1965). Social Psychology, News Weekly: Free Press

Jellison, J.M., & Riskind, J. (1970). A social comparison of abilities interpretations of risk-taking behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 15, 375-390

Leatherwood, M.L., & Conlon, E.J. (1987). Diffusability of blame: Effects on persistence in a project. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 836-848.

Staw, B. (1974). Attitudinal and behavioral consequences of changing a major organizational reward: A natural field experiment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 742-751.

Staw, B. (1980). Rationality and justification in organizational live. In B. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.) Research in organizational behavior (Vol. @, pp. 45-80). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weick, K. (1964). Reduction of cognitive dissonance through task enhancement and effort expenditure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 56, 152-155.

Elman, D. (1976) Why is tipping “Cheaper by the bunch”: Diffusion or just deserts? Personal & Social Psychology. Bull., 2, 307.

Freeman, S., Walker, M.r., Borden, R., & Latane, B. (1975) Diffusion of responsibility and restaurant tipping: Cheaper by the bunch. Personal & Social Psychology. Bull., 1, 584-587.

Snyder, M.L. (1976) The inverse relationship between restaurant party size and tip percentage: Diffusion of responsibility or equity? Personal & Social Psychology. Bull., 2, 308.