Social Diffusion Of Responsibility

Social control theory and social learning theory are two theories that suggest why deviant behavior is chosen to be acted upon by some individuals and not others. Both take a different stance on the issue. Social control theory suggests people’s behavior is based on their bonds to society, if they have strong bonds to society they conform and if not they have a tendency to act out or become involved in criminal or deviant behavior. Social learning theory suggest that through vicarious learning people learn from observing others and based on what the observe make the choice of whether to copy those actions to obtain desired results or chose not to if

Deindividuation results in individuals becoming less self-aware, and more inclined to go along with group decisions. Rather than taking personal responsibility for their own actions, de-individuated people see responsibility as diffused, and placed on the group as a whole. The diffusion of responsibility leads to more aggressive behavior towards outsiders.

We are always being told that there is safety in numbers but with their findings we are less likely to help when we are in a bigger group, we are either leaders or we are followers. Spreading out responsibility throughout the crowd is a good way to cause someone their life. If someone had been brave enough to pick up the phone at the first sign of distress and just call the police the night of Kitty was killed, that could have saved her but instead for whatever reason unknown they froze. Thinking someone else will call the police, let another person take responsibility. It’s kind of the same thing that happens at work, when the boss says who will take on that project and no one steps up, cowering in the back hoping someone will take it before the boss picks them. It’s bad enough we already doubt ourselves in personal perspectives and to have to question oneself about the willingness to extend help to others makes things even

People have a tendency, known as social proof, to believe that others' interpretation of the ambiguous situation is more accurate than their own. Hence, a lack of response by others leads them to conclude that the situation is not an emergency and that response is not warranted. Finally, empirical evidence has shown that the bystander effect is negated when the situation is clearly recognized as an emergency. In a 1976 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Lance Shotland and Margaret Straw illustrated that when people witnessed a fight between a man and a woman that they believed to be strangers to each other, they intervened 65 percent of the time. Thus, people often do not respond appropriately to an emergency situation because the situation is unclear to them and as a result, they have misinterpreted it as a non-emergency based on their own past experience or social cues taken from others.

1. After the 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese, John Darley and Bibb Latane were in shock as the rest of the city/world that a 28 year old lady could be stabbed in a neighborhood with about 38 by standers or more and say or do nothing. Why didn’t anyone try and help her? How could people stand by and watch this go on? People speculated that the failure of people to get involved might be due more to the influence (socially) that bystanders have on each other. To test this theory, Darley and Latane, two psychologists, decided to conduct a study. “Diffusion of Responsibility” Everyone hopes that someone else will be the first to step up

Social psychology first examined the phenomena later termed “bystander effect” in response to a 1964 murder. The murder of a young woman with as many as 38 witnesses and none who helped until it was too late. The bystander effect is individuals seeing an emergency situation but not helping. There are many reasons why individuals do not respond: diffusion of responsibility, not noticing or unsure if it is an emergency, and not wanting to be liable if the person still dies are a few.

First ‘The Bystander Effect’, states ‘that individuals are less likely to intervene in emergency situations when other people are present’. Latne & Darley, (1970) cited in Byford J.( 2014 pp 232). Simply put, where emergency situations arise, if more than one person is present the likelihood of someone in distress being helped reduces. This is the ‘diffusion of responsibility’ effect were each bystander feels less obliged to help because the responsibility seems to be divided with others present’. (Byford J., 2014 pp233) An example of Bystander Apathy shown within a video (The Open University 2016).

When in large groups people feel less apparent and adopt the group mindset, as if they are invisible in comparison to the large amount of people around them partaking in the same or similar acts. There is less of a blame and guilt factor present. People may also feel as if it is okay that they do it, because their peers are making similar decisions. A good example of deindividuation is the Aggiville riots, where

Walking along the busy street of Manhattan, Katie becomes light headed passing out; although she is in a large group of people, no one stops to help. This phenomenon is called the “bystander effect.” A bystander is often anyone who passed by, witnessed, or even participated in a certain situation (Polanin, Espelage & Pigott, 2012). The bystander effect is the idea that the larger the group, the less likely an individual is to be helped. The likelihood of someone getting helped is inversely compared to the number of people who are around witnessing the event at the time. This phenomenon has played a huge role in the increase of civilians failing to be helped in the past years, and is starting to have more light shined upon it. Knowledge of

Strain theory, social disorganization, and labeling/stigma theory explain a lot of what

In the 2007 article “the bystander effect” the author Dorothy Barkin’s was talking about the reasons why most people decide not to get involved in complex situations. Many think that the reasons maybe very obvious such as the fear of possible danger to one’s self or having to go through long legal proceedings. However, the author talks about two main reasons for such actions. The first being ambiguity, the fact the most people do not know how to evaluate different situations and there lays most for the decision making. As knowing what the problem that you are facing in that moment, that alone creates a high-pressure environment that most people would not like to be involved in. Not to mention, being able to help effectively

The next thing I found to be extremely interesting was diffusion of responsibility. I really took a keen interest in this part of the article because it is something that I feel like goes on often and can easily be stopped. They went into details on how once there are more people in a group, each person feels less responsible, and comparing that to when you are the only witness you are fully responsible for what happens. They performed an experiment on a group of 6 people and had a prerecorded voice on the intercom saying that they were having a seizer and called out for help. The people who believed were the only ones to hear the cries for help had 85% of them help, and the ones who thought they were one of the six only 31% of

Identify behavioral changes that result from the presence of others. Why does the presence of others produce changes in our level of performance or awareness?

Within the passage I was very reluctant to see how Peter would argue this one. however, he did not disappoint in chapter 4, two point's was made that really stood out to me, the first is "Diffusion of Responsibility"." That we are much less likely to help if the responsibility of helping dose not rely entirely on us".  Sing mentioned in the book the horrible story of Kitty Genovese, how 38 heard or saw the murder but have done nothing to help. in this case all people had to do was pick up the phone and report it, however no one did.

The bystander effect is both a social and psychological phenomenon in which an individual’s inclination towards showing helping behaviours are minimised by the influence of other people. Research has found that the more people acting as bystanders in a situation, the less likely it is that helping behaviours will be demonstrated. However in the correct conditions, where conditioned cues increase self-awareness, it is possible to reverse the bystander effect phenomenon. The bystander effect is prevalent in everyday life, and often decorates the news, shocking the world, especially when authority figures such as police men and women succumb to the effect. Diffusion of responsibility, ignorance of others interpretation of an event and self-consciousness are all social processes which appear to lead to social inhibition of helping behaviours and one of the main theories of the bystander effect is provided Latané and Darley (1970) whose cognitive model provides a series of decisions that can lead to social inhibition. The bystander effect is influenced by the conditions an individual is in when an event occurs, for example the bystander effect appears to be most dominant when an individual is in a group of strangers with low group cohesiveness. FINISH