Talk:Diffusion of responsibility

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skananth, Mrinalis. Peer reviewers: Tv55e52.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed insertion

In all such examples the individual has a choice on whether to participate in these actions, or lack thereof, and incurs responsibility because of some degree of control over the outcome of an action. One cannot be held responsible for something one had no control over. If through duress or threat of one's life one is compelled to commit a crime, then one is still obligated to report such at the soonest opportunity. Control and the ability to chose is what determines responsibility in any situation.

I'm sorry, but the above remains quite factual and self-evident, not a tangent at all. This article is already very slanted and biased towards one point of view. The mere use of the word social instead of natural is biased, for it is and always has been human nature to follow the masses regardless of moral conpunction, and a clear case of destiny being allowed to cancel free will. This is not a social problem.

How does one cite self-evident truths? Murder being immoral remains a self-evident truth that needs not be cited. "One cannot be responsible for that which one has no control over" remains simple fact. Can anyone possibly argue against it? Please do so. If not, I am reinserting this paragraph, thank you. Jcchat66 01:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You really picked a bad example there. "Murder being immoral" has not in fact been "a self-evident truth" in all cultures or at all points in history. And, yes, in most cultures there are situations where you can be held responsible for that over which you had no control. But that's a tangent itself - the truth of those statements is irrelevant.

The section was removed as an apparent violation of Wikipedia's strict policy against original research. If you can find a reputable academic study or journal article supporting that point of view, add the section back with the citation. If this is merely your own personal opinion or analysis, then it has no place in the encyclopedia. Very little in this world is truly "self-evident". Rossami (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it very strange that I would be accused of proposing original research when what you have stated could be construed as original research itself. When the facts have been known for all of human history, for thousands of years, that is the status quo. If one challenges the status quo then the burden of proof is on them, which every academic student understands and accepts. Murder is immoral, period, a simple fact (unless one is confused by the meaning of murder, which is not used for military or self-defense situations.) Any argument against this would prove laughable and absurd. Self-evident truths have been recognized by the vast majority of the human race since long before the ancient Greeks, though the Greeks defended it the most it seems. Wikipedia has never demanded that such obvious truths be cited, for that would be impossible as they are too numerous.

Rossami quoted: "And, yes, in most cultures there are situations where you can be held responsible for that over which you had no control." Just because one is held responsible for something one had no control over does not make them responsible. This is, in fact, a very serious problem in most cultures, which is exactly why I am presenting the above paragraph to remove such bias and ignorance.

Furthermore, the notion that there is no self-evident truths has gained ground only in recent history amongst the various Germanic philosophers like Nietzsche, one of the worst offenders for original research along with Marx and Freud and many others of that period. Axioms, self-evident truth, absolute facts, etc are just that, and to undermine them with sophism is nothing short of biased social attacks against those few cultures that believe in free will and despise aristocracy. That is not original research, for any intelligent understanding of history makes it quite obvious. One has only to look at those ancient cultures that believed in free will who suffered the worst; Jews, Celts, Carthaginians, etc. But that is another topic altogether.

Again, no viable argument has been made against my proposed paragraph. Rossami has only made opinions. Does anyone have an argument justifying why one should be held responsible for that which one had no control over? That is the important question here. Jcchat66 19:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding what we mean on Wikipedia by "original research". Please go read (or re-read) this policy page and it's accompanying commentary. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read it many times, because too many people use it as an answer in place of not having an argument. There is also some degree of hypocrisy, for Wikipedia encourages editing even against its own rules for the benefit of sharing knowledge. But I have made no original claims whatsoever, nor original research, and no opinion. Likewise, where are the reliable citations for this article? And article which seems to have conveniently left out the textbook definition of responsibility.

Again, no argument against the status quo from anyone. You have supplied no reason or citations for your opinion. Jcchat66 05:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop inserting the disputed text until you can cite an independent, reliable source for the assertion you are trying to add to the article. The rest of the material in the article can be verified by checking any first-year psychology or sociology textbook. The text you are trying to add is not part of the standard discussion of the concept of "responsibility". If that is a statement held by a particular faith, ethical framework or other scholarly discussion, simply cite your source. Rossami (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable! This article has no citations and relies on your claim to be in psychological textbooks, and you feel immune for citations? While the definition of responsbility, as it obviously relates to this article, is clearly evident in any dictionary. No one is obligated to cite definitions for every word we use on this site. I am trying to PREVENT this article from being deemed biased as it stands, and assert no opinion whatsoever. The meaning of the word is well beyond the scope of religious or social context, for the concept is basic as a natural psychological level ... not social as you assert. If this is your article, it is you that is challenging the facts, and the burden would then lie with you. If you do not like the rules of debate, then do not debate. If you can offer a valid reason why my attempt to balance this article with some factual content, then we can debate. But you have not done so, and you have no sought a third party.

As I have already made perfectly clear with all due civility, the paragraph will be inserted unless someone can rationally object. Jcchat66 18:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have revised and refined the paragraph to intergrate it with the general meaning of the word, without adding a rediculous link to one of many dictionaries. Jcchat66 05:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the problem here is original research, but that the paragraph is argumentitive. This falls less under the category of OR and more under the category of inappropriate tone. It would probably end up with a tag like:

{{Essay-entry}}

The point is not to argue a position, but simply to state facts. It may seem self-evident to the writer, but this is not necessarily the case. Murder being wrong is not necessarily a self-evident truth. (Think war situations.) It is better left out; the article explains the concept adequately. If anything, I would say it goes into too much detail and yes, in places does "read" like OR, even if it is not. BenC7 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I have actually cleaned the article up a bit. BenC7 11:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In response to BenC7, I fail to see how this addresses the dispute. The word "responsibility" as defined conflicts with the spirit if this article, and needs clarification. In other words, we need more facts. The word is factually defined, yet my attempt to add this was shot down. The casual reader, for example, may not understand what responsbility really means by reading this article, whereby it would fails in its purpose. And murder means specifcially a crime. To kill in self-defense, or in war, is not defined as murder. Attention to detail is needed here. Jcchat66 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes for article improvement

• The phrase "certain critical size" needs to be made more specific, either with a number or a range for group size.
• References are needed. I am assuming that this phenomenon is actually named in the literature, and not an abstraction of other concepts. BenC7 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, researchers have not yet determined what that "certain critical size" is though there is some thought suggesting that Dunbar's number is probably related. Rossami (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• The phrase "However this theory lends no necessary individual safety" is very confusing and either needs to be elaborated or removed. It makes no sense in the context of the paragraph. --Essercc (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Kitty Genovese

Kitty Genovese is the classic example of people ducking responsibility, but the story is not really so simple. It's a classic example of tabloid sensationalism, though in this case the tabloid being the New York Times. Certainly there are people who did nothing because they didn't want to get involved, but the Times story made it seem like people who had heard less than a minute of disturbance ignored her screams for an extended period. We don't know how many calls to the police there were (there was no record keeping), but there were calls that the NYPD did not answer. The Times reporter was getting his info from the police, and left out mention of any calls to the police before the one the police responded to. —  Randall Bart   Talk  09:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agentic state

On 6 June 2008, anonymous user:208.179.21.221 removed the second bullet in the opening paragraph with the comment that "The second bullet point refers to an agentic state, not to diffusion of responsibility..." The second bullet read that "diffusion of responsibility can manifest itself: ...

• in hierarchical organizations as when, for example, underlings claim that they were following orders and supervisors claim that they were just issuing directives and not doing anything per se."

Most ethical codes around the world reject the position that merely being an agent absolves the subordinate of all personal responsibility for the actions taken. Likewise, most ethical codes hold the superior to some level of responsibility for the actions taken in his/her name. Those making the argument that "I was just following orders" or that "I didn't pull the trigger myself" are attempting to diffuse their personal responsibility onto an amorphous "other" and are failing to act in the same ways that the bystander fails to act in the hope or assumption that some other will. I've restored the bullet pending further discussion here. Rossami (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

wiki noob here. idk how to include this in references section

this article is cited as #4, but is not linked to a url. adding the link to the references page is not intuitive, so I'm putting it here - one of you wikicabal power-editors can put it where it needs to go: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/happiness-in-world/201006/the-diffusion-responsibility 104.183.254.28 (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

me again, i just read the article and at no point did i find the remedies to diffusion of responsibility cited in the wiki entry printed in the article "reducing group size, defining clear expectations, and increasing accountability". gtfo with this fake news, you goons. Dr. Lickerman does offer "displaying leadership", "making it seem personal", and "Target individuals rather than groups" as strategies to reduce the problem. I just want to know where the wiki author got those other things from (seriously, I want to know because I want more details on anything that can alleviate this sociological/psychological challenge). 104.183.254.28 (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Somebody else's problem

The current scope of the "somebody else's problem" article is a single Douglas Adams joke about people passing responsibility for problems onto others. It looks like that article used to be about "a psychological effect where people choose to dissociate themselves from an issue that may be in critical need of recognition" combining various factors like diffusion of responsibility, the bystander effect and information overload to describe how a human might arrive at the conclusion that something is "somebody else's problem". But this was deleted as original research in 2017, I think correctly.

If all that's left is a short Douglas Adams joke, it could be merged here. Lord Belbury (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I get this wrong somehow, not being a contributor I can only bring my perspective as a user, but I do not favour the idea of a merge with the SEP page. I visited that page specifically (with the intention of linking to it) and would have been confused/bemused to find this page instead. That page deals with a joke, one with quite widespread cult(ural) appeal, and it should be left at that; its overlap with scientifically founded concepts of psychology is not surprising, but also not the point. Similarly I wouldn't suggest merging the Dead Parrot Sketch page with one on the mortuary practices of psittaculturalists (although that page is missing at present). Please leave it alone! 91.135.10.3 (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

By merging the two, this article should and would be updated to also mention the joke. I wouldn't suggest merging the Parrot Sketch anywhere as it's clearly had a significant cultural impact in it's own right, and the article says as much. I can't see that the same could be said for Adams's SEP field, good though the joke is. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I regularly link this page as a reference to the Douglas Adams joke. I don't think the article should be removed. To me, this article has always been about the Douglas Adams joke and not any sort of psychoanalytic theory. The joke isn't the Diffusion of Responsibility field it's the "Somebody Else's Problem" field. It's a popular phrase that someone may search for specifically. Kevinh456 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(Note: since proposing this merge, an editor has restored the old introduction framing the SEP article as "a psychological effect where people choose to dissociate themselves from an issue that may be in critical need of recognition" rather than being an article primarily about the Douglas Adams joke.) --Lord Belbury (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I see the SEP as far more culturally significant that the esoteric "diffusion of responsibility" and use in several of my published articles. Please leave it alone - I don't see it as a joke but an important way of discussing something that is actually everyone's problem. Alan Charman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.54.101 (talk) 20:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition to previous post - a perfect example of cultural use available today, from no lesser source than PBS, in an article on mosquito-borne diseases. In the 8th paragraph, the phrase "somebody else's problem" is used to name the effect. Yes, "body" not "one", but the two are quite interchangeable and it shows that the usage has evolved to the point of being its own separate name for the effect. Alan Charman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.60.54.101 (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there some belief here that Adams invented the phrase "somebody else's problem", and that it fell into common usage as a result? I assumed it was an older phrase and sources seem to back this up, so I've updated the somebody else's problem article to say as much. --Lord Belbury (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a closer duplicate to the Bystander Effect. SEP, at least in satire, regards noticing something rather than taking action. It also affects individuals and crowds equally Richard C Haven (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for editing out some of the biases

The article starts "Diffusion of responsibility[1] is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when others are present."

(1) I don't know why it is designated as a 'sociopsychological phenomenon.' To me this sounds like obfuscating psuedo-academic babble--an attempt to give linguistic credibility to the entry by giving it an elevated sounding label. (2) I don't believe the concept is restricted to (a) sociology or sociological modes of inquiry, (b) psychology or psychological modes of inquiry, or (c) phenomenology (pre-modern, postmodern, or any other type. (3) I don't believe the concept is restricted by a current time and place as indicated by the phrase, 'when others are present.'

How about this: "Diffusion of responsibility occurs wherever persons are less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when they are involved in a group effort."

In this paper, the author addresses "Diffusion of Responsibility" in reference to the art of rhetoric (aka public communication) in an era of technologized mass communication. Previously, the rhetor was the individual who took responsibility for the words (as artifacts of communication) she or he presented in public. However, as the author argues, modes of communication in the twentieth century changed to encompass some "non-traditional" canons of rhetoric, specifically where no one single person (the rhetor) was wholly responsible for the artifact of public communication, where there were contributions from multiple rhetors, where no single speaker or author could be determined, etc.

While "Diffusion of Responsibility" stems from what the author terms "Sociosuasion" and "TechnoCiceronianism," it seems to be related to rhetoric and communication theory, not primarily sociology, psychology, and/or phenomenology.

Just my opinion; trying to improve the article.

--Steve Weinstock

Addendum after researching some references to "Bystander Effect" ["The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon in which individuals are less likely to offer help to a victim when other people are present."]:

As noted in the main article "bystander effect" [or "bystander inaction"] in the article on "Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility" is an example (or better, a range of examples) of "Diffusion of Responsibility." My comments about removing the bias are consistent with this. In the article on "Diffusion of Responsibility: Ethos and the Technologized Rhetor," the author seems to be addressing another range of examples that belong to rhetoric and communication theory.

In the current (late 2018) public discussion of rhetoric and responsibility, viz a viz politics, news media, audience and speaker interactions presented via broadcast media, social media, internet channels of communication, etc. (all parts of a collective set of twenty-first century cultural artifacts of communication), it seems to me that there is much "Diffusion of Responsibility" going on, rhetorically speaking.

In the public arena, all sorts of people are currently claiming (1) they are not responsible and (2) others are responsible. In a sense, with all the blaming, there are multiple bystanders and groups of bystanders refusing to solve collective problems.

The explanation I suggested earlier, "Diffusion of responsibility occurs wherever persons are less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when they are involved in a group effort," seems to apply more broadly to a range of examples in different, perhaps interrelated fields.

--Steve Weinstock

References

prosocial diffusion

"In prosocial situations, individuals' willingness to intervene or assist someone in need is inhibited by the presence of other people. The individual is under the belief that other people present will or should intervene. Thus, the individual does not perceive it as her or his responsibility to take action."

"Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that 'benefit[s] other people or society as a whole', 'such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering'."

These two statements seem to be in pretty straightforward contradiction to each other (and the first includes the second as hover text). If there's something subtle going on that makes the outcome of an individual not helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, or volunteering prosocial, that needs to be called out much more explicitly. 2600:4040:2654:5E00:4C:441:D7B:F3DA (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)