Not (Entirely) Guilty: The Role of Co-offenders in Diffusing Responsibility for Crime

Objectives: Test the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis by examining associations between the presence, number, and role of co-offenders and adolescents’ perceived responsibility for criminal behavior. Methods: The study uses data from the Crossroads Study, a longitudinal study of 1,216 male adolescents who were arrested for the first time. A series of generalized ordered logistic regressions assess how different features of the group context are linked to adolescent offending. Models first examine the relationship between the presence of a co-offender and adolescents’ perceptions of responsibility for their crime, followed by co-offending specific models examining the impact of the number of co-offenders and role in the co-offense. Results: Adolescents’ perceptions of responsibility for criminal behavior decrease when they co-offend, as the size of the group increases, and when crime is not solely their idea. Conclusions: The study's findings are consistent with the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis, which highlights an important psychological experience tied to the group context. The findings contribute to our understanding of adolescent risky decision-making and shed insight into how the group context may facilitate criminal behavior.

The Effect of Incentives: Diffusion of Responsibility

Diffusion of responsibility refers to the problem that when something is everyone’s job, it in effect ends up being nobody’s job. This explains why many collective problems arise. People face perverse incentives to free ride on others’ actions and not to do their part. As a result, agents often think in short-term rather than long-term ways. Problems such as climate change can be modeled as instances of the tragedy of the commons, one form of a collective action problem that arises due to perverse incentives created by the diffusion of responsibility.

Bystander Affiliation Influences Intervention Behavior: A Virtual Reality Study

Traditional work on bystander intervention in violent emergencies has found that the larger the group, the less the chance that any individual will intervene. Here, we tested the impact on helping behavior of the affiliation of the bystanders with respect to the participants. We recruited 40 male supporters of the U.K. Arsenal football club for a two-factor between groups study with 10 participants per group. Each participant spoke with a virtual human Arsenal supporter (V), the scenario displayed in a virtual reality system. During this conversation, another virtual character (P), not an Arsenal fan, verbally abused V for being an Arsenal fan leading eventually to physical pushing. There was a group of three virtual bystanders who were all either Arsenal supporters indicated by their shirts, or football fans wearing unbranded shirts. These bystanders either encouraged the participant to intervene or dissuaded him. We recorded the number of times that participants intervened to help V during the aggression. We found that participants were more likely to intervene when the bystanders were out-group with respect to the participant. By comparing levels of intervention with a “baseline” study (identical except for the presence of bystanders), we conclude that the presence of in-group bystanders decreases helping. We argue therefore that, other things being equal, diffusion of responsibility is more likely to be overcome when participant and victim share group membership, but bystanders do not. Our findings help to develop understanding of how diffusion of responsibility works by combining elements of both the bystander effect and the social identity approach to bystander behavior.

Helping

This chapter investigates why people will help in some circumstances and fail to act in others. The brutal murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 was witnessed by 37 witnesses, yet no one intervened, kick-starting research into understanding what elements of the social context causes paralysis in people to act. This is compared to a 2015 accident in London, which saw 50 bystanders lift a bus off a cyclist. The chapter unearths the rules of helping behavior and how to overcome the diffusion of responsibility. When the need for help is apparent, interpreted correctly, and responsibility to act is clear, the chances to overcome paralysis is high. Taking advantage of these rules is especially important for the gig economy, where the connections between people are more tenuous and diffused across organizations.

Moral Disengagement, Empathy, and Cybervictim’s Representation as Predictive Factors of Cyberbullying among Italian Adolescents

This study aimed to evaluate which aspects of moral disengagement (MD), empathy, and representations of the victim’s experience (VER) could be predictors of cyberbullying (CB). One hundred and eight-nine students (11–17 years old) completed 3 self-report questionnaires: An MD scale, an empathy scale, and a CB questionnaire. In relation to the personal experience of CB, four groups were identified: Victim, bully, bully/victim, and no experience with CB. The linear bivariate correlation analysis shows correlations between empathy and VER, between empathy and MD, and between MD and VER. A multinomial logistic regression identified which predictors could increase a subject’s probability of belonging to one of the four groups regarding the personal experience of CB (victim, bully, bully/victim, no experience). Findings highlighted that low cognitive empathy might increase the probability for a student to belong to the bullies’ group, rather than the victims’ group. Furthermore, low perception of the consequences of CB on the victim might increase the probability of belonging to the bully, bully/victim, and no experience groups. Then, a high score in the diffusion of responsibility was a significant predictor of belonging to the victim group rather than the no experience group. Results from this study confirm the need for preventive measures against CB, including the empowerment of cognitive empathy, decreasing the diffusion of responsibility, and increasing the awareness of the consequences of CB on the victim.

Lying for Bonuses

This study aims to determine whether being in a group setting makes lying easier through the diffusion of responsibility. Participants in three separate conditions, two paired and one isolated control, were asked to roll dice and report results. Participants also had the incentive of earning extra money if the reported number was a four, regardless of the truthfulness of the response. The results showed that participants overwhelmingly reported rolling a four, statistically indicating that many chose to lie. Additionally, one of the two group conditions proved to have significantly higher rates of reported lying than the individual condition (with the other group condition directionally higher but not significantly). The findings suggest that people are more likely to engage in immoral behavior when placed in a group setting as opposed to when acting independently.

Changes of Causal Attribution by a Co-actor in Situations of Obvious Causality

In social contexts, people are responsible for their actions and outcomes. Diffusion of responsibility is a well-known social phenomenon: people feel less responsible when performing an action with co-actors than when acting alone. In previous studies, co-actors reduced the participant’s responsibility attribution by making the cause of the outcomes ambiguous. Meanwhile, it is unclear whether the presence of co-actors creates diffusion of responsibility even in situations where it is “obvious” that both oneself and the co-actor are the causes of an outcome. To investigate this potential diffusion of responsibility, we used a temporal binding (TB) task as a measure of causal attribution. Low TB effects indicate the enhancement of external attribution (i.e., diffusion of responsibility) in perceptual processing for the action and outcomes. To investigate the influence of presence of a co-actor on causal attribution, participants were required to act under two experimental conditions: an ALONE condition (participant only) or a TOGETHER condition (with a co-actor). The only difference between the two conditions was whether the actions were shared. In addition, to make participants feel responsible, they were induced to feel guilt. In the High-harm condition, participants gave a financial reduction to a third party. When guilt was induced, participants showed lower TB effects in the TOGETHER condition compared to the ALONE condition. Our study suggests that actions with a co-actor change causal attributions even though the causes of the outcome are obvious. This may have implications for understanding diffusion of responsibility in inhumane situations.

Suppose your bus broke down and nobody came

The absence of a human driver creates novel challenges for fully automated public transport. Passengers are likely to have different expectations, needs, or even fears when traveling without a driver in potentially dangerous situations. We present the results from two field studies in which we explored incident management in a driverless shuttle bus. We explored participant’s behavior and willingness to assist in solving problems in a variety of scenarios where the bus suddenly stops for technical reasons or a hypothesized situation of harassment. In a follow-up study, we focused on auditory remote assistance and investigated problem solving through the passengers. We found that diffusion of responsibility is an existent barrier, when passengers are involved in the resolving of potentially dangerous situations. It can be overcome, when incident-relevant instructions are designed explicitly, briefly, timely, distinguishable from regular on-trip information, and address auditory and visual sensory channels alike.