[3] Assumption of responsibility tends to decrease when the potential helping group is larger, resulting in little aiding behavior demonstrated by the bystander(s).
The diffusion of responsibility is a probable cause for many of their feelings and actions, but other possible contributing factors include the existing antisemitism of Germany at that time and the threats imposed by Nazi officials.
[7] For example, the author of [8] reports sending thousands of emails to professors at universities worldwide, inviting them to recommend a journal to their students.
The response rate has been extremely low, especially when using blind carbon copy (bcc) to reach multiple recipients simultaneously.
Moreover, in companies where it is promoted, people still do not participate since they assume others will take the responsibility, causing feelings similar to a lack of accountability.
The behaviour is driven by the deindividuating effects of group membership and the diffusion of feelings of personal responsibility for the consequences.
To promote the concept of fairness, the leader will generally assign an equal amount of work to individuals within the group.
Evidence from numerous research studies suggests "followers" have not taken responsibility because they feel they have a lower status in the organisation.
[17] Because of the diffusion of responsibility, people feel that their need to intervene in a situation decreases as the number of other (perceived) witnesses increases.
[7] Research in the past has shown that gender does play a role in terms of how people make decisions about helping others.
[18] 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.
[19] 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.
[21] 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.
In 1968 and a series of experiments that followed, 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.
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.
Thus, the presence of bystanders affects individual helping behaviour by processes of social influence and diffusion of responsibility.
Purely focusing on the functional aspects of their jobs is a result of division of labour, which is a mechanism for diffusion of responsibility.
[29] 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.
[30] The risky-shift effect (see groupshift) is the increased likelihood for a group to support or partake in a risky decision or action.
[13] Other research suggests that risky shifts can also be attributed to group polarization, majority rules, interpersonal comparisons, informational influence, and familiarisation.
[35][36] 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.
[37] Rising from the unfortunate case of Catherine "Kitty" Genovese, the bystander effect is a psychological notion that came to light in the 1960s.
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.
[22] 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.