Verified by 
Does this sound familiar? You witness a car accident on the freeway. You decide not to stop or call the police because you assume that someone else has likely seen the accident and made the call already. Happens all the time, right?
It’s called ‘diffusion of responsibility’ and it’s an idea that has been explored in psychology for several decades. It was first brought to attention following the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City in the 1960s when her brutal murder made headlines: “37 Who Saw Murder Didn’t Call The Police."
There were allegedly multiple neighbors who witnessed Genovese’s death on the streets of New York, but they did nothing to help her. She called out “help,” yet no one came to her defense or made a call to the police. Why?
"I didn't want to get involved." —Karl Ross, witness of Kitty Genovese’s' murder
This lack of action, or diffusion of responsibility, stumped experts worldwide. In emergency situations, we tend to feel less responsibility to respond or call for help if we know that others are also watching the situation. We assume that others are either more responsible for acting or have already done so. The phenomenon known as the Bystander Effect attempts to explain why someone witnessing a crime would not help the victim.
Of course, this is an extreme example of the diffusion of responsibility, but it’s something I see to a lesser degree in everyday life, particularly in working with people who are struggling with an addiction.
What Is Diffusion of Responsibility?
“Diffusion of Responsibility” is a social psychology idea that predicts the presence of others makes an individual feel less responsible, or less in control, thereby leading them to assume that the situation is already being taken care of by another, more responsible, party.
Research has shown that people tend to take less responsibility when they are in a larger group of people. This results in little helping behavior by members of the group. In a staged emergency situation, researchers found that 85% of participants intervened (or took responsibility) when they were on their own compared to 62% of participants who were with one other person and 31% of participants who were in a group of five bystanders. The bystander phenomenon has been replicated by other studies, including reports from real emergencies such as calling an ambulance for overdose patients and offering CPR after a cardiac arrest.
This doesn’t mean that people aren't acting because they lack compassion, but they may not be fully equipped to process a traumatic event as it unfolds, especially when others are around.
Interestingly, the research shows that gender plays a role in terms of how people make decisions about helping others. In previous research, people have generally helped women and the bystander effect is greater when a man needs help. The participants perceive the woman being in more need of help compared to males. However, more recently the women’s liberation movement has begun to break down those stereotypes.
The Process of Taking Action to Help Others
Psychologists John Darley and Bibb Latané have spent their careers studying the Bystander Effect and have conducted many clinical experiments to explore an individual’s actions in an emergency situation. They believe that once an individual notices something is happening, such as a crime or another emergency, a sequence of decision-making occurs.
- First, the person notices the problem.
- The person then assesses whether they are witnessing an actual emergency (this is likely accompanied by a physiological response or adrenaline rush).
- Then, most importantly, the person has to decide whether to take personal responsibility and act or to do nothing.
- Next, the person has to decide what action needs to be taken.
- Lastly, the person takes action (or not).
As you can imagine, in an emergency situation, a person will likely pass through these steps quickly and on a subconscious level. They won’t be standing there thinking, "Oh should I do something or not?" They will be continually assessing the situation—the person, what help may be required, and who else is around. If a person believes that someone else will act (or is likely to be more skilled at helping the person in need) then they may decide to take a course of non-action.
Diffusion of responsibility contributes to the bystander effect. A person does not feel as responsible for helping someone if several others are also present, since responsibility is distributed among all those present. However, when a person is alone, they may be more likely to take responsibility to help the person in need, but this likely depends on whether they feel they have the necessary skills to help the person.
Why Does Diffusion of Responsibility Matter?
Why should we care about diffusion of responsibility? There are a number of ways it can impact you on a personal, peer or societal level.
- It can be of social, political, and moral importance, because it might be used as an excuse to explain someone's inhumane actions (such as the Holocaust).
- It might lead to "group think." This occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or unhelpful decisions because they want to conform and avoid conflict. This could be due to a particular agenda by a group member, or simply because the group wants to maintain cohesion.
- It might lead to the "bystander effect." As mentioned above, the diffusion of responsibility can contribute to the lack of action taken by a person in an emergency situation simply because there are other people or witnesses present.
What Does Diffusion of Responsibility Have to Do with Addiction and Recovery?
One study found that only 23% of people who witness an overdose actually call an emergency service. Why? The results from the study indicate that when there are four or more witnesses (or bystanders) present at an overdose, the likelihood of calling 911 decreases. However, if an individual had previously witnessed an overdose, or the bystander was a female, the likelihood of calling 911 increased.
Overdoses can be fatal and so a quick response is crucial to the outcome of the individual. If we stand by and do nothing, then there’s the risk that someone can die. Let’s not assume that people who witness an overdose simply do not care, but perhaps they do not comprehend the seriousness of the situation or just don’t know what to do.
Another possible cause is that our social responsibility norm is off (the societal rule that tells people they should help others who need help even if doing so is costly). Loss of community, breakdown of togetherness, emphasis on "otherness,” us against them. All of these factors can influence the decisions made by a person in an emergency situation.
How can we eliminate diffusion of responsibility?
Some of the ways we can increase a sense of responsibility in individuals include:
- Reducing group size (if applicable such as in the workplace or when assigning a group project).
- Defining clear expectations. In the example of Kitty Genovese, her murder has been credited as one of the factors that pushed the emergency 911 system into place. This represented a cultural shift in how to handle an emergency as a society: It defined the expectation of “if you see something, say something." Even if you can’t personally help the person, for example, they are in a dangerous situation or experiencing deteriorating health, you can still do something. We can pick up the phone and ensure that someone trained to help others is notified of the situation.
- Increasing accountability. If you see someone pass out in a crowded mall, point to someone and say "You, call 911.” Make a single individual accountable and they will be more likely to respond than if you used a generic statement like “Someone call 911.”
We all talk about reduced empathy in the world, but these concepts relate to the same problem- with the notion that there are so many resources and ways to get help. You could use your cell phone to call an emergency service or simply summon help with an app.
I'm big on self-accountability and I make a point to stop when I see someone injured or stuck on the side of the road, simply because I know so many others will not. I have struggled with addiction in the past and been judged or overlooked by others and I have put my life at risk on numerous occasions. If someone had reached out to me, maybe things wouldn’t have gotten as bad as they did. Since then, I’ve taken a position of action to help as many people as I can.
Intervention at the social level may be a viable means to increase bystander helping behaviors. We should focus efforts to reduce shame around addiction and mental health. We should focus on compassion instead of contempt and helping instead of ignoring. We are all human and we are all deserving of help when in need.
