<p>From Wikipedia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Diffusion of responsibility</a> is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when other bystanders or witnesses are present. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The causes of it are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Anonymity</li>
<li>Division of labor</li>
<li>Expertise</li>
<li>Group size</li>
<li>Gender</li>
</ul>
<p>I notice that the eagerness to contribute to the group's goal doesn't appear in this list. This is probably why I heard that even leaders of organizations have diffusion of responsibility, even though they should have more urge to grow the organizations. (Nevertheless I agree they are not equally effected as they typically are fewer in number, have less anonymity, more expertise, etc)</p>
<p>However, I'm still not able to reason why the eagerness to contribute to the group's goal isn't a direct variable to this phenomenon. I understand that people may join the group for different reasons than the group's goals, but I think they are also aware that in order to have their goal achieve, they have to contribute to the group first.</p>
<p>My questions are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Is the lack of eagerness to contribute to the group's goal a cause for this phenomenon?</li>
<li>Is the existence of eagerness to contribute to the group's goal an anti-cause for this phenomenon?</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-15T04:32:30.137Z
thanks for your feedback, I have rewritten the question. Is that better?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-15T04:45:47.703Z
I suppose, but I think there's a fundamental definition misunderstanding here. "Diffusion of responsibility" is an observation for describing this behavior without other causes. It doesn't describe things people don't want to do because they are dangerous or don't care or enjoy. It describes differences in behavior when people are in groups vs not.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-15T06:45:32.877Z
So you mean that by definition it should be a thing that is independent with the motivation of the person to the group's goal? And if the research found out that it depends on the motivation, then we need to redefine it rather than pronouncing that it depends on motivation?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-04-15T14:37:40.840Z
I don't think it would really be measurable, unless you were able to show the phenomenon didn't exist, and that seems very unlikely to me. It's a strong phenomenon even in cases where people are, say, dying of a medical emergency.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-11T15:40:57.523Z
so is it that the phenomenon is a binary thing: existing or not existing, and we don't have it as a scale?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-11T15:44:41.033Z
I don't think that's the case either, that it's binary; it's certainly something where you could measure the scale for some situation. I just think you'll get into apples and oranges comparisons if you try to measure the strength of the effect in entirely different circumstances.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-11T16:04:34.033Z
I want to understand more about topics about measuring stuffs like this. Can you advise me some starters?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-05-11T16:31:04.287Z
Review papers are often accessible entries into reading about a topic.
Bryan Krause
<social-psychology><motivation><io-psychology><diffusion-of-responsibility>
Is the lack of eagerness to contribute to the group's goal a cause for diffustion of responsibility?
Ooker
# Is the lack of eagerness to contribute to the group's goal a cause for diffustion of responsibility?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-04-14)

From Wikipedia:

> [Diffusion of responsibility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility) is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when other bystanders or witnesses are present. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so.

The causes of it are:

* Anonymity
* Division of labor
* Expertise
* Group size
* Gender

I notice that the eagerness to contribute to the group's goal doesn't appear in this list. This is probably why I heard that even leaders of organizations have diffusion of responsibility, even though they should have more urge to grow the organizations. (Nevertheless I agree they are not equally effected as they typically are fewer in number, have less anonymity, more expertise, etc)

However, I'm still not able to reason why the eagerness to contribute to the group's goal isn't a direct variable to this phenomenon. I understand that people may join the group for different reasons than the group's goals, but I think they are also aware that in order to have their goal achieve, they have to contribute to the group first.

My questions are:

* Is the lack of eagerness to contribute to the group's goal a cause for this phenomenon?
* Is the existence of eagerness to contribute to the group's goal an anti-cause for this phenomenon?

**Tags:** social-psychology, motivation, io-psychology, diffusion-of-responsibility

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: thanks for your feedback, I have rewritten the question. Is that better?  
> **username_1**: I suppose, but I think there's a fundamental definition misunderstanding here. "Diffusion of responsibility" is an observation for describing this behavior without other causes. It doesn't describe things people don't want to do because they are dangerous or don't care or enjoy. It describes differences in behavior when people are in groups vs not.  
> **username_0**: So you mean that by definition it should be a thing that is independent with the motivation of the person to the group's goal? And if the research found out that it depends on the motivation, then we need to redefine it rather than pronouncing that it depends on motivation?  
> **username_1**: I don't think it would really be measurable, unless you were able to show the phenomenon didn't exist, and that seems very unlikely to me. It's a strong phenomenon even in cases where people are, say, dying of a medical emergency.  
> **username_0**: so is it that the phenomenon is a binary thing: existing or not existing, and we don't have it as a scale?  
> **username_1**: I don't think that's the case either, that it's binary; it's certainly something where you could measure the scale for some situation. I just think you'll get into apples and oranges comparisons if you try to measure the strength of the effect in entirely different circumstances.  
> **username_0**: I want to understand more about topics about measuring stuffs like this. Can you advise me some starters?  
> **username_1**: Review papers are often accessible entries into reading about a topic.  

---

## 0 answers

