Electronic Helping Behavior: The Virtual Presence of Others Makes a Difference

Years of research have demonstrated that the physical presence of others can reduce the tendency to help individuals needing assistance. This study examined whether the diffusion of responsibility phenomenon extends beyond face-to-face environments and helps explain the lack of responsiveness often demonstrated by Internet users who receive e-mail requests sent to multiple people simultaneously. Participants were sent an e-mail message requesting assistance with an online library search task. Each person received the message along with an indication that 0, 1, 14, or 49 others were also contacted. The results demonstrated partial support for the study hypothesis. As expected, the virtual presence of many others significantly reduced e-mail responsiveness; however, nonresponse did not directly increase in proportion with group size.

[1]  L. Bickman.  Social influence and diffusion of responsibility in an emergency , 1972 .

[2]  J. Fleishman,et al.  Collective action as helping behavior: Effects of responsibility diffusion on contributions to a public good. , 1980 .

[3]  Greg Barron,et al.  Learning to Ignore Online Help Requests , 2003, Comput. Math. Organ. Theory.

[4]  Douglas Austrom,et al.  Diffusion of Responsibility in Charitable Donations , 1983 .

[5]  J. Darley,et al.  Do groups always inhibit individuals responses to potential emergencies? , 1973, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  R. D. Clark,et al.  Why don't bystanders help? Because of ambiguity? , 1972 .

[7]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[8]  John Orbell,et al.  Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. , 1988 .

[9]  Nancy N. Thalhofer.  Responsibility, Reparation, and Self-Protection as Reasons for Three Types of Helping. , 1971 .

[10]  Brian Mullen,et al.  Operationalizing the effect of the group on the individual: A self-attention perspective , 1983 .

[11]  J. McGrath,et al.  Bystander effect in a demand-without-threat situation. , 1972 .

[12]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Getting a Clue , 1996 .

[13]  Joseph E. McGrath,et al.  Time matters in groups , 1990 .

[14]  Marylène Gagné,et al.  Performance and Learning Goal Orientations as Moderators of Social Loafing and Social Facilitation , 1999 .

[15]  Michael Smilowitz,et al.  The Effects of Computer Mediated Communication on an Individual's Judgment: A Study Based on the Methods of Asch's Social Influence Experiment , 1988 .

[16]  Paul Resnick,et al.  Reputation systems , 2000, CACM.

[17]  Robert S. Baron,et al.  The eyes have it : Minority influence in face-to-face and computer-mediated group discussion , 1997 .

[18]  P. Markey.  Bystander intervention in computer-mediated communication , 2000 .

[19]  S. Weisband.  Group discussion and first advocacy effects in computer-mediated and face-to-face decision making groups , 1992 .

[20]  Greg Barron,et al.  Private e-mail requests and the diffusion of responsibility , 2002, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[21]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[22]  L. Bickman.  The effect of another bystander's ability to help on bystander intervention in an emergency☆ , 1971 .

[23]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication , 1984 .

[24]  Mary E. Losch,et al.  Attributions of Responsibility for Helping and Doing Harm: Evidence for Confusion of Responsibility , 1986 .

[25]  T. Postmes,et al.  Intergroup differentiation in computer-mediated communication: Effects of depersonalization , 2002 .

[26]  B. Latané,et al.  Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  S. Asch.  Opinions and Social Pressure , 1955, Nature.

[28]  B. Latané.  The psychology of social impact. , 1981 .

[29]  Bibb Latané,et al.  Diffusion of Responsibility and Restaurant Tipping: Cheaper by the Bunch , 1975 .

[30]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Group processes in computer-mediated communication☆ , 1986 .

[31]  Paul Resnick,et al.  Reputation Systems: Facilitating Trust in Internet Interactions , 2000 .

[32]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Empathic communities: balancing emotional and factual communication , 1999, Interact. Comput..

[33]  L. Adrianson,et al.  Group processes in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication , 1991 .

[34]  S. Kiesler,et al.  Community Effort in Online Groups: Who Does the Work and Why? , 2007 .

[35]  Steven D. Penrod,et al.  Social Influence Model: A formal integration of research on majority and minority influence processes. , 1984 .

[36]  G. Marwell,et al.  Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem , 1979, American Journal of Sociology.

[37]  Deborah A. Prentice,et al.  Asymmetries in Attachments to Groups and to their Members: Distinguishing between Common-Identity and Common-Bond Groups , 1994 .

[38]  K. Williams,et al.  Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. , 1981 .

[39]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. , 1987 .

[40]  B. Latané,et al.  The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help? , 1972 .

[41]  G. Marwell,et al.  THE PARADOX OF GROUP SIZE IN COLLECTIVE ACTION: A THEORY OF THE CRITICAL MASS. II. * , 1988 .

[42]  Karl L. Wuensch,et al.  The impact of recipient list size and priority signs on electronic helping behavior , 2004, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[43]  Abraham S. Ross,et al.  Effect of increased responsibility on bystander intervention: II. The cue value of a blind person. , 1973 .

[44]  Donelson R. Forsyth,et al.  Responsibility Diffusion in Cooperative Collectives , 2002 .

[45]  Kipling D. Williams,et al.  PROCESSES Social Loafing: A Meta-Analytic Review and Theoretical Integration , 2022 .

[46]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. , 1987 .

[47]  Akhil Kumar,et al.  Workflow-Centric Information Distribution Through E-Mail , 2000, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..