Attributions of Responsibility for Helping and Doing Harm: Evidence for Confusion of Responsibility

The social inhibition of helping is well documented, and this phenomenon has been explained in terms of the general processes of audience inhibition, social influence, and diffusion of responsibility. In the present research, we adapted the paradigm used in studies of the attribution of responsibility for an accident to examine a specific audience-inhibition process that may contribute to the social inhibition of helping. Evidence from two experiments showed that an individual who adopted the perspective of a helper following an accident expected to be held increasingly responsible by arriving onlookers for the victim's plight as the number of extant bystanders increased. Results also indicated that there was an objective basis for this expectation: Subjects who adopted the perspective of a newly arriving onlooker increasingly attributed responsibility for doing harm to the individual helping the victim in the accident as the number of bystanders described as already at the scene increased. The distinction between confusion and diffusion of responsibility is emphasized, and limitations to confusion of responsibility for accidents are discussed.

[1]  J. Burger Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. , 1981 .

[2]  E. Walster,et al.  Assignment of responsibility for an accident. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  J. Howard Societal Influences on Attribution: Blaming Some Victims More Than Others , 1984 .

[4]  Robert B. Cialdini,et al.  Transgression and Altruism: A Case for Hedonism. , 1973 .

[5]  Michael E. Enzle,et al.  A cognitive model of social norms for understanding the transgression–helping effect. , 1981 .

[6]  S. Schachter The Psychology Of Affiliation , 1959 .

[7]  Kelly G. Shaver,et al.  Defensive attribution-Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident , 1970 .

[8]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[9]  B. Latané,et al.  Ten years of research on group size and helping Psychological Bulletin Vol 89 , 1981 .

[10]  S. Harkins,et al.  Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. , 1982 .

[11]  M. Seligman,et al.  Learned helplessness in humans: critique and reformulation. , 1978, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[12]  H. Triandis Attitude and attitude change , 1971 .

[13]  S. Harkins,et al.  Effects of personal involvement: Thought-provoking implications for social loafing. , 1986 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[15]  S. Schwartz,et al.  Bystander reactions to a violent theft: crime in Jerusalem , 1976 .

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

[17]  S H Schwartz,et al.  Bystander anonymity and reactions to emergencies. , 1980, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  E. Staub Helping a Distressed Person: Social, Personality, and Stimulus Determinants , 1974 .

[19]  Richard E. Petty,et al.  The Effects of Group Size on Cognitive Effort and Evaluation , 1977 .

[20]  J. Rodin,et al.  Costs, diffusion, and the stigmatized victim. , 1975 .

[21]  A. Isen,et al.  Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: a cognitive loop? , 1978, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  L. Ross The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1 , 1977 .

[23]  Thomas Ashby Wills,et al.  Basic Processes in Helping Relationships , 1983 .

[24]  B. R. Schlenker Impression Management: The Self-Concept, Social Identity, and Interpersonal Relations , 1980 .

[25]  L. Wheeler,et al.  Review of personality and social psychology , 1980 .