Changes of Causal Attribution by a Co-actor in Situations of Obvious Causality

In social contexts, people are responsible for their actions and outcomes. Diffusion of responsibility is a well-known social phenomenon: people feel less responsible when performing an action with co-actors than when acting alone. In previous studies, co-actors reduced the participant’s responsibility attribution by making the cause of the outcomes ambiguous. Meanwhile, it is unclear whether the presence of co-actors creates diffusion of responsibility even in situations where it is “obvious” that both oneself and the co-actor are the causes of an outcome. To investigate this potential diffusion of responsibility, we used a temporal binding (TB) task as a measure of causal attribution. Low TB effects indicate the enhancement of external attribution (i.e., diffusion of responsibility) in perceptual processing for the action and outcomes. To investigate the influence of presence of a co-actor on causal attribution, participants were required to act under two experimental conditions: an ALONE condition (participant only) or a TOGETHER condition (with a co-actor). The only difference between the two conditions was whether the actions were shared. In addition, to make participants feel responsible, they were induced to feel guilt. In the High-harm condition, participants gave a financial reduction to a third party. When guilt was induced, participants showed lower TB effects in the TOGETHER condition compared to the ALONE condition. Our study suggests that actions with a co-actor change causal attributions even though the causes of the outcome are obvious. This may have implications for understanding diffusion of responsibility in inhumane situations.

Situationally Selective Activation of Moral Disengagement Mechanisms in School Bullying: A Repeated Within-Subjects Experimental Study

With reference to social-cognitive theory, the aim of the present study was to examine whether school students' tendency to display different moral disengagement mechanisms varies according to different social cues in hypothetical events in which they are engaged in bullying behavior. A repeated within-subjects experimental design was adopted. A total of 706 Swedish students (aged 10-20) from 75 classrooms responded to four verbal bullying vignettes by filling out a self-report survey. The results showed changes in moral disengagement mechanisms across the bullying situations. For instance, moral justification, victim blaming, and dehumanization scored higher in the mean victim condition and lower in the likable victim condition than in the other two conditions. Diffusion of responsibility was higher in the group conformity condition than in the other conditions. The findings also revealed differences in the levels of moral disengagement mechanisms within the bullying conditions. For example, euphemistic labeling and displacement of responsibility scored higher than the other mechanisms in the laughing audience condition. Victim blaming scored higher than the other mechanisms in the mean victim condition. Dehumanization, victim blaming, and moral justification scored lowest while euphemistic labeling was higher than most of the other mechanisms in the likable victim condition.

Digitalization in dentistry: ethical challenges and implications

OBJECTIVE

Scientific papers and books on digital dentistry are in vogue. In most cases, these publications focus clearly on the - undoubted - potentials and possibilities offered by digitalization. The fact that digital dentistry necessarily entails risks and ethical challenges, by contrast, is rarely discussed. This paper aims to complement the discourse on digitalization in dentistry by analyzing precisely these challenges.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

The study is based on an analysis of international publications and specialist writings on digitalization and its applications in the fields of dentistry and medicine, as well as on the analysis of specific contributions from the disciplines of medical ethics and medical law, and from the public media.

RESULTS

The paper identifies and discusses eight core challenges: (1) big data ("digital double" and falsification in dentistry), (2) the dental practitioner-patient relationship, (3) digital literacy, (4) the assumption of responsibility in complex systems, (5) accompanying changes in the dental professions, (6) cost trap and risks of overtreatment in dentistry, (7) consumption spiral and ecologic footprint, and (8) clinical evidence in dental treatments. In addition, a catalog of criteria for assessing the effects of digitalization in dentistry is developed.

CONCLUSION

It is crucial to closely monitor both the potentials and the challenges posed by digitalization in dentistry. Ultimately, it is only those problems that are identified as such that can be resolved and only those technologies that are accepted by dentists, patients, and society that will prevail in the long term.

Sibling Influences, Sibling Similarities, and Parent Care in Late Life

Researchers have extensively examined why some particular adult children provide care to their aged parents, but rarely considered sibling similarities and influences in their examinations. Guided by social learning theory and diffusion of responsibility theory, we investigate whether sibling similarities are associated with adult children's care hours, net of the parent's and child's characteristics. Based on social comparison theory, we further examine whether such associations differ across adult children, depending on whether adult children share the same characteristics as their siblings. Using Round 5 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, we find that adult children provide more care hours when siblings are close in age, supporting social learning theory. In contrast, adult children provide fewer care hours in the presence of a greater share of siblings who are unpartnered or close to the parents, supporting diffusion of responsibility theory. Consistent with social comparison theory, social learning is stronger for younger adult children, and diffusion of responsibility is weaker when adult children are unpartnered or close to the parents. Findings from this study highlight the importance for future research of going beyond parent-child dyads and incorporate sibling influences when studying the caregiving behavior of adult children.

Escape from the diffusion of responsibility: A review and guide for nurses

AIMS

This review aims to help nurse leaders and professionals to understand, recognize, and mitigate the phenomenon known as the diffusion of responsibility, while also bridging a gap in nursing literature by highlighting Milgram's and Zimbardo's research.

BACKGROUND

Nurses are uninformed of how responsibility is diffused when obeying authority figures, fulfilling roles, and conforming in groups. It is important to recognize and address this potential for unethical practices, given the high risk for these behaviours to occur in health care settings.

EVALUATION

Sources discussing the diffusion of responsibility were identified through databases using terms such as: "Diffusion of Responsibility," "Nursing," "Ethics," "Obedience," "Groupthink," "Bully," "Milgram," and "Zimbardo."

KEY ISSUES

Social psychology examples of diffused responsibility from Milgram, Zimbardo, and Janis are explored, applied to the field of nursing, and leadership implications are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Nurses can unintentionally ascribe accountability for personal action to others. It is therefore essential for nurses to escape the cycle of diffused responsibility.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Examples in this review provide important clues for addressing the negative effects of diffused responsibility. The onus is on nurses to personally enhance the ethics of their practice by surveying, pondering, and applying these concepts.

Reverse audience effects on helping in cooperatively breeding marmoset monkeys

Cooperatively breeding common marmosets show substantial variation in the amount of help they provide. Pay-to-stay and social prestige models of helping attribute this variation to audience effects, i.e. that individuals help more if group members can witness their interactions with immatures, whereas models of kin selection, group augmentation or those stressing the need to gain parenting experience do not predict any audience effects. We quantified the readiness of adult marmosets to share food in the presence or absence of other group members. Contrary to both predictions, we found a reverse audience effect on food-sharing behaviour: marmosets would systematically share more food with immatures when no audience was present. Thus, helping in common marmosets, at least in related family groups, does not support the pay-to-stay or the social prestige model, and helpers do not take advantage of the opportunity to engage in reputation management. Rather, the results appear to reflect a genuine concern for the immatures' well-being, which seems particularly strong when solely responsible for the immatures.

Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of agency and outcome monitoring

Diffusion of responsibility across agents has been proposed to underlie decreased helping and increased aggression in group behaviour. However, few studies have directly investigated effects of the presence of other people on how we experience the consequences of our actions. This EEG study investigated whether diffusion of responsibility simply reflects a post-hoc self-serving bias, or rather has direct effects on how we process the outcomes of our actions, and our experience of agency over them. Participants made voluntary actions whose outcomes were more or less negative. Presence of another potential agent reduced participants’ sense of agency over those outcomes, even though it was always obvious who caused each outcome. Further, presence of another agent reduced the amplitude of feedback-related negativity evoked by outcome stimuli, suggesting reduced outcome monitoring. The presence of other agents may lead to diffusion of responsibility by weakening the neural linkage between one’s actions and their outcomes.

Diffusion of responsibility attenuates altruistic punishment: A functional magnetic resonance imaging effective connectivity study

Humans altruistically punish violators of social norms to enforce cooperation and pro-social behaviors. However, such altruistic behaviors diminish when others are present, due to a diffusion of responsibility. We investigated the neural signatures underlying the modulations of diffusion of responsibility on altruistic punishment, conjoining a third-party punishment task with event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging and multivariate Granger causality mapping. In our study, participants acted as impartial third-party decision-makers and decided how to punish norm violations under two different social contexts: alone (i.e., full responsibility) or in the presence of putative other third-party decision makers (i.e., diffused responsibility). Our behavioral results demonstrated that the diffusion of responsibility served as a mediator of context-dependent punishment. In the presence of putative others, participants who felt less responsible also punished less severely in response to norm violations. Our neural results revealed that underlying this behavioral effect was a network of interconnected brain regions. For unfair relative to fair splits, the presence of others led to attenuated responses in brain regions implicated in signaling norm violations (e.g., AI) and to increased responses in brain regions implicated in calculating values of norm violations (e.g., vmPFC, precuneus) and mentalizing about others (dmPFC). The dmPFC acted as the driver of the punishment network, modulating target regions, such as AI, vmPFC, and precuneus, to adjust altruistic punishment behavior. Our results uncovered the neural basis of the influence of diffusion of responsibility on altruistic punishment and highlighted the role of the mentalizing network in this important phenomenon. Hum Brain Mapp 37:663-677, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.