Introduction
Individual responsibility can exist only if everyone is accountable to themselves. Only when another person cannot make decisions for themselves, such as a kid or a disabled relative, are people held liable for that person? In all other cases, a person cannot and should not assume responsibility for another person: doing so undermines and devalues the individual’s decision-making abilities. Individual accountability for a deed cannot be maintained in a diffusion circumstance. People attempt to avoid it by distributing tasks across several organization members (Baumeister & Bushman, 2022).
As a result, everyone’s level of responsibility has been significantly reduced. The greater the number of witnesses to a crime or incident, the less likely someone would act. The phenomenon’s essence is that people in the same situation subconsciously share responsibility among themselves; as a consequence, the larger the collective, the less guilt everyone feels. As a result, after witnessing a crime, a person believes that others will either accept or have already accepted blame.
Diffusion of Responsibility
When an unpleasant incident occurs, such as a vehicle accident or a crime, each observer must decide whether to aid or ignore the situation. However, when there are many people present, there is a dispersion of culpability effect, in which everyone expects someone else to carry the blame for the behavior. As a result, no one acts, and victims do not receive the care they seek promptly. This happened while others were observing the murder of Lindokuhle Sele, and the perpetrator kept stabbing Sele until the knife became stuck in Sele’s eye (Nkosikhona Duma, 2020). Because butcher shops are generally packed, each witness did not feel accountable or required to help prevent the crime.
When the participants were alone, they replied to the yell most of the time, but when other individuals were in the room, they were significantly less likely to assist. This impact may be explained by the dispersion of blame: the more individuals present in a scenario, the more everyone feels that someone else will accept responsibility for the action. This might result in no one reacting to what is happening rather than acting together.
The bystander effect and culpability dispersal can have significant repercussions in real life. In an automobile collision, for example, if multiple cars drive by the scene, no one will stop to see whether assistance is required. This can leave injured people without vital medical attention for an extended period, worsening their health and even leading to death (DeLamater & Collett, 2019). Furthermore, the bystander effect and the diffusion of culpability can stymie criminal investigations. If several persons observe a crime, they may believe someone else would report the occurrence to the authorities and fail to report themselves.
This makes it difficult for law enforcement and may result in offenders being unpunished. It is also worth noting that the witness effect and the spread of culpability might be enhanced in certain circumstances. For example, if witnesses do not know each other or are in strange surroundings, they may be more susceptible to responsibility dispersal. People in the Lindokuhle Sele murder were unfamiliar with one another, which exacerbated the impact of blame dissemination. Age and gender can also affect the chance of reacting to an occurrence. Witnesses to the crime may have been ladies or young people who did not feel responsible and were frightened to intervene in the murder.
Prosocial Behavior and Aggression
Prosocial and aggressive behavior, in my opinion, are opposed. Prosocial behaviors are activities that assist others but have no visible advantage to the persons performing them. Researchers highlighted five steps of decision-making before deciding to assist (Haslam & Reicher, n.d.). At each level, the easiest option is to do nothing and not give assistance. The first stage is for the observer to recognize the importance of the circumstance. The second stage is to classify the situation as an emergency accurately.
The third stage is to accept direct responsibility for one’s acts, and distribution (diffusion) is one reason for the passivity of bystanders, which might be related to the inactivity of witnesses to the Lindokuhle Sele murder. The fourth stage is to know what to do and how to act. The witnesses to the incident had no notion of what they needed to do to stop the murder without injuring themselves (Haslam & Reicher, n.d.). The final stage is to decide whether or not to give aid. Even with all the good replies, the onlooker will hesitate to assist for fear of repercussions.
Prosocial behavior is motivated by both egoistic and altruistic impulses. Selflessness indicates that empathy leads to assistance. Assisting to feel better (a model of reducing an adverse condition) might be related to an egoistic motive (Haslam & Reicher, n.d.). Aiding because the subsequent action is enjoyable (empathic pleasure theory) and aiding similar individuals to maintain shared genes are further examples.
Aggression, on the other hand, is the purposeful infliction of damage on others. People commit violence because it is ingrained in their character; a strong desire for death induces aggressiveness, and hostility is driven by the animal impulse to fight, according to several views of aggression. According to social psychologists, aggression is founded on basic inclinations inhibited by social and cultural circumstances (Haslam & Reicher, n.d.). The role of biological elements in many aspects of social behavior is becoming more well-recognized. The idea of social learning takes a different approach to violence. It is based on the notion that hostility is mostly learned via direct experience or observation of the acts of others.
According to cognitive theories of aggressiveness, violent behavior is the result of a complex combination of emotion, experience, ideas, and memories. Aggression is frequently coupled with various social conditions that either originate or intensify its occurrence. These can include frustration – the appearance of aggressiveness when the intended outcome is not obtained – and direct provocation – violence creates aggression. It also includes media cruelty, which is the effect of witnessing violence, and heightened arousal, which affects emotion, cognition, and aggressiveness. Lindokuhle Sele’s assassin was most likely motivated by increased arousal and media cruelty. The murderer witnessed crimes against members of the LGBT community and believed he could replicate them.
Social Contagion and Schadenfreude
There are certain emotions and feelings that respectable people are embarrassed by and prefer not to discuss in public. Gloating and social contagion are two of these sentiments, and their phenomena, while long described as a notion, have received little attention and are not fully understood by everybody. Psychologists have differing perspectives on this phenomenon, but they all agree on one point: schadenfreude – the sensation is human, perhaps even too human to ignore its existence in human life. Gloating is a psychological condition in which one feels delight at another person’s misery, misfortune, poor luck, or failure (Bleske-Rechek, 2001).
People in this scenario are motivated by poor self-esteem. A person who takes pleasure in the misery of others feels superior to them and boosts their self-esteem. This euphoria, however, does not endure long since personal failures from analyzing other people’s issues do not evaporate, and gloating, like a drug addict, must bring more and new doses of joy from other people’s suffering. A sensation of relief may also be a motivator. This is a person’s sensation when he learns about someone’s tragedy and is relieved that it did not happen to him. A third factor might be a predisposition to envy.
The phrase “schadenfreude” is derived from German and, when appropriately translated, means “the joy of harm.” Typically, schadenfreude is caused by envy of another’s success. Gloating is a unique emotion, and psychologists still struggle to pinpoint its origins and causes. Some experts associate the formation of social contagion and schadenfreude with intergroup social ties, which occur when this sensation develops in people from another nation, race, or religion.
Gloating over these “strangers” misfortunes is not regarded as evil and might even be encouraged by society as a form of social virtue (Bleske-Rechek, 2001). For example, gloating over the death of an adversary during a battle, taking pleasure in the miseries of the population of an aggressor country, and so forth. This group may also include the gloating of the impoverished as a reaction to the government’s failings or people of the wealthier classes – uncontaminated delight at their hardships is also perfectly acceptable as a social psychological norm.
Another set of experts analyses schadenfreude from an existential standpoint, linking it to a person’s low self-esteem. A third group of scientists determined that people who have high levels of the “dark triad” traits, such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy, are more likely to feel schadenfreude, “feed” on other people’s misfortunes, are interested in negative sensations, and engage in various anti-social behaviors (Francisco, 2021). A group of researchers also claim that schadenfreude and social contagion are intrinsic qualities of man and demonstrate experimentally that children may experience schadenfreude as early as the first year of life (Francisco, 2021). This demonstrates that people of many ages and cultures may feel this way.
Applying the concepts of schadenfreude and social contagion to the inactivity of witnesses to the Lindokuhle Selemurder. People who were at the butcher shop at the time of the murder may have harbored anger towards a member of the LGBT community. This gave them a sense of schadenfreude, as they were relieved that someone other than themselves was suffering. They did not interfere because they may have agreed with the killer’s motivations. The glee of these people overwhelmed their common sense, allowing an atrocious act of cruelty to occur.
The Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
Dollard, Dube, Miller, Maurer, and Sears introduced the frustration-aggression hypothesis in their famous work Frustration and Aggression, which sought to explain human violence using a small set of fundamental notions. This model rejects Freud’s idea of intrinsic and accumulating aggressive energy and presupposes an underlying inclination to behave aggressively as a reaction to dissatisfaction.
Frustration is always the catalyst for violence, and aggression is always the catalyst for frustration (Collins, 2013). Frustration impedes executing behavior intended to achieve a specified goal. Frustration causes a latent aggressive mood, which these writers called “provocation.” The degree of frustration and the strength of provocation are determined by the strength of the goal-directed behavior, the severity of the obstacle, and the number of instances of goal-directed behavior blocked by the obstacle.
This model also includes the concept of deterrence in proportion to the anticipated likelihood and severity of punishment for aggressive behavior. When provocation exceeds inhibition, violent behavior towards the frustrated agent ensues. When deterrence outweighs provocation, hostility shifts to different targets. If the frustrated actor is not punished, provocation will triumph over deterrence, ending in hostility.
Although many psychologists abandoned the concept due to a lack of appropriate empirical support, Leonard Berkowitz adjusted it to account for the unclear link between frustration and aggressiveness and the importance of situational circumstances. He proposed that irritation creates a state of preparation for violent behavior and that proper contextual signals that serve as “releasers” or points to its permissibility or appropriateness are required to ignite aggressiveness.
Berkowitz further refined his modified version of this idea, emphasizing the significance of unpleasant inputs in developing aggressiveness. He contended that frustrations produce violent inclinations because of their unpleasant character for the individual; frustrations evoke negative affect, and this lousy effect causes aggressive tendencies (Orchowski & Berkowitz, 2022). Thus, frustration is not a prerequisite for aggressiveness since other unpleasant experiences can also induce negative affect, which might produce violent inclinations.
This theory pertains to the murderer’s behavior in the stated case. Malignant hostility, which is biologically maladaptive, is not at all a defense against assault or threat in the instance of killer Lindokuhle Sele. It is unique to humans and causes biological and societal damage. Murder and terrible torture for no other reason than enjoyment are the most obvious symptoms of such hostility. The killer desired the satisfaction of defending his anti-LGBT ideas. The killer’s rage was caused by frustration; the guy was angry. This might have been owing to unfavorable experiences with members of the LGBT community or to internal or forced views.
The basis of “malignant aggression” is not instinct but a specific “human potential.” The spontaneous manifestations of the killer’s aggression are not due to human nature but to the destructive influence of certain constantly operating conditions. However, this potential is mobilized due to sudden traumatic circumstances and causes sharp outbursts. The killer fell under the influence of other crimes committed towards minorities, which is one of the factors that influenced the actions of this person.
Life Example of Prosocial Behavior
I was a blood donor, which was an example of prosocial behavior on my part. One day, I saw an advertisement stating that the hospital desperately needed donors to support the ill. I decided that those in need of assistance should be heard. Blood donation is an example of prosocial behavior. I am willing to donate blood for prosocial motives such as charity, empathy, or social duty.
According to altruism theory, I have demonstrated a trait known as sacrifice. It refers to the readiness to set aside one’s ambitions for the benefit of others who are essential to one. It is thought that compassion is most visible when aiding close kin. I also showed selflessness in my performance by not expecting anything in return. Another attribute that I demonstrated is justice, which serves as a moral compass and the engine of altruism.
Fighting for justice brings people together and pushes them to act without regard for personal advantage. A feeling of responsibility (moral norm) – the belief that an offer to become a donor is a scenario that imposes an obligation to help others – can be attributed to my prosocial motive in addition to altruism – the desire to better the lives of others without any visible advantages for myself.
Social, values, self-improvement, ego protection, knowledge, and professional motives are the six categories of motivations. I was motivated by a sort of motivation known as values since I respect people’s lives and want to improve their well-being. I may have also been motivated by a desire to better myself, as donating blood made me feel more helpful to society. Thus, I was motivated by prosocial motivations such as altruism, pragmaticism, egoism, self-improvement, and enhancing my significance. Donors’ leading life values (social interactions, health, and social recognition) might encourage them to engage in altruistic behaviors to benefit others and earn acceptance and acknowledgment from others.
Conclusion
Thus, dispersion of culpability can be used to explain why witnesses to a murder are not called. The subjective perception of dispersion of culpability for a specific action (or omission) among numerous persons is known as “diffusion of responsibility.” As a consequence, each person’s obligation lessens. The more individuals there are the less responsibility each one bears.
The phenomenon is similar to the “witness effect.” This psychological phenomenon expresses itself in those who have experienced an emergency scenario, remaining completely immobile. Social contagion and gloating are two further concepts that might explain witness behavior. People may have detested the person who was slain. Therefore, they remained silent and did not attempt to intervene in the act of violence.
The frustration-aggression theory can be used to explain the killer’s actions. This idea states that an aggressive drive triggered by dissatisfaction was thought to be a motivating reason for aggressiveness. The notion is based on the assumption that there is a force within the body that, when combined with external stimuli, leads to aggressiveness. According to this revised perspective, aggressiveness is one of several viable responses to frustration. Depending on how much a violent act weakens the underlying drive, it becomes self-reinforcing: bouts of dissatisfaction are more likely to be followed by aggressiveness.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Bushman, B. J. (2022). Social psychology: A South African perspective (2nd ed. Ch. 9). Cengage.
Bleske-Rechek, A. L. (2001). Obedience, conformity, and social roles: Active learning in a large introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 28(4), 260-262.
Collins, A. (2013). Bullies, sissies and crybabies: Dangerous common sense in educating boys for violence. Agenda, 27, 71-83. Web.
DeLamater, J. D., & Collett, J. L. (2019). Social psychology (9th ed., Ch.11). Routledge.
Francisco, J. C. (2021). To live but die inside: A lamentable state of Montessori in “The cask of amontillado”. OKARA: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 15(2), 126-140. Web.
Haslam, S., & Reicher, S. (n.d.). When prisoners take over the prison: A social psychology of resistance. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1-26. Web.
Nkosikhona Duma. (2020). Man accused of killing LGBTQI activist Lindokuhle Cele to apply for bail. Eyewitness News. Web.
Orchowski, L. M., & Berkowitz, A. D. (2022). The integrated model of sexual aggression: A synthesis of 30 years of research and practice. Engaging Boys and Men in Sexual Assault Prevention, 311-339. Web.