Here’s a detailed exploration of cognitive biases that may impede the skillful practice of achrayut (responsibility), along with S.M.A.R.T. goals designed to mitigate these biases at both the individual and community levels:
1. Self-Serving Bias
Specific: For any outcome, reflect on both personal contributions and external factors equally. Measurable: Document reflections on personal and external contributions for each major event daily during the cycle and review in subsequent cycles.. Achievable: Start with small, everyday situations, gradually applying this perspective to significant events. Relevant: Enhances personal accountability, mitigating self-serving bias. Time-bound: Review reflections daily during the cycle and review in subsequent cycles. |
Community S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: Encourage members to discuss both individual and team/family/congregation contributions (non-judgmentally) during post-project reviews. Measurable: Hold quarterly sessions to review instances where team members take ownership of outcomes. (30/60/90 day reviews if critical or trying to establish the practice as a habit. Achievable: Begin with one team project, expanding to more community activities. Relevant: Fosters shared accountability within the community. Time-bound: Implement in all community projects within six months. |
2. Confirmation BiasDescription: This bias can lead individuals to favor information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs or values, which can impede fair, responsible decision-making. |
Individual S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: For each decision, actively seek out at least two opposing/differing viewpoints before finalizing a course of action. Measurable: Track the number of decisions made with consideration of opposing/differing perspectives. Be specific to see if there are unmet needs that are causing the opposition or differences. Achievable: Begin with one decision per week, building to multiple decisions as habit forms. Relevant: Ensures more balanced, responsible decisions. Time-bound: Reflect on practice daily during the cycle and review in subsequent cycles. |
Community S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: Institute a policy where diverse perspectives are required in community decision-making discussions. Measurable: Record instances of decisions made after incorporating multiple viewpoints. Achievable: Start with key decisions, gradually extending this practice to all discussions. Relevant: Mitigates groupthink, fostering responsible, inclusive decision-making. Time-bound: Implement policy across all groups. Check on progress on a 30/60/90 day boundary. |
3. Diffusion of ResponsibilityDescription: This cognitive bias often occurs in groups where individuals assume someone else will take action, reducing personal accountability. |
Individual S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: Volunteer for one specific responsibility in each group setting to ensure personal accountability. Measurable: Track each instance of volunteerism in a journal. Achievable: Start with small, manageable tasks, expanding over time. Relevant: Cultivates a habit of responsibility-taking within group settings. Time-bound: Review progress daily during the cycle and review in subsequent cycles. Review also with the team as needed within the agreed upon time frame for the given responsibility. |
Community S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: Develop a team accountability system where each member is assigned specific tasks in group projects. Measurable: Monitor task completion rates across different groups. Achievable: Start with one group project and refine the system for scalability. It’s unlikely to be the same for all groups. Relevant: Reduces ambiguity in responsibility distribution, promoting ownership. Time-bound: Implement in community groups over three months. |
4. Sunk Cost FallacyDescription: This bias can lead people to continue investing in a course of action due to past investments (time, money, effort) rather than reassessing current responsibility objectively. |
Individual S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: For each commitment, reassess value regularly rather than sticking to it solely because of previous investment. Measurable: Document instances where reassessment leads to renewed or revised responsibility. Achievable: Begin with small projects, progressing to larger responsibilities. Relevant: Encourages more responsible, adaptive decision-making. Time-bound: Review personal assessment process daily during the cycle and review in subsequent cycles. Larger cycles may influence reviews, for example the month of Elul and the 10 days of awe are important times in which to do this work. |
Community S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: Introduce a policy for quarterly reviews of ongoing community projects to determine if continued commitment is warranted. Measurable: Track decisions to continue, modify, or end projects based on these reviews. Achievable: Begin with one major project, expand policy to all. Relevant: Supports responsible, value-based community decision-making. Time-bound: Fully implement across the community within six months. |
5. Optimism BiasDescription: This bias may lead individuals or communities to underestimate potential challenges, resulting in poor preparation and a lack of accountability for potential setbacks. |
Individual S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: For each new commitment, outline three potential challenges and plan responses for each. Measurable: Document each plan and review its usefulness. Review for unmet and shared needs as well. Achievable: Begin with one commitment at a time. Relevant: Promotes realistic planning and responsibility. Time-bound: Practice for each new responsibility over three months. |
Community S.M.A.R.T. Goal:
Specific: Require a risk assessment for all new projects, identifying at least three potential challenges.
Measurable: Record all risk assessments and monitor project outcomes.
Achievable: Begin with larger projects, extend to all.
Relevant: Encourages balanced optimism and responsible preparation.
Time-bound: Integrate into all projects over six months.
6. Authority BiasDescription: This bias may lead individuals or communities to defer responsibility to authority figures without question, potentially resulting in unexamined and unaccountable decisions. |
Individual S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: When following instructions, take time to consider their rationale and potential impact on personal accountability. Measurable: Track decisions influenced by authority, noting any personal reflections. Achievable: Start with minor decisions, progressing to larger ones. Relevant: Builds a habit of critical evaluation and personal responsibility. Time-bound: Review practice daily during the cycle and review in subsequent cycles.. |
Community S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: Encourage team members to ask clarifying questions before implementing decisions from authority figures. Measurable: Record questions raised during decision-making processes. Achievable: Start with one team, extend to all. Relevant: Fosters a culture of thoughtful, responsible inquiry. Time-bound: Integrate into community protocols within three months. |
7. Fundamental Attribution ErrorDescription: This bias causes individuals to attribute others’ behaviors to their character while attributing their own actions to situational factors. This can reduce empathy and responsibility. |
Individual S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: When reflecting on others’ actions, consider situational factors as a potential influence. Measurable: Track personal reflections and note situational factors identified. Achievable: Start by applying this perspective in one relationship, expanding over time. Relevant: Enhances empathy and a balanced view of responsibility. Time-bound: Review reflections daily during the cycle and review in subsequent cycles. |
Community S.M.A.R.T. Goal:Specific: In group discussions, require consideration of both character and situational factors for any behavior assessment. Measurable: Record instances of balanced behavior discussions. Achievable: Start with one group, expand to all. Relevant: Fosters understanding and empathy within the community. Time-bound: Implement protocol across all teams in six months. |
These goals are designed to address and mitigate cognitive biases, supporting a more skillful and accountable practice of achrayut on both individual and community levels. Each goal builds habits of self-reflection, balanced judgment, and shared accountability, cultivating a culture of responsibility and awareness.
Other cognitive biases that influence the skillful practice of achrayut |
bystander effect a phenomenon in which people fail to offer needed help in emergencies, especially when other people are present in the same setting. Studies of this tendency, initially described in response to well-publicized failures of bystanders to render aid in emergencies, have identified a number of psychological and interpersonal processes that inhibit helping, including misinterpreting other people’s lack of response as an indication that help is not needed, confusion of responsibility, and diffusion of responsibility.From < https://dictionary.apa.org/bystander-effect>
choice shift any change in an individual’s choices or decisions that occurs as a result of group discussion, as measured by comparing his or her prediscussion and postdiscussion responses. In many cases, a risky shift is seen within the group as a whole. See also cautious shift. From < https://dictionary.apa.org/choice-shifts>
confusion of responsibility the tendency for bystanders to refrain from helping in both emergencies and nonemergencies in order to avoid being blamed by others for causing the problem. This is a contributing factor in the bystander effect. See also diffusion of responsibility. From < https://dictionary.apa.org/confusion-of-responsibility>
deindividuation n. an experiential state characterized by loss of self-awareness, altered perceptions, and a reduction of inner restraints that results in the performance of unusual and sometimes antisocial behavior. It can be caused by a number of factors, such as a sense of anonymity or submersion in a group. From < https://dictionary.apa.org/deindividuation>
diffusion of responsibility the diminished sense of responsibility often experienced by individuals in groups and social collectives. The diffusion has been proposed as a possible mediator of a number of group-level phenomena, including the bystander effect, choice shifts, deindividuation, social loafing, and reactions to social dilemmas. See also confusion of responsibility. [first described in 1970 by U.S. social psychologists John M. Darley (1938– ) and Bibb Latané (1937– )] From < https://dictionary.apa.org/diffusion-of-responsibility> However, the benefits of a minyan with a process (e.g., Torah, Talmud, Mussar) can mitigate wrongful escalation that might otherwise happen. See https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Glen_Whyte2/publication/232519598_Diffusion_of_Responsibility_Effects_on_the_Escalation_Tendency/links/53ecdfbc0cf26b9b7dbff245.pdf
social loafing the reduction of individual effort that occurs when people work in groups compared to when they work alone. See also Ringelmann effect; social interference. [first described in 1979 by U.S. social psychologist Bibb Latané (1937– ), U.S.-born Australian social psychologist Kipling D. Williams (1953– )], and U.S. social psychologist Stephen G. Harkins] From < https://dictionary.apa.org/social-loafing>
In-Depth Analysis of Diffusion of Responsibility in Psychology and Mussar |
Diffusion of responsibility is a psychological phenomenon where individuals in a group feel less compelled to take action or assume responsibility for their behavior, due to the presence of others who could potentially share the burden. This concept was first explored by John Darley and Bibb Latané in 1970, and has since been influential in understanding collective behavior, particularly in situations like the bystander effect, where individuals fail to intervene in an emergency because they assume someone else will.
The diffusion of responsibility often occurs in contexts of social collectives, groups, or large crowds, where the sense of personal accountability is spread across all members, leading to inaction or a failure to make decisions. This can manifest in several distinct psychological phenomena:
Bystander Effect: As group size increases, individuals are less likely to help in an emergency, assuming others will take action.
Social Loafing: People exert less effort in a group task, expecting others to do the work.
Deindividuation: In a large group, individuals may lose their sense of self-awareness and personal responsibility, acting in ways they wouldn’t in isolation.
Choice Shifts: Group decisions may lead individuals to conform to the majority opinion, diminishing personal responsibility for the outcome.
Reactions to Social Dilemmas: In situations where collective action is needed (such as environmental challenges), diffusion of responsibility can hinder cooperation.
Contemporary Understanding and Research |
Contemporary research on diffusion of responsibility integrates several fields, including social psychology, neuroscience, and behavioral economics. Notably:
Bystander Effect in the Digital Age: The advent of social media has expanded the diffusion of responsibility concept. People are less likely to intervene when witnessing a crisis online or in person because of the perceived anonymity and the belief that others will intervene.
Study: Research by Fischer et al. (2011) demonstrated that the likelihood of intervention decreases as the number of bystanders increases, and it is exacerbated in online contexts where the emotional and social cues are less immediate (Fischer et al., 2011).
Neuroscience of Group Decision-Making: Neuroscientific studies suggest that the brain responds differently when making decisions alone versus in a group. Functional MRI studies reveal decreased activation in areas of the brain responsible for personal responsibility and action when individuals are in a group setting.
Study: Research by Kees van den Bos (2013) examined how group dynamics influence decision-making processes, finding that when people make decisions as part of a group, neural regions linked to self-control and personal accountability were less engaged (van den Bos et al., 2013).
Behavioral Economics and Social Dilemmas: Diffusion of responsibility is also a significant factor in social dilemmas like climate change and public goods provisioning, where individuals may feel that their individual actions won’t make a significant difference.
Study: A 2020 study by Huang et al. explored how perceptions of others’ contributions (or lack thereof) influence individual willingness to engage in pro-social behaviors. It was found that when individuals feel their responsibility is shared, they are less likely to act (Huang et al., 2020).
Application of Mussar |
Mussar, the Jewish ethical tradition focused on cultivating virtues (middot), can provide insight into mitigating the effects of diffusion of responsibility. The Mussar trait of achrayut (responsibility) is directly relevant here. Achrayut emphasizes personal accountability, particularly in communal contexts. When individuals adopt a strong sense of responsibility, they are less likely to defer their actions to others, even in a group setting.
However, diffusion of responsibility can interfere with the practice of achrayut by clouding one’s sense of personal duty when others are present. This is where Mussar can offer practical guidance:
Focus on the Individual’s Role: Mussar teaches that each individual has a unique responsibility to the community and to the world, regardless of others’ actions. By internalizing the value of personal responsibility, one can resist the impulse to assume that others will act.
Practice Mindfulness of Impact: Through mindfulness and self-reflection, individuals can cultivate an awareness of how their inaction affects others, directly challenging the assumptions underlying diffusion of responsibility.
Encouragement of Action in Groups: Mussar texts often highlight the importance of taking initiative, particularly in the presence of others. A person practicing achrayut would take action, even when others are present, recognizing their personal responsibility within the group. Practice of articulating and recognizing unmet needs is a key skill. Finding overlap in these unmet needs often provides good starting points for focus.
S.M.A.R.T. Goals to Overcome Diffusion of Responsibility |
Here are detailed S.M.A.R.T. goals to counter the diffusion of responsibility, informed by contemporary psychological insights and Mussar practices:
Specific: Enhance Personal Accountability in Group Contexts
Goal: Develop a habit of taking personal action in group settings, regardless of group size or perceived responsibility of others.
Action: When in a group setting, pause and assess whether there is a clear action that you can take to contribute meaningfully to the task at hand. Make a commitment to act when an opportunity arises.
Measurable: Track Responses to Group Dilemmas
Goal: Keep a weekly journal to reflect on instances where group action was required, noting how often you assumed responsibility and how you could have acted differently.
Action: Record each group situation where you felt the responsibility was diffused. Write down whether you took action and, if not, reflect on the factors that led to your inaction. Again, unmet needs and overlapping unmet needs may be key to moving forward.
Achievable: Model Responsibility in Social Dilemmas
Goal: Commit to taking initiative in at least one group situation per relevant time period (e.g., weekly, monthly) where others might defer responsibility.
Action: Whether it is in a workplace meeting or a family discussion, actively engage in taking responsibility for collective tasks, even when it may seem others can handle it.
Relevant: Incorporate Mussar Teachings on Achrayut
Goal: Study Mussar texts, particularly on achrayut (responsibility), to deepen your understanding of personal accountability and integrate these lessons into daily life.
Action: Dedicate time each week to study Mussar sources related to personal responsibility (e.g., “Mesillat Yesharim” by Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto). Apply the teachings by consciously choosing to act in responsible ways in your interactions.
Time-bound: Develop and Evaluate New Habits of Responsibility
Goal: Establish a 30/60/90 timelines to assess your ability to overcome diffusion of responsibility by increasing personal accountability in group situations.
Action: Set aside a regular periodic review to evaluate your progress (e.g, “post-mortem” or retrospective). At the end of three months, reassess your habits and plan next steps to reinforce personal responsibility.
References
|
These references provide both a modern understanding of diffusion of responsibility and potential strategies for overcoming it, while also integrating Mussar concepts to address personal responsibility in communal contexts.