Cited by 45Psychology of Social InfluenceEthics in medical practiceEthics in Business and Education

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

Open access
Christensen, Scott S.·2019·Journal of Nursing Management

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jonm.12677

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Christensen, S. S.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Christensen, Scott S.
Venue
Journal of Nursing Management
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-09-04
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
264-270
ISSN
0966-0429 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2891023874
Cited by
44
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Nursing Management (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
diffusion of responsibility, Milgram obedience experiments, groupthink, bullying, nursing ethics, nursing leadership, accountability, social psychology
MeSH terms
Cooperative Behavior, Ethics, Nursing, Humans, Nurses, Social Behavior, Social Responsibility, Nurse's Role

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review