Not (Entirely) Guilty: The Role of Co-offenders in Diffusing Responsibility for Crime

• Author: Zachary R. Rowan,Elizabeth Cauffman,Emily Kan,Paul J. Frick
• DOI: 10.1177/00224278211046256
• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Date: 01 July 2022
• Subject Matter: Original Research Articles

Not (Entirely) Guilty:

TheRoleofCo-

offenders in Diffusing

Responsibility for

Crime

Zachary R. Rowan

1

,

Emily Kan

2

, Paul J. Frick

3

,

and Elizabeth Cauffman

2

Abstract

Objectives: Test the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis by examining asso-

ciations between the presence, number, and role of co-offenders and ado-

lescents’perceived responsibility for criminal behavior. Methods: The study

uses data from the Crossroads Study, a longitudinal study of 1,216 male

adolescents who were arrested for the f‌irst time. A series of generalized

ordered logistic regressions assess how different features of the group con-

text are linked to adolescent offending. Models f‌irst examine the relation-

ship between the presence of a co-offender and adolescents’perceptions of

responsibility for their crime, followed by co-offending specif‌ic models

examining the impact of the number of co-offenders and role in the co-

offense. Results: Adolescents’perceptions of responsibility for criminal

1

School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, CA, Canada

2

Department of Psychological Science, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA

3

Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Zachary R. Rowan, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, 10326 Saywell Hall, 8888

University Drive, Burnaby, BC V5A1S6, Canada.

Email: zrowan@sfu.ca

Original Research Article

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2022, Vol. 59(4) 415–448

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00224278211046256

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

behavior decrease when they co-offend, as the size of the group increases,

and when crime is not solely their idea. Conclusions: The study’sf‌indings are

consistent with the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis, which highlights

an important psychological experience tied to the group context. The f‌ind-

ings contribute to our understanding of adolescent risky decision-making

and shed insight into how the group context may facilitate criminal

behavior.

Keywords

Adolescent offending, co-offending, diffusion of responsibility

Introduction

Most adolescents ascribe to conventional values and disapprove of criminal

behavior, yet many still participate in crime (e.g., Agnew 1994).

Reconciling this incongruence has led scholars to consider both individual

and situational factors that free individuals from the moral distress or guilt

attached to offending (e.g., Cloward and Ohlin 1966; Cohen 1955; Sykes

and Matza 1957). Scholars invariably reference how co-offenders can

diffuse responsibility for criminal behavior, yet there is limited direct empir-

ical evidence to support this mechanism (e.g., McGloin and Thomas 2016;

Wallach et al. 1964). Given that adolescents are especially susceptible to the

inf‌luence of their peers (and others) and are more likely to be involved in

group crime, co-offending may enable an important psychological rational-

ization by reducing youths’perceived responsibility and mitigating the con-

sequences of crime (e.g., Reiss and Farrington 1991; Scott and Steinberg

2008; Warr 2002). To understand the implications of engaging in crime

with others, the current study evaluates whether group offending contributes

to diffused responsibility among a sample of adolescent offenders.

Embedded within explanations of co-offending (e.g., rational choice,

social exchange, and collective behavior) is the premise that the presence

of others changes how criminal opportunities are perceived and implicates

accomplices into criminal decision-making (Granovetter 1978; McCarthy

et al. 1998; McGloin and Rowan 2015). Curiously, the diffusion of respon-

sibility associated with engaging in crime with others is often cited as an

important experience attached to the group context of offending. Diffused

responsibility could be described as a reduction in an individual’s perceived

appraisal of his/her accountability over their actions or behavior (e.g.,

Follingstad et al. 2020; Shaver and Drown 1986). Most work on this

416 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 59(4)

topic has largely inferred such a process occurs by observing extreme out-

comes in group settings (e.g., presence of weapon) or drawing indirect con-

clusions from laboratory experiments and hypothetical vignettes (e.g.,

McGloin and Thomas 2016; Wallach et al. 1964).

Understanding whether the presence of others facilitates diffusion of

responsibility in criminal events can help explain group offending, particu-

larly during adolescence when both offending and the inf‌luence of peers

generally peak (e.g., Warr 2002). Although the reduced perception of

responsibility may not add to intrinsic psychological benef‌its when adoles-

cents engage in risky behavior with their peers, it may mitigate emotional

distress (i.e., guilt) or complement these benef‌its by feeling not wholly

responsible for the consequences of risky behavior (e.g., Gardner and

Steinberg 2005; Sykes and Matza 1957). As the guilt of engaging in

illegal behavior does not squarely reside within a single individual, this

process can help explain why adolescents who may maintain conventional

values are more often involved in group offending (e.g., Warr 2002). This

type of work may also provide insight into the specif‌icity of social

exchanges attached to group offending (e.g., Weerman 2003). Depending

on the size of the group or one’s role in the offense (i.e., instigating or fol-

lowing), diffusion of responsibility may be more or less of a salient property

of the group context. Ultimately, the current study seeks to expand upon the

existing work and evaluate whether the group context and characteristics of

the group explain this important exchange attributed to group offending

during adolescence.

The Power of the Group

The salience of others in shaping decision-making of individual behavior

has piqued the interest of scholars for some time (Asch 1951; Darley and

Latane 1968; Le Bon 1896). In Le Bon’s (1896) study of the nature of

crowds, he argues that a collective mind forms and develops distinct char-

acter and behavior that drastically differs from any single individual. Le

Bon (1896) attributes this psychological feature of the crowd to explain

why individuals may engage in behavior they would previously not con-

sider, suggesting that this deindividuation process unleashes inhibitions

and contributes to risky behavior (e.g., Diener et al. 1980).

To test this diffusion of responsibility hypothesis, early work examined

how group settings contributed to greater risk-taking in laboratory or class-

room settings. In a series of experiments, Wallach et al. (1964) considered

whether individuals opted for riskier (and more rewarding) aptitude

Rowan et al. 417