Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Diffusion of responsibility [1] is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when other bystanders or witnesses are present. Considered a form of attribution , the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so.
(4) “displacement of responsibility” - "I was just following the orders of my superiors" -is an example of this. (5) “diffusion of responsibility” distributed the accountability from one person to an poorly-defined group. (6) “distortion of consequences” misrepresents the effects of the act as not significant.
In social psychology, social loafing is the phenomenon of a person exerting less effort to achieve a goal when they work in a group than when working alone. [1] [2] It is seen as one of the main reasons groups are sometimes less productive than the combined performance of their members working as individuals.
A rare business opportunity The next phase of corporate social responsibility is here. Companies of all types have an incredible opportunity to meet core business objectives through purposeful ...
Group diffuses responsibility: a diffusion of responsibility throughout the group seems to give members of these groups a free rein to act as they see fit (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem 1964). The emotional bonds that are created within the group serve to decrease anxiety within the group and the actual risk of the situation seems less.
Corporate social responsibility is a trend we can all get behind. Motley Fool contributor John Grgurich owns no shares of any of the companies mentioned in this column.
The rate of diffusion is the speed with which the new idea spreads from one consumer to the next. Adoption is the reciprocal process as viewed from a consumer perspective rather than distributor; it is similar to diffusion except that it deals with the psychological processes an individual goes through, rather than an aggregate market process.
A 1976 edition of the journal Ekistics used the phrase in the context of bureaucratic inaction on low-income housing, describing "the principle of somebody else's problem" as something that prevented progress.