Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Jun;3(6):554-559.
doi: 10.1038/s41562-019-0596-4. Epub 2019 Apr 22.

Shared responsibility in collective decisions

Affiliations
Review

Shared responsibility in collective decisions

Marwa El Zein et al. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Research investigating collective decision-making has focused primarily on the improvement of accuracy in collective decisions and less on the motives that drive individuals to make these decisions. We argue that a strong but neglected motive for making collective decisions is minimizing the material and psychological burden of an individual's responsibility. Making difficult decisions with others shields individuals from the consequences of negative outcomes by reducing regret, punishment and stress. Considering shared responsibility as a another key motivation to join groups helps understand behaviours with societal implications such as political voting, committing norm violations, predicting natural disasters and making health-related decisions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motives for collective decision making.
A framework for understanding individuals’ motives for engaging in collective decision-making behaviors. The first distinction is between circumstances in which collective decisions are A) obligatory versus B) voluntary. We focus on the latter (A). The second distinction is between motives that relate to a) the decision process itself and (b–c) its anticipated outcome. The different motives are linked back to the three categories identified in the main text: improving outcomes (underlined, Category 1); social inclusion and normative needs (in italic, Category 2); shared responsibility (in bold, Category 3). a) Under the process-related motives, individuals combine their efforts during the decision process (Effort), feel included in the group (Social inclusion), and fulfill their normative needs for fairness and procedural justice (Fairness). b) Under an anticipated positive outcome, individuals pool intelligence to reach a better/positive outcome (Pooling intelligence) and are able to claim credit for successful outcomes (Credit). c) Under an anticipated negative outcome associated with decision uncertainty or difficulty—our focus in the main text—sharing responsibility reduces Regret, Punishment, and Stress.

References

    1. Kameda T, Wisdom T, Toyokawa W, Inukai K. Is consensus-seeking unique to humans? A selective review of animal group decision-making and its implications for (human) social psychology. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2012;15:673–689.
    1. Sumpter D, Krause J, James R, Couzin ID, Ward A. Consensus Decision Making by Fish. Curr Biol. 2008;22:1773–1777. - PubMed
    1. Surowiecki J. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few. Abacus. 2005
    1. Sunstein CR, Hastie R. Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter. Harvard Business Press; 2015.
    1. Bahrami B, et al. What failure in collective decision-making tells us about metacognition. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2012;367:1350–1365. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types