Punishing the individual or the group for norm violation

Shared Responsibility Decreases the Sense of Agency in the Human Brain

Sharing responsibility in social decision-making helps individuals use the flexibility of the collective context to benefit themselves by claiming credit for good outcomes or avoiding the blame for bad outcomes. Using magnetoencephalography, we examined the neuronal basis of the impact that social context has on this flexible sense of responsibility. Participants performed a gambling task in various social contexts and reported feeling less responsibility when playing as a member of a team. A reduced magnetoencephalography outcome processing effect was observed as a function of decreasing responsibility at 200 msec post outcome onset and was centered over parietal, central, and frontal brain regions. Before outcome revelation in socially made decisions, an attenuated motor preparation signature at 500 msec after stimulus onset was found. A boost in reported responsibility for positive outcomes in social contexts was associated with increased activity in regions related to social and reward processing. Together, these results show that sharing responsibility with others reduces agency, influencing pre-outcome motor preparation and post-outcome processing, and provides opportunities to flexibly claim credit for positive outcomes.

Diffusion of punishment in collective norm violations

People assign less punishment to individuals who inflict harm collectively, compared to those who do so alone. We show that this arises from judgments of diminished individual causal responsibility in the collective cases. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 1002) assigned less punishment to individuals involved in collective actions leading to intentional and accidental deaths, but not failed attempts, emphasizing that harmful outcomes, but not malicious intentions, were necessary and sufficient for the diffusion of punishment. Experiments 2.a compared the diffusion of punishment for harmful actions with 'victimless' purity violations (e.g., eating a dead human's flesh as a group; N = 752). In victimless cases, where the question of causal responsibility for harm does not arise, diffusion of collective responsibility was greatly reduced-an outcome replicated in Experiment 2.b (N = 479). Together, the results are consistent with discounting in causal attribution as the underlying mechanism of reduction in proposed punishment for collective harmful actions.

Stage 2 Registered Report: How responsibility attributions to self and others relate to outcome ownership in group decisions

Background: Responsibility judgements have important consequences in human society. Previous research focused on how someone's responsibility determines the outcome they deserve, for example, whether they are rewarded or punished. Here, in a pre-registered study (Stage 1 Registered Report: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16480.2), we investigate the opposite link: How outcome ownership influences responsibility attributions in a social context.  Methods: In an online study, participants in a group of three perform a majority vote decision-making task between gambles that can lead to a reward or no reward. Only one group member receives the outcome and participants evaluate their and the other players' responsibility for the obtained outcome. Results: We found that outcome ownership increases responsibility attributions even when the control over an outcome is similar. Moreover, ownership had an effect on the valence bias: participants' higher responsibility attributions for positive vs negative outcomes was stronger for players who received the outcome. Finally, this effect was more pronounced when people rated their own responsibility as compared to when they were rating another's player responsibility. Conclusions: The findings of this study reveal how credit attributions can be biased toward particular individuals who receive outcomes as a result of collective work, both when people judge their own and someone else's responsibility.

Stage 2 Registered Report: How responsibility attributions to self and others relate to outcome ownership in group decisions

Background: Responsibility judgements have important consequences in human society. Previous research focused on how someone's responsibility determines the outcome they deserve, for example, whether they are rewarded or punished. Here, in a pre-registered study (Stage 1 Registered Report: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16480.2), we investigate the opposite link: How outcome ownership influences responsibility attributions in a social context.  Methods: In an online study, participants in a group of three perform a majority vote decision-making task between gambles that can lead to a reward or no reward. Only one group member receives the outcome and participants evaluate their and the other players' responsibility for the obtained outcome. Results: We found that outcome ownership increases responsibility attributions even when the control over an outcome is similar. Moreover, ownership had an effect on the valence bias: participants' higher responsibility attributions for positive vs negative outcomes was stronger for players who received the outcome. Finally, this effect was more pronounced when people rated their own responsibility as compared to when they were rating another's player responsibility. Conclusions: The findings of this study reveal how credit attributions can be biased toward particular individuals who receive outcomes as a result of collective work, both when people judge their own and someone else's responsibility.

Many heads are more utilitarian than one

Moral judgments have a very prominent social nature, and in everyday life, they are continually shaped by discussions with others. Psychological investigations of these judgments, however, have rarely addressed the impact of social interactions. To examine the role of social interaction on moral judgments within small groups, we had groups of 4 to 5 participants judge moral dilemmas first individually and privately, then collectively and interactively, and finally individually a second time. We employed both real-life and sacrificial moral dilemmas in which the character's action or inaction violated a moral principle to benefit the greatest number of people. Participants decided if these utilitarian decisions were morally acceptable or not. In Experiment 1, we found that collective judgments in face-to-face interactions were more utilitarian than the statistical aggregate of their members compared to both first and second individual judgments. This observation supported the hypothesis that deliberation and consensus within a group transiently reduce the emotional burden of norm violation. In Experiment 2, we tested this hypothesis more directly: measuring participants' state anxiety in addition to their moral judgments before, during, and after online interactions, we found again that collectives were more utilitarian than those of individuals and that state anxiety level was reduced during and after social interaction. The utilitarian boost in collective moral judgments is probably due to the reduction of stress in the social setting.

Stage 1 Registered Report: How responsibility attributions to self and others relate to outcome ownership in group decisions

Responsibility judgements have important consequences in human society. Previous research focused on how someone's responsibility determines the outcome they deserve, for example, whether they are rewarded or punished. Here, we investigate the opposite link: How outcome ownership influences responsibility attributions in a social context. Participants in a group of three perform a majority vote decision-making task between gambles that can lead to a reward or no reward. Only one group member receives the outcome and participants evaluate their and the other players' responsibility for the obtained outcome. Two hypotheses are tested: 1) Whether outcome ownership increases responsibility attributions even when the control over an outcome is similar. 2) Whether people's tendency to attribute higher responsibility for positive vs negative outcomes will be stronger for players who received the outcome. The findings of this study may help reveal how credit attributions can be biased toward particular individuals who receive outcomes as a result of collective work.