Can you share with me some mechanisms behind the phenomenon that people take credit of the work done
Pro Research Analysisby 
Searched over 200M research papers
Consensus Meter
Mechanisms Behind Credit Attribution in Collaborative Work
The Matthew Effect in Credit Attribution
The Matthew Effect, coined by sociologist Robert K. Merton, describes how well-known individuals often receive more credit for their work compared to their lesser-known counterparts, even when the contributions are similar. This phenomenon is prevalent in scientific communities where renowned scientists are more likely to be credited for their achievements, leading to a misallocation of recognition . The effect is perpetuated by the biases of editors and reviewers who, consciously or unconsciously, favor well-known authors, thereby reinforcing their prominence and making it easier for them to secure future grants and publications.
Psychological and Situational Factors in Credit Taking
Credit taking in organizations is influenced by various psychological, situational, and personality constructs. Individuals are more likely to claim credit for work activities when they perceive that doing so will enhance their reputation or career prospects. Situational factors, such as the visibility of the work and the presence of supervisors or peers, also play a significant role. Ethical considerations are crucial, as taking undue credit can lead to conflicts and diminish trust within teams.
Collaborative Work and Credit Attribution
In collaborative settings, the public often attributes credit based on perceived individual efforts. The dynamics of credit attribution can vary significantly depending on the project's difficulty. For easier projects, higher ability collaborators may work less and receive lower credit, while for more challenging projects, the reverse is true. This discrepancy can lead to over-investment in team efforts, as individuals strive to maximize their credit and payoff .
Misallocation of Scientific Credit
The allocation of scientific credit is often skewed, with certain research questions and researchers receiving disproportionate recognition. This misallocation can paradoxically increase the collective productivity of a community by channeling self-interested behavior into socially optimal outcomes. By rewarding individuals out of proportion to their actual contributions, the scientific community can inadvertently promote more significant advancements.
Impact of Algorithms on Credit Attribution
The advent of algorithms in assisting work has altered norms of credit attribution. Studies show that producers receive more credit when assisted by algorithms compared to human assistance. This is because individuals perceive algorithmic assistance as requiring more oversight, thereby attributing greater responsibility and credit to the producers. This shift in credit norms has significant economic and social implications, particularly as algorithmic assistance becomes more prevalent.
Over-Claiming of Responsibility
Over-claiming of responsibility is a common phenomenon where individuals believe they have contributed more than their fair share to a task. This tendency is influenced by group size and the presence of indirect participants such as supervisors or coaches. Larger groups and the involvement of indirect participants can exacerbate over-claiming, leading to potential conflicts and inefficiencies in collaborative work.
Conclusion
The mechanisms behind credit attribution in collaborative work are multifaceted, involving psychological, situational, and systemic factors. The Matthew Effect, misallocation of scientific credit, and the impact of algorithms are significant contributors to how credit is distributed. Understanding these mechanisms can help organizations and scientific communities develop fairer and more efficient systems for recognizing individual contributions.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic