AI and Collective Decisions: Strengthening Legitimacy and Losers' Consent

Suyash Fulay; Prerna Ravi; Emily Kubin; Shrestha Mohanty; Michiel Bakker; Deb Roy

cs.HCApr 7, 2026

AI and Collective Decisions: Strengthening Legitimacy and Losers' Consent

Authors: Suyash Fulay, Prerna Ravi, Emily Kubin, Shrestha Mohanty, Michiel Bakker, Deb Roy

Organizations: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA · Oxford University Oxford, United Kingdom

Abstract

AI is increasingly used to scale collective decision-making, but far less attention has been paid to how such systems can support procedural legitimacy, particularly the conditions shaping losers' consent: whether participants who do not get their preferred outcome still accept it as fair. We ask: (1) how can AI help ground collective decisions in participants' different experiences and beliefs, and (2) whether exposure to these experiences can increase trust, understanding, and social cohesion even when people disagree with the outcome. We built a system that uses a semi-structured AI interviewer to elicit personal experiences on policy topics and an interactive visualization that displays predicted policy support alongside those voiced experiences. In a randomized experiment (n = 181), interacting with the visualization increased perceived legitimacy, trust in outcomes, and understanding of others' perspectives, even though all participants encountered decisions that went against their stated preferences. Our hope is that the design and evaluation of this tool spurs future researchers to focus on how AI can help not only achieve scale and efficiency in democratic processes, but also increase trust and connection between participants.

Figures & tables

Figure 1. An overview of the different elements used in our study’s process (Detailed version in Appendix K )

Figure 2. Procedure for curating data for the visualization

Figure 3. Coefficients for visualization, AI interview, and their interaction (90% CI). Red: p < 0.1 ; solid markers: p < 0.05 .

Appendix figures & tables22 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Recommendation ID	Accuracy	Correlation	MAE
74	0.81	0.79	17
75	0.81	0.61	20
76	0.84	0.77	16
Average	0.82	0.72	17

Appendix

Table 1. Accuracy, correlation, and mean absolute error (MAE) by recommendation.

Proposal	Against Mean	Pro Mean
The federal minimum wage should be raised to $30 an hour.	41.1	63.3
Companies should strongly prioritize hiring domestically before considering foreign applicants.	44.0	67.8
Race and gender should be used in hiring decisions to combat inequality in the workplace.	31.8	54.7

Appendix

Table 2. Pro and against means for sampled profiles.

Statement	Low (0–33)	Mid (33–66)	High (66+)
The federal minimum wage should be raised to $30 an hour.	5	10	23
Companies should strongly prioritize hiring domestically before considering foreign applicants.	7	4	8
Race and gender should be used in hiring decisions to combat inequality in the workplace.	17	9	8

Appendix

Table 3. Responses categorized by support levels for different policy statements.

Domain	Concept	Cronbach’s $\alpha$	N items
Process Legitimacy	Adherence	0.93	5
	Understood Decisions	0.88	4
	Trust	0.78	3
	Felt Heard	0.55	3
Social Cohesion	Learn about others	0.93	4
	Respect	0.87	5

Appendix

Table 4. Cronbach’s

\alpha

for concepts grouped by domain.

Category	Outcome	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	$R^{2}_{adj}$
		Visualization			Interview			Interaction
Process Legitimacy	Adherence	0.34*	[0.04, 0.64]	0.06	0.11	[-0.20, 0.42]	0.55	-0.23	[-0.66, 0.19]	0.36	0.24
	Felt Heard	0.29*	[0.04, 0.54]	0.06	0.51***	[0.25, 0.76]	0.001	-0.20	[-0.56, 0.15]	0.34	0.21
	Trust	0.71***	[0.41, 1.01]	<.001	0.19	[-0.11, 0.50]	0.30	-0.53**	[-0.95, -0.11]	0.04	0.13
	Understood Decisions	0.77***	[0.47, 1.07]	<.001	0.19	[-0.12, 0.50]	0.31	-0.32	[-0.74, 0.11]	0.22	0.18

Appendix

Table 5. Concept outcomes associated with adherence to participatory processes across visualization and interview modes.

Category	Outcome	Coef.	90% CI	$q$	Coef.	90% CI	$q$	Coef.	90% CI	$q$
		Visualization			Interview			Interaction
Adherence	I would be willing to abide by the specific proposal decisions generated from this process.	0.88	[0.26, 1.49]	0.10	0.43	[-0.20, 1.06]	0.81	-0.84	[-1.73, 0.03]	0.50
	Generally, I would be willing to abide by proposal decisions from this process (on other issues).	0.64	[0.01, 1.26]	0.10	0.38	[-0.26, 1.03]	0.81	-0.69	[-1.57, 0.16]	0.83
	Even if I disagreed with certain proposal decisions, I would view them as being legitimately created.	0.69	[0.08, 1.29]	0.12	0.04	[-0.55, 0.63]	0.93	-0.11	[-0.96, 0.75]	0.83
	Even if I disagreed with certain proposal decisions, I would still respect them.	0.60	[0.03, 1.17]	0.12	0.03	[-0.55, 0.62]	0.93	-0.22	[-1.03, 0.59]	0.83
	Even if I disagreed with certain proposal decisions, I would still adhere to them.	0.14	[-0.44, 0.72]	0.70	0.10	[-0.50, 0.70]	0.93	-0.19	[-1.01, 0.64]	0.83

Appendix

Table 6. Item outcomes associated with adherence to participatory processes across visualization and interview modes.

Category	Outcome	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	$R^{2}_{adj}$
		Visualization			Interview			Interaction
Social Cohesion	Commonalities	0.40**	[0.16, 0.64]	0.01	0.04	[-0.21, 0.29]	0.79	-0.03	[-0.37, 0.31]	0.87	0.23
	Inclusion of Self in Others	0.48**	[0.12, 0.84]	0.03	0.11	[-0.26, 0.48]	0.63	-0.18	[-0.70, 0.33]	0.56	0.11
	Feel Connected	0.82***	[0.48, 1.16]	$<$ .001	0.18	[-0.17, 0.53]	0.40	-0.50*	[-0.98, -0.02]	0.09	0.22
	Willing to Interact	-0.14	[-0.49, 0.20]	0.49	0.05	[-0.30, 0.40]	0.81	0.14	[-0.35, 0.62]	0.64	0.21
	Curious About Others	-0.10	[-0.46, 0.27]	0.65	-0.32	[-0.70, 0.05]	0.16	0.06	[-0.46, 0.58]	0.85	0.10

Appendix

Table 7. Concept outcomes associated with social cohesion across visualization and interview modes.

		Visualization			Interview			Interaction
Category	Outcome	Coef.	90% CI	$q$	Coef.	90% CI	$q$	Coef.	90% CI	$q$
Commonalities	I probably have things in common with the other participants whose experiences and opinions helped to create these proposals.	0.60**	[0.16, 1.03]	0.05	0.02	[-0.43, 0.47]	0.94	-0.04	[-0.58, 0.55]	0.93
	I probably share values, opinions, or experiences with others who were part of this process.	1.13***	[0.66, 1.61]	<.001	0.16	[-0.33, 0.64]	0.85	-0.17	[-0.68, 0.50]	0.93
	I probably have very little in common with other people who were part of this process.	0.55	[-0.10, 1.19]	0.21	-0.19	[-0.85, 0.47]	0.85	-0.13	[-1.01, 0.78]	0.93
	I am reading all of the questions in this survey carefully.	0.02	[-0.10, 0.14]	0.78	0.04	[-0.08, 0.17]	0.85	0.01	[-0.16, 0.18]	0.93
General	Think about yourself (Self) and the other participants in this study (Other)…	0.89**	[0.22, 1.57]	0.03	0.20	[-0.49, 0.89]	0.63	-0.34	[-1.30, 0.62]	0.56

Appendix

Table 8. Outcomes associated with perceptions of social cohesion across visualization and interview modes.

Category	Outcome	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	Coef.	90% CI	$p$	$R^{2}_{adj}$
		Visualization			Interview			Interaction
Social Cohesion	Learning about topics	0.93***	[0.63, 1.23]	0.00	0.47	[0.01, 0.16]	0.78	-0.72**	[-1.15, -0.29]	0.01	0.28
	Stance certainty	-0.13	[-0.33, 0.07]	0.27	0.10	[-0.10, 0.39]	0.30	0.09	[-0.19, 0.36]	0.60	0.33
	Change stance (self report)	0.32*	[0.02, 0.63]	0.08	-0.17	[-0.48, 0.39]	0.15	-0.01	[-0.44, 0.43]	0.98	0.12
	Topic stance	0.10	[-0.07, 0.28]	0.32	-0.04	[-0.22, 0.68]	0.13	-0.16	[-0.40, 0.08]	0.28	0.50

Appendix

Table 9. Concept outcomes associated with attitude change across visualization and interview modes.

		Visualization			Interview			Interaction
Category	Outcome	Coef.	90% CI	$q$	Coef.	90% CI	$q$	Coef.	90% CI	$q$
Learning about topics	Compared to before, I feel more informed about why people may have different beliefs on raising the minimum wage.	1.84***	[1.19, 2.49]	0.00	1.13**	[0.46, 1.79]	0.03	-1.47**	[-2.39, -0.55]	0.02
Learning about topics	I feel more informed about the topic of raising the minimum wage.	1.71***	[1.05, 2.38]	0.00	0.80*	[0.12, 1.48]	0.06	-1.41**	[-2.36, -0.47]	0.02
Learning about topics	This exercise has taught me something about raising the minimum wage.	1.62***	[0.96, 2.27]	0.00	0.80*	[0.13, 1.47]	0.06	-1.05	[-1.97, -0.12]	0.07
Learning about topics	Compared to before, I feel more informed about why people may have different beliefs on hiring locals over international applicants.	2.05***	[1.42, 2.68]	0.00	0.80*	[0.16, 1.45]	0.06	-1.23*	[-2.12, -0.34]	0.03
Learning about topics	I feel more informed about the topic of hiring locals over international applicants.	1.85***	[1.20, 2.50]	0.00	1.02**	[0.35, 1.68]	0.03	-1.68**	[-2.60, -0.76]	0.01

Appendix

Table 10. Outcomes associated with attitude change across visualization and interview modes.

Question	Instruction	Max Sec
To start off, can you tell me a bit about your background? Where did you grow up, and what was it like? You can share anything about your family, your neighborhood, friends, or anything else you can think of.	Learn as much as you can about the interviewee’s life experience, and their personal background. Be respectful but curious as you hear about their story. Try to get some specific and detailed experiences or memories about the interviewee’s life.	30
Now I’d like to ask you about an important relationship in your life. Who is someone who has had a big impact on you? Can you tell me about your relationship with them—how you met, what they mean to you, and any important memories you’ve shared?	Learn about a personally meaningful relationship. Encourage storytelling and emotional depth. Ask follow-ups to explore how this relationship shaped the interviewee’s identity, values, or perspective.	30
Can you tell me about the work you do now? What’s your job like, and how do you feel about it day to day?	Learn about what the interviewee does for a living. Be curious but respectful as you hear about their story. Follow up and ask what they like and dislike about their job.	45
Generally, what could be done to make your work life better? You can discuss whatever you feel would make your life better, either now or in the past.	Learn about what the interviewee thinks could be done to make their work life better. Be curious about their thoughts. Try to get some specific examples or ideas about how to improve their work life. If they need inspiration, you can give them some ideas but try not to bias them. If their answers are too brief or surface-level, probe further to understand their reasoning. You can even ask them what they would tell someone in-power like a lawmaker or employer.	60
We’re now going to turn to the topic of the minimum wage. How would changes in the minimum wage (either raising or lowering it) affect you, your family, or anyone else you know personally?	Learn about how the interviewee thinks changes in the minimum wage would affect them, their family, or anyone else they know personally. Be curious about their thoughts. Make sure you ask follow up questions to get more specific on how they would be impacted. If they say they would be negatively impacted, ask why they think that. If they do not think they would be impacted, prompt them to think about different people they interact with that may be impacted.	60
What do you think is a fair minimum wage in your area? Why?	Understand the interviewee’s thoughts on what a fair minimum wage is. Be curious and try to get some specific and detailed thoughts about the interviewee’s thoughts on what a fair minimum wage is. For example, you can ask them to think about rent, food, and other basic necessities in their area.	45

Appendix

Table 14

Figure 4. The red values indicate significance at p < 0.1 , with solid markers indicating significance at p < 0.05 .

Category	Distribution
Political Orientation	Very Liberal (12%), Somewhat Liberal (8%), Liberal (20%), Moderate (16%), Somewhat Conservative (9%), Conservative (19%), Very Conservative (15%)
Income	Less than $30,000 (15%),$ 30,000– $49,999 (15%),$ 50,000– $99,999 (37%),$ 100,000 or more (31%), Prefer not to answer (1%)
Education	Some college but no degree (15%), Associate degree in college (2-year) (17%), Bachelor’s degree in college (4-year) (11%), Master’s degree (35%), Doctoral degree (19%), Professional degree (JD, MD) (1%), Prefer not to answer (2%)
Ethnicity	Asian (7%), Black (14%), Mixed (6%), White (69%), Other (2%), Unreported (3%)
Employment Status	Full-Time (50%), Part-Time (19%), Unemployed and seeking (8%), Not in paid work (10%), Due to start a new job (1%), Other (3%), Unreported (10%)
Sex	Female (59%), Male (39%), Unreported (2%)

Appendix

Table 13. We report the breakdown of our sample of participants across various social and demographic categories.

Domain	Theme	Definition
General Context	Overall impressions of the process	Initial reactions, comfort, and general reflections on using the AI interviewer + platform
	Tool role, usability, & comprehension	Reflections on overall tool usability, its role, and features
	Personal profile accuracy & agency	Reactions to viewing their own profile
	Profile representation	Views on how profiles were represented on the tool, including their positions on the 2-D plot
Social Cohesion	Impact of “hearing” others	Impact of voices via transcripts and audio recordings
	Openness to engagement	Desire to interact further with other participants, and how

Appendix

Table 14. Interview themes and their definitions mapped to our study’s domains. The bolded themes are discussed in this paper for the purposes of the study.

Figure 5. STEP 0: AI Interviewer screen where the user has a back n forth conversation with the AI agent on their personal life as well as policy related experiences

Figure 6. STEP 1: Voting screen where the user views the proposal and votes on it through a Likert scale and free-response question

Figure 7. STEP 2a: Visualization showing the user where they stand relative to other study participants

Figure 8. STEP 2b: Right side panel that opens up when the user clicks on their own avatar from the previous screen. This shows them how their life stories and experiences relevant to the proposal get extracted and shown to other participants

Figure 9. STEP 3a: Visualization showing three featured profiles of participants from across the spectrum on predicted support for the proposal

Figure 10. STEP 3b: Right side panel that opens up when the user clicks on any of the featured avatars from the previous screen. This allows the user to listen and react to the participant’s life and policy-related experiences through with audio clips and reflection scaffolds

Figure 11. STEP 3c: Visualization showing all avatars on the spectrum. The user can optionally explore these after the previous steps

Figure 12. STEP 4: Decision page showing the user how the participant group voted summatively and if the proposal passed/failed. The user also gives feedback on the decision via likert scales below

AI-Assisted Decision Making

AI-assisted decision making studies how computational systems can inform human choices while accounting for context, uncertainty, and consequences.

See all 144 papers

AI Should Facilitate Democratic Deliberation at Scale
Sep 17, 2026José Ramón Enríquez, Jiaxin Pei, Alex PentlandHuman-Centered AI Deliberative Democracy
Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA, USA · Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford, CA, USA · MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA, USA
Habermolt: Delegating Deliberation to AI Representatives
May 23, 2026Joseph Low, Oscar Duys, Claude Formanek +2Deliberative Democracy AI Agent Governance
Cooperative AI Research Fellowship · AI Safety South Africa · MIT +1
Human/AI Collective Intelligence for Deliberative Democracy: A Human-Centred Design Approach
Mar 17, 2026Anna De Liddo, Lucas Anastasiou, Simon Buckingham ShumDeliberative Democracy Human-AI Co-Creation
Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK · Connected Intelligence Centre, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Sep 17, 2026J/K move · Enter open · S save

AI Should Facilitate Democratic Deliberation at Scale

José Ramón Enríquez, Jiaxin Pei, Alex Pentland

Stanford Graduate School of Business, Stanford, CA, USA · Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford, CA, USA · MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA, USA

Human-Centered AI Deliberative Democracy Human-AI Collaboration

Open paper AskPDF arXiv

AI systems can strengthen democracy by supporting deliberation at scale by addressing cognitive, social, platform-design, and market-driven frictions, while preserving human agency. Unlike proposals such as liquid democracy that restructure representation through vote delegation, in this position paper, we argue that AI-assisted deliberation offers a more promising path by lowering barriers to meaningful engagement without substituting machine judgment for human choice. Drawing on evidence from online deliberation platforms and experimental research, we identify four guiding principles: preserving agency and autonomy, encouraging mutual respect, promoting equality and inclusiveness, and augmenting rather than substituting active citizenship. We also address critical challenges, including alignment, sycophancy, training bias, and over-reliance on AI systems. We call on the machine learning community to develop deliberation-focused AI systems evaluated not on engagement metrics but on their capacity to facilitate informed, representative, and friction-robust discourse.

Abstract

AI-Assisted Decision Making

Explore similar work

AI Should Facilitate Democratic Deliberation at Scale

Habermolt: Delegating Deliberation to AI Representatives

Human/AI Collective Intelligence for Deliberative Democracy: A Human-Centred Design Approach