Anything showing stiffness (lateral in this case) in a model is contributing to resist solicitations. Hence If you are to have a linear member and do not want moment strength contribution to stiffness you need model it as hinged, and also build it as hinged. This for steel structures (to build it) may be less a problem since we can detail the connection (or local system) to show enough ductility under the calculated structural excursions without significant structural damage, or just maybe some small plastic deformation. Contrarily, is more difficult to design concrete members and joints able to sustain earthquake excursions without showing cracks that are not only permanent damage to the structure but may impair severely the capacity for shear transmission to the supports, hence constituting an identified source of structural ruin; I always remember the advice of an structural designer of Hawai (that sustains sitnificant earthquake action) that recommended including in the design of slabs and beams inclined rebars, preferably the same main rebar bent at ends like inclined shear rebar, in order to that, when the earthquake distroys the ability to pass moment and the joint is severely impaired to transmit forces in shear, at least through hanging "catenary" or "cable" action the weight of the slab can still be suspended hanging from steel dowels passing from the slab side of the crack to that of the column. So having as severe cracks in shear means a ruined connection to pass weight and this consideration must be in mind with designing anything that can see this kind and level of action.
Also, rotational ductility diminishes with the structural depth of the standing member. This is easily understood: atop a steel flange or top rebar, for whatever limit strain of the ductile steel behaviour (upper strain of the yield plateau), the rotated angle at the joint is inversely proportional to the depth of the member or slab. Hence by just using the smaller depth compatible with the wanted structural behaviour, you are enhancing the rotational ductility. Again, this may have more value for steel structures and connections that are required to undergo at full strength the complete earthquake rotational excursions, but for concrete structures it is seen that allowing for such extreme ductility is inconsistent with the convenient design and behaviour of the structures and the contrary path of limiting the lateral excursion under earthquake force is taken. This way we design for concrete structures having higher response to earthquake, more stiff and showing less lateral displacement, requiring less ductility at connections, and, out of the lesser displacement allowed, more likely to sustain with the required integrity the earthquake event. So if you have actually designed stiff shearwalls, your earthquake excursion must be controlled and likely you will be able to design the smaller depth members you can that, through confining action of close closed stirrups or hoops, may pass efficiently your forces from your floor to the shearwall.
