-
Psychophysiology Sep 2023The prospects of gaining reward and avoiding punishment widely influence human behavior. Despite of numerous attempts to investigate the influence of motivational...
The prospects of gaining reward and avoiding punishment widely influence human behavior. Despite of numerous attempts to investigate the influence of motivational signals on working memory (WM), whether the valence and the magnitude of motivational signals interactively influence WM performance remains unclear. To investigate this, the present study used a free-recall working memory task with EEG recording to compare the effect of incentive valence (reward or punishment), as well as the magnitude of incentives on visual WM. Behavioral results revealed that the presence of incentive signals improved WM precision when compared with no-incentive condition, and compared with punishing cues, rewarding cues led to greater facilitation in WM precision, as well as confidence ratings afterward. Moreover, event related potential (ERP) results suggested that compared with punishment, reward led to an earlier latency of late positive component (LPC), a larger amplitude of contingent negative variation (CNV) during the expectation period, and a larger P300 amplitude during the sample and delay periods. Furthermore, reward advantage over punishment in behavioral and neural results were correlated, such that individuals with larger CNV difference between reward and punishment conditions also report greater distinction in confidence ratings between the two conditions. In sum, our results demonstrate what and how rewarding cues cause more beneficial effects than punishing cues when incentivizing visual WM.
Topics: Humans; Motivation; Punishment; Memory, Short-Term; Reward; Evoked Potentials
PubMed: 36966450
DOI: 10.1111/psyp.14300 -
Developmental Science Sep 2021Why do people punish selfish behavior? Are they motivated to punish perpetrators of selfishness (retribution) or to compensate the victims of selfishness (restoration)?...
Why do people punish selfish behavior? Are they motivated to punish perpetrators of selfishness (retribution) or to compensate the victims of selfishness (restoration)? Developmental data can provide important insight into these questions by revealing whether punishment of selfishness is more retributive or restorative when it first emerges. Across two studies, we examined costly third-party intervention in 6- to 9-year-olds. In Study 1, children learned about a selfish actor who refused to share with a recipient. Children then chose to (1) punish the selfish actor by rejecting their payoff (retribution); (2) compensate the victim of selfishness by equalizing payoffs between the perpetrator and victim (restoration); or (3) do nothing. We found that children were more likely to punish than compensate in response to selfishness, suggesting that intervention in this context is more retributive than restorative. In Study 2, we tested third-party intervention in the face of generosity which, like selfishness, can lead to unequal outcomes. As in Study 1, children in this context could reject unequal payoffs, thereby depriving the recipient of the advantageous payoff but having no effect on the actor. Children could also use compensation in this context, equalizing the payoffs between actor and recipient. We found that children did not punish inequality that stemmed from generosity, suggesting that the retributive punishment in Study 1 was specifically targeting selfishness rather than inequality more generally. These results contribute to the debate on the function of third-party punishment in humans, suggesting that retributive motives toward selfish transgressors are privileged during ontogeny.
Topics: Child; Cooperative Behavior; Humans; Motivation; Punishment
PubMed: 33527575
DOI: 10.1111/desc.13093 -
Proceedings. Biological Sciences Jan 2022Third-party punishment is thought to act as an honest signal of cooperative intent and such signals might escalate when competing to be chosen as a partner. Here, we...
Third-party punishment is thought to act as an honest signal of cooperative intent and such signals might escalate when competing to be chosen as a partner. Here, we investigate whether partner choice competition prompts escalating investment in third-party punishment. We also consider the case of signalling via helpful acts to provide a direct test of the relative strength of the two types of signals. Individuals invested more in third-party helping than third-party punishment and invested more in both signals when observed compared to when investments would be unseen. We found no clear effect of partner choice (over and above mere observation) on investments in either punishment or helping. Third-parties who invested more than a partner were preferentially chosen for a subsequent Trust Game although the preference to interact with the higher investor was more pronounced in the help than in the punishment condition. Third-parties who invested more were entrusted with more money and investments in third-party punishment or helping reliably signalled trustworthiness. Individuals who did not invest in third-party helping were more likely to be untrustworthy than those who did not invest in third-party punishment. This supports the conception of punishment as a more ambiguous signal of cooperative intent compared to help.
Topics: Cooperative Behavior; Game Theory; Games, Experimental; Humans; Punishment; Trust
PubMed: 35016543
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1773 -
Brain Imaging and Behavior Apr 2022Second-party punishment (SPP) and third-party punishment (TPP) are two basic forms of costly punishment that play an essential role in maintaining social orders. Despite...
Second-party punishment (SPP) and third-party punishment (TPP) are two basic forms of costly punishment that play an essential role in maintaining social orders. Despite scientific breakthroughs in understanding that costly punishment is driven by an integration of the wrongdoers' intention and the outcome of their actions, so far, few studies have compared the neurocognitive processes associated with the intention-outcome integration between SPP and TPP. Here, we combined economic exchange games measuring SPP and TPP with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to compare the neuropsychological architectures underlying the intention-outcome integration during one-shot interactions with anonymous partners across four types of norm violations (no norm, accidental, attempted, and intentional violations). Our behavioral findings showed that third-parties punished only attempted norm violations less frequently than second-parties. Our neuroimaging findings revealed higher activities in the right temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) for attempted norm violations during TPP relative to SPP; more activities in these regions with less punishment frequency; and enhancement of functional connectivity of the right TPJ with the right dlPFC and dorsomedial PFC. Our findings demonstrated specific psychological and neural mechanisms of intention-outcome interactions between SPP and TPP -helping to unravel the complex neurocognitive processes of costly punishment.
Topics: Brain Mapping; Humans; Intention; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Neuroimaging; Punishment
PubMed: 34533770
DOI: 10.1007/s11682-021-00555-z -
Journal of Personality Jun 2022Individuals with high levels of psychopathic traits are often characterized by aberrant reinforcement learning. This type of learning, which implicates making choices...
OBJECTIVE
Individuals with high levels of psychopathic traits are often characterized by aberrant reinforcement learning. This type of learning, which implicates making choices that maximize rewards and minimize punishments, may be affected by acute stress. However, how acute stress affects reinforcement learning in individuals with different levels of psychopathic traits is not well-understood. Here, we investigated whether and how individual differences in psychopathic traits modulated the impact of acute stress on reward and punishment learning.
METHOD
Sixty-two male participants from a university sample completed the Self-Report Psychopathy-Short Form scale and performed a reinforcement-learning task involving monetary gains and losses whilst under acute stress and control conditions.
RESULTS
Individual differences in psychopathic traits modulated the impact of acute stress on behavioral performance toward obtaining gains, but not toward avoiding losses. As levels of psychopathic traits increased, the impairing effect of acute stress on reward learning decreased. Specifically, acute stress impaired performance toward seeking gains to a larger extent in individuals with lower levels of psychopathic traits than in individuals with higher levels of these traits.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study indicates that psychopathic traits modulate the impact of acute stress on reward learning.
Topics: Antisocial Personality Disorder; Humans; Learning; Male; Punishment; Reward; Self Report
PubMed: 34536231
DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12673 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Mar 2022The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) is a widely studied psychobiological model of personality. RST factors seem to influence eating behavior, but how these... (Review)
Review
The Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) is a widely studied psychobiological model of personality. RST factors seem to influence eating behavior, but how these personality traits are associated with distinct features of eating behavior is still unclear. In the present systematic review, we analyzed the relationship between RST personality factors and eating behavior using a parsing approach in which BMI-related results, self-reported results, and behavioral results were distinguished. Our analysis revealed that reward and punishment sensitivity seem to correlate and influence distinct features of eating behavior. The association between BMI and RST factors was uncertain, but nonlinear associations between reward sensitivity and weight need further testing. Reward sensitivity was linked to most eating behavior phenotypes (e.g., emotional eating and restrained eating), but only punishment sensitivity was primarily correlated with eating pathology. Reward sensitivity was the main factor linked with reactivity to food stimuli on many behavioral measures. The neurobiological personality factors of RST offer parsimonious concepts to understand eating behavior outcomes and the differential relationships observed are useful to translational research.
Topics: Feeding Behavior; Humans; Personality; Punishment; Reinforcement, Psychology; Reward
PubMed: 34998836
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104525 -
Nature Communications Jul 2020Across societies, humans punish norm violations. To date, research on the antecedents and consequences of punishment has largely relied upon agent-based modeling and...
Across societies, humans punish norm violations. To date, research on the antecedents and consequences of punishment has largely relied upon agent-based modeling and laboratory experiments. Here, we report a longitudinal study documenting punishment responses to norm violations in daily life (k = 1507; N = 257) and test pre-registered hypotheses about the antecedents of direct punishment (i.e., confrontation) and indirect punishment (i.e., gossip and social exclusion). We find that people use confrontation versus gossip in a context-sensitive manner. Confrontation is more likely when punishers have been personally victimized, have more power, and value offenders more. Gossip is more likely when norm violations are severe and when punishers have less power, value offenders less, and experience disgust. Findings reveal a complex punishment psychology that weighs the benefits of adjusting others' behavior against the risks of retaliation.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Behavior; Emotions; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Morals; Motivation; Punishment; Risk Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 32647165
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17286-2 -
Developmental Psychology Sep 2022Past research has demonstrated that both consequentialist motives (such as deterrence) and deontological motives (such as "just deserts") underlie children's and adults'...
Past research has demonstrated that both consequentialist motives (such as deterrence) and deontological motives (such as "just deserts") underlie children's and adults' punitive behavior. But what motives do we ascribe to others who pursue punishment? The present work explores this question by assessing which punitive motives children (6- and 7-year-olds, = 100; 67% White; 55% female) and adults ( = 100; 76% White; 35% female) attribute to individuals who witnessed and punished a transgression (third-party punishment). Beyond this, we varied the social role of the punisher (a teacher, an adult visiting a school, a fellow peer) to examine whether motivational ascriptions vary depending on social context. Across these contexts, children endorsed a variety of punishment motives but consistently rejected the notion that individuals punish for the purpose of inflicting suffering. Adults-like children-prioritized consequentialist motives but, in more personal contexts (involving a child punishing their peer), considered "just deserts" a more plausible motive. These findings speak to developmental and contextual variation in individuals' theories about punitive motives and provide insight into how individuals understand and respond to punishment in everyday life. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Adult; Child; Female; Humans; Male; Motivation; Peer Group; Punishment; Schools; Social Environment
PubMed: 35511518
DOI: 10.1037/dev0001378 -
Journal of Theoretical Biology May 2022We use evolutionary game theory to study the evolution of harming behavior (spite) in settings involving both tags and (anti-) correlated interaction. Our results show...
We use evolutionary game theory to study the evolution of harming behavior (spite) in settings involving both tags and (anti-) correlated interaction. Our results show an interesting interaction between these mechanisms. The presence of tags shows that pure spite is less likely to evolve when theoretically expected, but that conditional spite is more likely than expected. Moreover, we identify a novel tag-based equilibrium where spite occurs within but not between groups. We discuss implications for the evolution of spite, punishment, and the methodological approach of using exogenous parameters to represent (anti-) correlated interactions.
Topics: Biological Evolution; Cooperative Behavior; Game Theory; Punishment
PubMed: 35247376
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2022.111052 -
Cognition Dec 2019People often punish norm violations. In what cases is such punishment viewed as normative-a behavior that we "should" or even "must" engage in? We approach this question...
People often punish norm violations. In what cases is such punishment viewed as normative-a behavior that we "should" or even "must" engage in? We approach this question by asking when people who fail to punish a norm violator are, themselves, punished. (For instance, a boss who fails to punish transgressive employees might, herself, be fired.) We conducted experiments exploring the contexts in which higher-order punishment occurs, using both incentivized economic games and hypothetical vignettes describing everyday situations. We presented participants with cases in which an individual fails to punish a transgressor, either as a victim (second party) or as an observer (third party). Across studies, we consistently observed higher-order punishment of non-punishing observers. Higher-order punishment of non-punishing victims, however, was consistently weaker, and sometimes non-existent. These results demonstrate the selective application of higher-order punishment, provide a new perspective on the psychological mechanisms that support it, and provide some clues regarding its function.
Topics: Adaptation, Psychological; Adult; Cooperative Behavior; Humans; Punishment; Social Behavior; Social Norms
PubMed: 31408816
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104040