-
Current Opinion in Psychology Apr 2022Reward and punishment change the payoff structures of social interactions and therefore can potentially play a role in promoting prosocial behavior. Yet, there are... (Review)
Review
Reward and punishment change the payoff structures of social interactions and therefore can potentially play a role in promoting prosocial behavior. Yet, there are boundary conditions for them to be effective. We review recent work that addresses the conditions under which rewards and punishment can enhance prosocial behavior, the proximate and ultimate mechanisms for individuals' rewarding and punishing decisions, and the reputational and behavioral consequences of reward and punishment under noise. The reviewed evidence points to the importance of more field research on how reward and punishment can promote prosocial behavior in real-world settings. We also highlight the need to integrate different methodologies to better examine the effects of reward and punishment on prosocial behavior.
Topics: Altruism; Humans; Punishment; Reward
PubMed: 34619459
DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.09.003 -
Nature Human Behaviour Sep 2022Third-party punishment of antisocial others is unique to humans and seems to be universal across cultures. However, its emergence in ontogeny remains unknown. We...
Third-party punishment of antisocial others is unique to humans and seems to be universal across cultures. However, its emergence in ontogeny remains unknown. We developed a participatory cognitive paradigm using gaze-contingency techniques, in which infants can use their gaze to affect agents displayed on a monitor. In this paradigm, fixation on an agent triggers the event of a stone crushing the agent. Throughout five experiments (total N = 120), we show that eight-month-old infants punished antisocial others. Specifically, infants increased their selective looks at the aggressor after watching aggressive interactions. Additionally, three control experiments excluded alternative interpretations of their selective gaze, suggesting that punishment-related decision-making influenced looking behaviour. These findings indicate that a disposition for third-party punishment of antisocial others emerges in early infancy and emphasize the importance of third-party punishment for human cooperation. This behavioural tendency may be a human trait acquired over the course of evolution.
Topics: Aggression; Antisocial Personality Disorder; Humans; Infant; Personality; Punishment
PubMed: 35680993
DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01354-2 -
Nature Reviews. Neuroscience Apr 2007Animals, in particular humans, frequently punish other individuals who behave negatively or uncooperatively towards them. In animals, this usually serves to protect the... (Review)
Review
Animals, in particular humans, frequently punish other individuals who behave negatively or uncooperatively towards them. In animals, this usually serves to protect the personal interests of the individual concerned, and its kin. However, humans also punish altruistically, in which the act of punishing is personally costly. The propensity to do so has been proposed to reflect the cultural acquisition of norms of behaviour, which incorporates the desire to uphold equity and fairness, and promotes cooperation. Here, we review the proximate neurobiological basis of punishment, considering the motivational processes that underlie punishing actions.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Models, Neurological; Motivation; Neurobiology; Punishment
PubMed: 17375042
DOI: 10.1038/nrn2119 -
Scientific Reports Apr 2023Peer punishment can help groups to establish collectively beneficial public goods. However, when humans condition punishment on other factors than poor contribution,...
Peer punishment can help groups to establish collectively beneficial public goods. However, when humans condition punishment on other factors than poor contribution, punishment can become ineffective and group cooperation deteriorates. Here we show that this happens in pluriform groups where members have different socio-demographic characteristics. In our public good provision experiment, participants were confronted with a public good from which all group members benefitted equally, and in-between rounds they could punish each other. Groups were uniform (members shared the same academic background) or pluriform (half the members shared the same academic background, and the other half shared another background). We show that punishment effectively enforced cooperation in uniform groups where punishment was conditioned on poor contribution. In pluriform groups, punishment was conditioned on poor contribution too, but also partially on others' social-demographic characteristics-dissimilar others were punished more than similar others regardless of their contribution. As a result, punishment lost its effectiveness in deterring free-riding and maintaining public good provision. Follow-up experiments indicated that such discriminatory punishment was used to demarcate and reinforce subgroup boundaries. This work reveals that peer punishment fails to enforce cooperation in groups with a pluriform structure, which is rule rather than exception in contemporary societies.
Topics: Humans; Cooperative Behavior; Punishment; Group Processes; Peer Group; Teaching Rounds; Game Theory
PubMed: 37055546
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-33167-2 -
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 -
Trends in Ecology & Evolution May 2012Humans use punishment to promote cooperation in laboratory experiments but evidence that punishment plays a similar role in non-human animals is comparatively rare. In... (Review)
Review
Humans use punishment to promote cooperation in laboratory experiments but evidence that punishment plays a similar role in non-human animals is comparatively rare. In this article, we examine why this may be the case by reviewing evidence from both laboratory experiments on humans and ecologically relevant studies on non-human animals. Generally, punishment appears to be most probable if players differ in strength or strategic options. Although these conditions are common in nature, punishment (unlike other forms of aggression) involves immediate payoff reductions to both punisher and target, with net benefits to punishers contingent on cheats behaving more cooperatively in future interactions. In many cases, aggression yielding immediate benefits may suffice to deter cheats and might explain the relative scarcity of punishment in nature.
Topics: Aggression; Animals; Biological Evolution; Cooperative Behavior; Humans; Punishment; Selection, Genetic
PubMed: 22284810
DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.12.004 -
Developmental Psychology Jun 2021Third-party punishment can promote fair behavior. However, the mechanisms by which this happens are unclear. Third-party punishment may increase fair behavior by...
Third-party punishment can promote fair behavior. However, the mechanisms by which this happens are unclear. Third-party punishment may increase fair behavior by providing direct feedback, helping shape the behavior of those punished, or through an influence on reputation, by encouraging the transgressor to behave appropriately before a third-party audience. Investigating whether and how third-party punishment leads to fairness in children during middle childhood-a key developmental period in the emergence of fairness-presents an ideal context in which to explore these 2 mechanisms. Six to nine-year-old children (N = 121) allocated resources between themselves and a partner in a forced-choice dictator game. In the Direct Feedback condition, a third party punished if the child chose the less fair option. In the Reputation condition, a third party merely observed the child. In the Baseline condition, no third party was present. We find that the Direct Feedback condition increased fairness relative to the other conditions, especially among younger children. These results highlight an important link between third-party punishment and fairness in children and, more broadly, help clarify the mechanisms through which third-party punishment can influence fair behavior and thereby human cooperation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Child; Cooperative Behavior; Family; Humans; Punishment; Social Behavior
PubMed: 34424010
DOI: 10.1037/dev0001183 -
Proceedings of the National Academy of... Apr 2023Individuals differ in their sensitivity to the adverse consequences of their actions, leading some to persist in maladaptive behaviors. Two pathways have been identified...
Individuals differ in their sensitivity to the adverse consequences of their actions, leading some to persist in maladaptive behaviors. Two pathways have been identified for this insensitivity: a motivational pathway based on excessive reward valuation and a behavioral pathway based on autonomous stimulus-response mechanisms. Here, we identify a third, cognitive pathway based on differences in punishment knowledge and use of that knowledge to suppress behavior. We show that distinct phenotypes of punishment sensitivity emerge from differences in what people learn about their actions. Exposed to identical punishment contingencies, some people (sensitive phenotype) form correct causal beliefs that they use to guide their behavior, successfully obtaining rewards and avoiding punishment, whereas others form incorrect but internally coherent causal beliefs that lead them to earn punishment they do not like. Incorrect causal beliefs were not inherently problematic because we show that many individuals benefit from information about why they are being punished, revaluing their actions and changing their behavior to avoid further punishment (unaware phenotype). However, one condition where incorrect causal beliefs were problematic was when punishment is infrequent. Under this condition, more individuals show punishment insensitivity and detrimental patterns of behavior that resist experience and information-driven updating, even when punishment is severe (compulsive phenotype). For these individuals, rare punishment acted as a "trap," inoculating maladaptive behavioral preferences against cognitive and behavioral updating.
Topics: Punishment; Reward; Learning; Motivation; Cognition
PubMed: 37011189
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2221634120 -
Psychological Science May 2022Across four experiments with U.S.-based online participants ( = 1,495 adults), I found that paying people to engage in moralistic punishment reduces their willingness to...
Across four experiments with U.S.-based online participants ( = 1,495 adults), I found that paying people to engage in moralistic punishment reduces their willingness to do so. In an economic game with real stakes, providing a monetary bonus for engaging in third-party punishment of unfair offers nearly cut participants' willingness to do so in half. In judgments of hypothetical transgressions, participants viewed punishers who accepted payment as having worse character and rated the punishers' punitive actions as less morally acceptable. Willingness to engage in punishment was restored if participants were offered large enough payments or were told that punishment accompanied by payment still signals moral virtue. Data were consistent with a signal-corruption mechanism whereby payment interferes with the prosocial signal that moralistic punishment provides about a punisher's motives. These findings have implications for the cultural evolution of punishment and suggest that understanding perpetrators' sociomoral incentives is essential to implementing conflict-reduction policies.
Topics: Adult; Character; Cooperative Behavior; Humans; Morals; Motivation; Punishment
PubMed: 35486472
DOI: 10.1177/09567976211054786 -
Journal of Personality and Social... Apr 2022Nine studies represent the first investigation into when and why people reveal other people's secrets. Although people keep their own immoral secrets to avoid being...
Nine studies represent the first investigation into when and why people reveal other people's secrets. Although people keep their own immoral secrets to avoid being punished, we propose that people will be motivated to reveal secrets to punish them for immoral acts. Experimental and correlational methods converge on the finding that people are more likely to reveal secrets that violate their own moral values. Participants were more willing to reveal immoral secrets as a form of punishment, and this was explained by feelings of moral outrage. Using hypothetical scenarios (Studies 1, 3-6), two controversial events in the news (hackers leaking citizens' private information; Study 2a-2b), and participants' behavioral choices to keep or reveal thousands of diverse secrets that they learned in their everyday lives (Studies 7-8), we present the first glimpse into when, how often, and one explanation for why people reveal others' secrets. We found that theories of self-disclosure do not generalize to others' secrets: Across diverse methodologies, including real decisions to reveal others' secrets in everyday life, people reveal others' secrets as punishment in response to moral outrage elicited from others' secrets. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Emotions; Humans; Learning; Morals; Punishment; Self Disclosure
PubMed: 35099202
DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000284