-
Proceedings. Biological Sciences Nov 2021Economic experiments have suggested that cooperative humans will altruistically match local levels of cooperation (conditional cooperation) and pay to punish...
Economic experiments have suggested that cooperative humans will altruistically match local levels of cooperation (conditional cooperation) and pay to punish non-cooperators (altruistic punishment). Evolutionary models have suggested that if altruists punish non-altruists this could favour the evolution of costly helping behaviours (cooperation) among strangers. An often-key requirement is that helping behaviours and punishing behaviours form one single conjoined trait (strong reciprocity). Previous economics experiments have provided support for the hypothesis that punishment and cooperation form one conjoined, altruistically motivated, trait. However, such a conjoined trait may be evolutionarily unstable, and previous experiments have confounded a fear of being punished with being surrounded by cooperators, two factors that could favour cooperation. Here, we experimentally decouple the fear of punishment from a cooperative environment and allow cooperation and punishment behaviour to freely separate (420 participants). We show, that if a minority of individuals is made immune to punishment, they (i) learn to stop cooperating on average despite being surrounded by high levels of cooperation, contradicting the idea of conditional cooperation and (ii) often continue to punish, 'hypocritically', showing that cooperation and punishment do not form one, altruistically motivated, linked trait.
Topics: Altruism; Biological Evolution; Cooperative Behavior; Game Theory; Humans; Punishment
PubMed: 34753350
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1611 -
Child Development Jul 2021The current work investigated the extent to which children (N=171 6- to 8-year-olds) and adults (N = 94) view punishment as redemptive. In Study 1, children-but not...
The current work investigated the extent to which children (N=171 6- to 8-year-olds) and adults (N = 94) view punishment as redemptive. In Study 1, children-but not adults-reported that "mean" individuals became "nicer" after one severe form of punishment (incarceration). Moreover, adults expected "nice" individuals' moral character to worsen following punishment; however, we did not find that children expected such a change. Study 2 extended these findings by showing that children view "mean" individuals as becoming "nicer" following both severe (incarceration) and relatively minor (time-out) punishments, suggesting that the pattern of results from Study 1 generalizes across punishment types. Together, these studies indicate that children-but not adults-may view punishment as a vehicle for redemption.
Topics: Adult; Child; Child Behavior; Humans; Morals; Punishment
PubMed: 33462800
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13475 -
PloS One 2017Previous theorizing about punishment has suggested that humans desire to punish inequality per se. However, the research supporting such an interpretation contains...
Previous theorizing about punishment has suggested that humans desire to punish inequality per se. However, the research supporting such an interpretation contains important methodological confounds. The main objective of the current experiment was to remove those confounds in order to test whether generating inequality per se is punished. Participants were recruited from an online market to take part in a wealth-alteration game with an ostensible second player. The participants were given an option to deduct from the other player's payment as punishment for their behavior during the game. The results suggest that human punishment does not appear to be motivated by inequality per se, as inequality that was generated without inflicting costs on others was not reliably punished. Instead, punishment seems to respond primarily to the infliction of costs, with inequality only becoming relevant as a secondary input for punishment decisions. The theoretical significance of this finding is discussed in the context of its possible adaptive value.
Topics: Adult; Decision Making; Female; Humans; Male; Motivation; Punishment; Socioeconomic Factors
PubMed: 28187166
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0171298 -
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 -
Scientific Reports Apr 2022The public goods game is a multiplayer version of the prisoner's dilemma game. In the public goods game, punishment on defectors is necessary to encourage cooperation....
The public goods game is a multiplayer version of the prisoner's dilemma game. In the public goods game, punishment on defectors is necessary to encourage cooperation. There are two types of punishment: peer punishment and pool punishment. Comparing pool punishment with peer punishment, pool punishment is disadvantageous in comparison with peer punishment because pool punishment incurs fixed costs especially if second-order free riders (those who invest in public goods but do not punish defectors) are not punished. In order to eliminate such a flaw of pool punishment, this study proposes the probabilistic pool punishment proportional to the difference of payoff. In the proposed pool punishment, each punisher pays the cost to the punishment pool with the probability proportional to the difference of payoff between his/her payoff and the average payoff of his/her opponents. Comparing the proposed pool punishment with previous pool and peer punishment, in pool punishment of previous studies, cooperators who do not punish defectors become dominant instead of pool punishers with fixed costs. However, in the proposed pool punishment, more punishers and less cooperators coexist, and such state is more robust against the invasion of defectors due to mutation than those of previous pool and peer punishment. The average payoff is also comparable to peer punishment of previous studies.
Topics: Cooperative Behavior; Female; Game Theory; Humans; Male; Peer Group; Prisoner Dilemma; Punishment
PubMed: 35459880
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-10582-5 -
Journal of Child Psychology and... 2014Youth and adults with psychopathic traits display disrupted reinforcement learning. Advances in measurement now enable examination of this association in preschoolers....
BACKGROUND
Youth and adults with psychopathic traits display disrupted reinforcement learning. Advances in measurement now enable examination of this association in preschoolers. The current study examines relations between reinforcement learning in preschoolers and parent ratings of reduced responsiveness to socialization, conceptualized as a developmental vulnerability to psychopathic traits.
METHODS
One hundred and fifty-seven preschoolers (mean age 4.7 ± 0.8 years) participated in a substudy that was embedded within a larger project. Children completed the 'Stars-in-Jars' task, which involved learning to select rewarded jars and avoid punished jars. Maternal report of responsiveness to socialization was assessed with the Punishment Insensitivity and Low Concern for Others scales of the Multidimensional Assessment of Preschool Disruptive Behavior (MAP-DB).
RESULTS
Punishment Insensitivity, but not Low Concern for Others, was significantly associated with reinforcement learning in multivariate models that accounted for age and sex. Specifically, higher Punishment Insensitivity was associated with significantly lower overall performance and more errors on punished trials ('passive avoidance').
CONCLUSIONS
Impairments in reinforcement learning manifest in preschoolers who are high in maternal ratings of Punishment Insensitivity. If replicated, these findings may help to pinpoint the neurodevelopmental antecedents of psychopathic tendencies and suggest novel intervention targets beginning in early childhood.
Topics: Antisocial Personality Disorder; Child, Preschool; Female; Humans; Male; Punishment; Random Allocation; Reinforcement, Psychology; Reward; Socialization
PubMed: 24033313
DOI: 10.1111/jcpp.12132 -
Journal of Theoretical Biology Feb 2020Altruistic punishment and reward have been proved to promote the evolution of cooperation in the public goods game(PGG), but the punishers and the rewarders have to pay...
Altruistic punishment and reward have been proved to promote the evolution of cooperation in the public goods game(PGG), but the punishers and the rewarders have to pay a price for these behaviors and that results in overall loss of interest. In present work, probabilistic punishment and reward are introduced to PGG. Probabilistic punishment and reward mean that punishment and reward are executed with a certain probability. Although that will reduce unnecessary costs, occasional absence of execution can lead to distrust. Thus we focus on how to implement punishment and reward efficiently within the structured populations. Numerical simulations are performed and prove that probabilistic punishment and reward can promote the evolution of cooperation more effectively. Further researches indicate that there is an optimal executing probability to promote cooperation and maximize reduction of cost. In addition, when the unit cost is high, the PGG with probabilistic punishment and reward still helps the evolution of altruistic punishers and rewarders, thereby avoiding collapse of cooperation.
Topics: Cooperative Behavior; Game Theory; Punishment; Reward; Trust
PubMed: 31809719
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2019.110103 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2019Justice systems delegate punishment decisions to groups in the belief that the aggregation of individuals' preferences facilitates judiciousness. However, group dynamics...
Justice systems delegate punishment decisions to groups in the belief that the aggregation of individuals' preferences facilitates judiciousness. However, group dynamics may also lead individuals to relinquish moral responsibility by conforming to the majority's preference for punishment. Across five experiments (N = 399), we find Victims and Jurors tasked with restoring justice become increasingly punitive (by as much as 40%) as groups express a desire to punish, with every additional punisher augmenting an individual's punishment rates. This influence is so potent that knowing about a past group's preference continues swaying decisions even when they cannot affect present outcomes. Using computational models of decision-making, we test long-standing theories of how groups influence choice. We find groups induce conformity by making individuals less cautious and more impulsive, and by amplifying the value of punishment. However, compared to Victims, Jurors are more sensitive to moral violation severity and less readily swayed by the group. Conformity to a group's punitive preference also extends to weightier moral violations such as assault and theft. Our results demonstrate that groups can powerfully shift an individual's punitive preference across a variety of contexts, while additionally revealing the cognitive mechanisms by which social influence alters moral values.
Topics: Crowdsourcing; Decision Making; Female; Humans; Male; Punishment
PubMed: 31406239
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-48050-2 -
Developmental Psychology Aug 2021Although children enact third-party punishment, at least in response to harm and fairness violations, much remains unknown about this behavior. We investigated the...
Although children enact third-party punishment, at least in response to harm and fairness violations, much remains unknown about this behavior. We investigated the tendency to make the punishment fit the crime in terms of moral domain; developmental patterns across moral domains; the effects of audience and descriptive norm violations; and enjoyment of inflicting punishment. We tested 5- to 11-year-olds in the United Kingdom (N = 152 across two experiments, 55 girls and 97 boys, predominantly White and middle-class). Children acted as referees in a computer game featuring teams of players: As these players violated fairness or loyalty norms, children were offered the opportunity to punish them. We measured the type (fining or banning) and severity of punishment children chose and their enjoyment in doing so. Children only partially made the punishment fit the crime: They showed no systematic punishment choice preference for disloyal players, but tended to fine rather than ban players allocating resources unfairly-a result best explained by equalization concerns. Children's punishment severity was not affected by audience presence or perpetrators' descriptive norm violations, but was negatively predicted by age (unless punishment could be used as an equalization tool). Most children did not enjoy punishing, and those who believed they allocated real punishment reported no enjoyment more often than children who believed they pretended to punish. Contrary to predictions, retribution was not a plausible motive for the observed punishment behavior. Children are likely to have punished for deterrence reasons or because they felt they ought to. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
Topics: Child; Child Behavior; Female; Humans; Male; Moral Obligations; Morals; Motivation; Punishment
PubMed: 34591575
DOI: 10.1037/dev0001191 -
Journal of the Experimental Analysis of... May 1996Experimental parameters were adjusted so that pigeons' pairwise choices among three alternatives reflected the following order of preference: (a) a smaller-sooner...
Experimental parameters were adjusted so that pigeons' pairwise choices among three alternatives reflected the following order of preference: (a) a smaller-sooner reinforcer, (b) a larger-later reinforcer, and (c) the smaller-sooner reinforcer followed by a punishment (consisting of an extended blackout period). After this order of preference was established, the pigeons were exposed to a two-link, concurrent-chain-like choice procedure. One terminal link consisted of a choice between the smaller-sooner and the larger-later reinforcer; the other terminal link was identical to the first except that the smaller-sooner reinforcer was followed by blackout punishment. The pigeons' preference (in their initial-link choice) for the terminal link with the punished smaller-sooner alternative increased as the delay between the initial and terminal links increased. By choosing this terminal link, the pigeons are said to have "committed" themselves to obtaining the larger-later reinforcer. However, unlike prior studies of commitment (e.g., Rachlin & Green, 1972), it was still possible after making the commitment for the pigeons to choose the smaller-sooner reinforcer and undergo the punishment. The pigeons did in fact occasionally make this highly deleterious choice.
Topics: Animals; Behavior, Animal; Choice Behavior; Columbidae; Male; Punishment; Reinforcement, Psychology
PubMed: 8636662
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1996.65-593