-
Acta Psychologica Apr 2020Two experiments were conducted to investigate how intergroup relation moderates group bias in Third-Party Punishment (TPP) of selfishness. Participants competed or... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Two experiments were conducted to investigate how intergroup relation moderates group bias in Third-Party Punishment (TPP) of selfishness. Participants competed or cooperated with the other group and then performed a TPP task in which they could reduce an allocator's benefits after paying a low cost (paying 1/3 unit deducts 1 unit of the allocator in Experiment 1, n = 76) or a high cost (paying 1 unit deducts 1 unit of the allocator in Experiment 2, n = 81). The results supported the "mere-preference hypothesis" of group bias, showing that people were more likely to tolerate their ingroups while punishing outgroups more harshly. Furthermore, when the cost was low, competition increased people's punishment toward outgroups' selfishness but not toward ingroup members, thus enlarging the group bias. When the cost was high, however, this effect disappeared, indicating that people consider a "cost-to-impact ratio" when selectively enforcing the fairness norm in intergroup conflicts. Our findings suggest how intergroup relation and cost-benefit analysis interact together to influence the group bias in TPP, providing insights into mechanisms underlying the maintenance of fairness norms and decision-making in a group context.
Topics: Bias; Decision Making; Female; Group Processes; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; Male; Punishment; Young Adult
PubMed: 32192954
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103055 -
Proceedings. Biological Sciences Apr 2020Human cooperation is probably supported by our tendency to punish selfishness in others. Social norms play an important role in motivating third-party punishment (TPP),...
Human cooperation is probably supported by our tendency to punish selfishness in others. Social norms play an important role in motivating third-party punishment (TPP), and also in explaining societal differences in prosocial behaviour. However, there has been little work directly linking social norms to the development of TPP across societies. In this study, we explored the impact of normative information on the development of TPP in 603 children aged 4-14, across six diverse societies. Children began to perform TPP during middle childhood, and the developmental trajectories of this behaviour were similar across societies. We also found that social norms began to influence the likelihood of performing TPP during middle childhood in some of these societies. Norms specifying the punishment of selfishness were generally more influential than norms specifying the punishment of prosocial behaviour. These findings support the view that TPP of selfishness is important in all societies, and its development is shaped by a shared psychology for responding to normative information. Yet, the results also highlight the important role that children's prior knowledge of local norms may play in explaining societal variation in the development of both TPP and prosociality.
Topics: Adolescent; Altruism; Child; Child, Preschool; Cultural Diversity; Female; Humans; Male; Models, Psychological; Motivation; Probability; Punishment; Social Norms
PubMed: 32315587
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.2794 -
Bio Systems Dec 2018It is not fully understood how cooperation emerges in a population of individuals with no connections or prior experience with each other. Strategy selection that is...
It is not fully understood how cooperation emerges in a population of individuals with no connections or prior experience with each other. Strategy selection that is purely based on accumulated payoffs promotes free riders who put their self interests above that of any group. How could cooperation persist in these settings? Researchers have posited direct or indirect reciprocity as possible explanations but these theories fail if interactions are not repeated or reputations are ignored. Altruistic punishment may provide an answer. Punishers impose a penalty, such as a fine, on defectors. The idea is a sufficiently high enough penalty-or even the threat of a high penalty-will convince defectors that cooperation is more beneficial. The punishment is altruistic because punishers pay a cost to impose a penalty and expect nothing in return (including no future reciprocity). Empirical and human studies have shown when some individuals are punishers, and they are common, cooperation levels tend to increase. But it has never been specified exactly how large this majority of punishers must be to promote cooperation. Here we analyze cooperation, defection and punishment in a social dilemma, public goods game, and precisely identify the necessary conditions to make altruistic punishment an effective strategy for improving group cooperation levels.
Topics: Algorithms; Altruism; Choice Behavior; Cooperative Behavior; Game Theory; Humans; Population Dynamics; Punishment; Social Behavior
PubMed: 30391264
DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2018.10.015 -
PloS One 2015Strong negative reciprocity, that is, sanctions imposed on norm violators at the punisher's own expense, has powerful cooperation-enhancing effects in both real-life and...
Strong negative reciprocity, that is, sanctions imposed on norm violators at the punisher's own expense, has powerful cooperation-enhancing effects in both real-life and experimental game situations. However, it is plausible that punishment may obtain alternative roles depending on social context and the personality characteristics of participants. We examined the occurrence of punishing behavior among 80 subjects in a strongly competitive Public Goods game setting. Despite the punishment condition, the amount of the contributions decreased steadily during the game. The amount of contributions had no significant effect on received and imposed punishments. The results indicate that certain social contexts (in this case, intensive competition) exert modifying effects on the role that punishment takes on. Subjects punished each other in order to achieve a higher rank and a financially better outcome. Punishment primarily functioned as a means of rivalry, instead of as a way of second-order cooperation, as strong reciprocity suggests. These results indicate the need for the possible modification of the social conditions of punishment mechanisms described by the strong reciprocity theory as an evolutionary explanation of human cooperation.
Topics: Adult; Female; Game Theory; Humans; Male; Punishment; Young Adult
PubMed: 25811464
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120394 -
Biology Letters Oct 2012Humans involved in cooperative interactions willingly pay a cost to punish cheats. However, the proximate motives underpinning punitive behaviour are currently debated....
Humans involved in cooperative interactions willingly pay a cost to punish cheats. However, the proximate motives underpinning punitive behaviour are currently debated. Individuals who interact with cheats experience losses, but they also experience lower payoffs than the cheating partner. Thus, the negative emotions that trigger punishment may stem from a desire to reciprocate losses or from inequity aversion. Previous studies have not disentangled these possibilities. Here, we use an experimental approach to ask whether punishment is motivated by inequity aversion or by a desire for reciprocity. We show that humans punish cheats only when cheating produces disadvantageous inequity, while there is no evidence for reciprocity. This finding challenges the notion that punishment is motivated by a simple desire to reciprocally harm cheats and shows that victims compare their own payoffs with those of partners when making punishment decisions.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Behavior; Biological Evolution; Cooperative Behavior; Deception; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Motivation; Punishment; Social Behavior; Social Justice
PubMed: 22809719
DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2012.0470 -
Scientific Reports Apr 2016Prior theory suggests that reputation spreading (e.g., gossip) and punishment are two key mechanisms to promote cooperation in groups, but no behavioral research has yet...
Prior theory suggests that reputation spreading (e.g., gossip) and punishment are two key mechanisms to promote cooperation in groups, but no behavioral research has yet examined their relative effectiveness and efficiency in promoting and maintaining cooperation. To examine these issues, we observed participants interacting in a four-round public goods game (PGG) with or without gossip and punishment options, and a subsequent two-round trust game (TG). We manipulated gossip as the option to send notes about other group members to these members' future partners, and punishment as the option to assign deduction points to reduce other group members' outcomes with a fee-to-fine ratio of 1:3. Findings revealed that in the four-round PGG, the option to gossip increased both cooperation and individual earnings, whereas the option to punish had no overall effect on cooperation (but a positive effect on cooperation in the last two rounds of the PGG) and significantly decreased individual earnings. Importantly, the initial option to gossip made people more trusting and trustworthy in the subsequent TG when gossip was no longer possible, compared to the no-gossip condition. Thus, we provide some initial evidence that gossip may be more effective and efficient than punishment to promote and maintain cooperation.
Topics: Adult; Cooperative Behavior; Female; Game Theory; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; Male; Models, Psychological; Punishment; Trust; Young Adult
PubMed: 27039896
DOI: 10.1038/srep23919 -
Experimental and Clinical... Aug 1997Experiment 1 examined the effects of punishment on the discriminative stimulus (DS) effects of midazolam (M) and pentobarbital (P) in 3 pigeons. Sessions began with a...
Experiment 1 examined the effects of punishment on the discriminative stimulus (DS) effects of midazolam (M) and pentobarbital (P) in 3 pigeons. Sessions began with a fixed-interval (FI) 3-min schedule of food reinforcement. After 40 min, either saline (S) or 0.56 mg/kg of M was injected. A drug-discrimination (DD) component began 10 min later. Pecking the left key produced grain after S injections, whereas pecking the right key produced grain after M. Dose-response curves for M and P were obtained under these conditions and also when every 30th peck during the FI was punished by shock. The introduction of punishment increased sensitivity to the DS effects of M and P. Experiment 2 examined whether a punishment history increases sensitivity to the DS effects of M. After DD training and testing, pecking was punished for 10 sessions. This history shifted the M dose-response curve to the left for 3 of 4 pigeons. These results emphasize the contribution of behavioral variables to the DS effects of drugs. Environmental variables appear to play a prominent role in guiding sensitivity to the subjective effects of drugs.
Topics: Animals; Anti-Anxiety Agents; Columbidae; Discrimination Learning; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Food; GABA Modulators; Male; Midazolam; Pentobarbital; Punishment; Reinforcement Schedule
PubMed: 9260065
DOI: 10.1037//1064-1297.5.3.171 -
Journal of Forensic Nursing 2009Although all professionals oppose abusive physical punishment, nonabusive physical punishment is still controversial. The aim of the present study was (i) to determine...
Although all professionals oppose abusive physical punishment, nonabusive physical punishment is still controversial. The aim of the present study was (i) to determine parents' behavior regarding the discipline of their children using corporal punishment or other alternative disciplinary methods, (ii) to identify the different associated factors for corporal punishment, and (iii) to determine the association between exposure of the child to corporal punishment and his or her psychosocial well-being. A representative sample of 400 fifth-grade primary school children and their mothers were subjected to a cross-sectional survey. Mothers were subjected to a questionnaire to assess their behavior on corporal punishment and other disciplinary methods. The children were subjected to Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory to assess their self-esteem, and a questionnaire to assess their relationship with others. About three-quarter of children (76.3%) were corporally punished, and about half of them (46.2%) were punished on sites other than the extremities or buttocks. In 59.3% of them the frequency of the punishment ranged from once or twice/week to more than once/day, and it left marks in about 20%. Other disciplinary methods used by mothers were yelling/insulting (43.5%), taking away a toy or privilege (39.3%), discussing/explaining (9.5%), and time out (2.8%). The significant predictors of mothers' use of corporal punishment were male gender of the child (p < 0.01), rural origin of the father (p= 0.02), the mother's bad history of rearing experience (p < 0.01), and poor interparental relationship (p= 0.02). The relation between corporal punishment of children and their self-esteem was not statistically significant; however, corporally punished children scored lower on their relationship with others than noncorporally punished ones (Z= 2.60, p < 0.05). Corporal punishment is a widespread disciplinary method in Alexandria. The use of corporal punishment could have adverse effects on the child especially on his or her relationship with others. Planning an awareness-raising educational program for current and expectant parents is recommended, to promote positive nonviolent methods of child rearing, via the media and campaigns, and encouragement of political, community, and religious leaders; medical personnel; journalists; and sports and entertainment figures to share in these campaigns.
Topics: Adaptation, Psychological; Adolescent; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Educational Status; Egypt; Female; Humans; Interpersonal Relations; Male; Mother-Child Relations; Multivariate Analysis; Punishment; Self Concept; Violence
PubMed: 19222684
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-3938.2009.01025.x -
Urologia Internationalis 2016To investigate the role of punishment in enuretic children and how the punishments can influence therapy response.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the role of punishment in enuretic children and how the punishments can influence therapy response.
METHODS
We enrolled 218 enuretic children. The children and their families were asked to participate in the study at the end of the clinical evaluation.
RESULTS
The analysis of the questionnaires shows that at least one punishment because of nocturnal enuresis (NE) had been applied to 27 out of 218 (12.4%) children. Punishment methods were reprimanding in 19 out of 27 (70.4%), depriving of sleep in 11 out of 27 (40.7%), mildly beating in 3 out of 27 (11.1%), leaving the child wet in 1 out of 27 (3.7%) and other methods in 2 out of 27 (7.4%). In the group of punished children, a full or partial response in terms of a decreased number of wet nights was achieved in 40.7 vs. 59.2% in children who had not been punished.
CONCLUSIONS
Parents should be sensitized on the adverse effects of punishment on child development. It is important in childcare to explain the definitions of the disorder and find the best treatment (behavioural and/or medicinal) depending on the single patient, his/her family and compliance of both. Successful management of NE has benefits to both the child and the family.
Topics: Child; Female; Humans; Male; Nocturnal Enuresis; Patient Compliance; Punishment; Surveys and Questionnaires; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 27376868
DOI: 10.1159/000447496 -
Scientific Reports Sep 2023The existence of moral punishment, that is, the fact that cooperative people sacrifice resources to punish defecting partners requires an explanation. Potential...
The existence of moral punishment, that is, the fact that cooperative people sacrifice resources to punish defecting partners requires an explanation. Potential explanations are that people punish defecting partners to privately express or to communicate their negative emotions in response to the experienced unfairness. If so, then providing participants with alternative ways to privately express or to communicate their emotions should reduce moral punishment. In two experiments, participants interacted with cooperating and defecting partners in a Prisoner's Dilemma game. After each round, participants communicated their emotions to their partners (Experiments 1 and 2) or only expressed them privately (Experiment 2). Each trial concluded with a costly punishment option. Compared to a no-expression control group, moral punishment was reduced when emotions were communicated to the defecting partner but not when emotions were privately expressed. Moral punishment may thus serve to communicate emotions to defecting partners. However, moral punishment was only reduced but far from being eliminated, suggesting that the communication of emotions does not come close to replacing moral punishment. Furthermore, prompting participants to focus on their emotions had undesirable side-effects: Privately expressing emotions diminished cooperation, enhanced hypocritical punishment (i.e., punishment of defecting partners by defecting participants), and induced an unspecific bias to punish the partners irrespective of their actions.
Topics: Humans; Prisoner Dilemma; Punishment; Morals; Communication; Emotions
PubMed: 37673945
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41886-9