Third-party punishment

Last updated December 06, 2023

Third-party punishment, or altruistic punishment, is punishment of a transgressor (first party) which is administered, not by a victim of the transgression (second party), but rather by a third party not directly affected by the transgression.^[1] It has been argued that third-party punishments are the essence of social norms, as they are an evolutionarily stable strategy, unlike second-party punishments.^[2] It has also been shown that third-party punishments are exhibited in all examined populations, though the magnitude of the punishments varies greatly, and that costly punishment co-varies with altruistic behavior.^[3]^[4]^{[ text–source integrity? ]}^[5] Differences between within-group and inter-group altruistic punishments have also been observed.^[6]

Experimental evidence

Some of the common experiments in experimental economics concerning the study of second-party punishments with respect to distribution and cooperation norms have been dictator games and prisoner's dilemma games.^[1]^[7] These games can also be effectively used in the study of third-party punishments with respect to distribution and cooperation norms with some modifications.

Third-party dictator game

Concerning third-party dictator game (TP-DG), the game was modified to include a third person with a punishment option between the dictator and the recipient. The dictator was given an endowment of 100, of which he could choose to share any portion with the recipient. The third person observer was also given an endowment of 50, of which he could choose to spend in order to punish the dictator. If self-interest was the driving force for the decision making, then the dictator would choose to donate none of his endowment, and the third party observer would choose to spend none of his endowment punishing the dictator. However, roughly 60% of the third party observers chose to punish dictators who donated less than half their endowment.^[1]

In a variation of the TP-DG, the third party observer could choose to spend part of the endowment to punish the dictator or could spend part of the endowment to compensate the recipient. About 40% of the third party observers chose to do both, while 32% chose to compensate the recipient and only about 6% opted to punish only. This indicates that compensation is preferred over punishment in the TP-DG when an offer is perceived as unfair. This suggests that third-party punishment may be motivated by a desire to both provide justice for those who have been wronged and to reprimand those who violate expected social norms.^[8]

Third-party prisoner's dilemma

Concerning third-party prisoner's dilemma (TP-PD), the game was modified so that in addition to two players who would choose to either cooperate or defect, a third party observer could choose to punish the players. The payoffs of the game were such that the players would be best off if they defected; however, if both players chose to defect, their payoff would be less than if they had cooperated. The observer could then choose to spend from his endowment to punish the defectors who chose to put self-interest ahead of cooperation. From previous theories,^[9]^[10] it can be concluded that subjects are willing to cooperate if the probability that others will also do so is sufficiently large. Once again, if self-interest was the decision maker for these players, neither would choose to cooperate, and the observer would also choose to keep his full endowment and not issue any punishments. However, about 45.8% of observers chose to punish the defector when he is paired with a cooperator, and 20.8% chose to punish both players if they had both defected. It's important to note that the magnitude of punishment was much larger when one defected.^[1]

Second-party vs. third-party punishments

With respect to the distribution norms violations (dictator games), it has been shown that second-party punishments are consistently higher than third-party punishments for dictators that choose to share less than half of their endowment. The punishments were such that the dictators could still profit from giving less than half in the third-party conditions, but could not profit in the second-party conditions. The levels of punishment were consistently low for both second and third-party punishments if the levels of endowment were higher than half.^[1]

With respect to the cooperation norms violations (prisoner's dilemma), it has been shown that second-party punishments are consistently higher than third-party punishments for defectors. The punishments were such that the defectors could still profit in the third-party conditions, but could not profit in the second-party conditions. Punishment for cooperators were negligible under both conditions.^[1]

Evolution and neural basis

Current evolutionary models state that human altruism evolved through the selective (cultural or biological) extinction of groups in inter-group conflicts.^[11]^[12]^[13] However, there is also evidence for altruism and norms between groups.^[6] Some models suggest that third party punishment of "free-riders" (those who do not cooperate) leads to increased group cooperation due to individual selection for cooperative traits.^[14]

When subjects were examined with a PET scan while playing a second-party trust game with another player, it was shown that when they administered punishment, the dorsal striatum, an area of the brain associated with the processing of rewards as a result of goal-directed actions, was activated. It was also shown that individuals with stronger activations of the dorsal striatum were willing to incur greater cost in order to punish the norm violator. This suggests that the people that administrated punishment against norm violators derived satisfaction from the act.^[15]

FMRI has also been used to examine third-party punishment. Subjects participated in a TP-DG during the scan as either a second party recipient or a third party observer. The nucleus accumbens, a brain region associated with reward, had punishment-related activation for both the second-party and third-party punishment conditions. The overall pattern of activation was consistent between the two conditions, though activation was stronger in the second party recipients. This suggests that second-party and third-party punishment decisions have a common neural basis.^[16]

Cross-culture variations

It has been shown that altruistic punishment exists across many examined populations, but that there is also a large variance between them. Data gathered from 15 different populations showed that when participating in TP-DG, all societies showed a decreasing frequency of punishment as the dictator's offer approached 50%. There was, however, a large variance between societies as to how much of their endowment the observers were willing to pay in order to punish the dictator. These variances were not attributed to economic and demographic variables. It was also found that societies with high degrees of punishment also exhibit more altruistic behavior.^[3] Other studies have suggested that people in larger, more complex societies engage in significantly more third-party punishment than people in small-scale societies.^[4]

Gender and age differences

Women have been found to contribute more in dictator games and also to be more likely to accept an offer than men, rather than to reject an offer to punish the dictator. This was found for second-party punishment experiments but has not been observed in studies examining third-party punishment.^[17] In mock trial experiments studying third-party punishment using legal scenarios, woman majority mock juries are more likely to convict than non-woman majority juries and are more likely to find a defendant guilty in a rape case.^[18] Men are more likely to be influenced by the attractiveness of the defendant than women.^[18]

There are significant differences in third-party punishment behavior between age groups. In a variation of the TP-DG, 8-year-olds based their punishment on the outcome of the unfair result and did not consider the intention of the actor in both second-party and third-party punishment decisions. Adolescents integrated the outcome and the intention when making second- but not third-party punishment decisions. Adults integrated the outcome and the intention of the act for both second- and third-party punishment. This demonstrates developmental differences in how third-party punishment decisions are made.^[19]

Parochial altruism

Parochial altruism refers to altruism that is directed in a preferential manner towards members of one's own social group.^[20] In order to examine this effect, a study examined the outcomes of TP-DG experiments carried out in between two Papua New Guinea indigenous groups. The games had 4 conditions, which included: players A (dictator), B (recipient), and C (observer) all from the same group; only A and B from the same group; only A and C from the same group; only B and C from the same group.^[6] Current behavioral theories state that norms are emergent from interactions within groups,^[21] and therefore, outsiders don’t obey the norm nor benefit from the altruistic behavior the norm enforces. This theory would therefore predict that no punishment will occur in any of the cases except for the ABC treatment condition. However, it was found that punishment was qualitatively similar in all 4 conditions, which suggests that egalitarian sharing norms exist within-groups and also between-groups.^[6]

It was observed that, while all 4 conditions exhibited egalitarian sharing norms, punishments were much higher in the ABC and BC conditions. This suggests that victims are more protected if the third-party observer belongs to same group as them. It was also found that the dictators expected much harsher punishments if third-party observers belonged to the same group as the victim. It was also found that transfers were higher in groups with the same A and B members, and lower in groups with the same A and C members, suggesting that the dictators expected leniency from third-party observers of their own group.^[6]

Related Research Articles

Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals above oneself. While objects of altruistic concern vary, it is an important moral value in many cultures and religions. It may be considered a synonym of selflessness, the opposite of selfishness.

<i>The Evolution of Cooperation</i> 1984 book by Robert Axelrod

The Evolution of Cooperation is a 1984 book written by political scientist Robert Axelrod that expands upon a paper of the same name written by Axelrod and evolutionary biologist W.D. Hamilton. The article's summary addresses the issue in terms of "cooperation in organisms, whether bacteria or primates".

In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism is a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness, with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.

Group selection is a proposed mechanism of evolution in which natural selection acts at the level of the group, instead of at the level of the individual or gene.

Evolutionary game theory (EGT) is the application of game theory to evolving populations in biology. It defines a framework of contests, strategies, and analytics into which Darwinian competition can be modelled. It originated in 1973 with John Maynard Smith and George R. Price's formalisation of contests, analysed as strategies, and the mathematical criteria that can be used to predict the results of competing strategies.

In game theory, the centipede game, first introduced by Robert Rosenthal in 1981, is an extensive form game in which two players take turns choosing either to take a slightly larger share of an increasing pot, or to pass the pot to the other player. The payoffs are arranged so that if one passes the pot to one's opponent and the opponent takes the pot on the next round, one receives slightly less than if one had taken the pot on this round, but after an additional switch the potential payoff will be higher. Therefore, although at each round a player has an incentive to take the pot, it would be better for them to wait. Although the traditional centipede game had a limit of 100 rounds, any game with this structure but a different number of rounds is called a centipede game.

The dictator game is a popular experimental instrument in social psychology and economics, a derivative of the ultimatum game. The term "game" is a misnomer because it captures a decision by a single player: to send money to another or not. Thus, the dictator has the most power and holds the preferred position in this “game.” Although the “dictator” has the most power and presents a take it or leave it offer, the game has mixed results based on different behavioral attributes. The results – where most "dictators" choose to send money – evidence the role of fairness and norms in economic behavior, and undermine the assumption of narrow self-interest when given the opportunity to maximise one's own profits.

Inequity aversion (IA) is the preference for fairness and resistance to incidental inequalities. The social sciences that study inequity aversion include sociology, economics, psychology, anthropology, and ethology. Researches on inequity aversion aim to explain behaviors that are not purely driven by self-interests but fairness considerations.

The public goods game is a standard of experimental economics. In the basic game, subjects secretly choose how many of their private tokens to put into a public pot. The tokens in this pot are multiplied by a factor and this "public good" payoff is evenly divided among players. Each subject also keeps the tokens they do not contribute.

In biology, altruism refers to behaviour by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing their own. Altruism in this sense is different from the philosophical concept of altruism, in which an action would only be called "altruistic" if it was done with the conscious intention of helping another. In the behavioural sense, there is no such requirement. As such, it is not evaluated in moral terms—it is the consequences of an action for reproductive fitness that determine whether the action is considered altruistic, not the intentions, if any, with which the action is performed.

In evolution, cooperation is the process where groups of organisms work or act together for common or mutual benefits. It is commonly defined as any adaptation that has evolved, at least in part, to increase the reproductive success of the actor's social partners. For example, territorial choruses by male lions discourage intruders and are likely to benefit all contributors.

Cheating is a term used in behavioral ecology and ethology to describe behavior whereby organisms receive a benefit at the cost of other organisms. Cheating is common in many mutualistic and altruistic relationships. A cheater is an individual who does not cooperate but can potentially gain the benefit from others cooperating. Cheaters are also those who selfishly use common resources to maximize their individual fitness at the expense of a group. Natural selection favors cheating, but there are mechanisms to regulate it. The stress gradient hypothesis states that facilitation, cooperation or mutualism should be more common in stressful environments, while cheating, competition or parasitism are common in benign environments.

Reciprocity in evolutionary biology refers to mechanisms whereby the evolution of cooperative or altruistic behaviour may be favoured by the probability of future mutual interactions. A corollary is how a desire for revenge can harm the collective and therefore be naturally deselected.

The concept of the evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior rather than animal behavior. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology, and in particular evolutionary psychology, have argued that, despite the complexity of human social behaviors, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior remain controversial. Social scientists have traditionally viewed morality as a construct, and thus as culturally relative, although others such as Sam Harris argue that there is an objective science of morality.

Strong reciprocity is an area of research in behavioral economics, evolutionary psychology, and evolutionary anthropology on the predisposition to cooperate even when there is no apparent benefit in doing so. This topic is particularly interesting to those studying the evolution of cooperation, as these behaviors seem to be in contradiction with predictions made by many models of cooperation. In response, current work on strong reciprocity is focused on developing evolutionary models which can account for this behavior. Critics of strong reciprocity argue that it is an artifact of lab experiments and does not reflect cooperative behavior in the real world.

Social preferences describe the human tendency to not only care about one's own material payoff, but also the reference group's payoff or/and the intention that leads to the payoff. Social preferences are studied extensively in behavioral and experimental economics and social psychology. Types of social preferences include altruism, fairness, reciprocity, and inequity aversion. The field of economics originally assumed that humans were rational economic actors, and as it became apparent that this was not the case, the field began to change. The research of social preferences in economics started with lab experiments in 1980, where experimental economists found subjects' behavior deviated systematically from self-interest behavior in economic games such as ultimatum game and dictator game. These experimental findings then inspired various new economic models to characterize agent's altruism, fairness and reciprocity concern between 1990 and 2010. More recently, there are growing amounts of field experiments that study the shaping of social preference and its applications throughout society.

Urs Fischbacher is a Swiss economist and professor of applied economic research at the University of Konstanz. He is director of the Thurgau Economic Institute, an affiliated institute of the University of Konstanz. He pioneered the field of software tools for experimental economics.

Do-gooder derogation is a phenomenon where a person's morally motivated behavior leads to them being perceived negatively by others. The term "do-gooder" refers to a person who deviates from the majority in terms of behavior, because of their morality.

Ineffective altruism is the practice of ineffective giving and refers to instances where efforts to do good or contribute to a cause do not produce the intended positive impact. It is a concept that has its origins in social psychology, moral psychology, philosophy and charitable giving. In general, humans are motivated to do good things in the world, whether that is through donations to charity, volunteering time for a cause, or just lending a hand to someone who needs help. In 2022, approximately 4.2 billion people donated their money, time, or helped a stranger. Donating money to charity is especially substantial. For instance, 2% of the GDP of the United States goes to charitable organizations — a total of more than $450 billion in annual donations. Despite the human tendency and motivation to give and engage in altruistic behavior, research has shed light on an unequal motivation to give effectively.

Parochial altruism is a concept in the fields of social psychology, evolutionary biology, and anthropology that describes altruism towards an in-group, often accompanied by hostility towards an out-group. It is a combination of altruism, defined as behavior done for the benefit of others without direct effect to the self, and parochialism, which refers to having a limited viewpoint. Together, these concepts create parochial altruism, or altruism that is limited in scope to one's in-group. Parochial altruism is closely related to the concepts of in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. Research has suggested that parochial altruism may have evolved in humans to promote high levels of in-group cooperation, which is advantageous for group survival. Parochial altruism is often evoked to explain social behaviors within and between groups, such as why people are cooperative within their social groups and why they may be aggressive towards other social groups.

References

1 2 3 4 5 6 Fehr, Ernst; Fischbacher, Urs (2004). "Third-party punishment and social norms" (PDF). Evolution and Human Behavior. 25 (2): 63–87. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.120.5059 . doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4.
↑ Bendor, Jonathon; Swistak, Piot (2001). "The Evolution of Norms". American Journal of Sociology. 106 (6): 1493–1545. doi:10.1086/321298. S2CID 53463157.
1 2 Henrich, Joseph; Richard McElreath; Abigail Barr; Jean Ensminger; Clark Barrett; Alexander Bolyanatz; Juan Camilo Cardenas; Michael Gurven; Edwins Gwako; Natalie Henrich; Carolyn Lesorogol; Frank Marlowe; David Tracer; John Ziker (2006). "Costly Punishment across Human Societies". Science. New Series. 312 (5781): 1767–1770. Bibcode:2006Sci...312.1767H. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.714.70 . doi:10.1126/science.1127333. PMID 16794075. S2CID 4793548.
1 2 Marlowe, Frank W.; Berbesque, J. Colette (2007). "More 'altruistic' punishment in larger societies". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 275 (1634): 587–590. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1517. PMC 2596817 . PMID 18089534.^{[ need quotation to verify ]}
↑ Marlowe, Frank W. (2009). "Hadza Cooperation". Human Nature. 20 (4): 417–430. doi:10.1007/s12110-009-9072-6. S2CID 146541356.^{[ need quotation to verify ]}
1 2 3 4 5 Bernhard, Helen; Urs Fischbacher; Ernst Fehr (2006). "Parochial altruism in humans". Nature. 442 (7105): 912–915. Bibcode:2006Natur.442..912B. doi:10.1038/nature04981. PMID 16929297. S2CID 4411945.
↑ Fehr, Ernst; Fischbacher, Urs (2003). "The nature of human altruism" (PDF). Nature. 425 (6960): 785–91. Bibcode:2003Natur.425..785F. doi:10.1038/nature02043. PMID 14574401. S2CID 4305295.
↑ Lotz, Sebastian; Okimoto, Tyler G.; Schlösser, Thomas; Fetchenhauer, Detlef (2011-03-01). "Punitive versus compensatory reactions to injustice: Emotional antecedents to third-party interventions". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 47 (2): 477–480. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.004.
↑ Fischbacher, Urs (2001). "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment" (PDF). Economics Letters. 71 (3): 397–404. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9. hdl:20.500.11850/146559. S2CID 15885836.
↑ Dawes, Robyn M. (2000). "Social Dilemmas". International Journal of Psychology. 35 (2): 111–116. doi:10.1080/002075900399402.
↑ Gintis, Herbert (2000). "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 206 (2): 169–79. Bibcode:2000JThBi.206..169G. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.335.7226 . doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2111. PMID 10966755. S2CID 9260305.
↑ Henrich, Joseph; Boyd, Robert (2001). "Why People Punish Defectors Weak Conformist Transmission can Stabilize Costly Enforcement of Norms in Cooperative Dilemmas". Journal of Theoretical Biology. 208 (1): 79–89. Bibcode:2001JThBi.208...79H. doi:10.1006/jtbi.2000.2202. PMID 11162054.
↑ Boyd, Robert; Herbert Gintis; Samuel Bowles; Peter J. Richerson (2003). "The evolution of altruistic punishment". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 100 (6): 3531–3535. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.3531B. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0630443100 . PMC 152327 . PMID 12631700.
↑ Krasnow, Max M.; Delton, Andrew W.; Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (2015-04-20). "Group Cooperation without Group Selection: Modest Punishment Can Recruit Much Cooperation". PLOS ONE. 10 (4): e0124561. Bibcode:2015PLoSO..1024561K. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124561 . PMC 4404356 . PMID 25893241.
↑ Dominique J. -F. de Quervain, Urs Fischbacher, Valerie Treyer, Melanie Schellhammer, Ulrich Schnyder, Alfred Buck and Ernst Fehr (2004). "The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment". Science. 305 (5688): 1254–1258. Bibcode:2004Sci...305.1254D. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.722.4994 . doi:10.1126/science.1100735. PMID 15333831. S2CID 264669.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
↑ Strobel, Alexander; Zimmermann, Jan; Schmitz, Anja; Reuter, Martin; Lis, Stefanie; Windmann, Sabine; Kirsch, Peter (2011-01-01). "Beyond revenge: Neural and genetic bases of altruistic punishment". NeuroImage. 54 (1): 671–680. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.051. PMID 20673803. S2CID 1756178.
↑ Eckel, Cc; Grossman, Pj (2001-04-01). "Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games". Economic Inquiry. 39 (2): 171–188. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2001.tb00059.x. ISSN 1465-7295. S2CID 143879294.
1 2 Fowler, Lucy (October 2005). ""Gender and Jury Deliberations: The Contributions of Social Science" by Lucy Fowler". William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice. 12 (1): 1. Retrieved 2015-12-15.
↑ Gummerum, Michaela; Chu, Maria T. (2014-10-01). "Outcomes and intentions in children's, adolescents', and adults' second- and third-party punishment behavior" (PDF). Cognition. 133 (1): 97–103. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.001. hdl: 10026.1/10786 . PMID 24997554. S2CID 12048222.
↑ Rusch, Hannes (2014). "The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: a review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 281 (1794): 20141539. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1539. PMC 4211448 . PMID 25253457.
↑ Bornstein, Gary (2003). "Intergroup Conflict: Individual, Group, and Collective Interests". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 7 (2): 129–145. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.487.5022 . doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_129-145. PMID 12676644. S2CID 18115620.