Costly apology and self-punishment after an unintentional transgression

Watanabe, Esuka; Ohtsubo, Yohsuke

doi:10.1556/jep.10.2012.3.1

Cited by 35 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This type of reputation recovery strategy, which was modelled as contrite tit-for-tat (CTFT), yields a more efficient cooperative equilibrium than the standing strategy [11]. Although CTFT accepts a 'bad' reputation at least once, people have been shown to react to their social predicaments more immediately by offering apologies [30][31][32][33] and/ or inflicting self-punishment [33][34][35][36]. Justified defectors may be inclined to use these sorts of signals to communicate their non-malicious intent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The price of being seen to be just: an intention signalling strategy for indirect reciprocity

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cooperation among strangers is a marked characteristic of human sociality. One prominent evolutionary explanation for this form of human cooperation is indirect reciprocity, whereby each individual selectively helps people with a 'good' reputation, but not those with a 'bad' reputation. Some evolutionary analyses have underscored the importance of second-order reputation information (the reputation of a current partner's previous partner) for indirect reciprocity as it allows players to discriminate justified 'good' defectors, who selectively deny giving help to 'bad' partners, from unjustified 'bad' defectors. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether people in fact make use of second-order information in indirect reciprocity settings. As an alternative, we propose the intention signalling strategy, whereby defectors are given the option to abandon a resource as a means of expunging their 'bad' reputation. Our model deviates from traditional modelling approaches in the indirect reciprocity literature in a crucial way-we show that first-order information is sufficient to maintain cooperation if players are given an option to signal their intention. Importantly, our model is robust against invasion by both unconditionally cooperative and uncooperative strategies, a first step towards demonstrating its viability as an evolutionarily stable strategy. Furthermore, in two behavioural experiments, when participants were given the option to abandon a resource so as to mend a tarnished reputation, participants not only spontaneously began to use this option, they also interpreted others' use of this option as a signal of cooperative intent.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The price of being seen to be just: an intention signalling strategy for indirect reciprocity

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, we proposed that RDC, through its effect on guilt, should increase compensatory behaviors that are an adaptive response to guilt (Cryder et al, 2012;Watanabe & Ohtsubo, 2012;Xu, Bègue, & Bushman, 2014). Being able to detect rejection cues enables individuals to better cope with rejection, which in turn allows them to regain social connections (Wesselmann, Nairne, & Williams, 2012).…”

Section: Two Types Of Individual Difference Related To Social Rejectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When people commit a moral transgression, such as causing someone harm, trouble, or loss, they tend to experience feelings of guilt about their own behaviors (Baumeister et al, 1994). Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated the positive aspects of guilt in the context of interpersonal relationships (Cryder, Springer, & Morewedge, 2012;Ketelaar & Au, 2003); in particular, guilt has been shown to motivate transgressors to make amends to their victim (Cryder et al, 2012;Ketelaar & Au, 2003;Watanabe & Ohtsubo, 2012). For example, Ketelaar and Au (2003) investigated the effect of guilt on compensatory behavior using a repeated ultimatum game.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Guilt Signals a Crisis of Rejection: Two Types of Individual Differences Related to Social Rejection Have Dissimilar Effects on Guilt and Compensatory Behavior

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether feelings of guilt, which signal crises in interpersonal relationships (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Heatherton, 1994), are differently evoked by two types of individual differences in social rejection: rejection detection capability (Kawamoto, Nittono, & Ura, 2015) and rejection sensitivity (Downey & Feldman, 1996). Using the hypothetical scenario method, we found that in situations with a potential risk of being rejected as a consequence of causing another person harm (i.e., harm‐present condition), participants with higher rejection detection capability felt more guilt and engaged in more compensatory behavior towards the victims. In addition, guilt mediated the relationship between rejection detection capability and compensatory behavior. Conversely, in situations with no potential risk of being rejected (i.e., harm‐absent condition), participants with higher rejection sensitivity felt more guilt but did not engage in much compensatory behavior. These results suggest that individual differences in social rejection foster different responses to specific threats.

show abstract

“…Though empirical research is scarce, existing data suggest that self-punishment, when experimentally induced, may reduce guilt (Bastian, Jetten, & Fasoli, 2011;Inbar, Pizarro, Gilovich, & Ariely, 2013). Others have suggested that it may be a communication of remorse to victims or observers (Nelissen, 2012;Tanaka, Yagi, Komiya, Mifune, & Ohtsubo, 2015;Watanabe & Ohtsubo, 2012). There is some question, however, as to how accurately these studies reflect self-punishment as it occurs outside experimentally induced settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a presumed motivating cause for self-punishment, researchers normally first induce participants to commit a moral transgression or feel guilty in some way before providing the opportunity to self-punish. Examples in the literature include autobiographical recall of past wrongs (Bastian et al, 2011;Inbar et al, 2013), hypothetical wrongs (Nelissen & Zeelenberg, 2009), poor performance on group tasks (Nelissen, 2012;Nelissen & Zeelenberg, 2009), and a forced unfair allocation in resource games (Ohtsubo et al, 2014;Tanaka et al, 2015;Watanabe & Ohtsubo, 2012). In the context of these minor, distal, and at times unintentional transgressions, it is unclear whether participants would indeed be motivated to punish themselves.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why do we self‐punish? Perceptions of the motives and impact of self‐punishment outside the laboratory

Vel-Palumbo

Woodyatt

Wenzel

2018

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explores perceptions of why people punish themselves in response to feelings of moral failure. Experimental research has posited some of self‐punishment's functions, but it remains unclear whether the perceived motives and outcomes for those engaging in spontaneous self‐punishment are fundamentally distinct from those in experimental settings. This study explores and interprets laypersons’ experiences of their own self‐punishment, using qualitative and quantitative data collected in an online survey. Self‐punishers responded to a series of questions examining what kinds of self‐punishment behaviours they engage in and why, and their effects on emotions, cognitions, and relationships. Key themes identified via thematic analysis included self‐punishment as an emotion regulation strategy, as an opportunity to reflect and learn from the transgression, and the notion that self‐punishment becomes normalised. Analysis of these themes suggests that self‐punishment can reflect both psychological avoidance and resolution of problems, and that these two functions have different implications for reconciliation. Key message Our analysis of naturalistic self‐punishment experiences revealed dimensions of self‐punishment neglected in the empirical literature, in particular the notion of self‐punishment as an exploration (rather than an evasion) of one's guilt.

show abstract

Costly apology and self-punishment after an unintentional transgression

Cited by 35 publications

References 33 publications

The price of being seen to be just: an intention signalling strategy for indirect reciprocity

The price of being seen to be just: an intention signalling strategy for indirect reciprocity

Guilt Signals a Crisis of Rejection: Two Types of Individual Differences Related to Social Rejection Have Dissimilar Effects on Guilt and Compensatory Behavior

Why do we self‐punish? Perceptions of the motives and impact of self‐punishment outside the laboratory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About