Costly punishment in the ultimatum game evokes moral concern, in particular when framed as payoff reduction

Eriksson, Kimmo; Strimling, Pontus; Andersson, Per; Lindholm, Torun

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.09.004

Cited by 63 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their seminal paper about the origins of prosocial preferences, Rand et al (2012) argue that people do not have a single set of social preferences, but rather that more complex models of cooperation are needed. In line with the argument, studies show that prosociality is not per se driven by social preferences, but also influenced by the consideration of moral righteousness of a behavior (Capraro and Rand, 2018;Eriksson et al, 2017) and social norms (Krupka and Weber, 2013). Like these authors, we also believe that cooperative behavior may be a result of complex interactions of various factors, and that there is no sole factor that determines cooperative behavior.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas

Kesberg¹,

Pfattheicher

2019

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implementation of punishment has proven a prominent solution to prevent the breakdown of cooperation in social dilemma situations. In fact, numerous studies show that punishment possibilities are effective in maintaining cooperative behavior. However, punishment is often not efficient in terms (a) of monetary benefits and in light of the fact (b) that punishment of cooperators (i.e., antisocial punishment) can occur. Still, recent research revealed that individuals vote for the implementation of such punishment systems. We address this contradiction by proposing that the benefits of democratic punishment systems in particular cannot be solely captured by monetary outcomes. Instead, the implementation of democratic punishment systems may enhance the psychological benefits of justice perceptions, satisfaction, and trust. Using iterated public goods games, the findings of the present study reveal not only higher cooperation levels and total payoffs in two different democratic punishment systems compared to other systems, but also higher justice perception, satisfaction, and trust. Furthermore, participants indicated the highest willingness to continue interactions in democratic punishment systems. Moreover, satisfaction, not monetary outcomes, was the best predictor of participants' willingness to stay in a system. Therefore, we argue that the efficiency of democratic punishment systems cannot be measured solely in monetary outcomes but that psychological benefits must be considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas

Kesberg¹,

Pfattheicher

2019

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, third‐party judges may use punishment as their “heuristic,” “knee‐jerk,” or “instinctual” response (Tinghög, Andersson, Bonn et al ., ). Although punishment can elicit widespread moral concern (Eriksson, Strimling, et al ., ), it also has high social value. Third‐parties might actually believe that deterrence by punishment is the most effective means to enforce social justice, or the most justified response; on the other hand, punishment might just be a more intuitive, easier‐to‐enact response that takes less cognitive load (Tinghög et al ., ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Judgments in a hurry: Time pressure affects how judges assess unfairly shared losses and unfairly shared gains

Liu

Wang

et al. 2019

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

2019). Judgments in a hurry: Time pressure affects how judges assess unfairly shared losses and unfairly shared gains. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 60, 203-212.Human society has evolved to allow third parties-the court system, parents or other societal arbitrators-to punish norm violators and compensate victims. Few studies explore the effect of stress or time pressure on a third-party judge. Under time pressure, people will likely show a more instinctual reaction or judgment style. We investigated third-party punishment and compensation within the context of unfairly shared losses and gains in a dictator game under time pressure. Our results show that under no time pressure, participants were inclined to punish dictators who unfairly split windfall gains; however, participants chose to compensate victims more than punish the norm-violating dictators in the context of unfairly shared losses. With added time pressure, third-parties were disposed to inflict punishment upon the dictator in both the gain and loss contexts-punishment became the action of choice. Our results shed light on the way observed behavior and stress affect social cognition and decision making in the context of altruistic social interventions and the enforcement of social norms.

show abstract

“…Converging evidence suggests that prosociality in anonymous, one-shot interactions is not solely motivated by outcome-based social preferences, but that it is also motivated by what individuals perceive to be the morally right action (Bicchieri, 2005;DellaVigna et al, 2012;Eriksson et al, 2017;Kimbrough & Vostroktunov, 2016;Krupka & Weber, 2013); perhaps serving to maintain a positive moral self-image (Aquino & Reed, 2002;Dunning, 2007). Building on this work, recent experimental evidence advanced the hypothesis that a generalized morality preference drives prosocial behavior in anonymous, one-shot interactions like that in Dictator and Prisoner's Dilemma games (Capraro & Rand, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doing good vs. avoiding bad in prosocial choice: A refined test and extension of the morality preference hypothesis

Tappin

Capraro

2018

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Costly punishment in the ultimatum game evokes moral concern, in particular when framed as payoff reduction

Abstract: The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Cited by 63 publications

References 28 publications

Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas

Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas

Judgments in a hurry: Time pressure affects how judges assess unfairly shared losses and unfairly shared gains

Doing good vs. avoiding bad in prosocial choice: A refined test and extension of the morality preference hypothesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About