False friends are worse than bitter enemies

Shinada, Mizuho; Yamagishi, Toshio; Ohmura, Yoshiaki

doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.001

Cited by 155 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A minority of strong reciprocators in a group creates a cooperative 'culture', whereas a functionally punishment-free group loses its members to the more successful sanctioning institution (Gü rerk et al 2006). Moreover, people are more likely to functionally punish non-cooperators within their own group than out-group defectors since such functional punishment increases benefits (in terms of reforming free-riders) within the punisher's group (Shinada et al 2004; though see Bernhard et al 2006).…”

Section: Gros-louis 2004)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation

Jensen

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

170

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Causing harm to others would hardly seem to be relevant to cooperation, other than as a barrier to it. However, because selfish individuals will exploit cooperators, functional punishment is an effective mechanism for enforcing cooperation by deterring free-riding. Although functional punishment can shape the social behaviour of others by targeting non-cooperative behaviour, it can also intimidate others into doing almost anything. Second-party functional punishment is a self-serving behaviour at the disposal of dominant individuals who can coerce others into behaving cooperatively, but it need not do so. Third-party and altruistic functional punishment are less likely to be selfishly motivated and would seem more likely to maintain norms of cooperation in large groups. These forms of functional punishment may be an essential part of non-kin cooperation on a scale exhibited only by humans. While punitive sentiments might be the psychological force behind punitive behaviours, spiteful motives might also play an important role. Furthermore, functionally spiteful acts might not be maladaptive; reckoning gains relative to others rather than in absolute terms can lead to hyper-competitiveness, which might also be an important part of human cooperation, rather than just an ugly by-product.

show abstract

Section: Gros-louis 2004)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Punishment and spite, the dark side of cooperation

Jensen

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

170

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sanctions that make it costly to defect help prevent this from happening. In addition, humans show strong parochial biases, which favor group members over outsiders (21,22).…”

Section: Limits On Altruistic Social Preferences In Humansmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments

Silk

House²

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

158

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of evidence shows that humans are remarkably altruistic primates. Food sharing and division of labor play an important role in all human societies, and cooperation extends beyond the bounds of close kinship and networks of reciprocating partners. In humans, altruism is motivated at least in part by empathy and concern for the welfare of others. Although altruistic behavior is well-documented in other primates, the range of altruistic behaviors in other primate species, including the great apes, is much more limited than it is in humans. Moreover, when altruism does occur among other primates, it is typically limited to familiar group members-close kin, mates, and reciprocating partners. This suggests that there may be fundamental differences in the social preferences that motivate altruism across the primate order, and there is currently considerable interest in how we came to be such unusual apes. A body of experimental studies designed to examine the phylogenetic range of prosocial sentiments and behavior is beginning to shed some light on this issue. In experimental settings, chimpanzees and tamarins do not consistently take advantage of opportunities to deliver food rewards to others, although capuchins and marmosets do deliver food rewards to others in similar kinds of tasks. Although chimpanzees do not satisfy experimental criteria for prosociality in food delivery tasks, they help others complete tasks to obtain a goal. Differences in performance across species and differences in performance across tasks are not yet fully understood and raise new questions for further study.prosocial preferences | punishment | fairness

show abstract

“…Taken together, these four studies of second-party punishment in the context of the Ultimatum Game paint a puzzling picture of the effects of group bias on norm enforcement. They have provided some evidence for the idea that norms are contained within groups and must therefore be enforced therein [41][42][43] and some evidence in opposition to this idea [44,45].…”

Section: Group Bias In Sharing Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%