“Proof Under Reasonable Doubt”: Ambiguity of the Norm Violation as Boundary Condition of Third-Party Punishment

Abstract

In six studies, we consistently observed costly third-party punishment (3PP) to decrease under ambiguity of the norm violation. Our research suggests that, under ambiguity, some people experience concerns about punishing unfairly. Those with higher (vs. lower) other-oriented justice sensitivity (Observer JS) reduced 3PP more pronouncedly (in Studies 1–3 and 4b, but not replicated in Studies 4–5). Moreover, those who decided to resolve the ambiguity (hence, removing the risk of punishing unfairly) exceeded the 3PP observed under no ambiguity (Study 4). However, we did not consistently observe these concerns about punishing unfairly to affect 3PP (Studies 4–5). We further considered whether people could use ambiguity as justification for remaining passive—thus, avoiding the costs of 3PP. We did not find conclusive evidence supporting this notion. Taken together, ambiguity entails a situational boundary of 3PP that sheds light on the prevalence of this behavior and, potentially, on its preceding decision-making.

A closer look at third-party punishment under the risk of counterpunishment: An effect of additional material (and not social) costs

“…In each condition, it was uncertain for third parties whether the perpetrator was going to counterpunish (CPUN) or whether the algorithm was going to impose additional costs (APUN). While researchers have highlighted the importance of cost uncertainty in explaining punishment behavior 31 , research on punishment behavior under situational uncertainty 32 , and more speci cally, under cost uncertainty 33 , is scarce or inconclusive. The present research showed that the introduction of uncertain additional costs had a substantial detrimental effect on third parties' willingness to punish a norm violation.…”

Ignorance by choice: A meta-analytic review of the underlying motives of willful ignorance and its consequences.

“…The majority of the articles that were excluded during the full-text screening did not meet one or more of the inclusion criteria ( n = 89, see Figure 2). Additionally, we excluded three studies measuring altruistic behavior, using a continuous outcome variable (Friedrichsen et al, 2022; Kajackaite, 2015; Toribio-Flórez et al, 2023). The continuous measures of altruistic behavior do not allow a straightforward categorization of what counts as a selfish/altruistic choice.…”

“…In some studies (including Dana et al, 2007), the decision makers can acquire information for free. Other studies have implemented a symbolic cost for information to mimic real-life situations in which information is costly (e.g., Momsen & Ohndorf, 2019;Momsen & Ohndorf, 2020a;Toribio-Flo ´rez et al, 2023). Such costs should make information less attractive (e.g., Leib, 2023;Serra-Garcia & Szech, 2019) and provide participants with an additional justification to remain ignorant and act selfishly.…”

Personality processes of everyday moral courage

“…Regarding the relevance of (i) interpretive processes, research has indicated that subjective uncertainty regarding a norm violation (Greitemeyer et al, 2006; Kemper et al, 2022; Toribio‐Flórez et al, 2023) and low perceived moral severity (Hofmann et al, 2018; Near & Miceli, 1996) might be substantial barriers to intervention. Similarly, (ii) a low sense of own responsibility was found to be related to non‐intervention, as indicated by intervention intentions (Ashburn‐Nardo et al, 2014; Chaurand & Brauer, 2008) and retrospective reports (Greitemeyer et al, 2006, Study 3).…”