Resource scarcity and antisocial behavior

Prediger, Sebastian; Vollan, Björn; Herrmann, Benedikt

doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.07.007

Cited by 196 publications

(151 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, antisocial punishment cannot be explained by a desire for revenge or a desire to reduce disadvantageous inequality since P1 experienced neither losses nor disadvantageous inequality when P2 did not steal. It may be the case that antisocial punishment reflects competitive motives (Prediger, Vollan, & Herrmann, 2014;Sylwester et al, 2013), though if this were the case we would have expected that P1s would use have used antisocial punishment in the effective but not in the ineffective punishment condition, as previously documented (Falk et al, 2005). In contrast to this prediction, we found that players were equally likely to punish antisocially regardless of the punishment condition.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Human punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality

Bone

Raihani

2015

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans willingly pay a cost to punish defecting partners in experimental games. However, the psychological motives underpinning punishment are unclear. Punishment could stem from the desire to reciprocally harm a cheat (i.e. revenge) which is arguably indicative of a deterrent function. Alternatively, punishment could be motivated by the desire to redress the balance between punisher and cheat. Such a desire for equality might be more indicative of a fitness-leveling function. We used a two player experimental game to disentangle these two possibilities. In this game, one player could choose to steal $0.20 from their partner. Depending on the treatment, players interacting with a stealing partner experienced either advantageous inequality, equal outcomes or disadvantageous inequality. Players could punish stealing partners but some players had access to effective punishment (1 : 3 fee to fine) whereas others could only use ineffective punishment (1 : 1). Players who had access to effective punishment could reduce disadvantageous inequality by tailoring their investment in punishment whereas ineffective punishment did not change the relative payoffs of the individuals in the game but could be used to exact revenge. Players punished regardless of whether stealing created outcome inequality or whether punishment was ineffective at removing payoff differentials, suggesting that punishment was at least partly motivated by the desire to inflict reciprocal harm. However, in the effective punishment condition, players' tendency to punish increased if stealing resulted in disadvantageous inequality and, when possible, punishers tailored their investment in punishment to create equal outcomes. Together these findings suggest that punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality. The implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 47%

Human punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality

Bone

Raihani

2015

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, relative to those from a resource‐rich region, pastoralists experiencing resource scarcity scored higher in a joy‐of‐destruction game. This finding suggests that seemingly irrational cruelty may instead provide a cost‐effective strategy for undermining competitors (Prediger, Vollan, & Herrmann, ). Resource scarcity cues also appear to inflect the perception of coalitional boundaries, making Whites more likely to classify biracial faces as Black (Rodeheffer, Hill, & Lord, ) and to see Blacks as darker (Krosch & Amodio, ).…”

Section: The Adaptationist Revision Of the Dual Process Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Political Conservatism Adaptive? Reinterpreting Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation as Evolved, Sociofunctional Strategies

Sinn

Hayes

2018

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Dual Process Model (DPM) explains prejudice and political conservatism as functions of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO;Duckitt, 2001). From an evolutionary perspective, such orientations may represent specific adaptations to coalitional competition in the ancestral environment (Sinn & Hayes, 2016). Supporting this view, recent research suggests the two orientations represent divergent strategies, with RWA pursuing an honest-cooperator strategy and SDO a deceptive, cooperation-mimicking strategy (Heylen & Pauwels, 2015). In two studies, we examine additional evidence for an adaptationist interpretation of DPM. Utilizing life history theory, Study 1 finds that RWA reflects the predicted "slow" strategy by endorsing planning and control, investment in family relationships, altruism, and religiosity. In contrast, SDO reflects a "fast" strategy by devaluing planning and control, secure relationships, and altruism. Utilizing rank management theory, Study 2 finds that RWA reflects a prosocial orientation, endorsing coalition building and social networking while rejecting deception and manipulation. In contrast, SDO reflects an exploitive orientation, rejecting coalition building and networking but endorsing ruthless selfadvancement and deceptive tactics. These findings support an adaptationist revision of RWA to recognize its prosocial, honest-cooperator dimension and of SDO to recognize proself, "dark" tactics seeking power within groups.

show abstract

“…Our study is related to other experiments that investigate the role of the habitat for altruism (Voors et al ., forthcoming), anti‐social behaviour (Prediger et al ., ) and competitiveness (Leibbrandt et al ., ) . It is also related to Carpenter and Seki (, ) and Castillo et al .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ode to the Sea: Workplace Organizations and Norms of Cooperation

Gneezy

Leibbrandt

List

2015

Econ J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The functioning and well‐being of any society and organisation hinges on norms of cooperation that regulate social activities. There is no empirical evidence on how such norms emerge and in which environments they thrive remains a clear void in the literature. We compare behaviour in Brazilian fishermen societies that differ in the workplace organisation. In one society (by the sea), fishermen are forced to work in groups, whereas in the adjacent society (on a lake) fishing is inherently an individual activity. We report that the sea fishermen trust and cooperate more and have greater ability to coordinate group actions than their lake counterparts.

show abstract

Resource scarcity and antisocial behavior

Cited by 196 publications

References 48 publications

Human punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality

Human punishment is motivated by both a desire for revenge and a desire for equality

Is Political Conservatism Adaptive? Reinterpreting Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation as Evolved, Sociofunctional Strategies

Ode to the Sea: Workplace Organizations and Norms of Cooperation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About