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

Abstract

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.

Being similar while judging right and wrong: The effects of personal and situational similarity on moral judgements

“…This direct effect might be an indication of a different mechanism instilled by past situational similarity with the victim, namely a revenge motivation (e.g. Bone & Raihani, ) activated in participants who have been in a similar position as victim. This might have induced more severe moral judgements as a symbolic attempt at retaliation for the own past wrongdoing that they had to endure.…”

Primates are living links to our past: The contribution of comparative studies with wild vervet monkeys to the field of social cognition

“…It also reveals the apparent efficacy of female punishment in this context. Such behaviors as punishment and reward have also been described for humans (Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004;Sefton, Shupp, & Walker, 2007), although the exact relationship between punishment and cooperation in humans remains unclear (Bone & Raihani, 2015;Raihani & Bshary, 2015). A field experiment which simulated between-group encounters via playbacks found that males participated in encounters more often when a female monkey was visibly leading the agonistic encounter.…”

Moral Punishment in Everyday Life

“…Even though (or, precisely because) their correspondence may not be perfect, due to general and specific enactment constraints and restrictions including feasibility and normative concerns (e.g., Strimling & Eriksson, 2014), lack of opportunities, and delegation to authoritiesgetting a more fine-grained understanding of the motivational foundation of actual punishment is of interest in its own right. Psychologists and economists wanting to understand the function of (and ulterior motives behind) punitive sentiments as well as the neural systems that trigger the desire for punishment (e.g., Bone & Raihani, 2015;Carlsmith et al, 2002;Fehr & Gächter, 2002;Fehr & Rockenbach, 2004;Knoch, Gianotti, Baumgartner, & Fehr, 2010;McCullough, Kurzban, & Tabak, 2013) will benefit from a focus on the motivational basis underlying moral punishment.…”