Academia.eduAcademia.edu
All Topics
Psychology
Social Psychology
Altruistic Punishment

Altruistic Punishment

description70 papers
group34 followers
lightbulbAbout this topic
Altruistic punishment refers to the behavior in which individuals incur a cost to themselves to punish others who violate social norms or engage in unfair behavior, thereby promoting cooperation and adherence to group norms within a community.
lightbulbAbout this topic
Altruistic punishment refers to the behavior in which individuals incur a cost to themselves to punish others who violate social norms or engage in unfair behavior, thereby promoting cooperation and adherence to group norms within a community.

Key research themes

1. How do punishment mechanisms influence the evolution and maintenance of human cooperation?

This research theme focuses on the functional roles, evolution, and comparative effectiveness of punishment (including altruistic, peer, and collective punishment) as mechanisms to sustain and promote cooperation in social dilemmas. It investigates how different punishment strategies impact cooperation dynamics, the emergence of cooperation in populations, and the limitations posed by factors like second-order free riding and antisocial punishment.

Altruistic Punishment and the Origin of Cooperation
by JAMES ALEXANDER FOWLER

2022

Key finding: This paper presents an evolutionary model demonstrating that altruistic punishers can invade and dominate populations composed of cooperators, defectors, and nonparticipants, thereby stabilizing cooperation by eliminating... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Collective punishment is more effective than collective reward for promoting cooperation
by Riccardo Pansini

2022, Scientific reports

Key finding: Using the N-player evolutionary snowdrift game framework, this study finds through simulations that collective punishment mechanisms are more effective than rewards in promoting cooperation, particularly when the initial... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Building the Leviathan – Voluntary centralisation of punishment power sustains cooperation in humans
by Jörg Gross

2016

Key finding: This experimental paper uncovers that voluntary centralisation of punishment power—where cooperators transfer their punishment capacity to a few willing punishers—significantly sustains cooperation when decentralized peer... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Group Cooperation under Alternative Peer Punishment Technologies: An Experiment
by Marco Casari

2024, SSRN Electronic Journal

Key finding: Through experimental comparison of peer punishment institutions, this study demonstrates that requiring consensus (at least two group members agreeing before punishment executes) leads to dramatically higher cooperation and... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Cooperation without punishment
by Balaraju Battu

2023, Scientific Reports

Key finding: This evolutionary model shows that cooperation can be sustained without punishment by populations composed of heterogeneous conditional cooperators whose decisions depend on past cooperation levels, even in noisy social... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
keyboard_arrow_downShow more

2. What are the cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying third-party punishment and cooperation enforcement?

This theme explores the psychological motivations and neurocomputational substrates of third-party punishment—where uninvolved observers punish norm violators to uphold social norms—and how factors like social distance and intentionality modulate these processes. It integrates behavioral economics, neuroimaging, and experimental game theory to uncover how individuals perceive fairness, reciprocity, and social ties in sanctioning decisions and the distinction between punishment and compensation.

Strengths of social ties modulate brain computations for third-party punishment
by Frederic Moisan

2024, Scientific Reports

Key finding: Using model-based fMRI, this study reveals that third-party punishment severity increases with social distance from norm violators and unfairness level. Key brain regions—the anterior cingulate cortex and bilateral... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Punishment Is Strongly Motivated by Revenge and Weakly Motivated by Inequity Aversion
by Mark Bračič

2022

Key finding: Through a large-scale behavioral experiment manipulating partners' actions and initial endowments, this study demonstrates that second-party punishment is primarily driven by a desire for revenge (the reciprocation of losses)... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Punishment Strategies across Societies: Conventional Wisdoms Reconsidered
by Ramzi Suleiman

2022, Games

Key finding: Analyzing data from cross-cultural public goods games, the authors find that punishment does not universally promote cooperation and that antisocial punishment (punishment of cooperators) is not reliably explained by revenge... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
keyboard_arrow_downShow more

3. How do incentives, norms, transparency, and institutional structures impact cooperation and punishment preferences in social dilemmas?

This research theme addresses the broader social, institutional, and psychological factors that shape cooperation and punishment choices, including how costs, norms, transparency, and social context affect the demand for punishment institutions or alternatives, the evolution of cooperation, and the moral perceptions related to exploitation and altruism. It incorporates both empirical lab experiments and conceptual analyses.

Reward, Punishment, and Cooperation: A Meta-Analysis
by Paul A. M. Van Lange and 
1 more
Paul Van Lange

2016

Key finding: A meta-analysis of 187 effect sizes finds that both rewards and punishments promote cooperation equivalently in social dilemmas, with larger effects when incentives are costly to administer and used in iterated dilemmas... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
The Demand for Punishment to Promote Cooperation Among Like-Minded People
by Christoph Bühren

2021, MAGKS Joint Discussion Paper Series in Economics

Key finding: Experimental results demonstrate that groups composed of like-minded cooperators have significantly lower demand for costly punishment institutions compared to like-minded free riders, especially when group members are... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Endogenous choice of institutional punishment mechanisms to promote social cooperation
by Don Ross

2020, forthcoming in Public Choice

Key finding: This experiment elicits direct votes on institutional designs with and without voluntary costly punishment and shows that individuals generally prefer institutions without punishment unless punishment institutions generate... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Transparency and altruistic punishment in an experimental model of cooperation to corruption through economic games
by Christian Cruz

2024, Transparency and Altruistic Punishment in an Experimental Model of Cooperation to Corruption Through Economic Games

Key finding: Integrating cooperation, punishment, and norms transgression in experimental corruption models, this research finds that transparency (possibility of punishment or investigation) significantly reduces cheating behaviors and... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
Exploitation and Effective Altruism
by Daniel Muñoz

2021, Politics, Philosophy & Economics

Key finding: Philosophical analysis challenges conventional distinctiveness between exploitation and ineffective altruism by proposing a unified moral framework. The author argues that both puzzles—that exploitation can be wrong despite... Read more
articleView PaperdownloadDownload
keyboard_arrow_downShow more

Related Topics

  • Evolution of Personality
  • Cooperation (Evolutionary Psychology)
  • Evolutionary Educational Psychology
  • Evolution of Music
  • Evolution of Morality
  • Evolutionary Psychology
  • Evolution of Religion
  • Mate Choice
  • Evolutionary Developmental Psychology
  • Experimental Psychology

    • All papers in Altruistic Punishment

    Psilocybin and MDMA reduce costly punishment in the Ultimatum Game
    by Mitul Mehta

    2026, Scientific reports

    Disruptions in social decision-making are becoming evident in many psychiatric conditions. These are studied using paradigms investigating the psychological mechanisms underlying interpersonal interactions, such as the Ultimatum Game... more
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    Evolution of cooperation in evolutionary games for Sanitation Boards
    by Rocío Botta

    2026, CLEI Electron. J.

    In a group of individuals that come together to produce a good or provide a service, the cooperators (who pay to produce the good) are often exploited by those who receive the benet without paying the cost. Models were developed over time... more
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    Third-party sanctioning and compensation behavior: Findings from the ultimatum game
    by Cristina Bicchieri

    2025, Journal of Economic Psychology

    We measured the beliefs and behavior of third parties who were given the opportunity to add to or deduct from the payoffs of individuals who engaged in an economic bargaining game under different social contexts. Third parties rewarded... more
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    Criminal Defectors Lead to the Emergence of Cooperation in an Experimental, Adversarial Game
    by Michael McBride

    2025, PLoS ONE

    While the evolution of cooperation has been widely studied, little attention has been devoted to adversarial settings wherein one actor can directly harm another. Recent theoretical work addresses this issue, introducing an adversarial... more
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    Transparency and altruistic punishment in an experimental model of cooperation to corruption through economic games
    by Christian Cruz

    2024, Transparency and Altruistic Punishment in an Experimental Model of Cooperation to Corruption Through Economic Games

    This work integrates cooperation, punishment, treasury damage, and norms transgression in three variants of a single experimental model of corruption. Participants formed words with predetermined letters, receiving a reward for each word,... more
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    Deciphering Evolutionary Mechanisms Betweenmutualistic and Pathogenic Symbioses
    by Ann M Hirsch

    2024, HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)

    HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or... more
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    The coupling effect between the environment and strategies drives the emergence of group cooperation
    by changyan di

    2024, arXiv (Cornell University)

    The coupling effect between macro environment and individual behavior is the key factor to solve the social dilemma. In a static environment, rewards of different strategies are compared simultaneously, leading to a social dilemma due to... more
    Figure 6: The dynamic 7 value and immediate rewards (indicated by green dots) of Agent11 over the period t = 0 to 1500 are shown. In particular, ¢; serves as a turning point for the environment. Before t;, Agent11’s immediate reward is lower than 7c and 7p. After this point, however, the situation is reversed and Agent11’s dominant and dominated strategies are differentiated by the reinforcement of positive rewards, as depicted in the upper right subgraph. At ¢ = 1050, mp catches up with mc, leading to a reversal in Agent11’s action.
    Figure 4: Comparisons between the distributions of Am;(t = 820) and A7z;(t = 1080) indicate different anti-interference capabilities. (a) The distribution of Az;(t = 820) shows a distinct concentration in the range of 1 to 2, with a minimum value not falling below 0.5. (b) Az; (¢ = 1080) is distributed over the interval 0 to 1.25, and in particular the Az; values of these agents (indexed as 59, 27, 46, 40, etc.) are below 0.3, which suggests that even a small perturbation has the potential to completely disrupt the ordered state of the group. 3.1.2. The collapse of group cooperation
    Figure 7: Similarity between the individual and the group behavior. They both behave in a win-stay-lose-change way. When A = r — 7, < 0, the agents or the group act along the trajectory indicated by the green arrow, changing their actions constantly. Until A > 0 when a positive feedback loop emerges, they take the same action and follow the red circle. Furthermore, the factors contributing to the stability of both the agent’s action and the group state are consistent. For the agent, a positive feedback loop is established among the environment, her reward, and her action. Similarly, for the group, the interrelated actors are the environment, the group reward, and the group state.
    Figure 1: Schamatic of the coupled relations between individual actions and the macrc environment. GCM is a multi-agent system consisting of N identical agents. At eack time step t, agent z selects an action from her strategy set S, which includes cooperatior (referred to as C) and defection (referred to as D). The strategic profile A(t) of the population comprises all agents’ actions, denoted as A(t) = {ag, d2,...,@;,-..,an—1}. The macro environment (n) is determined or influenced by A(t) and can be described by unctions n = f(A(t),n). Depending on the specific environmental states, agent 7 receives varying rewards. Each agent continuously learns from their past rewards r;(t) and aims tc maximize their future payoff. However, regardless of the conditions, the payoff of strategy D is never lower than that of strategy C, illustrating the presence of a social dilemma The parameter c represents the cost of cooperation relative to defection.
    Figure B.11: Search patterns of the group in the resource-dependent environment (RDE). (a)(b) The cellular diagrams of the group in RDE at t = 1344 ~ 1424 and t = 2095 ~ 2175. respectively. (c)(d) The group cooperation rate shows a relatively uniform distribution during those period, which is very different from that in the SDE. That’s because 7c and Tp of agents alternately decrease, so that the group cooperation rate is distributed at both ends of the district.
    Figure 5: Dynamics of the macro system state in the resource-dependent environment with parameters N = 100,/ = 0.2,€ = 0.04,k, = 0.2. (a)The system state exhibits periodic oscillations, with t; = 725 and tg = 1344 marking the critical times for the formation and collapse of the ordered state in the second period. (b)(c)The cellular diagram visually represents the actions of the first 60 agents over time. The state of the group changes from disorder to order at the time t;. Subsequently, agents start a ” gold rush” by switching to defectors one by one. At tz almost all agents become defectors.
    Figure B.16: These are the enlarged diagrams of Fig.4(d) in the main text, which pro- vides clearer details. (a)We can get that before t7, the green dots are below the red and blue curves, indicating that the agent’s immediate payoff is less than mo and 7p. After this point, the green dots are above the those colored curves. And the blue curve rises rapidly, indicating that strategy C becomes the dominant strategy for the agent. (b) The characteristic of the end of the ordered state of the group is t¢ = 7p. After this point, as the agent’s immediate payoff is less than a¢ and 7p, she alternates between using C and D strategies. This is shown as a jagged line in (c). ¢7 is the start of the second ordered state on the time axis, characterized by the agent’s immediate payoff being greater than To and mp.
    Figure B.10: Search patterns of the group in the state-dependent environment (SDE). (a)(b) The cellular diagrams of the group in SDE at t = 200 ~ 280 and t = 3000 ~ 3080, respectively. (c) (d) The group cooperation rate shows a normal distribution during this period, indicating that each individual is conducting a random search between strategies C and D. This behavior is a result of both agents having mc and mp values of —1, and agents employing the e-greedy algorithm being required to choose actions randomly.
    Figure A.8: (a)Pigeons’ shape-color recognition experiments; (b) The simulation configu- ration for an agent in GCM.
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    The Coupling Effect between the Environment and Strategies Drives the Emergence of Group Cooperation
    by changyan di

    2024

    The coupling effect between macro environment and individual behavior is the key factor to solve the social dilemma. In a static environment, rewards of different strategies are compared simultaneously, leading to a social dilemma due to... more
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    The Carrot or the Stick: Rewards, Punishments, and Cooperation
    by James Andreoni

    2024, American Economic Review

    Many institutional arrangements suggest that punishments and rewards each play a separate role in providing incentives. In New York City's recent negotiations with its teacher's union, for instance, the city sought a contract
    descriptionView Paperarrow_downwardDownload
    More ‘altruistic’ punishment in larger societies
    by D. Tracer

    2024, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences