Altruistic punishment is connected to trait anger, not trait altruism, if compensation is available

The relationship of the source of punishment and personality traits with investment and punishment in a public goods game

In this study, we investigated the motivations behind punishing individuals who exploit common resources, a phenomenon crucial for resource preservation. While some researchers suggest punishment stems from concern for the common good, others propose it is driven by anger toward free riders. To probe these motivations, we developed a modified public goods game in which participants had the option to use their own money or the money from the common pool to punish free riders. The analysis included choice behavior, mouse trajectories, and personality traits like anger, empathy, and altruism. According to our results, investments were highest, and punishment was strongest if participants could punish using credits from the common pool, indicating that this is the preferred option to diminish free riding and maintain cooperation in public goods and common good contexts. Also, punishment was highest if the punisher's own investment was high, and the investment of others was low. Concerning traits, highly altruistic individuals tended to invest more and punish less in general but gave harsher punishments when they did choose to use the common pool punitively. Conversely, trait anger and trait empathy were linked to low investment while trait empathy also tended to be related to lower punishment. Taken together, these findings underscore the role of situational factors and personality traits in fostering cooperative behavior and shaping societal norms around costly punishment.

Are psychotic-like experiences associated with aberrant prosocial decision-making behavior?

Introduction

Deficits in social functioning and decision-making are well-documented in schizophrenia, but their relationship with positive symptoms and social conflicts is poorly understood. We created a new paradigm based on the Dictator Game (DG) to explore differences in social decision-making between individuals experiencing high levels of psychotic-like experiences (PLEs), particularly hallucinations and delusions, and controls with less PLEs.

Methods

A large community sample (N = 1,161) completed a DG in an online study whereby extreme groups were built based on the positive subscale of the CAPE.

Results

Overall, participants experiencing PLEs did not act less prosocial than controls but showed a somewhat aberrant decision-making behavior, particularly a pattern of behaving more prosocial in fair situations and generally favoring punishment over compensation relative to controls. Mediation analyses suggest that measures of empathy and Machiavellism have predictive power for prosocial behavior beyond group status.

Discussion

The present study raises the possibility that individuals with high levels of PLEs may be less able to adapt their behavior to the situation at hand than controls. These irregularities might be due to deficits in social cognition which may elicit conflict, thus compromising social functioning and possibly contributing to the formation of positive symptoms.

Downward social comparison positively promotes altruism: the multi-mediating roles of belief in a just world and general life satisfaction

Introduction

This study examined the underlying mechanism of the relationship between downward social comparison (DSC) and altruism through two conceptually important but rarely studied factors: belief in a just world (BJW) and general life satisfaction (GLS).

Methods

The study utilized a two-time-point design, spaced 2 months apart, with a sample of 1,764 college students from China. The study measured DSC, altruism, BJW, and GLS.

Results

The findings revealed a significant positive predictive effect of DSC on college students' altruism and belief in a just world (BJW). Notably, GLS emerged as a multi-mediating factor in this relationship. The study also revealed that both subscales of BJW, namely personal belief in a just world (PBJW) and general belief in a just world (GBJW), played distinct roles in the mediation model. PBJW exhibited a stronger mediating effect, suggesting that DSC can foster individual altruism and BJW. Particularly, BJW was identified as enhancing GLS, subsequently promoting altruistic behavior.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the existing literature on social comparison by shedding light on the relationship between DSC, altruism, and the mediating role of belief in a just world and GLS. The findings underscore the potential for promoting altruistic behavior among college students through interventions targeting beliefs in a just world, especially at the personal level, and enhancing GLS.

Can monetary incentives overturn fairness-based decisions?

Fairness norms and resulting behaviours are an important prerequisite for cooperation in human societies. At the same time, financial incentives are commonly used to motivate social behaviours, yet it remains unclear how financial incentives affect fairness-based behaviours. Combining a decision paradigm from behavioural economics with hierarchical drift-diffusion modelling, we investigated the effect of different financial incentives on two types of fairness-based decisions in four experimental groups. In two groups, participants divided points between themselves and a disadvantaged person, inciting fairness-based compensation behaviour, in two other groups they divided points between themselves and a fairness violator, inciting fairness-based punishment behaviour. In addition, each group received financial incentives that were either aligned or in conflict with the respective fairness-based behaviour. This design allowed us to directly investigate how different incentives shape the cognitive mechanism of fairness-based decisions and whether these effects are comparable across different fairness domains (fairness-based punishment versus fairness-based compensation). Results showed that offering conflicting incentives diminished fairness-congruent decision behaviour and rendered the fairness-congruent decision process less efficient. These findings demonstrate that financial incentives can undermine fairness-based behaviour, and thus are relevant for the development of incentive schemes aimed at fostering cooperative behaviour.

Measurement of Prosocial Tendencies: Meta-Analysis of the Generalization of the Reliability of the Instrument

The Prosocial Tendencies Measure (PTM) and its revised version (PTM-R) are used internationally to measure prosocial behaviors in different life situations. To obtain accumulated evidence of the report and the reliability of its scores, a meta-analysis of the reliability of internal consistency was performed. The databases of Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus were reviewed and all the studies that applied it from 2002 to 2021 were selected. Results: Only 47.9% of the studies presented the index of reliability of PTM and PTM-R. The meta-analytic results of the reliability report of the subscales that the PTM and the PTM-R have in common were: Public 0.78 (95% CI: 0.76-0.80), Anonymous 0.80 (95% CI: 0.79-0.82), Dire 0.74 (95% CI: 0.71-0.76), and Compliant 0.71 (95% CI: 0.72-0.78). Each one of them presents high levels of heterogeneity derived from the gender of the participants (percentage of women), the continent of the population, the validation design, the incentive to participate, and the form of application. It is concluded that both versions present acceptable reliabilities to measure prosocial behavior in different groups and situations, as adolescents and young people, but their clinical use is discouraged.

The needs of the many: Exploring associations of personality with third-party judgments of public health-related utilitarian rule violations

Safeguarding the rights of minorities is crucial for just societies. However, there are conceivable situations where minority rights might seriously impede the rights of the majority. Favoring the minority in such cases constitutes a violation of utilitarian principles. To explore the emotional, cognitive, and punitive responses of observers of such utilitarian rule transgressions, we conducted an online study with 1004 participants. Two moral scenarios (vaccine policy and epidemic) were rephrased in the third-party perspective. In both public health-related scenarios, the protagonist opted against the utilitarian option, which resulted in more fatalities in total, but avoided harm to a minority. Importantly, in vaccine policy, members of the minority cannot be identified beforehand and thus harm to them would have been rather accidental. Contrariwise, in epidemic, minority members are identifiable and would have needed to be deliberately selected. While the majority of participants chose not to punish the scenarios' protagonists at all, 30.1% judged that protecting the minority over the interests of the majority when only accidental harm would have occurred (vaccine policy) was worthy of punishment. In comparison, only 11.2% opted to punish a protagonist whose decision avoided deliberately selecting (and thus harming) a minority at the cost of the majority (epidemic). Emotional responses and appropriateness ratings paralleled these results. Furthermore, complex personality × situation interactions revealed the influence of personality features, i.e., trait psychopathy, empathy, altruism, authoritarianism, need for cognition and faith in intuition, on participants' responses. The results further underscore the need to consider the interaction of situational features and inter-individual differences in moral decisions and sense of justice.

Beyond Reciprocity: Forgiveness, Generosity, and Punishment in Continuing Dyadic Interactions

There is a long-standing debate in philosophy and the social sciences about how selfishness and cooperation function in dyadic social exchanges. Dyads are the foundation of our social lives, and reciprocity has long been considered the dominant strategy for dyadic interactions. We will argue the repertoire of human behavior during social exchanges ranges from punishment to generosity, and that the nuances of the relationship and interaction will dictate which behavior is likely to occur. We will examine emotional consequences of punishment, reciprocity, and forgiveness in long-term dyadic social exchanges. Finally, we argue that dyads move beyond reciprocity to a more forgiving, generous strategy to reestablish cooperation, and continue the relationship when noncooperation arises, once the motivations shift has occurred.

On second thought … the influence of a second stage in the ultimatum game on decision behavior, electro-cortical correlates and their trait interrelation

Previous EEG research only investigated one stage ultimatum games (UGs). We investigated the influence of a second bargaining stage in an UG concerning behavioral responses, electro-cortical correlates and their moderations by the traits altruism, anger, anxiety, and greed in 92 participants. We found that an additional stage led to more rejection in the 2-stage UG (2SUG) and that increasing offers in the second stage compared to the first stage led to more acceptance. The FRN during a trial was linked to expectance evaluation concerning the fairness of the offers, while midfrontal theta was a marker for the needed cognitive control to overcome the respective default behavioral pattern. The FRN responses to unfair offers were more negative for either low or high altruism in the UG, while high trait anxiety led to more negative FRN responses in the first stage of 2SUG, indicating higher sensitivity to unfairness. Accordingly, the mean FRN response, representing the trait-like general electrocortical reactivity to unfairness, predicted rejection in the first stage of 2SUG. Additionally, we found that high trait anger led to more rejections for unfair offer in 2SUG in general, while trait altruism led to more rejection of unimproving unfair offers in the second stage of 2SUG. In contrast, trait anxiety led to more acceptance in the second stage of 2SUG, while trait greed even led to more acceptance if the offer was worse than in the stage before. These findings suggest, that 2SUG creates a trait activation situation compared to the UG.

Third-Party Punishment or Compensation? It Depends on the Reputational Benefits

Third-party fairness maintenance could win some reputational benefits, and it includes two methods: punishment and compensation. We predicted that the third parties' preference between punishment and compensation are affected by whether they are free to choose between the two methods, and the affection could be interpreted through reputational benefits. The present study includes two sections. In Study 1, the participants acted as fourth parties who were asked to rate the reputations of the third parties who had chosen different response methods to an unfair result of the dictator game. The results showed that (1) there was no reputational difference between the two methods when third parties were not free to choose, (2) but the reputation of compensation was better when third parties were free to choose. In Study 2, the participants acted as third parties. The participants were asked to choose a method to respond to an unfair result of the dictator game. There were two reputational contexts: secret and open. The results showed that (1) when third parties were not free to choose, they had no preference between the two methods under the two reputational contexts, (2) but when third parties were free to choose freely, they prefer punishment under the secret context but prefer compensation under the open context. This study systematically reveals a reputational interaction between fourth and third parties, and verifies the affection of reputational benefits on the third parties' preference between punishment and compensation.

Altruistic Punishment and Impulsivity in Parkinson's Disease: A Social Neuroscience Perspective

Non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD) are of increasing interest in clinical and psychological research. Disinhibition-the inability to inhibit inappropriate behavior-leads to social and emotional impairments, including impulsive behavior and disregard for social conventions and decision-making behavior. In recent years, the latter has been investigated using economic exchanges during social interactions. Altruistic punishment-to punish someone who violates group norms even if it foresees a personal cost-is one of the most useful and fruitful paradigms; it allows to maintain a cooperation system within social groups. Alterations of this cognitive ability negatively impact the quality of life of the individual and social stability. Social neuroscience has suggested association between impulsive behaviors and altruistic punishment. Neuroimaging research aimed at exploring functional networks and intrinsic functional connectivity went in this direction. To date, little is known about these issues in neurodegenerative diseases such as PD. Dopamine replacement treatment and dopamine-agonists have been associated with impulse-control disorder and impulsive-compulsive behavior able to affect social decision-making. Frontal-executive dysfunction determines an alteration of social functioning through a mechanism of subversion of online action-monitoring, which associates disinhibition with volition. Genetic polymorphisms, alterations of the nigro-striatal substance, and impairment in the medial prefrontal cortex and in the Default mode network (DMN) seem to be able to explain these mechanisms. This theoretical perspective article aims to present these topics in order to encourage an interdisciplinary discussion capable of generating new research and developing rehabilitative intervention to improve social decision-making in PD patients.

It's costly punishment, not altruistic: Low midfrontal theta and state anger predict punishment

Punishment in economic games has been interpreted as "altruistic." However, it was shown that punishment is related to trait anger instead of trait altruism in a third-party dictator game if compensation is also available. Here, we investigated the influence of state anger on punishment and compensation in the third-party dictator game. Therefore, we used movie sequences for emotional priming, including the target states anger, happy, and neutral. We measured the Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) and midfrontal theta band activation, to investigate an electro-cortical correlate of the processing of fair and unfair offers. Also, we assessed single-trial FRN and midfrontal theta band activation as a predictor for punishment and compensation. We found that punishment was linked to state anger. Midfrontal theta band activation, which has previously been linked to altruistic acts and cognitive control, predicted less punishment. Additionally, trait anger led to enhanced FRN for unfair offers. This led to the interpretation that the FRN depicts the evaluation of fairness, while midfrontal theta band activation captures an aspect of cognitive control and altruistic motivation. We conclude that we need to redefine "altruistic punishment" into "costly punishment," as no direct link of altruism and punishment is given. Additionally, midfrontal theta band activation complements the FRN and offers additional insights into complex responses and decision processes, especially as a single trial predictor.

Social hierarchies in third-party punishment: A behavioral and ERP study

Third-party punishment refers to the punishment imposed by a party whose benefit is not directly affected by any norm violations. The present study using a modified Dictator Game explored how social statuses of the involved parties modulate punishment decisions of a third-party. Systematic manipulation of the dictators' and recipients' status revealed that: higher recipient status correlated with more severe punishment, but no effect of the dictator's. We further focused on the neural underlying of this effect using ERPs. An interaction of recipient's status × fairness was observed on MFN such that only for a high-status recipient, larger amplitude was triggered by unfair offers comparing to fair offers. On LPC, the largest amplitude was observed when the offer was fair and the recipient had medium-status. These findings suggested: participants consider unfair offers proposed to high-status recipients as more norm-violating and they may evaluate the offers from the perspective of the recipient.