Exploring the Motivations for Punishment: Framing and Country-Level Effects

Identifying the motives underpinning punishment is crucial for understanding its evolved function. In principle, punishment of distributional inequality could be motivated by the desire to reciprocate losses ('revenge') or by the desire to reduce payoff asymmetries between the punisher and the target ('inequality aversion'). By separating these two possible motivations, recent work suggests that punishment is more likely to be motivated by disadvantageous inequality aversion than by a desire for revenge. Nevertheless, these findings have not consistently replicated across different studies. Here, we suggest that considering country of origin—previously overlooked as a possible source of variation in responses—is important for understanding when and why individuals punish one another. We conducted a two-player stealing game with punishment, using data from 2,400 subjects recruited from the USA and India. US-based subjects punished in response to losses and disadvantageous inequality, but seldom invested in antisocial punishment (defined here as punishment of non-stealing partners). India-based subjects, on the other hand, punished at higher levels than US-based subjects and, so long as they did not experience disadvantageous inequality, punished stealing and non-stealing partners indiscriminately. Nevertheless, as in the USA, when stealing resulted in disadvantageous inequality, India-based subjects punished stealing partners more than non-stealing partners. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that variation in punitive behavior varies across societies, and support the idea that punishment might sometimes function to improve relative status, rather than to enforce cooperation

Punishment is strongly motivated by revenge and weakly motivated by inequity aversion

There are two broad functional explanations for second-party punishment: fitness-leveling and deterrence. The former suggests that people punish to reduce fitness differences, while the latter suggests that people punish in order to reciprocate losses and deter others from inflicting losses on them in the future. We explore the relative roles of these motivations using a pre-registered, two-player experiment with 2426 US participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants played as the “responder” and were assigned to either a Take or Augment condition. In the Take condition, the “partner” could steal money from the responder's bonus or do nothing. In the Augment condition, the partner could augment the responder's bonus by giving them money at no cost to themselves or do nothing. We also manipulated the responders' starting endowments, such that after the partner's decision, responders experienced different payoff outcomes: advantageous inequity, equality, or varying degrees of disadvantageous inequity. Responders then decided whether to pay a cost to punish the partner. Punishment was clearly influenced by theft and was most frequent when theft resulted in disadvantageous inequity. However, people also punished in the absence of theft, particularly when confronted with disadvantageous inequity. While the effect of inequity on punishment was small, our results suggest that punishment is motivated by more than just the desire to reciprocate losses. These findings highlight the multiple motivations undergirding punishment and bear directly on functional explanations for the existence of punishment in human societies

The ontogeny of children's social emotions in response to (un)fairness

Humans have a deeply rooted sense of fairness, but its emotional foundation in early ontogeny remains poorly understood. Here, we asked if and when 4- to 10-year-old children show negative social emotions, such as shame or guilt, in response to advantageous unfairness expressed through a lowered body posture (measured using a Kinect depth sensor imaging camera). We found that older, but not younger children, showed more negative emotions, i.e. a reduced upper body posture, after unintentionally disadvantaging a peer on (4,1) trials than in response to fair (1,1) outcomes between themselves and others. Younger children, in contrast, expressed more negative emotions in response to the fair (1,1) split than in response to advantageous inequity. No systematic pattern of children's emotional responses was found in a non-social context, in which children divided resources between themselves and a non-social container. Supporting individual difference analyses showed that older children in the social context expressed negative emotions in response to advantageous inequity without directly acting on this negative emotional response by rejecting an advantageously unfair offer proposed by an experimenter at the end of the study. These findings shed new light on the emotional foundation of the human sense of fairness and suggest that children's negative emotional response to advantageous unfairness developmentally precedes their rejection of advantageously unfair resource distributions

Interface characteristics in an {\alpha}+{\beta} titanium alloy

The alpha/beta interface in Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-6Mo (Ti-6246) is investigated via centre of symmetry analysis, both as-grown and after 10% cold work. Semi-coherent interface steps are observed at a spacing of 4.5 +/-1.13 atoms in the as-grown condition, in good agreement with theory prediction (4.37 atoms). Lattice accommodation is observed, with elongation along [-1 2 -1 0]alpha and contraction along [1 0 -1 0]alpha . Deformed alpha exhibited larger, less coherent steps with slip bands lying in {110}beta. This indicates dislocation pile-up at the grain boundary, a precursor to globularisation, offering insight into the effect of deformation processing on the interface, which is important for titanium alloy processing route design.Comment: Revised after revie

Teaching can teach us a lot

Journal ArticleCopyright © 2012 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.In a recent Commentary, Byrne & Rapaport (2011; henceforth B & R) question the value of the functional perspective on teaching in nonhuman animals in understanding the basis of teaching in humans. They argue that the established operational definition of teaching by Caro & Hauser (1992; henceforth C & H) is overly restrictive, misses instances where teaching serves to correct individual failings in slow learners, and inhibits progress in our understanding of the cognitive underpinnings of human teaching. While we welcome increased focus on the cognitive foundations of teaching, this need not come at the costs of reducing rigour in this nascent field. Here, we mount a defence of the C & H definition and argue that it can be applied at both population and individual levels. We suggest that the development of the field will best be served by considering both whether teaching occurs and, if so, how it is achieved.BBSR

Dictator Game Giving: The Importance of Descriptive versus Injunctive Norms.

Human behaviour is influenced by social norms but norms can entail two types of information. Descriptive norms refer to what others do in this context, while injunctive norms refer to what ought to be done to ensure social approval. In many real-world situations these norms are often presented concurrently meaning that their independent effects on behaviour are difficult to establish. Here we used an online Dictator Game to test how descriptive and injunctive norms would influence dictator donations when presented independently of one another. In addition, we varied the cost of complying with the norm: By stating that $0.20 or$0.50 cent donations from a $1 stake were normal or suggested, respectively. Specifying a higher target amount was associated with increased mean donation size. In contrast to previous studies, descriptive norms did not seem to influence giving behaviour in this context, whereas injunctive norms were associated with increased likelihood to give at least the target amount to the partner. This raises the question of whether injunctive norms might be more effective than descriptive norms at promoting prosocial behaviour in other settings

Fundamental Problems with the Cooperative Breeding Hypothesis. A reply to Burkart & Van Schaik

This is the final version of the article. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.The cooperative breeding hypothesis (CBH) states that cooperative breeding, a social system in which group members help to rear offspring that are not their own, has important socio-cognitive consequences. Thornton & McAuliffe (2015; henceforth T&M) critiqued this idea on both conceptual and empirical grounds, arguing that there is no reason to predict that cooperative breeding should favour the evolution of enhanced social cognition or larger brains, nor any clear evidence that it does. In response to this critique, Burkart & van Schaik (2016 henceforth B&vS) attempt to clarify the causal logic of the CBH, revisit the data and raise the possibility that the hypothesis may only apply to primates. They concede that cooperative breeding is unlikely to generate selection pressures for enhanced socio-cognitive abilities, but argue instead that the CBH operates purely through cooperative breeding reducing social or energetic constraints. Here, we argue that this revised hypothesis is also untenable because: (1) it cannot explain why resources so released would be allocated to cognitive traits per se rather than any other fitness-related traits, (2) key assumptions are inconsistent with available evidence and (3) ambiguity regarding the predictions leaves it unclear what evidence would be required to falsify it. Ultimately, the absence of any compelling evidence that cooperative breeding is associated with elevated cognitive ability or large brains (indeed data suggest the opposite is true in non-human primates) also casts doubt on the capacity of the CBH to explain variation in cognitive traits.A.T. was supported by a BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship (BB/H021817/1) and a grant from the ESRC (ES/M006042/1)

Children are sensitive to norms of giving

People across societies engage in costly sharing, but the extent of such sharing shows striking cultural variation, highlighting the importance of local norms in shaping generosity. Despite this acknowledged role for norms, it is unclear when they begin to exert their influence in development. Here we use a Dictator Game to investigate the extent to which 4- to 9-year-old children are sensitive to selfish (give 20%) and generous (give 80%) norms. Additionally, we varied whether children were told how much other children give (descriptive norm) or what they should give according to an adult (injunctive norm). Results showed that children generally gave more when they were exposed to a generous norm. However, patterns of compliance varied with age. Younger children were more likely to comply with the selfish norm, suggesting a licensing effect. By contrast, older children were more influenced by the generous norm, yet capped their donations at 50%, perhaps adhering to a pre-existing norm of equality. Children were not differentially influenced by descriptive or injunctive norms, suggesting a primacy of norm content over norm format. Together, our findings indicate that while generosity is malleable in children, normative information does not completely override pre-existing biases

Placebo Bait Uptake Trial to Test Feasibility of Polynesian Rat (\u3ci\u3eRattus exulans\u3c/i\u3e) Eradication on Wake Atoll

Rodent eradications have contributed to the recovery of many threatened species, but challenges often exist for campaigns that occur on tropical islands when compared to more temperate regions. A post-operational review of a rat eradication operation on Wake Atoll indicated that certain areas, such as those with high alternative food abundance, may have contributed to the failure to remove all Polynesian rats. We conducted a nontoxic bait uptake trial to evaluate whether the maximum prescribed bait application rate for Brodifacoum-25W rodenticide pellets was sufficient to expose all rats to a lethal dose at three sites on Wake Atoll, including around a solid waste aggregation area (SWAA), which was previously identified as “high risk.” We monitored bait persistence and condition throughout the treatment period as well as rat movement via radio tracking. Bait uptake by rats was also assessed by trapping and examination of rat orifices and gastrointestinal contents for pyranine biomarker incorporated into the bait pellets. The rate of bait disappearance differed by site, with bait disappearing the fastest in vicinity of the SWAA. Rat movement also varied by site, with rats observed traveling greater distances around the SWAA, sometimes exceeding 300 m. The SWAA was the only site at which we observed rats negative for biomarker exposure. We suggest that these negative observations resulted from lack of bait availability or movement of rats into the core trapping area from outside the treatment area. However, we cannot rule out preferential selection of alternative food sources over bait pellets and suggest that this possibility should receive further attention. Based on our results, we conclude that, of the three sites, the maximum bait application rate prescribed on the product label was not high enough to provide every rat an opportunity to encounter bait at and around the SWAA. Given the rapid disappearance of bait and the regular immigration of rats from distant habitat, we recommend that an even greater application rate be prescribed and that the heavier treatment be extended over a much larger area surrounding the SWAA