Altruistic Punishment Favors the Power Attainment for Punishers: An Evolutionary Perspective

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.202304017

Abstract

Abstract: Existing literature suggests that altruistic punishment is an important mechanism for maintaining extensive cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, but it also raises a long-standing evolutionary riddle: since altruistic punishment reduces the fitness of punishers, how are altruistic punishers selected in evolution? One explanation is that altruistic punishment brings a positive reputation for punishers. However, how a positive reputation can improve the fitness of punishers remains an unanswered question. By introducing the two-dimensional structure of reputation, this study further explores how altruistic punishment can improve punishers' fitness through positive reputation from a power perspective.
Experiment 1 was a within-participant design involving 120 undergraduates. Participants randomly formed 30 groups of 4 to play 5 rounds of public goods games. After each round, participants could punish defectors who chose to keep the tokens. Then, the experimenter presented to participants the number of punishments made by the three members. Participants rated them in terms of warmth and competence on a 7-point Likert scale and allocated the 10 power points among them. Experiment 2 was a 2 (warmth: low/high) × 2 (competence: low/high) between-participant design involving 240 undergraduates. Participants read a piece of material describing the performance of an individual in terms of warmth and competence in past similar situations, and then participants chose a number from 0 to 10 to represent the number of power points that they were willing to allocate to that individual. Experiment 3 was a 3 (punishment: no/low/high) × 2 (between-group competition: without/with) mixed design, where punishment was within-participant variable and between-group competition was the between-participant variable. Participants played 5 rounds of public goods games in group of 4, and allocated power points among the members according to the number of punishments. In the between-group competition condition, before allocating power points, the experimenter told the participants that they would be ranked according to their group's performance in a new investment task, and that the higher the ranking, the higher the final reward; in non-competitive condition, the participants were told that their final remuneration was only related to their own performance in the investment task.
The results of Experiment 1 showed that altruistic punishment was conducive to punishers' power attainment, and the competence evaluation mediated the above relation, while the mediating effect of warmth evaluation was not significant. Experiment 2 manipulated the mediating variables (warmth and competence) in Experiment 1 and confirmed the causal relation between the competence evaluation and the dependent variable, power attainment. Experiment 3 showed that between-group competition further strengthened the participants' tendency to allocate power to altruistic punishers.
In conclusion, by examining the moderating variables and mediating mechanisms that affect the relation between altruistic punishment and power attainment, this study contributes, to some extent, the mechanism through which altruistic punishment affects punishers' power attainment. Altruistic punishment improves people's evaluation of punishers in terms of competence. This positive evaluation finally translates into punishers' power attainment, and the between-group competition strengthens the tendency of the occurrence of the above phenomenon. These findings shed some light on the understanding of the evolutionary mechanism of altruistic punishment.

Key words: altruistic punishment, power, reputation, between-group competition

摘要： 利他性惩罚者是如何在演化中得到选择的?三个实验表明：利他性惩罚有利于惩罚者获取权力。实验1和2在控制其他变量的情况下发现,被试倾向于将权力分配给做出利他性惩罚的个体,其心理机制可能是利他性惩罚提高了人们对惩罚者的能力评价。实验3的结果进一步显示,群体间竞争强化了上述现象。上述结果为理解利他性惩罚的演化机制提供了一种权力视角,并为理解人类社会中领袖的最初涌现这一问题提供了新的理论思路。

关键词: 利他性惩罚, 权力, 声誉, 群体间竞争

Chen Sijing, Wang Hao, Yang Shasha, Zhu Yue. Altruistic Punishment Favors the Power Attainment for Punishers: An Evolutionary Perspective[J]. Journal of Psychological Science, 2023, 46(4): 897-904.

陈思静, 汪昊, 杨莎莎, 朱玥. 利他性惩罚有利于惩罚者获取权力：一个演化的视角^*[J]. 心理科学, 2023, 46(4): 897-904.

References

[1] 陈思静, 徐烨超. (2020). “仁者”还是“智者”: 第三方惩罚对惩罚者声誉的影响. 心理学报, 52(12), 1436-1451.
[2] 陈思静, 杨莎莎. (2020). 利他性惩罚的动机. 心理科学进展, 28(11), 1901-1910.
[3] 陈思静, 朱玥. (2020). 惩罚的另一张面孔: 惩罚的负面作用及破坏性惩罚. 心理科学, 43(4), 911-917.
[4] 苗晓燕, 孙欣, 匡仪, 汪祚军. (2021). 共患难, 更同盟: 共同经历相同负性情绪事件促进合作行为. 心理学报, 53(1), 81-94.
[5] 温忠麟, 叶宝娟. (2014). 中介效应分析: 方法和模型发展. 心理科学进展, 22(5), 731-745.
[6] 谢东杰, 苏彦捷. (2019). 第三方惩罚的演化与认知机制. 心理科学, 42(1), 216-222.
[7] Anderson C., Sharps D. L., Soto C. J., & John O. P. (2020). People with disagreeable personalities (selfish, combative, and manipulative) do not have an advantage in pursuing power at work. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(37), 22780-22786.
[8] Baldassarri, D., & Grossman, G. (2011). Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(27), 11023-11027.
[9] Barclay, P. (2006). Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(5), 325-344.
[10] Barclay P.,& Kiyonari, T. (2014). Why sanction? Functional causes of punishment and reward. In P. A. M. van Lange, B. Rockenbach, & T. Yamagishi (Eds.), Reward and punishment in social dilemmas (pp. 182-196). Oxford University Press.
[11] Benard, S. (2012). Cohesion from conflict: Does intergroup conflict motivate intragroup norm enforcement and support for centralized leadership? Social Psychology Quarterly, 75(2), 107-130.
[12] Carpenter J., Bowles S., Gintis H., & Hwang S. H. (2009). Strong reciprocity and team production: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 71(2), 221-232.
[13] Doğan G., Glowacki L., & Rusch H. (2018). Spoils division rules shape aggression between natural groups. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(5), 322-326.
[14] Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137-140.
[15] Fiske S. T., Cuddy A. J. C., & Glick P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.
[16] Greer, L. L., & Chu, C. (2020). Power struggles: When and why the benefits of power for individuals paradoxically harm groups. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 162-166.
[17] Gross J., Méder Z. Z., Okamoto-Barth S., & Riedl A. (2016). Building the Leviathan-Voluntary centralisation of punishment power sustains cooperation in humans. Scientific Reports, 6, 20767.
[18] Hogan, R., & Sherman, R. A. (2020). Personality theory and the nature of human nature. Personality and Individual Differences, 152, 109561.
[19] Kervyn N., Fiske S. T., & Malone C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166-176.
[20] Kiyonari, T., & Barclay, P. (2008). Cooperation in social dilemmas: Free riding may be thwarted by second-order reward rather than by punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 826-842.
[21] Majolo, B., & Maréchal, L. (2017). Between-group competition elicits within-group cooperation in children. Scientific Reports, 7, 43277.
[22] Mathew, S. (2017). How the second-order free rider problem is solved in a small-scale society. American Economic Review, 107(5), 578-581.
[23] Nakamura, M. (2018). Rare third-party punishment promotes cooperation in risk-averse social learning dynamics. Frontiers in Physics, 6, 156.
[24] Niu H., Chen Y. Y., Ye H., Zhang H., Li Y., & Chen S. (2020). Distinguishing punishing costly signals from nonpunishing costly signals can facilitate the emergence of altruistic punishment. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 371, 124945.
[25] O'Gorman R., Henrich J., & van Vugt M. (2009). Constraining free riding in public goods games: Designated solitary punishers can sustain human cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1655), 323-329.
[26] Ozono H., Jin N., Watabe M., & Shimizu K. (2016). Solving the second-order free rider problem in a public goods game: An experiment using a leader support system. Scientific Reports, 6, 38349.
[27] Pietraszewski, D. (2020). The evolution of leadership: Leadership and followership as a solution to the problem of creating and executing successful coordination and cooperation enterprises. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(2), 101299.
[28] Pleasant, A., & Barclay, P. (2018). Why hate the good guy? Antisocial punishment of high cooperators is greater when people compete to be chosen. Psychological Science, 29(6), 868-876.
[29] Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1977). Who gets power-and how they hold on to it: A strategic-contingency model of power. Organizational Dynamics, 5(3), 3-21.
[30] Santos M. D., Rankin D. J., & Wedekind C. (2011). The evolution of punishment through reputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1704), 371-377.
[31] Shank D. B., Kashima Y., Peters K., Li Y., Robins G., & Kirley M. (2019). Norm talk and human cooperation: Can we talk ourselves into cooperation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(1), 99-123.
[32] Strimling P.,& Eriksson, K. (2014). Regulating the regulation: Norms about punishment In P A M van Lange, B Rockenbach, & T Yamagishi (Eds), Reward and punishment in social dilemmas (pp 52-69) Oxford University Press Norms about punishment. In P. A. M. van Lange, B. Rockenbach, & T. Yamagishi (Eds.), Reward and punishment in social dilemmas (pp. 52-69). Oxford University Press.
[33] Torelli C. J., Leslie L. M., To C., & Kim S. (2020). Power and status across cultures. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 12-17.
[34] van Dijk E., de Dreu C. K., & Gross J. (2020). Power in economic games. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 100-104.
[35] Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 23-43.
[36] Wu J. H., Balliet D., & van Lange, P. A. M. (2016). Reputation, gossip, and human cooperation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(6), 350-364.
[37] Yang C. L., Zhang B. Y., Charness G., Li C., & Lien J. W. (2018). Endogenous rewards promote cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(40), 9968-9973.