IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/theord/v85y2018i3d10.1007_s11238-018-9665-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An exploration of third parties’ preference for compensation over punishment: six experimental demonstrations

Author

Listed:
  • Janne Doorn

    (Leiden University)

  • Marcel Zeelenberg

    (Tilburg University
    VU Amsterdam)

  • Seger M. Breugelmans

    (Tilburg University)

Abstract

Research suggests that to restore equity, third parties prefer compensation of a victim over the punishment of a perpetrator. It remains unclear, however, whether this preference for compensation is stable or specific to certain situations. In six experimental studies, we find that adjustments in the characteristics of the situation or in the available behavioral options hardly modify the preference of compensation over punishment. This preference for compensation was found even in cases where punishment might refrain a perpetrator from acting unfairly again in the future, and even when punishment has a greater impact in restoring equity than compensation does. Thus, the preference of compensation over punishment appears to be quite robust. Implications and ideas for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Janne Doorn & Marcel Zeelenberg & Seger M. Breugelmans, 2018. "An exploration of third parties’ preference for compensation over punishment: six experimental demonstrations," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 333-351, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:85:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-018-9665-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s11238-018-9665-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11238-018-9665-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11238-018-9665-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Third Party Punishment and Social Norms," IEW - Working Papers 106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Leunissen, Joost M., 2014. "How many pennies for your pain? Willingness to compensate as a function of expected future interaction and intentionality feedback," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 105-113.
    3. Turillo, Carmelo Joseph & Folger, Robert & Lavelle, James J. & Umphress, Elizabeth E. & Gee, Julie O., 2002. "Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 839-865, September.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:7:p:543-553 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    7. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Cremer, David De & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 75-86, March.
    8. Chavez, Alex K. & Bicchieri, Cristina, 2013. "Third-party sanctioning and compensation behavior: Findings from the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 268-277.
    9. Zhang, Le & Ortmann, Andreas, 2016. "Pro-social or anti-social, or both? A within- and between-subjects study of social preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 23-32.
    10. Leibbrandt, Andreas & López-Pérez, Raúl, 2012. "An exploration of third and second party punishment in ten simple games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 753-766.
    11. Haesevoets, Tessa & Van Hiel, Alain & Reinders Folmer, Chris & De Cremer, David, 2014. "What money can’t buy: The psychology of financial overcompensation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 83-95.
    12. Oriel FeldmanHall & Peter Sokol-Hessner & Jay J. Van Bavel & Elizabeth A. Phelps, 2014. "Fairness violations elicit greater punishment on behalf of another than for oneself," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-6, December.
    13. Rand, David Gertler & Dreber, Anna & Fudenberg, Drew & Ellingson, Tore & Nowak, Martin A., 2009. "Positive Interactions Promote Public Cooperation," Scholarly Articles 3804483, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:411-419 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Lotz, Sebastian & Schlösser, Thomas & Cain, Daylian M. & Fetchenhauer, Detlef, 2013. "The (in)stability of social preferences: Using justice sensitivity to predict when altruism collapses," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 141-148.
    16. Janne Doorn & Marcel Zeelenberg & Seger M. Breugelmans & Sebastian Berger & Tyler G. Okimoto, 2018. "Prosocial consequences of third-party anger," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 585-599, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bicchieri, Cristina & Maras, Marta, 2022. "Intentionality matters for third-party punishment but not compensation in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 205-220.
    2. Dhaliwal, Nathan A. & Patil, Indrajeet & Cushman, Fiery, 2021. "Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 27-51.
    3. Stiegert, Peer & Täuber, Susanne & Leliveld, Marijke C. & Oehmichen, Jana, 2021. "The stereotype rub-off effect – Organizational stereotypes modulate behavioural expectations, expectancy violation and punishment after transgressions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 127-138.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bicchieri, Cristina & Maras, Marta, 2022. "Intentionality matters for third-party punishment but not compensation in trust games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 205-220.
    2. Tan, Fangfang & Xiao, Erte, 2018. "Third-party punishment: Retribution or deterrence?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 34-46.
    3. Tobias Hahn & Noël Albert, 2017. "Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 509-524, October.
    4. Jeff Galak & Rosalind M Chow, 2019. "Compensate a little, but punish a lot: Asymmetric routes to restoring justice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-27, January.
    5. Jeffrey P. Carpenter & Peter Hans Matthews, 2012. "Norm Enforcement: Anger, Indignation, Or Reciprocity?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(3), pages 555-572, May.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Third Party Punishment and Social Norms," IEW - Working Papers 106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Hoeft, Leonard & Mill, Wladislaw, 2024. "Abuse of power," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 305-324.
    8. Engel, Christoph & Zamir, Eyal, 2024. "Is transparency a blessing or a curse? An experimental horse race between accountability and extortionary corruption," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. Kriss, Peter H. & Weber, Roberto A. & Xiao, Erte, 2016. "Turning a blind eye, but not the other cheek: On the robustness of costly punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 159-177.
    10. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2004. "Social norms and human cooperation," Macroeconomics 0409026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Dhaliwal, Nathan A. & Patil, Indrajeet & Cushman, Fiery, 2021. "Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 27-51.
    12. Whitson, Jennifer A. & Wang, Cynthia S. & See, Ya Hui Michelle & Baker, Wayne E. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2015. "How, when, and why recipients and observers reward good deeds and punish bad deeds," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 84-95.
    13. Christoph Engel, 2016. "Experimental Criminal Law. A Survey of Contributions from Law, Economics and Criminology," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2016_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    14. Chavez, Alex K. & Bicchieri, Cristina, 2013. "Third-party sanctioning and compensation behavior: Findings from the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 268-277.
    15. Pieter T. M. Desmet & Franziska Weber, 2022. "Infringers’ willingness to pay compensation versus fines," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 63-80, February.
    16. Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet & Marion Fortin & Miguel-Angel Canela, 2014. "Righting the Wrong for Third Parties: How Monetary Compensation, Procedure Changes and Apologies Can Restore Justice for Observers of Injustice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 122(2), pages 253-268, June.
    17. Yin Wu & Jie Hu & Eric van Dijk & Marijke C Leliveld & Xiaolin Zhou, 2012. "Brain Activity in Fairness Consideration during Asset Distribution: Does the Initial Ownership Play a Role?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-9, June.
    18. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    19. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2013. "Non-Strategic Punishment when Monitoring is Costly: Experimental Evidence on Differences between Second and Third Party Behavior," Working Papers 0545, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    20. Molenmaker, Welmer E. & de Kwaadsteniet, Erik W. & van Dijk, Eric, 2014. "On the willingness to costly reward cooperation and punish non-cooperation: The moderating role of type of social dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 175-183.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:85:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11238-018-9665-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.