IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0125193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

To Punish or to Leave: Distinct Cognitive Processes Underlie Partner Control and Partner Choice Behaviors

Author

Listed:
  • Justin W Martin
  • Fiery Cushman

Abstract

When a cooperative partner defects, at least two types of response are available: Punishment, aimed at modifying behavior, and ostracism, aimed at avoiding further social interaction with the partner. These options, termed partner control and partner choice, have been distinguished at behavioral and evolutionary levels. However, little work has compared their cognitive bases. Do these disparate behaviors depend on common processes of moral evaluation? Specifically, we assess whether they show identical patterns of dependence on two key dimensions of moral evaluation: A person’s intentions, and the outcomes that they cause. We address this issue in a “trembling hand” economic game. In this game, an allocator divides a monetary stake between themselves and a responder based on a stochastic mechanism. This allows for dissociations between the allocator’s intent and the actual outcome. Responders were either given the opportunity to punish or reward the allocator (partner control) or to switch to a different partner for a subsequent round of play (partner choice). Our results suggest that partner control and partner choice behaviors are supported by distinct underlying cognitive processes: Partner control exhibits greater sensitivity to the outcomes a partner causes, while partner choice is influenced almost exclusively by a partner’s intentions. This cognitive dissociation can be understood in light of the unique adaptive functions of partner control and partner choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Justin W Martin & Fiery Cushman, 2015. "To Punish or to Leave: Distinct Cognitive Processes Underlie Partner Control and Partner Choice Behaviors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125193
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125193
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125193&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0125193?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    4. Max M Krasnow & Leda Cosmides & Eric J Pedersen & John Tooby, 2012. "What Are Punishment and Reputation for?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-9, September.
    5. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    6. Dreber, Anna & Fudenberg, Drew & Rand, David G., 2014. "Who cooperates in repeated games: The role of altruism, inequity aversion, and demographics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 41-55.
    7. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Third Party Punishment and Social Norms," IEW - Working Papers 106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    8. Francesca Gino & Don A. Moore & Max H. Bazerman, 2008. "No harm, no foul: The outcome bias in ethical judgments," Harvard Business School Working Papers 08-080, Harvard Business School, revised Apr 2009.
    9. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2004. "Social norms and human cooperation," Macroeconomics 0409026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. David G. Rand & Alexander Peysakhovich & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & George E. Newman & Owen Wurzbacher & Martin A. Nowak & Joshua D. Greene, 2014. "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, May.
    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. Justin F. Landy & Pritika Shah, 2022. "What drives opposition to suicide? Two exploratory studies of normative judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 164-188, January.
    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. Tegenie, Yeshimebet Ayele & Sparrow, Robert & Bulte, Erwin & Bongers, Frans, 2024. "Exploring the impact of tenure arrangements and incentives on sustainable forest use: Evidence from a framed-field experiment in Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    4. Scott, Sydney E. & Landy, Justin F., 2023. "“Good people don’t need medication”: How moral character beliefs affect medical decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:164-188 is not listed on IDEAS

    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. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    2. Brownback, Andy & Kuhn, Michael A., 2019. "Understanding outcome bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 342-360.
    3. Valerio Capraro & Conor Smyth & Kalliopi Mylona & Graham A Niblo, 2014. "Benevolent Characteristics Promote Cooperative Behaviour among Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-6, August.
    4. Christian Thöni, 2014. "Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 529-545, April.
    5. Wang, Xinghua & Navarro-Martinez, Daniel, 2023. "Increasing the external validity of social preference games by reducing measurement error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 261-285.
    6. Bartoš, Vojtěch, 2021. "Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 303-316.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:5:p:1267-1289 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Fluet, Claude & Galbiati, Rpbertp, 2016. "Lois et normes : les enseignements de l'économie comportementale," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 191-215, Mars-Juin.
    9. Marianna Baggio & Luigi Mittone, 2016. "Experience and History: An Experimental Approach to Generational Heterogeneity," International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), IGI Global, vol. 5(4), pages 1-23, October.
    10. Rebekka Kesberg & Stefan Pfattheicher, 2019. "Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    11. Urs Steiner Brandt, 2008. "What can facilitate cooperation: Fairness, ineaulity aversion, punishment, norms or trust?," Working Papers 80/08, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:4:p:844-897 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Tobias Hahn & Noël Albert, 2017. "Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 509-524, October.
    14. Kausel, Edgar E. & Connolly, Terry, 2014. "Do people have accurate beliefs about the behavioral consequences of incidental emotions? Evidence from trust games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 96-111.
    15. Reuben, Ernesto & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Enforcement of contribution norms in public good games with heterogeneous populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 122-137.
    16. Zoe Van der Hoven & Martine Visser & Kerri Brick, 2012. "Contribution Norms in Heterogeneous Groups: A Climate Change Framing," SALDRU Working Papers 77, Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
    17. Bartuli, Jenny & Djawadi, Behnud Mir & Fahr, René, 2016. "Business Ethics in Organizations: An Experimental Examination of Whistleblowing and Personality," IZA Discussion Papers 10190, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Pilwon Kim, 2017. "Evolution of Cooperation through Power Law Distributed Conflicts," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2017, pages 1-7, January.
    19. Leibbrandt, Andreas & López-Pérez, Raúl, 2011. "Individual Heterogeneity in Punishment and Reward," Working Papers in Economic Theory 2011/01, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (Spain), Department of Economic Analysis (Economic Theory and Economic History).
    20. Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2015. "The geometry of distributional preferences and a non-parametric identification approach: The Equality Equivalence Test," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 85-103.
    21. Bergh, Andreas, 2008. "A critical note on the theory of inequity aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1789-1796, October.
    22. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2005. "Behavioral Public Economics: Welfare and Policy Analysis with Non-Standard Decision-Makers," NBER Working Papers 11518, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0125193. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.