Do humans really punish altruistically? A closer look.

Eric J. Pedersen, Robert Kurzban, Michael McCullough

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Some researchers have proposed that natural selection has given rise in humans to one or more adaptations for altruistically punishing on behalf of other individuals who have been treated unfairly, even when the punisher has no chance of benefiting via reciprocity or benefits to kin. However, empirical support for the altruistic punishment hypothesis depends on results from experiments that are vulnerable to potentially important experimental artefacts. Here, we searched for evidence of altruistic punishment in an experiment that precluded these artefacts. In so doing, we found that victims of unfairness punished transgressors, whereas witnesses of unfairness did not. Furthermore, witnesses' emotional reactions to unfairness were characterized by envy of the unfair individual's selfish gains rather than by moralistic anger towards the unfair behaviour. In a second experiment run independently in two separate samples, we found that previous evidence for altruistic punishment plausibly resulted from affective forecasting error-that is, limitations on humans' abilities to accurately simulate how they would feel in hypothetical situations. Together, these findings suggest that the case for altruistic punishment in humans-a view that has gained increasing attention in the biological and social sciences-has been overstated.

Original languageEnglish
JournalProceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society
Volume280
Issue number1758
DOIs
StatePublished - May 7 2013

Fingerprint

Punishment
artifact
Artifacts
social sciences
reciprocity
Social sciences
experiment
Experiments
natural selection
Aptitude
Biological Science Disciplines
Social Sciences
Genetic Selection
Anger
researchers
Biological Sciences
Research Personnel
sampling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Do humans really punish altruistically? A closer look. / Pedersen, Eric J.; Kurzban, Robert; McCullough, Michael.

In: Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, Vol. 280, No. 1758, 07.05.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{faaef988d44b4220911e8d9b845e6eb3,
title = "Do humans really punish altruistically? A closer look.",
abstract = "Some researchers have proposed that natural selection has given rise in humans to one or more adaptations for altruistically punishing on behalf of other individuals who have been treated unfairly, even when the punisher has no chance of benefiting via reciprocity or benefits to kin. However, empirical support for the altruistic punishment hypothesis depends on results from experiments that are vulnerable to potentially important experimental artefacts. Here, we searched for evidence of altruistic punishment in an experiment that precluded these artefacts. In so doing, we found that victims of unfairness punished transgressors, whereas witnesses of unfairness did not. Furthermore, witnesses' emotional reactions to unfairness were characterized by envy of the unfair individual's selfish gains rather than by moralistic anger towards the unfair behaviour. In a second experiment run independently in two separate samples, we found that previous evidence for altruistic punishment plausibly resulted from affective forecasting error-that is, limitations on humans' abilities to accurately simulate how they would feel in hypothetical situations. Together, these findings suggest that the case for altruistic punishment in humans-a view that has gained increasing attention in the biological and social sciences-has been overstated.",
author = "Pedersen, {Eric J.} and Robert Kurzban and Michael McCullough",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1098/rspb.2012.2723",
language = "English",
volume = "280",
journal = "Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences",
issn = "0800-4622",
publisher = "Royal Society of London",
number = "1758",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do humans really punish altruistically? A closer look.

AU - Pedersen, Eric J.

AU - Kurzban, Robert

AU - McCullough, Michael

PY - 2013/5/7

Y1 - 2013/5/7

N2 - Some researchers have proposed that natural selection has given rise in humans to one or more adaptations for altruistically punishing on behalf of other individuals who have been treated unfairly, even when the punisher has no chance of benefiting via reciprocity or benefits to kin. However, empirical support for the altruistic punishment hypothesis depends on results from experiments that are vulnerable to potentially important experimental artefacts. Here, we searched for evidence of altruistic punishment in an experiment that precluded these artefacts. In so doing, we found that victims of unfairness punished transgressors, whereas witnesses of unfairness did not. Furthermore, witnesses' emotional reactions to unfairness were characterized by envy of the unfair individual's selfish gains rather than by moralistic anger towards the unfair behaviour. In a second experiment run independently in two separate samples, we found that previous evidence for altruistic punishment plausibly resulted from affective forecasting error-that is, limitations on humans' abilities to accurately simulate how they would feel in hypothetical situations. Together, these findings suggest that the case for altruistic punishment in humans-a view that has gained increasing attention in the biological and social sciences-has been overstated.

AB - Some researchers have proposed that natural selection has given rise in humans to one or more adaptations for altruistically punishing on behalf of other individuals who have been treated unfairly, even when the punisher has no chance of benefiting via reciprocity or benefits to kin. However, empirical support for the altruistic punishment hypothesis depends on results from experiments that are vulnerable to potentially important experimental artefacts. Here, we searched for evidence of altruistic punishment in an experiment that precluded these artefacts. In so doing, we found that victims of unfairness punished transgressors, whereas witnesses of unfairness did not. Furthermore, witnesses' emotional reactions to unfairness were characterized by envy of the unfair individual's selfish gains rather than by moralistic anger towards the unfair behaviour. In a second experiment run independently in two separate samples, we found that previous evidence for altruistic punishment plausibly resulted from affective forecasting error-that is, limitations on humans' abilities to accurately simulate how they would feel in hypothetical situations. Together, these findings suggest that the case for altruistic punishment in humans-a view that has gained increasing attention in the biological and social sciences-has been overstated.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883024374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84883024374&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1098/rspb.2012.2723

DO - 10.1098/rspb.2012.2723

M3 - Article

C2 - 23466983

AN - SCOPUS:84874784683

VL - 280

JO - Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

JF - Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

SN - 0800-4622

IS - 1758

ER -