Altruistic Punishment in Humans

Basic questions posed

The main question that the authors sought to find answers to is why people involve themselves in punishing others in a group, yet there are minimal chances of gaining from executing the punishment. Cooperation among people in a team is promoted by altruistic punishment; that is, punishment where the punisher does the act of punishing without expecting any reward, or when the gains are minimal. The authors of this study sought to prove, by the use of experiments, that punishing defectors without expecting any favor fosters cooperation among human groupings. The authors wanted to prove that while selfless punishment fosters cooperation, a lack of altruistic punishment breaks down cooperation in groups. The authors were also able to explain the reason behind the cooperation that is fostered by altruistic punishment. The researchers explained that negative emotions that other group members express toward defectors explain how altruistic punishment works.

Key concepts/Main hypothesis

The main argument is that the question of “second-order public good” can be addressed by applying altruistic punishment on people who free ride. In this case, second-order public good means incurring a cost to see that the entire group benefits from the cooperation of everyone, yet one does not benefit from taking the action of making others unite. The authors wanted to find out whether humans engage in punishing others without expecting any gains and how this influences the probability of realizing and fostering cooperation.

Purpose of the study

This study was based on an experiment, thus it was exploratory and evaluative in nature.¹ The authors sought to explore the effects of punishing individuals on group cooperation. The authors also sought to evaluate whether cooperation results from altruistic punishment or expected gains in the end.

Appropriateness of the theoretical approach

The theoretical perspective that the authors used in this study were appropriate for addressing the research question.² The authors explored past theories that have been used to study human cooperation. They also relied on past knowledge to identify deficiencies in research. The researchers reviewed the theory of kin selection, the theory of reciprocity, the theory of costly signaling, and the theory of indirect reciprocity.³ The authors found out that these theories lack in explaining why humans engage in altruistic punishment.

Literature review

The theoretical perspective taken by the authors was the most suitable for this study. Important studies omitted

Although the authors of this study used a lot of sources in the entire study, they did not conduct an explicit literature review. There was no specific section set as a literature review section to review past studies. Generally, the authors just mentioned the theories of human behavior that have been studied before without delving deeper into the findings of these theories.

Research design suitability

There are no important studies that the researchers omitted that I know of. Most of the studies on altruistic punishment in explaining human behavior were conducted later after this study.⁴ Thus, Fehr and Catcher⁵ can be said to be among pioneers in the understanding of human cooperation from an altruistic punishment point of view.

Fundamentals of the study

The research design adopted for this study was suitable for addressing the research question given that this was an experimental study.⁶ Although the authors did not specify their sampling method, they indicated that they selected participants from different disciplines to increase the chances of blinding.⁷ This was a necessary procedure in eliminating bias that emanates from prior knowledge about the study objectives among participants.⁸ The researchers also maintained anonymity among participants by ensuring that chances of the same subjects meeting in two different games were minimal. Categorizing the games into a category that had a punishment opportunity and another one that had no punishment opportunity further controlled bias since the no-punishment opportunity category acted as a control set up. All of the above steps were important in ensuring that all actions done by participants were altruistic and not motivated by any reward, being related, or being friends with any of the other participants. This helped in addressing the question of why people engage in altruistic punishment even when they know that punishing the defaulters would be costly.

Ethical issues

The study was scientific in nature since it contained all the fundamentals that make a scientific study. To begin with, the study recognized an existing research gap and it was seeking to fill this gap. To be specific, the study sought to understand whether individuals engage in altruistic punishment when sharing public goods and why people engage in altruistic punishment. Moreover, the study employed a theoretical perspective in an effort to explore the research question further. The approach taken in this study is systematic in that the article has most of the sections that make up a scientific study, including an abstract, introduction, literature review, methodology, data analysis, results, and discussion sections⁹. However, these sections are not clearly demarcated.

Trade-offs between ethical guidelines

Despite the researchers using human subjects for this study, they do not indicate that the study was approved by an ethics committee. Studies that involve human subjects should seek the approval of ethics committees before commencement.¹⁰ It is, however, important to note that the authors sought the consent of the participants since they indicate that all the subjects participated in the study voluntarily.

Balance in ethical standards and most rigorous scientific practices

The researchers traded-off the approval by an ethical committee by asking the participants to participate out of their own consent. It is possible that the researchers wanted to appear ethical by seeking consent from researchers and forego the necessity of an ethical committee’s approval.

Key findings

The study design employed in this study was able to make sure that scientific practices were applied rigorously without flouting ethical standards. All the experiments were conducted without trying to manipulate the results given that the study required blinding in all the tests.

This study discovered that strong negative emotions motivate altruistic punishment. The highest contributors in public goods tend to execute most of the punishment acts imposed on the lowest contributors. When a member of a group becomes a free rider, he is likely to receive a lot of punishment from the other members of the group. Members punish individuals who evoke negative emotions in a group almost immediately and they find the action justifiable. In other words, emotions can be used to explain the motive behind altruistic punishment. The authors proved that altruistic punishment fosters human cooperation even when individuals are not related.

Dependent and independent variables

Altruistic punishment is the independent variable, while cooperation is the dependent variable. In this regard, cooperation among individuals who are involved in the public good and are not related in any way can be explained by altruistic punishment.¹¹ When examining negative emotions and altruistic punishment, negative emotions can be considered as the independent variable and altruistic punishment is the dependent variable.

Bibliography

Babbie, Earl. R. The Basics of Social Research, 4e. Belmont: Thomson Higer Education, 2008.

Cauffriez, Laurent, P. Loslever, N. Caouder, F. Turgis, and R. Copin. “Robustness Study and Reliability Growth Based on Exploratory Design of Experiments and Statistical Analysis: a Case Study Using a Train Door Test Bench.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 66, no. 1-4 (2013): 27-44.

Fehr, Ernst and Gachter Simon. “Altruistic Punishment in Humans.” Nature 415, no. 10(2002): 137-140.

Freeman, Scott R, Kristy Lundahl, Lisa M Schilling, J Daniel Jensen, and Robert P Dellavalle.”Human Research Review Committee Requirements in Medical Journals.” Clinical and Investigative Medicine. Médecine Clinique Et Experimentale 31, no. 1: (2008): 49-54.

Gintis, Herbert, Bowles Samuel, Boyd Robert and Fehr Ernst. “Explaining Altruistic Behavior in Humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 24, no. 3(2003): 153-172.

Hon, Gloria, Schickore, Jutta, and Steinle, Friedrich (eds). Going Amiss in Experimental Research. New York: Springer, 2008

Jamadar, Chandrakant. Scientific Research: Characteristics, Types and Methods. Web.

Maxwell, Joseph A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, second edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., 2005.

Norenzayan, Ara. “Explaining Human Behavioral Diversity.” Science 332, no. 6033(2011): 1041-1042.

Peat, Jeniffer, Mellis Craig, and Williams Katrina. Health Science Research: A Handbook of Quantitative Methods. Crow’s Nest NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2002.

Walliman, Nicholas. Social Research Methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006.

Footnotes

1. Laurent, Cauffriez, P. Loslever, N. Clouder, F. Turgis, and R. Copin, “Robustness study and reliability growth based on exploratory design of experiments and statistical analysis: a case study using a train door test bench.” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 66, no. 1-4 (2013): 29.
2. Nicholas, Walliman, Social Research Methods, (London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006) 32.
3. Ara, Norenzayan, “Explaining Human Behavioral Diversity.” Science 332, no. 6033(2011): 1042.
4. Herbert, Gintis, Bowles Samuel, Boyd Robert, and Fehr Ernst, “Explaining Altruistic Behavior in Humans. Evolution and Human Behavior 24, no. 3(2003): 153.
5. Ernst, Fehr and Gachter Simon, “Altruistic Punishment in Humans,” Nature 415, no. 10(2002): 137.
6. Gloria, Hon, Schickore, Jutta, and Steinle, Friedrich (eds), Going Amiss in Experimental Research, (New York: Springer, 2008) 4.
7. Jeniffer, Peat, Mellis Craig, and Williams Katrina, Health Science Research: A Handbook of Quantitative Methods, (Crows Nest NSW: Allen & Unwin, 2002), 79.
8. Joseph Maxwell, A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, second edition, (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc, 2005) 108.
9. Chandrakant, Jamadar, Scientific Research: Characteristics, Types, and Methods. Web.
10. Scott, Freeman, R, Kristy Lundahl, Lisa M Schilling, J Daniel Jensen, and Robert P Dellavalle, “Human Research Review Committee Requirements in Medical Journals.” Clinical and Investigative Medicine. Médecine Clinique Et Experimentale 31, no. 1: (2008): 50.
11. Earl, Babbie, R, The Basics of Social Research, 4e, (Belmont: Thomson Higher Education, 2008) 247.