Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2022-07-06
Abstract：
Altruistic punishment means that people privately bear the cost to punish norm violators, although the punishment yields no material gain. The positive effects of altruistic punishment on cooperation and norm maintenance are well documented and the possible mechanisms underlying these effects have also been widely tested. However, an important issue remains underexplored: Does people’s social background influence their altruistic punitive behavior? If yes, how? This article uses four studies to test the relationship between altruistic punishment and social class, the psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship, as well as the boundary conditions.
Study 1 used the Chinese general social survey (2013) released by the National Survey Research Center at Renmin University of China to examine the relationship between altruistic punishment and social class. We selected two items as the dependent variables of Study 1 (D13: employees reported environmental pollution at their own cost; D23: employees retaliated against their foreign boss who insulted China). After screening the samples, a total of 4921 (for D13) and 4864 (for D23) valid data were obtained, respectively. Study 2 was a real-life event-based survey with 450 participants. In Study 2, we further investigated the relationship between social class and altruistic punishment under two forms (direct vs. indirect punishment). Study 3 was a 2 (social class: low/high) × 2 (punishment cost: low/high) between-participants design, and the main purpose was to demonstrate that punishment cost may play a moderating role in the process of how social class affects altruistic punishment. Based on the survey data, Study 4 proposed a conditional process model with belief in a just world as a mediating variable and punishment cost as a moderator variable, hereby providing a relatively complete explanatory framework for the impact of social class on altruistic punishment.
Study 1 showed that after controlling for educational level and annual income, participants’ subjective social class could significantly positively predict their altruistic punishment. Study 2 demonstrated that the above results hold in direct punishment, but not in indirect punishment. The results of Study 3 showed that when the punishment cost increases, punitive behavior decreases overall, but the downward trend is more pronounced for lower-class participants. The results of Study 4 further demonstrated that social class affects altruistic punishment indirectly mainly through belief in a just world when punishment cost is low, whereas social class directly affects altruistic punishment when punishment cost is high.
To sum up, we have found evidence that high social class (vs. low social class) individuals are more willing to engage in altruistic punishment in economic games and real-life contexts, implying that in an increasingly stratified modern society, people’s social background should not be ignored in the research of altruistic punishment. In addition, the results of this article also prove that on the one hand, altruistic punishment is at least partly a non-strategic sanction, because one force that drives people to punish is to protect their just belief, and on the other hand cost-benefit based considerations are not completely absent in altruistic punishment.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2021-11-24
Abstract： Punishment decisions might be guided by the norm of punishment, that is, people will implement their own punishment according to perceived prevalence of punishment in a similar social midst. However, there may be differences between an individual’s perception of norms and actual norms, which is called normative misperception. This article uses four experiments to explore the existence, the direction, and the cause of the normative misperception in third-party punishment, as well as its influence on people’s own punitive behaviors. In Experiment 1, 449 participants were randomized in a four group factorial design (punishing before estimating, estimating before punishing, punishing only, and estimating only). Experiment 1 consisted of 6 rounds of dictator game, in which participants made punishment decisions for 6 offers and/or estimated the average punishment level of other participants in each offer. Experiment 2 aimed to establish the causal relationship between the normative misperception and the punishment by directly manipulating the normative misperception. Specifically, 134 participants were randomly divided into the overestimation group and underestimation group. After receiving the feedback, participants made punishment decision for an unfair offer and estimated the level of punishment of others in this offer. The purpose of Experiment 3 was to test the model of belief in a just world (BJW)-normative misperception-punishment, as well as the moderating effect of perceived social distance (PSD), with a within-participants design involving 164 participants. The procedure was similar to that of Experiment 1, except that we measured participants’ BJW and PSD before and after the game, respectively. In Experiment 4, we manipulated participants’ BJW through reading materials to test the causal relationship between BJW and the normative misperception. The results of Experiment 1 showed that there is an underestimated normative misperception in third-party punishment, which leads to a lower level of punishment. Experiment 2 proved that there exists a causal relationship between the normative misperception and punishment by directly manipulating the independent variables. Experiment 3 demonstrated that BJW might be an underlying cause of the normative misperception, while PSD moderates the effect of BJW on the normative misperception. Finally, Experiment 4 showed the causal relationship between BJW and the normative misperception, providing additional evidence to the results of Experiment 3. To sum up, we have found evidence of normative misperception in third-party punishment through 4 experiments. This underestimated misperception might be affected by dual reference points: BJW (internal) and PSD (external). It also shows to a certain extent that third-party punishment is a norm-maintaining behavior rather than a gain-based strategic behavior. "
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment