When choosing social partners, people prefer good cooperators (all else being equal). Given this preference, people wishing to be chosen can either increase their own cooperation to become more desirable or suppress others’ cooperation to make them less desirable. Previous research shows that very cooperative people sometimes get punished (“antisocial punishment”) or criticized (“do-gooder derogation”) in many cultures. Here, we used a public-goods game with punishment to test whether antisocial punishment is used as a means of competing to be chosen by suppressing others’ cooperation. As predicted, there was more antisocial punishment when participants were competing to be chosen for a subsequent cooperative task (a trust game) than without a subsequent task. This difference in antisocial punishment cannot be explained by differences in contributions, moralistic punishment, or confusion. This suggests that antisocial punishment is a social strategy that low cooperators use to avoid looking bad when high cooperators escalate cooperation.
BallietD.MulderL.Van LangeP. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 594–615. doi:10.1037/a0023489
2.
BarclayP. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons.”Evolution & Human Behavior, 25, 209–220.
3.
BarclayP. (2006). Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evolution & Human Behavior, 27, 325–344.
4.
BarclayP. (2011). Competitive helping increases with the size of biological markets and invades defection. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 281, 47–55.
5.
BarclayP. (2012). Proximate and ultimate causes of strong reciprocity and punishment. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 35, 16–17.
6.
BarclayP. (2013). Strategies for cooperation in biological markets, especially for humans. Evolution & Human Behavior, 34, 164–175. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.02.002
7.
BarclayP. (2016). Biological markets and the effects of partner choice on cooperation and friendship. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 33–38. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.012
8.
BarclayP.MishraS.SparksA. M. (2018). Relative state creates individual differences in risk-taking. Manuscript submitted for publication.
9.
BarclayP.Van VugtM. (2015). The evolutionary psychology of human prosociality: Adaptations, mistakes, and byproducts. In SchroederD.GrazianoW. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of prosocial behavior (pp. 37–60). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
10.
BarclayP.WillerR. (2007). Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274, 749–753. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0209
11.
BarrA. (2001). Social dilemmas and shame-based sanctions: Experimental results from rural Zimbabwe (Working Paper WPS/2001-11). Oxford, England: Centre for the Study of African Economies.
12.
BoehmC. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
BussD. M.DeddenL. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 395–422.
DeltonA.NemirowJ.RobertsonT.CiminoA.CosmidesL. (2013). Merely opting out of a public good is moralized: An error management approach to cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 621–638. doi:10.1037/a0033495
16.
FatasE.MateuG. (2015). Antisocial punishment in two social dilemmas. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, Article 107. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00107
17.
FehrE.HoffK.KshetramadeM. (2008). Spite and development. The American Economic Review, 98, 494–499.
18.
FeinbergM.WillerR.SchultzM. (2014). Gossip and ostracism promote cooperation in groups. Psychological Science, 25, 656–664. doi:10.1177/0956797613510184
FliessbachK.WeberB.TrautnerP.DohmenT.SundueU.ElgerC. (2007). Social comparison affects reward-related brain activity in the human ventral striatum. Science, 318, 1305–1308.
21.
HenrichJ. (2004). Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53, 3–35. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00094-5
22.
HerrmannB.ThöniC.GächterS. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362–1367.
23.
KubӗnaA. A.HoudekP.LindováJ.PrˇíplatováL.FlegrJ. (2014). Justine effect: Punishment of the unduly self-sacrificing cooperative individuals. PLOS ONE, 9(3), Article e92336. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092336
24.
LuS.AuW.JiangF.XieX.YamP. (2013). Cooperativeness and competitiveness as two distinct constructs: Validating the Cooperative and Competitive Personality Scale in a social dilemma context. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 1135–1147. doi:10.1080/00207594.2012.743666
MishraS.BarclayP.SparksA. (2017). The relative state model: Integrating need-based and ability-based pathways to risk-taking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 176–198. doi:10.1177/1088868316644094
27.
MoninB. (2007). Holier than me? Threatening comparison in the moral domain. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 20, 53–68.
28.
NikiforakisN.NormannH. (2008). A comparative statics analysis of punishment in public good experiments. Experimental Economics, 11, 358–369. doi:10.1007/s10683-007-9171-3
29.
NoëR.HammersteinP. (1994). Biological markets: Supply and demand determine the effect of partner choice in cooperation, mutualism and mating. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 35, 1–11. doi:10.1007/BF00167053
ParksC.StoneA. (2010). The desire to expel selfish members from the group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 303–310. doi:10.1037/a0018403
32.
PredigerS.VollanB.HerrmannB. (2014). Resource scarcity and antisocial behavior. Journal of Public Economics, 119, 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.07.007
33.
RaihaniN. J. (2014). Hidden altruism in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 10(1), Article 20130884. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2013.0884
34.
RaihaniN. J.SmithS. (2015). Competitive helping in online giving. Current Biology, 25, 1183–1186. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2015.02.042
35.
RandD. G.NowakM. A. (2011). The evolution of antisocial punishment in optional public goods games. Nature Communications, 2, Article 434. doi:10.1038/ncomms1442
36.
RobertsG. (1998). Competitive altruism: From reciprocity to the handicap principle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265, 427–431.
37.
Scott-PhillipsT. C.DickinsT. E.WestS. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the ultimate-proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 38–47.
38.
SylwesterK.HerrmannB.BrysonJ. J. (2013). Homo homini lupus? Explaining antisocial punishment. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 6, 167–188. doi:10.1037/npe0000009
39.
SylwesterK.RobertsG. (2010). Cooperators benefit through reputation-based partner choice in economic games. Biology Letters, 6, 659–662. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2010.0209
40.
TinbergenN. (1968). On war and peace in animals and man. Science, 160, 1411–1418.
41.
Van DijkE.MolenmakerW.KwaadstenietE. (2015). Promoting cooperation in social dilemmas: The use of sanctions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 118–122. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.006
42.
Voltaire. (1865). La bégueule. In Romans de Voltaire: Suivis de ses contes en vers [Novels of Voltaire: Followed by his tales in verse]. Paris, France: Garnier Frères. (Original work published 1772)
43.
XieX.YuY.ChenX.ChenX. P. (2006). The measurement of cooperative and competitive personality. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38, 116–125.
44.
ZahaviA.ZahaviA. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin’s puzzle. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
