Evolutionary theories suggest that retributive sentiments evolved to deter antisocial behavior, yet psychological evidence shows punitive sentiments imperfectly optimize deterrence. Recent theories resolve this paradox, suggesting that retributive sentiments serve to restore mutual benefit between partners by both compensating the victim and imposing an additional deterrent cost on the transgressor. In four experiments, we tested predictions of this hypothesis with adults from a small-scale, politically decentralized society (Mentawai horticulturalists, Indonesia; N = 74) and a large-scale society (the United States; N = 600). Consistent with compensatory concerns, participants demanded that victims be rewarded in the currency of their loss and that more severe punishment be imposed when victims suffered more, holding aggressor benefit constant. Consistent with compensation being entangled with deterrence, participants endorsed additional penalties beyond restitution that were higher for recidivism and intentional offenses. This proximate entanglement of compensation and deterrence helps resolve apparent contradictions about the function of punishment in humans.
BarrettH. C.BolyanatzA.CrittendenA. N.FesslerD. M. T.FitzpatrickS.GurvenM.HenrichJ.KanovskyM.KushnickG.PisorA.ScelzaB. A.StichS.Von RuedenC.ZhaoW.LaurenceS. (2016). Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variation in the role of intentions in moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17), 4688–4693. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522070113
3.
BaumardN. (2012). The restorative logic of punishment: Another argument in favor of weak selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(1), 17–18.
4.
BlackD. J. (1993). The social structure of right and wrong. Academic Press.
5.
BoydR. (2018). A different kind of animal: How culture transformed our species. Princeton University Press.
6.
CarlsmithK. M. (2008). On justifying punishment: The discrepancy between words and actions. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0068-x
7.
CarlsmithK. M.DarleyJ. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 193–236). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00004-4
8.
CurtinC. M.BarrettH. C.BolyanatzA.CrittendenA. N.FesslerD. M. T.FitzpatrickS.GurvenM.KanovskyM.KushnickG.LaurenceS.PisorA.ScelzaB.StichS.Von RuedenC.HenrichJ. (2020). Kinship intensity and the use of mental states in moral judgment across societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(5), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.002
9.
CushmanF. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108(2), 353–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.006
10.
DeutchmanP.BracˇicˇM.RaihaniN.McAuliffeK. (2021). Punishment is strongly motivated by revenge and weakly motivated by inequity aversion. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.06.001
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
12.
FesslerD. M. T.BarrettH. C.KanovskyM.StichS.HolbrookC.HenrichJ.BolyanatzA. H.GervaisM. M.GurvenM.KushnickG.PisorA. C.von RuedenC.LaurenceS. (2015). Moral parochialism and contextual contingency across seven societies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1813), Article 20150907. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0907
13.
FitouchiL.AndréJ.-B.BaumardN. (2024). Are there really so many moral emotions? Carving morality at its functional joints. In Al-ShawafL.ShackelfordT. K. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolution and the emotions (p. 944–967). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197544754.013.35
14.
FitouchiL.SinghM. (2023). Punitive justice serves to restore reciprocal cooperation in three small-scale societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(5), 502–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2023.03.001
15.
GardnerA.WestS. A. (2004). Cooperation and punishment, especially in humans. The American Naturalist, 164(6), 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1086/425623
16.
KramsI.KokkoH.VrublevskaJ.A-bolin,š-A-bolsM.KramaT.RantalaM. J. (2013). The excuse principle can maintain cooperation through forgivable defection in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280(1766), Article 20131475. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.1475
17.
LevineS.ChaterN.TenenbaumJ. B.CushmanF. (2024). Resource-rational contractualism: A triple theory of moral cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X24001067
18.
McCulloughM. E.KurzbanR.TabakB. A. (2013). Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002160
MolhoC.TwardawskiM.FanL. (2022). What motivates direct and indirect punishment?: Extending the “intuitive retributivism” hypothesis. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 230(2), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000455
21.
PersoonG. (1987). Two civil servants leaving the Island of Siberut (Mentawi Archipelago, Indonesia). In de RidderR.KarremansJ. A. J. (Eds.), The Leiden tradition in structural anthropology: Essays in honour of P. E. de Josselin de Jong (p. 140). E. J. Brill, Leiden.
22.
PetersenM. B.SellA.ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2012). To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intuitions about modern criminal justice. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 682–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.05.003
23.
PriceM. E.CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (2002). Punitive sentiment as an anti-free rider psychological device. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00093-9
24.
RichardsonJ. (1940). Law and status among the Kiowa Indians (Vol. 1). University of Washington Press.
25.
SarinA.CushmanF. (2024). Once thought too few: An adaptive rationale for punishing negligence. Psychological Review, 131(3), 812.
SellA.ToobyJ.CosmidesL. (2009). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(35), 15073–15078. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0904312106
28.
SinghM.GarfieldZ. H. (2022). Evidence for third-party mediation but not punishment in Mentawai justice. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(7), 930–940. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01341-7
29.
SinghM.KaptchukT. J.HenrichJ. (2021). Small gods, rituals, and cooperation: The Mentawai water spirit Sikameinan. Evolution and Human Behavior, 42(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.008
30.
SolomonJ. M. (2010). What is civil justice. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 44, 317–337.
SznycerD.SellA.WilliamsK. E. G. (2023). Justice-making institutions and the ancestral logic of conflict. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(3), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2022.12.003
33.
TuliusJ. (2012). Family stories: Oral tradition, memories of the past, and contemporary conflicts over land in Metawai- Indonesia [Leiden University]. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/20262
34.
TwardawskiM.GollwitzerM.PohlS.BošnjakM. (2022). What drives second- and third-party punishment?Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 230(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000454
35.
Von RuedenC. R.GurvenM. (2012). When the strong punish: Why net costs of punishment are often negligible. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(1), 43–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11001427
36.
WiessnerP. (2020). The role of third parties in norm enforcement in customary courts among the Enga of Papua New Guinea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(51), 32320–32328. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2014759117
37.
YoungL.CushmanF.HauserM.SaxeR. (2007). The neural basis of the interaction between theory of mind and moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(20), 8235–8240. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701408104
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.
