Abstract:Why do individuals pay costs to punish selfish behavior, even as third-party observers? A large body of research suggests that reputation plays an important role in motivating such third-party punishment (TPP). Here we focus on a recently proposed reputation-based account (Jordan et al., 2016) that invokes costly signaling. This account proposed that “trustworthy type” individuals (who are incentivized to cooperate with others) typically experience lower costs of TPP, and thus that TPP can function as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Specifically, it was argued that some but not all individuals face incentives to cooperate, making them high-quality and trustworthy interaction partners; and, because the same mechanisms that incentivize cooperation also create benefits for using TPP to deter selfish behavior, these individuals are likely to experience reduced costs of punishing selfishness. Here, we extend this conceptual framework by providing a concrete, “from-the-ground-up” model demonstrating how this process could work in the context of repeated interactions incentivizing both cooperation and punishment. We show how individual differences in the probability of future interaction can create types that vary in whether they find cooperation payoff-maximizing (and thus make high-quality partners), as well as in their net costs of TPP – because a higher continuation probability increases the likelihood of receiving rewards from the victim of the punished transgression (thus offsetting the cost of punishing). We also provide a simple model of dispersal that demonstrates how types that vary in their continuation probabilities can stably coexist, because the payoff from remaining in one’s local environment (i.e. not dispersing) decreases with the number of others who stay. Together, this model demonstrates, from the group up, how TPP can serve as a costly signal of trustworthiness arising from exposure to repeated interactions.

On the fragility of third-party punishment: The context effect of a dominated risky investment option

Calculated Punishment

Third-Party Punishment as a Costly Signal of High Continuation Probabilities in Repeated Games

Empathy-based tolerance towards poor norm violators in third-party punishment

Render help or stand by? The effect of group size on third-party punishment and its neural mechanisms

Receivers' responses are integrated into costly third-party punishment in a way that interacts with the unfairness of allocations

Group environment promotes the third-party punishment for maintaining social fairness: evidence from ERPs and neural oscillations

The Promoting Effect of the Absence of Second-party's Punishment Power on Third-party Punishment in Maintaining Social Fairness Norms: An EEG Hyper-scanning Study

Punish the Perpetrator or Compensate the Victim? Gain vs. Loss Context Modulate Third-Party Altruistic Behaviors

How Intergroup Relation Moderates Group Bias in Third-Party Punishment

Third-Party Punishment or Compensation? It Depends on the Reputational Benefits

Rare Third-Party Punishment Promotes Cooperation in Risk-Averse Social Learning Dynamics

Electrophysiological correlates of third-party punishment: ERP study

Time Pressure Weakens Social Norm Maintenance in Third-Party Punishment

Strategic Exploitation by Higher-Status People Incurs Harsher Third-Party Punishment

An fMRI investigation of the intention-outcome interactions in second- and third-party punishment

Severity and deservedness determine signalled trustworthiness in third party punishment

Is a punisher always trustworthy? In-group punishment reduces trust

Punishment cost affects third-parties' behavioral and neural responses to unfairness

Rarer Actions: Giving and Taking in Third-Party Punishment Games

Both Loved and Feared: Third Party Punishers Are Viewed as Formidable and Likeable, but These Reputational Benefits May Only Be Open to Dominant Individuals