PSY 544 Lecture 9: Lecture 9 P5
• People who punish cheaters gain in reputation
• Barclay (2006)
• In Study 1, participants were told how the game worked, they played the PGG and
they were then asked to rate hypothetical people who either did or did not punish
non-contributors. So imagine people playing these games and they were asked to do
rate b/w hypothetical people playing this game and someone was willing to spend
their own money to punish the people who didn't add to the pool and there are
others playing the game who don't spend their own money to spend
• And we see that when they're asked to rate these hypothetical people, they rated
people ho are illig to puish ho did’t pool i as ore trustorth, group-
focused, and worthy of respect BUT not as not as more nice - researchers are trying
to show what happens to your reputation if you're someone willing to incur a cost to
punish a cheater - you arent known as nicer but you're trusted and respected more
•
• People who punish cheaters gain in reputation
• Barclay (2006)
• In later studies, participants played against three computer-players (although they
were not told they were computer-players). The three computer players were
categorized as:
• A free rider otriutes little did’t reall put a oe ito the ouit
pool
• A punisher (contributes much and pays to punish the free rider) someone who
put their own money into the pool and then paid to punish the free rider
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
• A non-puisher otriutes uh ut does’t puish soeoe ho put i
their o oe ut does’t sped their o oe to puish
• They are then asked to play the trust game with players - having seen how the
players responded in the public goods game and now asked to play public trust
game with them:(you send money, it is tripled, then the other player can send
some back).
• They were then asked to play the Trust Game with those players (you send money, it
is tripled, then the other player can send some back).
• People who punish cheaters gain in reputation
• Barclay (2006)
• What they were looking at was that if someone chooses to use their own money to punish
a cheat, will you later on trust that person more with your money to give it bk to you
when its tripled. Results showed that in study 2 they found:
• Participants trusted the free rider with less money than the other two players.
Beause ou'e see the ot otriute ith the puli goods gae so ou do’t
think they'll send back money if you send it to them
• Participants trusted the punisher with more money than the non-punisher (although
p = .048). Their hypothesis was that people should trust the person who is willing to
punish the free rider more than the person who contributed but didn't punish
• In a final study, they got people to play with other real people and showed that in
which participants played with other people, the aout spet o justified
puishet i other ords, puihsig people ho did’t gie uh oe to the
public pool) in the PGG predicted how much money other participants were willing
to trust a person with in the Trust game (although again, p = .032). P value isn't
convincing but they are trying to argue that becoming known as someone who
otriutes ut also gies up/iurs ost to puish those ho do’t otriute uilds
a good reputation/trustworthy reputation for the person
• Do people only act cooperatively because of calculated self-interest?
Robert H. Frank –has ideas about what emotions are for is to commit you to take certain
actions that in the short run might be detrimental but will be beneficial in the long run - so
we'll talk about feelings of vengeance that we have when someone wrongs us - going out
and getting revenge imposes a cost short term but the long term benefit, acc to his model,
is that if you become known as someone who incurs short term cost to get your revenge
then people are less likely to do things that will make you mad in the first place
He has another theory that relates to altruism suggesting that at least some of us are
strongly motivated to be cooperative and to incur costs in order to cooperate because
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
People who punish cheaters gain in reputation, barclay (2006) In study 1, participants were told how the game worked, they played the pgg and they were then asked to rate hypothetical people who either did or did not punish non-contributors. In later studies, participants played against three computer-players (although they were not told they were computer-players). Results showed that in study 2 they found: participants trusted the free rider with less money than the other two players. Their hypothesis was that people should trust the person who is willing to punish the free rider more than the person who contributed but didn"t punish. They give anonymously to public television stations and private charities. They donate bone (cid:373)a(cid:396)(cid:396)o(cid:449) to st(cid:396)a(cid:374)ge(cid:396)s (cid:449)ith leuke(cid:373)ia at g(cid:396)eat (cid:396)isk to themselves, they pull people from burning buildings, and jump into icy rivers to rescue people who are about to drown. Soldiers throw their bodies atop live grenades to save their comrades.
