/
Cooperation, punishment and Cooperation, punishment and

Cooperation, punishment and - PowerPoint Presentation

tatyana-admore
tatyana-admore . @tatyana-admore
Follow
394 views
Uploaded On 2015-11-15

Cooperation, punishment and - PPT Presentation

prosociality Cooperation and social norm followingenforcement Models of reciprocity Direct vs indirect Weak vs strong self vs otherregarding Norm enforcement via Punishment Costly punishment second vs third direct vs indirect ID: 194240

social empathy cooperation punishment empathy social punishment cooperation reciprocity pain ingroup norm individuals score recipient costly cortex targets behavior

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Cooperation, punishment and" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Cooperation, punishment and

prosocialitySlide2

Cooperation and social norm following/enforcement

Models of reciprocity

Direct vs. indirectWeak vs. strong (self- vs. other-regarding)Norm enforcement via Punishment Costly punishment – second vs. third (direct vs. indirect)Roots of justice?Prosocial mechanismsEmpathy, in-group altruism to out-group biasHormonal influence

outlineSlide3

 establish, transmit and enforce social

norms.

Social norms—widely shared sentiments about what constitutes appropriate behavior—comprise a basic “grammar of social interaction”: sets of prescribed and proscribed rules that serve to foster social peace, stabilize cooperation and enhance prosperitySocial normsSlide4

Direct reciprocity (reciprocal altruism)

cooperation

in bilateral interactions, even when initially costly, is incentivized owing to the selfish benefits that may be accrued in the long-term cooperation under direct reciprocity models is only evolutionarily stable in small groups (<10); empirical data suggests that natural selection wouldn't favor cooperation by reciprocal altruism among unrelated individuals on the scale of human culture5. Theories of indirect reciprocity focus instead on the self-interest that is served by accruing a good reputation through altruistic behavior. 

Limits of direct reciprocitySlide5

Weak reciprocity (self-regarding)

self-interest

that is served by accruing a good reputation through altruistic behavior. potential of indirect reciprocity for explaining the emergence, among humans, of cooperation among nonrelatives. the biological basis of morality; major motivation for language, gossip being a way of spreading reputations (Dunbar’s Social Brain Hypothesis)The advent

of e-commerce provides the other reason why understanding the assessment of reputations matters: the prevalence of anonymous one-shot interactions in global markets raises the issues of trust building and moral hazard

Indirect reciprocitySlide6

attach

a binary score (“Good” or “Bad”) to each individual in the population.

From time to time, two individuals meet randomly, one as donor, the other as recipient. At some cost c to one's own payoff, the donor can help the recipient, i.e., increase the recipient's payoff by a benefit b>c. In that case, the donor's score will be Good in the eyes of all observers, whereas the score of a donor refusing to confer the benefit will be Bad. A discriminating strategy of helping only those with a Good score would channel benefits toward those who help and discourage defectors.

Simple modelSlide7

A discriminator who refuses to help recipients with a Bad score receives a Bad score and risks getting no help in the next round.

In

this sense, punishing defectors by withholding help is costly. Can such a trait evolve? Would it not be advantageous to distinguish justifiable defections (against a Bad recipient) from nonjustifiable defections (against a Good recipient) and attach a Bad score only to the latter? This would constitute a noncostly form of punishment and would greatly alleviate the discriminator's task. But such a distinction requires considerable cognitive capacities. Not only the recipient's past but also that of the recipient's recipients, etc., must be taken into account.

second-order social

dilemma: free-ride on others punishment

Costly vs.

noncostly

punishmentSlide8

Can reputation account for widespread nature of human cooperation where one-shot (unrepeated) interactions are common and attendant reputational benefits likely to be small?

Limitations of indirect reciprocitySlide9

 

Homo reciprocans cares about the well-being of others and about the processes determining outcomes--whether they are fair, for example, or violate a social norm. He differs in this from the self-regarding and outcome-oriented Homo economicus” -Gintislong-term widespread cooperation is made possible by the presence of “strong reciprocators”: individuals who reward norm-followers (for example, cooperators) and punish norm-violators (for example, defectors) even when such actions are costly, and in the absence of any material future gain for the strong reciprocator

Self-regarding vs.

prosocial

, other-regarding

preferences –

altrusitic

cooperation and costly punishment - search for biological

prosocial

processes (e.g., empathy)

capacity

to learn norms; integrate predictions about norm-related action outcomes into decision making to guide their own behavior; assess other individuals' beliefs, desires and behavior in the context of these norms; and use subjective responses to norm violations to appropriately sanction defection

.

Strong reciprocitySlide10

individuals will accept costs to sanction individuals who have violated fairness and distribution norms even when they were not directly affected by the norm

violation

“Moralistic punishment in humans is an evolutionary mystery because it is performed by third parties. This raises the key question: Why do people care about interactions among unrelated others? Given that punishment is costly and can potentially draw retaliation, appears to be a tendency that would be selected against, raising the issue of how adaptations that give rise to moralistic punishment evolved.” –Kurzban

Alternative: moralistic punishment is reputation-enhancing (self-regarding)

Third party punishmentSlide11

John

plans to be a gangster for a Halloween office party. He buys suitable

clothing, as well as a small loaded gun. The gun looks like a toy, and John plans to use it to kill a rival, and then claim it was an accident. He later shoots his rival, who dies of the injuriesJohn has a license to hunt deer with his licensed rifle. One day, he sees a deer, takes aim, and shoots – missing the deer but killing a distant hunter. The deceased hunter had not complied with important state safety regulations. In particular, he was not

wearing “hunter

orange” to distinguish himself from target animals.

Punishment 1-9Slide12

 

cognitive processes involved in determination of responsibility

prefrontal activity was linked to a categorical aspect of legal decision-making (deciding whether or not to punish on the basis of criminal responsibilityEmotional processes involved in magnitude of punishmentamygdala, medial prefrontal cortex, and posterior cingulated cortex) consistently linked to social and emotional processing is associated with the amount of assigned punishment during legal decision-making. Cognitive & emotional componentsSlide13
Slide14

Capacity to share emotional state of others

Key motivator, proximate mechanism for altruistic behavior whereby

an individual perceives and shares in the distress of another person, and acts to reduce his or her sufferingsimulation theories of empathy which suggest that humans understand (i.e., ‘simulate’) others’ emotional states by imagining what they themselves would feel in a similar situationEven the most advanced forms of empathy in humans are built on more basic forms and remain connected to core mechanisms associated with affective communication, social attachment, and parental care. 

Empathy has been shown to vary depending on

interindividual

differences

(

Chiao

et al., 2009; Singer et al., 2004), as well as

on subjective

judgments of targets made by perceivers (Singer et al

., 2006

).

Prosociality

: empathySlide15

Caring for others draws on general mammalian neural systems of reward and social attachment. Moreover, empathy is not unique to humans, as many of the biological mechanisms are shared with other mammalian species. However, humans are special in the sense that high-level cognitive abilities, such as executive function, language, and

mentalizing

, implemented by the prefrontal cortex, are layered on top of phylogenetically older social and emotional capacities. These evolutionarily newer aspects of information processing expand the range of behaviors that can be driven by empathy, and expand flexibility like caring for and helping outgroup members or even individuals from different species.Slide16

Empathy

draws on a large array of neurobiological systems that are not limited to the cortex (insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and orbitofrontal cortex), but also the midbrain (e.g., periaqueductal gray) and brainstem, and includes the autonomic nervous system (ANS), HPA axis, and endocrine systems that regulate bodily states, emotion, and reactivity. Slide17

The neuroevolution of empathy

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

Volume 1231, Issue 1,

pages 35-45, 8 JUN 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06027.x

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06027.x/full#f2Slide18

Does self-other

overlap enhances vicarious affect sharing

during empathy for social pain. We predicted that participants would show activation in the affective pain regions when observing a friend (someone with a high-degree of self-other overlap) experience social exclusion, andMPFC activationEmpathy for social exclusionSlide19

Figure 4. Brain Regions Significantly Active in the Interaction Contrast Comparing

a Friend’s

Exclusion > Inclusion to a Stranger’s Exclusion > InclusionSlide20

Figure 3. Brain Regions during a Friend’s Exclusion Predicted by Self-Other

Overlap ScoresSlide21

Under certain circumstances, people display extraordinary empathy and altruism. One route to enhanced empathy and altruism is through the increased inclusion of another person in the

conception of

the self (Aron et al., 2004). Care for one's social ingroup, resulting in ingroup loyalty or ingroup solidarity, may be an example of extraordinary empathy that is brought about by including

other group

members as part of one's self concept.

Extraordinary empathySlide22

stimulusSlide23

(A.) Main effect of pain [Pain > No Pain], 

y

 = 18. (B., C.) Independent regression analyses [(B.) ACC regression performed on peak voxel: 3, − 9, 45; (C.) right AI regression performed on 39, 12, 5] of [Pain > No Pain] with empathy rating as the covariate. ROIs defined by [Pain > No Pain] contrast.empathySlide24

 significantly greater activity within MPFC regions in AA relative CA participants when judging empathy for

ingroup

relative to outgroup targets.Slide25

empathy

was associated with affective neural response with the ACC and bilateral insula, irrespective of social group membership (i.e., race).

African-Americans who experienced greater empathy for ingroup members relative to Caucasian-Americans in pain also showed greater response within the MPFC for ingroup relative to outgroup members in pain. Additionally, across individuals, activity within the MPFC when perceiving pain expressed by ingroup relative to

outgroup

members predicted the degree to which people demonstrated an

ingroup

bias in empathy and altruistic motivation at a behavioral level.

Whereas

empathy for humankind is associated with affective empathic processing, the current findings demonstrate that extraordinary empathy and altruistic motivation for members of one's own social group is associated with cognitive empathic processing.

Extraordinary empathySlide26

Stereotypes and moral judgmentSlide27
Slide28
Slide29

increased activity for sacrificing low warmth, low competence to save high warmth, high competenceSlide30

Specifically, 88%

of people

say the act is unacceptable when the targets are unidentified (Hauser et al., 2007), indicating most people’s default is moral aversion to the sacrifice. We reverse this pattern by manipulating the warmth and competence of the targets involved: 84% of our respondents say it is acceptable for Joe to push a low-warmth, low-competence person off a bridge to save five high-warmth, high-competence targets.override their moral

aversion to

sacrificing low-warmth, low-competence targets

or whether

they experience less moral aversion to override

in the

first place.Slide31

Prosocial

behavior

vasopressin (AVP)/oxytocin desire or ‘seeking’, reward, fear and aggression, affiliation and cooperation, courtship and mating, and parental care.Social recognitionSocial bondingAssessment of the social environmentSocial memory and learningTemporal discountingPartner choiceHormonal basis of social behavioSlide32

POA,

preoptic

area; Mid, midbrain; VMH, ventromedial hypothalamus; AH, anterior hypothalamus; LS, lateral septum; eMA, extended medial amygdalhormonesSlide33

Hormonal

influences &

status goods